Planning commission debates short-term rental ordinance, tables action for revisions

City planning staff presented a draft short-term rental ordinance and recommended the Planning Commission hold a public hearing and consider the proposed code changes, but commissioners voted to table the item after asking staff to clarify enforcement timelines and wording.

The discussion centered on how to bring short-term rentals (STRs) into the city's land-use code, how enforcement would work under both local rules and a pending state bill, and whether the commission should adopt an ordinance now or wait for the final language of the state legislation. Amanda, city planning staff, told the commission that the municipality currently treats uses not listed in the allowed-use table as prohibited and that the draft ordinance is intended as a placeholder so the city would not be excluded if the state passes language enabling listing sites to be used as evidence.

"Staff recommends Planning Commission hold a public hearing and consider the proposed ordinance," Amanda said during her presentation.

Why it matters: Commissioners and staff cited housing supply and neighborhood impacts as the key stakes. Speakers referenced Summit County and Park City experiences, saying STRs can reduce long-term rental supply and raise housing prices in resort-adjacent communities. A pending state House bill (referred to in discussion as "HB 256") could permit municipalities that regulate STRs to use listings on websites such as Airbnb and VRBO as evidence of a violation, potentially giving communities an additional enforcement tool.

Key points from the discussion

- Current local status: Staff said short-term rentals are not explicitly allowed in the city's allowed-use table; staff has treated that omission as a prohibition when answering inquiries. Staff reported there are a small number of known short-term rentals in the city ("about 6 or 7," a figure described as not current or definitive).

- State legislation: The draft state bill discussed would allow a municipality or county that regulates STRs to use a listing or offering on a short-term rental website as evidence that an STR occurred, provided the municipality has additional evidence. Staff and several commissioners said the bill's phrasing '"a municipality or county that regulates short term rentals"'gave them pause and led staff to recommend adopting local regulations now to avoid being excluded if the final language applies only to governments that already have STR regulations in place.

- Enforcement mechanics debated: Commissioners pressed staff on the proposed enforcement process. The draft includes data-collection and public-complaint mechanisms, an investigation step, notification to property owners, and graduated penalties. Commissioners debated whether the first notice period should be 48 hours (as written in the draft) or a longer, fixed period; several commissioners favored changing the initial compliance window to seven days to account for practical issues such as bookings and owner availability. Staff noted similar timelines are used elsewhere and that Mountain Land Association of Governments assisted with drafting.

- Penalties in the draft: The ordinance draft describes a written warning for a first violation (education accompanying the warning), a subsequent $500 fine for noncompliance and a $1,000-per-day fine for continued violation. Commissioners asked staff to clarify the sequence and the timing between warnings and fines and to make the process clearer in the ordinance language.

- Reporting and anonymity: Commissioners and staff discussed how anonymous complaints should be handled. Several commissioners said the city should make reporting accessible while balancing the need for investigatory details; staff proposed reorganizing the complaint/reporting subsection for clarity and consistency with other code sections.

Outcome and next steps

A commissioner moved "we continue the discussion for a future meeting based on the items given to staff to clarify for this ordinance." The motion was seconded and passed by voice vote (three yes votes recorded). The commission's action was to table the draft and ask staff to revise the ordinance text to reflect the clarifications discussed (including notification timelines, explicit enforcement steps, formatting and cross-references to the allowed-use table and parking standards) and to circulate the revised draft to commissioners via Dropbox.

What staff said it would do: Staff agreed to (1) clarify whether the city's current allowed-use table constitutes regulation for purposes of the pending state bill, (2) revise the notification and penalty timelines (the group recommended changing the first notice period to seven days), (3) reorganize the public-complaint and reporting language for clarity, (4) document enforcement procedures (investigation, notification, penalties) in a clearer, sequential process, and (5) circulate a revised draft to the commission for further review.

Context and background

Commissioners said the issue has been under review for roughly two years, with past discussions considering either allowing STRs under licensing or prohibiting them; Summit County and Park City were cited as nearby examples that have grappled with STR regulation. Staff emphasized that if the state bill is enacted as discussed, it would allow municipalities that regulate STRs to ask listing platforms to remove listings within a specified period, an enforcement avenue cities cannot currently use.

The commission did not adopt final regulations at the meeting. Staff and commissioners said they expect the draft to be revised and returned for further consideration; if the state bill is finalized in a form that affects local authority, the draft ordinance would be updated again to align with state law.