Planning commission upholds denial of 319 Park Drive short‑term rental permit, 4–2

The Glenwood Springs Planning and Zoning Commission on June 23 voted 4–2 to uphold the planning department’s decision to deny the renewal of a short‑term rental permit for 319 Park Drive.

The commission’s decision followed testimony from the permit holder, Cindy Zavadil, who said she applied for the permit but did not intend to operate the house as a rental and that a long series of medical procedures prevented her from hosting guests. “I did everything the application required,” Zavadil said, adding that she filed monthly tax reports showing zero amounts because no rentals occurred. Her attorney, Sherry Coloya, argued the city code requires payment of taxes to renew but “nowhere in the ordinance does it say and you have to rent it out,” and asked the commission to overturn the denial or grant an exception for medical hardship.

Neighbors and prospective operators urged the opposite. James Maguire, an owner of a nearby property, told commissioners that “319 Park Drive was never intended to be used as a short‑term rental” and that the permit appeared to be used to block a neighboring application. John Lit, another nearby property owner, warned that allowing non‑operational permits to stand would “weaponize” the permitting process and undermine consistent enforcement; both speakers asked the commission to uphold staff’s revocation.

Planning staff presented the code language under review (section 070‑030‑030 E9F6) and summarized past practice; staff noted the city has roughly 119 active short‑term rental permits and a citywide cap of about 213 such permits. Commissioners debated whether the phrase in the code—requiring that a permit holder “utilize and collect more than $0 in lodging taxes” during the permit period—should be read to require the permit holder to have hosted paying guests (and therefore collected taxes) or whether the text as written focuses only on tax remittance.

Commissioner Amy Connerton moved to affirm the administrative denial, citing the code and consistency with prior administrative actions; the motion was seconded by Commissioner Halton. Commissioners who voted to uphold staff said the written communications from staff and past denials signaled a consistent interpretation that renewal requires more than a $0 remittance. Commissioners who dissented said the ordinance language is ambiguous and urged clearer code language rather than penalizing a homeowner who presented evidence of compliance with other permit requirements.

The commission’s motion to affirm the administrative decision passed 4–2. The denial prevents renewal for the next permit cycle under the commission’s interpretation; staff and counsel noted the applicant may pursue further remedies available under the municipal appeal process.

The commission also heard public comment and asked staff to return as part of a separate agenda item to propose clearer code language on eligibility for renewal.