Planning commission recommends denial of Under Canvas glamping PUD and high-impact permit after extensive public opposition

The Montezuma County Planning and Zoning Commission voted 3-2 to recommend denial of an application from Under Canvas, Inc. (agent for Windy Ridge Ranch LLC) that would have created a Planned Unit Development and a high-impact special-use permit for a 75-unit “glamping” guest camp on approximately 346 acres at 12695 Road 40, Mancos.

Project description and staff findings: planning staff summarized the proposal as a seasonal, recreational guest ranch with approximately 75 tent-based guest units, communal facilities, on-site parking and internal circulation. The site packet included a traffic study, a proposed water plan and a wildfire mitigation plan. Staff reported Montezuma Water Company has a 4-inch mainline along Road 40 and indicated Montezuma Water Company told the county it could provide a 3/4-inch commercial meter and the developer proposed a 10,000-gallon holding tank and pump system to pressurize the internal distribution. Wildfire Adaptive Partnership recommended a wildfire mitigation plan because of dense forest fuels and canyon “chimney” topography on parts of the parcel; Colorado Parks and Wildlife advised strict bear-mitigation measures (bear-resistant trash, guest notification).

Public comment: the meeting drew a lengthy public comment period with dozens of residents and property owners voicing opposition. The principal issues raised repeatedly were: - Wildfire risk and evacuation: residents and local fire-responders warned the area has steep draws and heavy fuels that could create high-intensity fire behavior; Mancos-area volunteer fire officials and a county wildfire expert (Steve Underwood) described mitigation measures but residents questioned whether mitigation plus volunteer resources would be sufficient. - Water supply: neighbors and several commenters raised concerns about the applicant’s estimated water demand (applicant’s planning packet estimated roughly 7,500 gallons per day), local wells, and the county’s limited water availability during dry months. - Traffic and safety on Highway 184: residents and commenters described a history of serious crashes at the Road 40/Highway 184 intersection and questioned whether deceleration lanes and other CDOT improvements would be feasible without significant right-of-way work. - Local character, wildlife and economic impacts: many commenters said the project was effectively a large commercial resort not consistent with AR-35+ zoning and warned it could harm small local businesses and rural character.

Applicant response and mitigation commitments: Under Canvas representatives (Jamie Schmidt and team) described their model and said camps are typically seasonal, partner with local outfitters, and operate with staff trained in safety and guest education. The applicant’s traffic engineer described required right-turn and left-turn deceleration lanes and sight-distance work for the Highway 184 intersection; the applicant’s wildfire consultant outlined a large-scale fuels-reduction plan intended to create defensible space around units and to provide strategic fuel breaks on the property.

Commissioner discussion and motion: commissioners discussed land-use code provisions, whether a General PUD was an appropriate vehicle for this scale of commercial recreation, and numerous public-safety concerns. Commissioner Lynch moved to recommend denial, citing incompatibility with the Agricultural-Residential zoning and community impacts; the motion passed 3-2 (Commissioners Saunders, Nygaard and Lynch voted to deny; Commissioners Armstrong and Doyle voted to recommend approval).

Next steps: the commission’s recommendation of denial will be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners. The applicants may revise and resubmit, seek a different zoning approach, or present additional information to address the concerns raised by commissioners and the public.