The Breckenridge Planning Commission met last night, October 5, 2021, to discuss the attached staff recommendations for leveraging current Land Use Districts (LUDs) to determine Short Term Rental overlay zone recommendations for Town Council. The memo, map, and land use district spreadsheet are the basis of their conversation on which neighborhoods and LUDs to suggest Town Council consider for their STR overlay. Staff will take their recommendations back, flushing out their discussion, and will take the recommendations back to Town Council.
Land Use Districts Related to Short Term Rentals Work Session
They introduce the work session. They are discussing the different zones specifically in the associated land uses as it relates to short-term rentals. We are not going to be discussing the merits of the decision the council made, based on some of the comments the council received it was very contentious. There are areas that were always intended for short-term lodging. Perhaps the council could look at these areas a little differently. The council tasked the planning commission with taking a look at this issue. We’ve got over 50 land-use districts. There are a few of those that are geared towards STR. What the council is thinking in the general sense is to make some amendments to their STR cap to allows some additional short term rentals in these land use areas we focus on.
On September 28 on second reading the Town Council enacted an ordinance placing a cap on future short term rental licenses in the town. In conjunction with this action, the Council indicated that it intended to further analyze areas in town that might be appropriate to allow some additional short term rental licensing. A fair amount of public comment was received indicating that properties within some bed base areas (e.g., near the ski area) were developed and have been historically used as short term lodging properties.
The Council has asked for the Planning Commission input regarding the geographic areas where some additional short term rental licensing could be authorized in relation to the Land Use District guidelines. The thought is that outside these areas there would be little or no future short term licensing (at least until a targeted reduction in existing licenses has occurred).
Land Use District Discussion
The Town has a series of over 50 separate Land Use Districts (LUDs), each which covers a separate geographic area. The LUDs essentially serve as the Town’s zoning. The map on page 83 of the agenda packet indicates the location of the different LUDs. The specific LUDs will provide guidance on appropriate land uses, with some being specific regarding the intent to be used for guest lodging. For example, LUD 22 states “District 22 is located near the Peak 9 Base and is intended for multi-family residential development. It will provide a bed base in close proximity to ski facilities.” This is an example of an LUD that we would likely recommend the Council consider for some additional short term rental licensing. In contrast, other LUDs clearly do not have this focus.
Staff has provided a spreadsheet (beginning on page 84 of the agenda packet) that outlines each of the LUDs, along with short descriptions regarding the appropriate land uses within each district. We have highlighted in bold the LUDs that seem intended to serve as short term lodging. Planning Commission feedback on these identified LUDs is requested.
We have bolded the land use districts that we may want to provide exceptions for. On the table the first one is land use district 6. Our recommendation would only be to carve out the Ranahan area. This could be an area we could consider for additional licenses. Was it designed to be a true lock and leave neighborhood? There are single family homes a long way from the ski resort. Now we are a year round destination so we are not just a ski resort community so we have to plan accordingly around what we have marketed ourselves to be not just skiing.
The council has the right idea of not just saying we are going to have 2200 STR licenses. Where are STRs most beneficial and where they are intended to be when the properties were built. There are 161 lots in the highland area so we could have 6 short term rentals and now we have 20. I recommend that they look at these sections and carve out places like the Ranahan and say that it is an ideal place to put down licenses. Where do we put them? Well in the highlands park there are plenty but in the Ranahan area there aren’t many so we can put some there. The council hasn’t wanted to go that direction but they have asked us for our input on the map and the zones we have identified that are most likely for short-term rentals.
It is really important we don’t split streets. They need to be all together. In LUD 10, they think they should build places up there for the purpose of short term rentals. Everyone agrees. LUD 19 should also be a yes. Carving out Main Street Station makes sense. Main Street is really fundamental to the town so I do not see a lot of upsides to using it but I could see carving out Main Street Station. LUD 28 seems to be an outlier along with 6 since the neighborhood seems split up. I think LUD 25 should be a yes looking at Main Street Junction. For LUD 28 we would have to carve out the line on Glorious Pass Road south into residential area so it would be a no unless you look at it going North then it could be a yes.
A member of the public, David Garrett, asks about Main street being commercial on the first level but upstairs is residential. If we took that away would we allow commercial to be on the second level? I appreciate that you guys are looking at this area but there needs to be a lot more consideration for the use of rentals in different areas.
They close public comment and turn back to discussion.
I think LUD 10 was developed and built for the ski runs and a lot of the developments were done with that intent. This is ski-resort area and will have short-term rentals there so it is a yes. I think it is important we don’t carve up neighborhoods. Does LUD 20 include the North Gondola Lot? It stops at Watson so it includes the South and North Gondola lots. It includes River Mountain Lodge as well as Cimarron and Park Place. There are some duplexes and townhouses in there. They should take a look on how that exemption is going to look because they will probably want to be exempt for those properties. So LUD 20 is a yes and everyone agrees. LUD 40 is similar to LUD 10 and should also be a yes. Everyone agrees. LUD 6 is a yes just for carving out Ranahan. We just need to make sure we are not slicing and dicing neighborhoods and HOA’s. We would exclude LUD 1 however in LUD’s like 10 we would pull those in. On the GIS there is a description of skiing in and out and do they have any pertinence in terms of the usage of the properties? That is more realtor input and tax data.
The East side of town has very few short-term rentals and won’t have many opportunities for them in the future. West of Park Avenue I would be cautious of until we have a better count. We could have 2200 but all of a sudden it could be 500 more. I hesitate to say all of 10 could have a short-term rental license. There is room for refinement in those districts so not 100% of it is being licensed. LUD’s 11 and 19 are a no, and LUD 28 north of the pass could be a yes. I think the area around the Victorian Gables should also be carved out. Is the council looking at all at people who multiple short-term rentals? We don’t know but it may have come up.
They move into Town Council Updates and adjourn.