Planning commissioners debate rules for yurts, domes, tree houses, shipping containers and tiny homes

Page County planning commissioners spent an extended portion of their meeting reviewing a revised draft zoning amendment that would define and regulate nonconventional dwellings — including yurts, domes, tree houses, shipping containers and tiny homes — and directed staff to return with clarified, material-based options.

Staff presented photographs, GIS links and permit examples of existing structures in the county to illustrate how these buildings currently appear in practice. The conversation centered on two choices: regulate by shape/label (yurt vs. dome) or regulate by construction materials and appearance (canvas/tarp versus solid siding, engineered versus tent-like fabric).

Several commissioners said they saw little practical difference between some round or circular stick‑built structures and conventional single‑family dwellings, and questioned whether shape alone should drive special permitting. One commissioner noted that many structures currently permitted as "yurts" were essentially stick-built, engineered dwellings and asked whether those should be treated any differently than square or rectangular houses.

Tree houses prompted debate about definition: some members argued a tree must be part of the structural support to merit the label, while others said the ordinance’s proposed language could unintentionally capture elevated houses built on stilts (for flood‑plain elevation). Commissioners asked staff to avoid definitions driven by short‑term‑rental marketing and to specify whether a tree must be physically part of the structure.

On tiny homes, attendees noted the building-code threshold of 400 square feet used elsewhere and discussed whether tiny homes on wheels (title/manufactured issues) should be treated differently from stick-built tiny homes on permanent foundations. Several members suggested that tent-like yurts or domes should be confined to campgrounds or require special‑use permits, while more permanent wood/metal‑sided structures could be allowed by right in certain zones with material and appearance standards.

Staff was directed to return with options that: consider combining definitions where practical (for example merging yurts and domes if regulation will be the same), differentiate by materials and aesthetics rather than shape alone, and retain a tiny‑house definition (≤400 sq ft) while clarifying the interface with manufactured‑housing and mobile‑home-park regulations. Commissioners also asked staff to consider zoning districts (residential vs. woodland conservation) and where SUPs should be required.

Next steps: The zoning subcommittee will reexamine site-plan definitions and present revised language; staff will draft options for combined definitions and material-based permitting to present at a future meeting.