Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rv Parks topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board directs staff to draft rules to allow RV parks as conditional use in C-3 districts
Summary
The Red Lodge Planning Board directed staff to draft zoning standards that would permit RV parks as a conditional use in the C-3 North and C-3 South districts, framing the move as a potential tool for seasonal workforce housing while identifying infrastructure, floodplain and screening requirements to protect public safety and visual corridors.
Get email alerts on the Rv Parks topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Red Lodge Planning Board and Zoning Commission signaled June 10 that it wants staff to draft standards to allow RV parks as a conditional use in the C-3 North and C-3 South zoning districts, a step officials said could expand seasonal workforce housing while preserving review safeguards.
Staff member Jeremy, who led the zoning review, told the board that state law changes moved manufactured-home communities and RV parks out of the subdivision code and into zoning review, requiring the city to adopt updated standards. "I think the consensus is yes, C-3 N, C-3 S," Jeremy said, recommending the board adopt a conditional-use path with design standards and then send the draft to public hearing and city council.
Why it matters: board members said the measure could make it easier for seasonal workers and visitors to find regulated overnight options instead of parking on neighborhood streets, and it would create a predictable permitting path. Committee members noted RV parks can also deliver resort-tax revenue while leaving room for developers to choose service levels from dry sites to full-hookup, year-round parks.
Key standards discussed: staff proposed folding manufactured-home and RV lot design standards into Chapter 4 (zoning), requiring that each RV or manufactured-home lot be permanently connected to electric, water and sewage in compliance with city codes; manufactured-home lots would additionally require gas and telecommunication service. Utility distribution lines would be installed underground, and lots must be clearly marked.
The board emphasized environmental and safety constraints. Jeremy said RV parks are allowed in the floodplain (but not the floodway) because their sites are typically non-permanent, but developers must obtain floodplain permits and satisfy DEQ, Army Corps and other permit requirements when work affects riparian zones or wetlands. "If they're in the floodplain, they still have to get a floodplain permit," he said.
Board members asked for firm standards to protect visual corridors and emergency access: members favored a requirement for vegetation screening along highway corridors, setbacks (one member suggested a 100-foot setback), and two separate forms of ingress and egress for larger parks. The board agreed to carry over subdivision-era emergency-access rules: five or fewer sites will require at least one public-street connection and an approved emergency turnaround, while more than five sites must have at least two points of ingress and egress.
Noise and service-level concerns were raised. Some members favored limiting dry sites (no hookups) because multiple generators running simultaneously create disturbance; staff noted conditions such as generator curfews or a requirement that all sites provide water, sewer and power could be included in the conditional-use permit to address those concerns.
Enforcement and conditional-use process: staff noted the city recently added a revocation clause to conditional-use permits; a park that violates permit conditions could face zoning violations and potential permit revocation. Jeremy said those enforcement tools provide "teeth" if a permitted RV park fails to meet conditions or creates public-safety problems.
Next steps: the board directed staff to draft the RV-park language and development standards for C-3 North and C-3 South and to prepare the change for public hearing and city council review. Jeremy told the board this is a starting point and public comment could prompt changes or removal of the allowance.
The board did not take a final recorded vote adopting the change; members agreed to return the draft for formal public hearing and council consideration.

