Manila staff present draft 'glamping' ordinance; council asks for more detail on parking, utilities and setbacks

Manila planning staff presented a draft ordinance to regulate "glamping" — short-term visitor accommodations such as yurts, covered wagons, teepees and similar units — during a joint Planning & Zoning and Town Council work session on Monday, March 31, 2025. The draft, proposed as a new Article 21, borrows provisions from Garfield County's glamping ordinance and existing local motel/lodging and short-term rental rules.

Why it matters: the proposal would create a new commercial lodging category for nontraditional temporary structures and establish dimensional, parking, utility and occupancy standards that will affect any applicant seeking to develop glamping sites in the town. Planning staff and council members focused discussion on minimum site size, parking and access, on-site sanitation and fire-safety requirements, and whether to permit towable recreational vehicles in the new category.

Planning staff said the draft pulls definitions and standards from the town's motel/lodging regulations and from Garfield County, which implemented a glamping ordinance in 2019. "I took Garfield County, Utah. They were the first to do an actual glamping ordinance," the staff presenter said, and recommended using that language where it fits local conditions.

Key provisions discussed by the group included: - Minimum site size: staff proposed keeping the motel/lodging 4-acre minimum for glamping developments to limit piecemeal conversions; several members said 4 acres was appropriate to avoid frequent zone-change requests for small parcels. - Density: the draft suggested a maximum of five units per acre (meaning 20 units on a 4-acre parcel under the draft language). - Occupancy: the draft treats glamping as short-term lodging, with a 30-day maximum occupancy to distinguish it from long-term rental housing. - Open space/landscape: staff discussed a 20% green/open-space target as used in other town approvals but noted concerns about water use in landscaped areas. - Parking: council members pressed staff for clearer parking standards. The draft referenced sample dimensions (10-by-20 feet) from Garfield County but members said a single 10x10 space would not accommodate pickup trucks or boats. The group suggested requiring at least one parking space per unit sized to fit a truck and trailer, with additional overflow RV/boat parking and a designated lot for larger vehicles. - Utilities and emergency access: members asked staff to confirm fire-suppression, hydrant spacing and fire-department access requirements; staff noted that International Residential Code (IRC) and local/state health rules could apply depending on whether units become permanent structures and that Tri-County health/inspection processes would likely be involved for sanitary facilities. - Setbacks and site layout: the draft included Garfield County setback examples (30 feet front, 10 feet side, 10 feet rear), but staff said Manila has not historically imposed the same commercial setbacks and that any setback requirements would need to be specified in the town ordinance. - Unit types and permanence: the draft definition would include tents, yurts, teepees, covered wagons and small cabins; several council members expressed a preference for non-RV structures (yurts, covered wagons, cabins) over towable campers and discussed whether units should remain moveable (wheels) to avoid triggering full residential building-code requirements.

Council members and other attendees also flagged operational and design issues: placement and size of shared restroom/bathhouse and laundry facilities, perimeter fencing or shrub buffers for privacy, gravel vs. paved interior roads, night-sky–sensitive exterior lighting, stormwater and dust-control (gravel stabilization), and the need to require adequate water and electrical service to units while deciding whether sewer would be provided to each unit or routed to central facilities.

No formal ordinance vote was taken. After the discussion staff said they would incorporate feedback and return the draft for further consideration at the council's next meeting on April 14, 2025. A procedural motion to adjourn the work session passed by voice vote at the end of the meeting.