Manila work session reviews proposed 'glamping' ordinance, tables action to April 14

Manila — Town planning participants spent much of their March 31 joint work session reviewing a draft ordinance to regulate “glamping” developments, discussing how to define glamping units, where they may be sited and what infrastructure they must provide. The council did not vote; the item was tabled for further edits and a follow-up discussion on April 14, 2025.

Speaker 2, who presented the draft, said the text draws on existing local rules and on a model from Garfield County, noting, “I took Garfield County, Utah. They were the first to do an actual glamping ordinance.” The draft labels the proposal in the packet as Article 21 and would create standards for canvas- or membrane-covered units (yurts, teepees, covered wagons), small cabins and similar nontraditional lodging.

Discussion focused on several design and operational details. The draft recommends that glamping grounds be in commercially zoned areas and suggests a minimum site size of 4 acres; Speaker 2 said a 4-acre floor reflects the town’s existing motel-and-lodging minimum and would limit smaller, potentially unsuitable conversions. Density language in the draft proposes a cap of 5 units per acre (for example, 20 units on a 4-acre parcel), and the ordinance would treat stays of 30 days or less as short-term rentals unless otherwise defined.

Parking and emergency access drew repeated attention. The draft borrows Garfield County’s parking standard — a 10-by-20-foot stall per glamping unit — but several participants argued larger stalls are needed to accommodate trucks and boats, and urged a requirement for overflow or communal parking. Fire-safety and utilities were raised repeatedly: speakers noted potential needs for hydrant placement or risers, space for emergency vehicles, and sanitary facilities that comply with applicable state or local health-department rules. Speaker 6 summarized that those infrastructure items should be coordinated with staff and the county inspection process.

Speakers also discussed site layout and guest amenities. Coverage limits (drafted at 50% or less) and a proposed 20% open/green-space threshold were debated; several participants supported communal bathhouse and laundry facilities rather than imposing full indoor plumbing in every unit. Privacy measures — such as perimeter fencing or shrub buffers between units — drew mixed views, with some members favoring an open campground aesthetic and others urging more separation between sites.

No formal action was taken to adopt the ordinance. Speaker 2 recommended tabling the draft to collect written feedback and return with revisions; the group agreed to continue the conversation on April 14, 2025. At the session’s close Speaker 1 moved to adjourn, Speaker 3 seconded, and the motion passed by voice vote.

Next steps: staff will incorporate the committee’s feedback, consult with public-safety and health officials about hydrants and sanitation, and circulate a revised draft ahead of the April 14 review.