Applicant outlines 152‑lot Royal Gorge Ranch Resort sketch plan to Fremont County planning commission

An applicant presented a sketch plan for the proposed Royal Gorge Ranch Resort — a planned unit development of 152 three‑acre lots on about 772 acres — during a Fremont County Planning Commission sketch‑plan session. Staff framed the meeting as a feedback workshop and asked commissioners to submit comments to staff by Feb. 16 so the applicant could receive compiled feedback by Feb. 24 ahead of the commission's March meeting.

Why it matters: The proposal, as described by the applicant, aims to combine new residential lots with trail connections and permanently conserved open space, which the presenter said could spur a recreation‑based economic boost and produce new tax revenue for Fremont County. Commissioners and staff focused early questions on zoning changes tied to a prior lot‑line adjustment and on the timeline for formal review.

The applicant, introduced in the meeting as Ty, said the plan would be a gated private community with “152 3‑acre lots” and that homes would be small and sustainable: “All under 1,300 square feet total.” He described existing infrastructure work on the property and said the development's goals include being a net‑zero community and supporting local recreation businesses. The applicant also said the project would dedicate roughly 200 acres as permanently protected open space.

Staff noted a zoning consequence from a previous lot‑line change, explaining that adding a rural‑highway‑business designation to portions of the parcel altered the mix of zoning on the property and therefore affects permitted uses and the application of percentage thresholds for allowed uses. Commissioners asked for clarification about that zoning change; the staff reply was procedural and did not resolve whether an amendment or variance would be required.

The applicant described outreach to land‑conservation entities and said some state programs do not currently have available funds to support conservation easements; despite that, he said the proposal seeks substantial permanently protected acreage. He also described trail connections that would link the property to existing regional routes and noted past recreational events on the site as part of the argument for a recreation‑driven revitalization.

On operations, the applicant listed several use restrictions they plan to build into the community rules: no all‑terrain vehicles, no loud motorbikes, no open fires, and limits on nightly transient uses (no turning it into a high‑volume short‑term rental destination). The applicant said those rules are intended to avoid disrupting the surrounding local economy and to foster a “win‑win partnership” with the county.

What happens next: Staff asked commissioners to write and submit their feedback so staff can compile a single document of comments to the applicant. Staff set a schedule in which commissioners’ comments should be returned to staff by Feb. 16, the applicant would receive the package by Feb. 24, and the commission would discuss and decide which recommendations to move forward at its regular March meeting. No formal motions or votes were taken during the sketch‑plan session.

Details to be clarified: Several financial and programmatic specifics the applicant mentioned — including the exact conservation mechanism, the final extent of permanently protected acreage, and a referenced community scholarship (the transcript refers to a scholarship phrased as “$5,000 a day”) — were discussed but not specified and remain to be documented in subsequent submittals and staff reports.

The sketch‑plan session closed with staff reiterating the timeline for written comments and the commission's role as an advisory body during the preliminary plan stage.