Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rv Parks topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer urges Palm Coast to allow limited permanent units in RV/outdoor‑hospitality projects; planning board says MPD route is available
Summary
A consultant for an outdoor‑hospitality project asked the board to permit a capped number of permanent residential units inside master plan developments for higher‑end RV/outdoor hospitality resorts; staff advised proponents to pursue an MPD application, and the board discussed transient‑occupancy limits and public‑safety and concurrency implications.
During public comment at the Planning and Development Regulation Board workshop, Charlie Faulkner, a civil engineer who said he has worked on several local projects, asked the board to allow a "limited permanent residential component" within MPD‑authorized outdoor hospitality or resort‑style RV parks under an appropriate cap.
"We would ask that a limited number, expressly permitted limited permanent residential component with an appropriate cap... be allowed whenever the project is authorized through an MPD," Faulkner said, describing industry practice for high‑end "outdoor hospitality" developments and saying flexibility is needed to make such projects economically feasible.
Michael Hansen responded that the LDC amendments would allow RV parks to apply for MPD zoning and that an MPD application is the normal mechanism for site‑specific deviations. Hansen said the currently adopted code treats RV parks as transient and that section 4.18 retains a 6‑month occupancy limit in a 12‑month period for guests, while allowing cabins and residential manufactured buildings to be sited as transient spaces if the MPD application addresses concurrency and impact‑fee questions.
Board members and staff discussed how a change from 6 to 12 months occupancy would trigger additional concurrency and impact‑fee considerations (schools, potable water, sanitary system impacts). Hansen noted several tradeoffs and advised proponents to address such issues in a full MPD application rather than at the workshop.
The discussion concluded with staff encouraging proponents to work with planning staff on a site‑specific MPD application; no policy changes were adopted at the workshop stage.
