Planning commission deadlocks on Rimrock's glamping PUD after water, traffic and safety concerns

A proposal to establish an 8-to-12 unit glamping operation on approximately 15 acres of Lewis Ranches LLC property east of Road 42 near Mancos failed to win a recommendation from the Montezuma County Planning and Zoning Commission on Wednesday after prolonged discussion, technical staff review and public opposition.

The applicant, listed in materials as Lewis Ranches LLC with agent Rimrock Outfitters Glamping LLC, sought a general planned-unit development (PUD) and a high-impact special-use permit to build and operate an 8–12 unit glamping site with associated guest facilities. Planning staff told the commission the site is not served by a water company and that the applicant proposes hauling and storing water on-site from a regional water dock; staff also reported an existing septic permit and said any new septic would require engineering design and county public-health permitting. The Wildfire Adaptive Partnership recommended a wildfire mitigation plan. Planning staff additionally noted a letter of opposition from Weber Reservoir Company signed by shareholders and neighbors.

Commissioners and staff focused on three central concerns:

- Water availability and proof of supply: The applicant described an intended supply plan of hauled water, estimating roughly 800 to 1,200 gallons per day (about 6,000 gallons per week in the applicant's estimate) depending on occupancy, and said operations would cease if the town restricted access to the Mancos water dock. Planning staff emphasized that the permit submittal did not include formal proof of availability and adequate flow as required by the high-impact permit checklist.

- Traffic and cumulative use of parcel: Commissioners noted that Rimrock Outfitters has used multiple parcels across the ranch over 30 years and that the applicant's traffic summary counted only the proposed glamping activity. Several commissioners said the high-impact review should account for cumulative traffic from existing business activities on the larger parcel; including all activities could push the project above a 15-round-trip-per-day threshold used in the code and would trigger additional mitigation and analysis.

- Public-safety and reservoir liability: Weber Reservoir Company representatives and neighboring property managers urged the commission to address safety around Weber Reservoir, which occasionally inundates land on the ranch. A representative for Weber Reservoir Company warned that the company currently lacks insurance for recreational use and that "the liability for Weber Reservoir Company... could be personally liable for litigation" if someone were injured. Neighbors also raised concerns about response times for emergency services on the remote access road.

The hearing included public-comment opposition from Weber Reservoir Company (a submitted petition and letter) and local residents who cited road safety, potential loose dogs and the reservoir as an attractive nuisance. The applicant said structures would be fenced, staff and family would be trained in CPR and first aid, and that the project would include covenants and a business plan to be recorded with the plat. The applicant also said they would stop operations when the town restricted use of the water dock.

Commissioner Saunders moved to recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners. The motion was seconded, and the roll call vote was: Commissioner Hernandez — nay; Commissioner Saunders — aye; Commissioner Armstrong — aye; Commissioner Lynch — nay. Because the commission did not reach a majority in favor, the motion failed and the commission made no recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. Planning staff said the applicant may choose to return with additional information and refinements; the matter may be refiled or taken up directly by the Board of County Commissioners under county procedure.

Key items raised that would need addressing before another favorable recommendation include documented proof of water availability at the scale proposed (including source and hauling logistics), a traffic assessment that accounts for cumulative activity on the larger ranch parcels, wildfire mitigation measures, and more explicit measures to prevent public access to Weber Reservoir (the applicant agreed to consider perimeter fencing along property lines and fencing around the guest encampment as mitigation measures).