Breckenridge is up against its limits for building residential development while also balancing its decades-long need to create workforce housing.

The town must now consider which issue is more pressing to fix: the need to construct more workforce housing options or the need to ensure the Upper Blue Basin isn’t built past its capacity.

A mechanism created in 1997 allowed the town to treat workforce housing developments differently than other housing developments, which is now creating questions around what the town’s true capacity limit is. 

At the beginning of May, Breckenridge Town Council was given an update on the town’s land inventory and learned the town is 93% of the way to the density limit it set for itself. The limit was created by an agreement known as the Joint Upper Blue Master Plan, which was signed by Breckenridge, Blue River and Summit County in 1997 in effort to put a limit on residential development so that it would not exceed the Upper Blue Basin’s carrying capacity.

Council members wanted more information on how many more town projects can be created within its density limitations. It got an update at a Tuesday, June 25 meeting. 

Currently Breckenridge has 340 units of density at its disposal to use for new housing projects. One single-family home is one unit of density. For multi-family condos or townhomes, the town considers every 1,200 square feet of a development to be one unit of density.

Upcoming and ongoing projects the town has already approved, which includes developments like the Stables Village, are going to take up around 312 units of density, eating up a significant portion of the town’s available density. 

Yet, there’s a variance to the town’s decades-long approach to density with workforce housing that ultimately impacts how many residents live in town.

From 1997-2011 the town didn’t have to use any of the density it had in its bank for workforce housing projects. They could just be built without impacting the town’s inventory. Even today, only a fraction of a density unit is required for workforce housing in comparison to the density required for other projects. In other words, more development and residents can be introduced without the town eating into its inventory. 

Beginning in 2011, a ratio created by the Breckenridge Town Council required that the town give one development right, or the ability to build a single unit of density, for every four units of affordable workforce housing. A couple years later the ratio was changed to a 1-to-2 ratio. The Breckenridge Town Council that served in 2020 voted to change that to a 1-to-1 ratio. 

The town also gave itself the ability to sunset or extinguish density to create more for upcoming projects. It does so through transferring density from areas that were zoned for residential use but were never built on. The F Lot and the Rodeo Grounds in town are examples of places the town transferred density from for projects since both were zoned for development but ended up having different uses. 

Council member Todd Rankin raised concern about running out of density, particularly focusing on the town’s extinguishing of density in certain areas, potentially limiting its ability to build workforce housing in the future. 

“I think there’s a delicate harmony here in our community of the carrying capacity of the basin and being really thoughtful there, but at the same time, how much commuter traffic do we want,” Rankin said, noting that if there isn’t ample workforce in Breckenridge more locals will have to travel into town for work.

He questioned staff if there was any analysis on the impacts the ratios had to inventory.

“I’m curious if we know how many units we’ve kind of given up through the shift from the 1-to-4 to the 1-to-2 to the 1-to-1,” Rankin said, noting that more units can be yielded from higher ratios without taking from the town’s density.

Staff members said they did not have an analysis but could run one. 

“I’m nervous that in giving up this density, it is giving up the ability to house people in our community, across the whole price spectrum,” Rankin added.

Mayor Kelly Owens reminded the council that, if they wanted to, they could change the density ratio for workforce housing developments. She questioned town staff members if there was the ability to make the density ratio different from project to project. 

Council member Jay Beckerman wondered if density could be taken from the backcountry. Breckenridge’s “backcountry” is its undeveloped areas that consist of private mining claims that are generally above the treeline and are considered to be environmentally sensitive locations. 

Development director Mark Truckey answered that the back country is jointly controlled with the county and that would have to be a decision made by both jurisdictions, not just Breckenridge. 

Truckey threw another possibly on the table which could serve as a solution to the town’s diminishing density. 

“I’m not recommending this, but communities do create density basically out of thin air,” he said, noting that if council were to opt to do this it would go against the Joint Upper Blue Master Plan.

No decisions were made by council regarding whether density ratios should be changed for workforce housing, and it showed interest in continuing the discussion.