On the agenda: Basalt meeting — Data Center (Oct 6)

See separate instructions on how to access the meeting
TOWN OF BASALT MEETINGS
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Tuesday, October 6, 2026
Basalt Town Hall

101 Midland Avenue

5:45 PM

Commissioner Light Dinner at Town Hall

6:00

1

6:03

2A Approve Minutes
2B August 4, 2026

6:05

3A Public Hearing-Code Amendments to Chapter 15, Chapter 16, and
Chapter 17 - for the purpose of considering municipal code amendments to
Chapter 15, Annexation, Chapter 16, Zoning, and Chapter 17, Subdivision.
The proposed amendments would amend the Town’s Annexation, Zoning,
and Subdivision regulations to reorganize and make them more user-friendly.
Additionally, the code amendments include miscellaneous substantive items.

Call to Order

3B Recommended Action: Staff and Consultant Comments, Public
Comments, P&Z Discussion, Motion to Continue to October 20, 2026
6:50

Commissioner Comments and Staff Updates

7:00

Adjourn

Items on the agenda are approximate and intended as a guide for the Commission. Times are subject to change, as is
the order of the agenda. For deadlines and information required to schedule an item on the agenda, please contact
Basalt Town Hall at 927-4701.

TOWN OF BASALT, COLORADO
P&Z MEETING - TUESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2026
PUBLIC COMMENT ACCESS INSTRUCTIONS
The Basalt Planning & Zoning Commission will meet in person. The P&Z will conduct a hybrid meeting
where the public may attend the meeting to make their comments in person or may join the meeting and
make their comments via Zoom.
Directions for viewing and accessing the meeting to provide comment during public the public comment
portion of the agenda, or during public hearings is provided below.
If you are unable to access the meeting using the link or call-in numbers above, please e-mail your name,
and phone number and item you wish to comment on to [email protected]. We will contact you at the
appropriate time in the meeting and make other arrangements for you to make your comments.
Zoom Webinar: Tuesday, October 6, 2026 06:00 PM Mountain Time (US and Canada)
Topic: P&Z - 10/06/2026
Join from PC, Mac, iPad, or Android: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/84668508843
Phone one-tap: +17193594580,,84668508843# US +13462487799,,84668508843# US (Houston)
Join via audio:
+1 719 359 4580 US
+1 346 248 7799 US (Houston)
+1 669 444 9171 US
+1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose)
+1 253 205 0468 US
+1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma)
+1 386 347 5053 US
+1 507 473 4847 US
+1 564 217 2000 US
+1 646 931 3860 US
+1 689 278 1000 US
+1 929 205 6099 US (New York)
+1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC)
+1 305 224 1968 US
+1 309 205 3325 US
+1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago)
+1 360 209 5623 US
Webinar ID: 846 6850 8843
International numbers available: https://us06web.zoom.us/u/kcR64u6ja6

P&Z Meeting
Meeting Minutes
August 4, 2026, 6:00 PM

Town of Basalt Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Tuesday, August 4, 2026 | 6:00 PM | Basalt Town Hall, 101 Midland Avenue
1. Call to Order
The Chair called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM.
Present: Kyle Oberkoetter, Eric Vozick, Rob Leavitt, Cindy Hirschfeld, Bob Kaplan,
Ben Fierstein, Mike Horvath Absent: Bill Maron
A quorum was established.
2A. Continued Public Hearing – 218 E. Valley Road PUD Amendments, Site Plan
Review, Annexation Amendments, Associated Development Review Actions
Staff Introduction
Planner Carlton Henry reintroduced the continued public hearing for the application at
218 East Valley Road, the former Movieland site. The application, submitted by Bowtie
Partners and WalshDupart (collectively "the applicant"), proposes a 93-key Residence
Inn by Marriott hotel, three deed-restricted for-rent residential units, and associated
infrastructure. Mr. Henry noted that this was the application's third hearing before the
Commission, having previously been reviewed by the Basalt Affordable and
Community Housing Commission in June, introduced to the Planning and Zoning
Commission on June 16th, and continued from the July 7th meeting.
Henry reported that, in response to discussion at the July 7th meeting, draft conditions
had been updated to include clear language restricting permitted use and dimensional
standards. Specifically, any future change in use from a hotel would require an

amendment to the annexation agreement. He also clarified that while vested rights in
Basalt insulate projects against code changes for a three-year period, development
approvals do not expire when that period ends; however, the added annexation
agreement language would require a formal amendment if the applicant sought to build
anything other than the approved hotel.
Henry outlined three recommendation options available to the Commission:
recommend approval with conditions as outlined, recommend approval with amended
conditions, or recommend denial. Staff further suggested the Commission reserve
time for an iterative work session with the applicant on outstanding design items.
Commissioner Hirschfeld asked for clarification regarding the future land use map
designation for the property. Henry and Lindt explained that the 2020 Basalt Master
Plan designated certain key properties with a future land use designation, and this site
carried an "existing land use" overlay in addition to its underlying "service commercial"
designation. Because the site is being fully redeveloped, that existing land use
designation would need to be removed as part of the approval process, consistent with
how similar redevelopment applications have been handled. The underlying service
commercial designation supports a hotel use.
Commissioner Firestein asked about language in the annexation agreement recitals
permitting food service.
Applicant Presentation
Grant Dupart, on behalf of Bowtie Partners and WalshDupart, presented updates
made since the July 7th meeting, organized around four topic areas: PUD structure,
traffic and pedestrian circulation, architecture and design, and master plan
compliance.
PUD Structure and Use: The applicant emphasized their firm intent to construct a
hotel on the site and stated that specific language had been added to the PUD
amendment to lock in the hotel use, leaving no ambiguity.
In response to a question regarding food service, the applicant confirmed that the
Residence Inn brand includes continental breakfast service but that no full-service
restaurant or bar was planned or designed into the project. The applicant noted two
reasons for this: full food service increases traffic generation, and early community
feedback indicated a preference for guests dining at local businesses in town.
Traffic and Pedestrian Circulation: The applicant presented updated CAD drawings
obtained from CDOT illustrating road reconfigurations around the property, including
a widening from two to three lanes at the property entrance and the addition of a turn
lane at the major intersection to the north, intended to reduce congestion. The
applicant described a pedestrian circulation strategy designed to direct guests toward
either the existing bike path leading to the BRT station or toward the crosswalk at the
highway, avoiding informal mid-block pedestrian crossings through the adjacent
neighborhood.
Commissioner discussion on circulation was substantive. One Commissioner
suggested eliminating the mid-block crossing north of the hotel and instead extending
the sidewalk on the south side of El Jebel Road to the nearest signalized intersection,
arguing that a predictable, controlled crossing point would be safer and more

appropriate given increased pedestrian volumes. The applicant acknowledged the
suggestion but noted that CDOT's road widening in that area would make a sidewalk
extension geometrically tight. Staff directed the Commission to the site plan on page
61 of the packet, which illustrated the constraint clearly.
Discussion also touched on a second access point via the existing curb cut on the
county road to the northwest. The applicant indicated willingness to pursue this if the
county and CDOT approved, but expressed a preference for consolidating vehicle
access closest to the highway. Commissioners raised the absence of a formal
pedestrian connection between the project site and Crown Mountain Park, noting a
longstanding dispute between parties regarding ownership of that pathway segment,
and suggesting it warranted follow-up with Eagle County.
The applicant confirmed it had reached out to WE-cycle, which declined a new station
at the property given existing stations at the BRT stop and City Market. The applicant
offered to help expand capacity at those locations and committed to providing e-bikes
for guests, shuttle service to the airport, and bus passes for employees. A
Commissioner suggested formal partnership with the Basalt Connect program rather
than a private shuttle, arguing it would better promote mass transit use. The applicant
acknowledged early conversations with Basalt Connect but said the discussion had
not advanced. Staff confirmed the site falls within the Basalt Connect service area.
Grant presented traffic comparisons for alternative uses of the Movieland property,
including a sit-down restaurant, a hardware store, and a recreation center. He noted
that each alternative would generate more traffic than the proposed hotel use, and that
a recreation center is not currently permitted under the property's zoning.
Architecture and Design: The applicant presented revised exterior renderings
reflecting higher-quality materials, including real stone, additional glazing, timber
members, wood-tone siding, and fiber cement board and batten siding. Building height
was stated at 34 feet 5 inches from finished floor to top of parapet. The applicant noted
that the adjacent retail building stands at approximately 34 feet. A discrepancy in the
annexation agreement language regarding maximum height (cited as 35 feet 11
inches in the recitals, but noted as 34 feet 11 inches in the draft conditions) was
acknowledged by staff, who confirmed the conditions reflect the corrected figure of 34
feet 11 inches.
The applicant raised the question of whether the Commission preferred a taller parapet
to better screen rooftop mechanical equipment and solar panels, noting they were
agnostic on the issue. The Commission did not reach a definitive position on parapet
height, with one Commissioner observing the difference was a matter of approximately
one foot and likely resolvable.
A significant portion of the architecture discussion centered on the building's proximity
to the residences of Sopris Village to the south. Commissioner Oberkoetter expressed
growing concern that the plan placed the building's massing—up to three stories—too
close to neighboring backyards, with hotel room windows directly overlooking private
residential spaces. The Commissioner questioned whether the applicant had seriously
explored flipping the building's L-shaped footprint to push the mass toward the
highway and away from the neighborhood, or reducing the number of stories on the
south-facing wing. The applicant acknowledged an early exploration of that orientation
but cited parking layout constraints and pedestrian access considerations as factors
that led to the current configuration. The applicant also noted that utility easements

running along the south side of the property precluded additional tree planting in that
area, limiting screening options. The applicant estimated that approximately five rooms
face the south toward Sopris Village, with the majority of the building oriented toward
the City Market loading dock side. Another Commissioner agreed that the building
should be moved closer to the highway and away from the residential neighborhood,
calling the current plan's relationship to neighboring homes a significant unresolved
concern.
Master Plan Compliance: The applicant presented a comprehensive point-by-point
review of all 197 master plan goals from the 2020 Basalt Master Plan, identifying 69
as relevant to this infill development and asserting 93 percent compliance among
those relevant points. The full consistency analysis was included as Exhibit 4 of the
resubmitted PUD amendment package. The applicant argued that the project checks
nearly all applicable master plan boxes and requested a recommendation of approval
to allow Town Council to weigh in on the appropriateness of the hotel use at this
location.
2B. Recommended Action: Staff and Applicant Comments, Public Comments,
P&Z Discussion, Potential Motion
A commissioner then asked a clarifying question about the Sopris Village’s water
system, specifically confirming that the well is located on one side of the highway while
the storage tank is on the other, meaning water is pumped under the highway to the
storage tank and then distributed back to the HOA. After receiving confirmation, the
commissioner also inquired about ownership of the 8-inch water line and was informed
that it is owned by the HOA.
Public Comment
The public hearing was opened at approximately 6:49 PM. The Chair reminded
attendees that this was the third public hearing on the matter and encouraged new
comments where possible.
Michael Mieners (Sopris Village) raised concerns about the parking ratio of 0.95
spaces per unit, predicting overflow parking would spill into Sopris Village and the
park-and-ride. He questioned the accuracy of the traffic study relative to real-world
conditions on Highway 82. He raised a life safety concern regarding the proposed
emergency access route through Sopris Village Drive, noting that a ladder truck would
need to negotiate a hairpin turn before reaching the hotel, and suggested that
relocating emergency access to the western end of the property—where a turn lane
terminates—would provide a more direct and safer route for emergency vehicles. He
also requested that any conditional approval require the construction site to be fully
fenced at all times to prevent construction traffic from traveling through the residential
neighborhood, and that guest parking acknowledgment be formalized as a signed
commitment rather than advisory signage.
Susan Chism (landscape architect, Kiowa) opposed the requested parking variance,
noting that 19 of the proposed spaces are compact at only 16 feet deep, which she
found inconsistent with the applicant's stated clientele of contractors and tradespeople
with work vans and trailers. She requested a cross-section drawing showing the height
differential between the hotel's finished floor and the finished floor of adjacent homes

to properly assess visual impact. She identified only four evergreen trees proposed
between the bike path and neighboring rear yards, two of which were specified to
reach only 20 feet at maturity, characterizing the proposed screening as minimal. She
noted that five existing trees were being removed near the affordable housing units
and the City Market loading dock with no apparent replacement proposed. She also
raised concerns about bear-proof trash enclosures and whether the project was in
compliance with the Town of Basalt Wildfire Resiliency Code.
Susan Sullivan (Missouri Heights) expressed broad opposition to the project,
emphasizing that the proposed floor area variance represents a 400 percent increase
over what is currently permitted. She also expressed opposition to the project on the
grounds of water use during a prolonged regional drought. She argued the site's
proximity to transit, health care, and retail made it better suited for walkable housing
for existing residents rather than a large hotel. She questioned the need for a new
hotel given two existing hotels in the Willits area.
Jen Ingle (Sopris Village, 23-year resident and real estate broker) stated she was not
opposed to development in principle but that the Sopris Village HOA had submitted a
formal letter through legal counsel raising unresolved concerns. She noted that
community members with construction and development experience shared those
concerns. She requested that the Commission recommend denial.
David Johnson (Sopris Village) described conditions observed along the commercial
alley behind City Market, including abandoned vehicles, forklifts, storage bins, and
other debris, expressing skepticism about developer commitments to long-term
maintenance. He raised traffic concerns related to evacuation scenarios, referencing
the 2018 fire event in which Highway 82 became impassable.
Alan Styers (Sopris Village, nearly 40 years in the valley) stated he had heard no
articulated benefit to Sopris Village residents throughout the process, observing an
increase in for-sale listings in the neighborhood concurrent with the application. He
raised concerns about cumulative development impacts in the area, including
proposed nearby residential and mixed-use projects. He questioned the rationale for
approving a PUD amendment of this scale—which he characterized as approximately
four times the size contemplated by the existing PUD—and called for denial.
Joel (Sopris Village) expressed qualified support for a hotel concept but opposition to
this specific project. He challenged several of the applicant's master plan compliance
claims, arguing that an international hotel brand does not advance goals related to
small-town character, scale, and community identity. He raised concerns that
extended-stay kitchenette units would attract out-of-state construction workers,
undercutting local labor. He suggested that if a hotel were ultimately approved, a pool
with public access should be required as a community amenity, analogous to the W
Hotel in Aspen. He also raised environmental concerns about the water and energy
consumption of 93 hotel rooms, each with a kitchenette, AC, and heat.
The public hearing was closed at approximately 7:13 PM. No online participants
requested to speak.
Commission Discussion
The Commission engaged in open discussion regarding the project's merits and
appropriate action.

Commissioner Leavitt acknowledged that something would inevitably be built on the
site but expressed uncertainty about whether this particular project was the right use,
noting it felt more like a question for Town Council than for the Commission. Another
Commissioner Vozick stated that while he believed the applicant had made genuine
progress through the review process and had responsibly addressed procedural
requirements, he personally could not support the project. He expressed concern that
the site represents a significant opportunity for infill development that could link transit,
community amenities, and the adjacent neighborhood in a meaningful way, and that
the hotel use did not fully realize that potential.
Commissioner Kaplan characterized the use as appropriate for a service-commercial
infill site surrounded by existing commercial activity. He expressed general support for
the project concept while acknowledging concerns about parking supply and light
impacts on neighboring residences. He stated a preference for a revised building
orientation that reduced the number of rooms adjacent to Sopris Village.
Commissioner Hirschfeld expressed uncertainty about what realistic alternative use
could be developed on the site, noting that community center or recreational uses are
not permitted under the underlying zoning, that residential use within a commercial
development presents challenges, and that a restaurant would drive higher traffic.
Hirschfeld expressed concern that without approval, the site could sit vacant for years,
producing an outcome similar to other undeveloped parcels in the area. Despite this
uncertainty, Hirschfeld acknowledged that the current plan had not yet reached a level
of acceptance among the broader community.
Commissioner Fierstein noted that the Commission's role is advisory and that the
question of whether a hotel is the highest and best use for the site is ultimately a
question for Town Council. Commissioner Kaplan concurred that the site plan as
presented does not adequately address the concerns of neighboring residents.
Commissioner Horvath agreed that the hotel use is not necessarily the core issue but
that the site plan as presented disrespects the neighboring residential community.
Horvath felt the building should be moved closer to the highway, that the third-story
mass adjacent to the southern neighborhood should be reduced or stepped back, and
that the removal of mature trees near the affordable housing units was
counterproductive to livability. Parking demand was also cited as a concern,
particularly given other development projects anticipated in the area that will compete
for park-and-ride capacity.
Commissioner Vozick expressed concern about the project's job creation benefits,
noting that while it may generate new service jobs, it could also shift jobs from existing
businesses and contribute to broader community challenges such as increased
competition for employees and traffic. The commissioner questioned whether other
uses of the site might provide greater long-term community benefits and encouraged
Council to consider the project's overall impacts on the village, neighborhood, and
local workforce when evaluating the application.
Commissioner Hirschfeld moved to recommend denial of the application for the
218 East Valley Road PUD Amendments, Site Plan Review, Annexation
Amendments, and Associated Development Review Actions. Commissioner
Fierstein seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote:

● Eric Vozick: Yes
● Rob Leavitt: Yes
● Cindy Hirschfeld: Yes
● Mike Horvath: Yes
● Bob Kaplan: No
● Ben Fierstein: Yes
● Kyle Oberkoetter: No
Motion carried 5–2. The Commission's recommendation of denial will be forwarded to
Town Council for consideration.
3A. Update on Police Department/Public Works Facility Planning
3B. Recommended Action: Staff Comments, P&Z Questions
Town Manager Gloria Kaasch-Buerger presented an overview of the proposed
combined public service facility that would house both the Police Department and the
Public Works Department. The proposed location is along Original Road between
Willits and downtown, where the Town already maintains a yard that would be
expanded to accommodate the new building.
Kaasch-Buerger described current facility conditions as inadequate. She noted the
existing police station, located in a condo building, has a single shared bathroom for
officers and any individuals brought in, insufficient evidence processing and storage
space, and no compliant evidence room security. Public Works currently operates
across five separate locations, creating operational inefficiencies, and relies on around
town, including modular buildings that have exceeded their useful life and are flagged
annually by the town's insurer.
The proposed facility is estimated at approximately 15,000 square feet, consolidating
both departments on a site of approximately 1.95 acres—comprised of the existing
Public Works yard and an adjacent parcel (the former Umbrella Roofing site) currently
being annexed. A significant gas and sewer main runs through the center of the site
and would need to be relocated as part of the project; the Town Manager noted that
the cost of relocation pencils more favorably as a single combined facility rather than
two separate buildings. The projected cost is between 25 and 26 million dollars. The
town has approximately $7 million dollars in reserves available to apply to the project,
with the remaining approximately $18 million dollars proposed to be financed through
a 1.5 percent sales tax measure on the November ballot, structured to sunset upon full
repayment. The tax would apply in both Pitkin County and Eagle County portions of
town, raising the respective rates to 10.05 percent and 8.95 percent. The tax would
sunset upon payoff of the loan, estimated at up to 20 years.
Kaasch-Buerger explained that combining the two departments in one facility
produces significant cost savings compared to building separately, particularly in
shared mechanical, restroom, and maintenance infrastructure. She noted that revenue
from the potential sale or lease of the existing police station condo and other townowned properties would be directed back toward the project.

Commissioners asked several questions. Commissioner Hirschfeld raised concerns
about police response times if the department moved further from downtown, and
Kaasch-Buerger responded that the more central location between Willits and
downtown should improve response times across the whole service area, with an
emergency access route planned to connect through to Willits Lane. Commissioner
Oberkoetter raised concerns about traffic impacts at the Original Road and Highway
82 intersection, noting limited vehicle queuing capacity at that light and the addition of
heavy public works equipment. Commissioner Firestein asked about the gas and
sewer mains running through the center of the site, and Kaasch-Buerger confirmed
both would need to be relocated, noting that the cost to do so fit better within a single
combined building project than if the facilities were split.
Commissioner Firestein asked if speed camera revenue was being considered as a
supplemental funding source, though Kaasch-Buerger clarified it was not formally
earmarked and that the town hoped slower speeds would reduce that revenue over
time.
A commissioner asked how the proposed 15,000-square-foot facility would be divided
between the Police Department and Public Works, and whether the space would be
allocated evenly between the two departments. Kaasch-Buerger explained that the
Police Department will occupy a larger portion of the building because it requires more
interior operational and office space. Public Works requires less indoor space, as
much of its operations are centered around outdoor yard and storage areas.
Carlton Henry noted that the project incorporates the adjacent former Umbrella
Roofing site, which is being annexed, bringing the combined site area to approximately
1.95 acres. James Lindt also noted that the fire district had requested a throughaccess emergency route from Willits Lane to the Original Road intersection be
provided through the property as part of the design.
A Commissioner asked whether the facility design could incorporate employee
housing units. Kaasch-Buerger explained that the Stotts Mill property is being used as
the employee housing mitigation offset for this project and that the operational
environment—heavy equipment, sirens, and lights—made on-site residential use
inadvisable. Kaasch-Buerger noted that the town is also exploring incorporating a
community room into the facility, which could serve as an emergency operations
center and be made available for community bookings. She referenced the Lake
Christine fire as an example of the need for a dedicated emergency operations
gathering space.
Town Council is expected to finalize ballot language by the end of August.
Commissioner Comments and Staff Updates
Lindt announced that the next Planning and Zoning Commission meeting will be held
on September 1st, with agenda items expected to include a special review public
hearing and possible code amendments. Staff also noted that a joint walkthrough of
the BCC deed-restricted units at Basalt Center Circle is being coordinated for Planning
and Zoning Commission members and the Basalt Affordable and Community Housing
Commission. It was confirmed that construction on the BCC project is substantially
complete, with Temporary Certificates of Occupancy issued on the residential units
and the first units being occupied. The town is in the process of closing on its deed-

restricted unit purchases. The commercial market space operator has a defined period
following residential TCO to complete their tenant finish, secured by escrow funds held
by the developer.
Staff noted that the property owner of the FedEx facility has engaged Carter Electric
to adjust the light fixtures to improve downward light direction, and that improvements
are anticipated to be visible in the near term.
Staff acknowledged that this was Planner Carlton Henry's final meeting with the Town
of Basalt, as he has accepted a senior planning position with the Town of Marble.
Commissioners expressed appreciation for his service and contributions to the
Commission.
Motion to adjourn was made and seconded. The motion carried unanimously.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:57 PM.
TOWN OF BASALT
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION

By_______________________
Eric Vozick, Chair

Attest_______________________
James Lindt, Planning Director

MEMORANDUM
To:

Chair Vozick and Basalt Planning and Zoning Commission

From:

James Lindt, Planning Director

Date:

October 6, 2026

RE:

Public Hearing- Code Amendments to Town Code Chapters 15, 16,
17

Background: The Town of Basalt has not completed a full update to the Town’s
development regulations for many years due to the Town Staff’s significant workload
and has instead adopted piecemeal code amendments over time as needed. Town
Staff and the Town’s review boards determined that a comprehensive update is
necessary to the Town’s Zoning Code, Subdivision Regulations, and Development
Review/Annexation Processes and Criteria.
Town Staff published a request for proposals in the spring of 2025 and Design
Workshop was selected from the firms that made proposals. A contract for
Design Workshop’s services was executed in June of 2025.
Details:
Design Workshop has drafted proposed code amendments to
reorganize the Town’s Annexation, Zoning, and Subdivision regulations and
added graphics to make the Town’s development regulations more user-friendly.
Additionally, there have been some miscellaneous substantive changes that
include the following topics:
1.
2.
3.
4.

Special Review Uses vs. Conditional Uses
Regulation of Data Centers
Setback Treatment in R-3 TN
Bicycle Parking

Throughout the code amendment formulation process, there has been a code
amendment working group made up of citizens and code users from the Town’s
various citizen boards, including three (3) members from the P&Z, that have
1

been meeting and providing guidance to Design Workshop and Town Staff on
various topics. There has also been considerable public outreach, which has
included public open houses, pop-up information tables at various town events,
and an online survey to gain feedback on code amendment concepts. Design
Workshop and Staff have also provided updates to P&Z along the way as well to
keep P&Z in the loop on the proposed amendments.
October 6th Meeting: Design Workshop representatives will be attending this
meeting to introduce the various aspects of the Zoning and Development Code
re-write amendments that are included in the proposed amendment language.
Attached is a summary of the work from Design Workshop. Additionally, below is
a dropbox link to the draft amendment language that has been formulated:
https://designworkshop.box.com/s/yn26cdzku1hiuptaqvhepq56z6006qw9
The proposed amendment language is in the “Clean Drafts and Redlines” folder
in the dropbox link.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends considering an introductory
presentation from Staff and Design Workshop representatives and then holding a
public hearing on the proposed amendments.
After considering public
comments, Staff recommends that P&Z provide initial discussion on the
proposed amendments. Ultimately, Staff recommends that P&Z continue the
public hearing to October 20th. In association with these amendments, the Town
Engineer is making amendments to the Town’s Public Works Manual which will
also include removing some of the technical engineering requirements from the
Town Code and incorporating them into the Public Works Manual. As such,
some of the adjustments to the Town Code from the Public Works Manual
amendments will be presented on October 20th to be considered for
recommendation with the code amendments included in this meeting packet.
Attachment:
Design Workshop Summary Memo

2

MEMORANDUM
Landscape Architecture
Planning

To:

Town of Basalt Planning and Zoning Commission

Urban Design
Strategic Services

From:

Design Workshop

125 S Clark St

Date:

September 25, 2026

Suite 660
Chicago, IL 60603
312.360.1736
designworkshop.com

Project Name: Basalt Land Use Code Updates
Project #:

8724

Subject:

Existing Land Use Code Redlines Interim Update

This memorandum summarizes ongoing work completed to date for the Basalt Land Use Code Update and is intended to provide context
for the major policy, organizational, and procedural changes currently reflected in the 50%, 90% and 95% draft redlines.

Page 1 of 4

Chapter 14 – Annexations
50% Draft: Revisions to the Annexations chapter are primarily structural and procedural, with limited changes to underlying policy. The
chapter is reorganized to include Colorado annexation and disconnection statutes, including clearer references to statutory requirements
and the addition of applicability language to clarify when annexation procedures apply. The annexation process will be further clarified
through the introduction of defined timelines and process graphics. A new set of annexation review criteria is added to formalize evaluation
standards and provide clearer guidance for decision-making.
90% Draft: New annexation graphic and updated formatting throughout chapter.
95% Draft: Updated language for compliance with Master Plan changing “general conformance” to “substantial conformance”.

Chapter 15 – Zoning
50% Draft: Updates to the Zoning chapter focus on reorganization and clarity. Definitions from chapters 15,16, and 17 are consolidated
and categorized to reduce duplication and ambiguity, with supporting graphics added where appropriate. Several specialized use
regulations, including medical marijuana and natural medicine uses, are relocated to other chapters to improve organization. The chapter
structure is revised to more clearly distinguish residential, commercial, industrial, and other zoning districts. A key policy change is the
introduction of conditional uses across residential, commercial, and industrial districts, allowing greater land use flexibility while maintaining
discretionary review. Land uses are also formally categorized in a new section, and the Developing Resources District is transitioned to a
legacy district.
90% Draft: Introduction of Data Center definitions and inclusion of Data Centers in Use Schedules. Updated C-2 and CC Chapters with
references to adopted Midland Avenue District Design Guidelines, and updated formatting throughout chapter.
95% Draft: Updated tables to reflect prohibition of Data Centers across all use categories, updated Bed and Breakfast from Conditional
Use to Special Review Use in all Residential Zone Districts, updated storage uses in Industrial Zone to be Special Review Use, updated
Master Plan references from “general conformance” to “substantial conformance”, updated R3TN setback requirements.

Chapter 16 – Development
50% Draft: Chapter 16 is established as a standalone Development chapter, consolidating development standards, discretionary review
procedures, and administrative processes that were previously distributed across multiple chapters. Environmental and hazard-related
regulations, including hillside, floodplain, and environmentally sensitive area standards, are consolidated into unified articles for clarity and
consistency. Consolidated and expedited review opportunities are introduced by allowing staff-level approval of insubstantial PUD
amendments, affordable housing development, and administrative approval of certain parking reductions. New policy additions include a
dedicated Accessory Dwelling Unit article, a formal Conditional Use and Special Review procedures article, a Standard Development
Procedures section to standardize review pathways, and provisions addressing Proposition 123 requirements.
90% Draft: Updates to Prop 123 language and updated formatting throughout chapter.

Chapter 17 – Subdivisions
50% Draft: Revisions to the Subdivisions chapter are largely organizational and administrative. Definitions are relocated to the zoning
chapter to establish a single source for defined terms, and Technical Review Committee provisions are moved out of the chapter. The
chapter structure is simplified by combining general and administrative provisions. Substantively, subdivision-related fees are relocated,
and parkland and school district dedication requirements are removed from this chapter.
90% Draft: Updated formatting throughout chapter.
95% Draft: General formatting updates, updated Master Plan references from “general conformance” to “substantial conformance”.

Annotated Documents for Review
Our team has provided annotated redline drafts in Word and Adobe PDF for review with notes calling out proposed amendments for further
discussion. These notes are organized by chapter below.
Chapter

Notes

14 – Annexations

Note Section 14-2: Applicability (New Section)
Note Section 14-3: Addition of CRS annexation requirements
Note Section 14-4: Addition of CRS disconnection eligibility requirements
Note Section 14-11: Annexation Review Criteria (New Section)*
General: Updated original assignment of Chapter 15 to Chapter 14

50%
Draft

Page 2 of 4

14 – Annexations

90%
Draft

14 – Annexations

95%
Draft

15 – Zoning

50%
Draft

15 – Zoning

90%
Draft

15 – Zoning

95%
Draft

16 - Development

50%
Draft

16 - Development
16 - Development
17 - Subdivision

90%
Draft
95%
Draft
50%
Draft

Note Section 14-7: Application procedure timeline/process graphics
General: Formatting and cross chapter reference cleanup
Note Section 14-11: Language change to change “general conformance” to “substantial
conformance” with Master Plan
Note Section 14-13: Language change to change “general conformance” to “substantial
conformance” with Master Plan
General: Formatting and cross-chapter reference cleanup
Note 15-4: Categorization of Land Uses (New Section)*
Note 15-4: Addition of language for Formula Businesses
Note 15-5: Consolidation and categorization of definitions, and inclusion of applicable graphics
Note 15-22: Introduction of conditional use in schedule of uses of residential districts*
Note 15-32: Introduction of conditional use in schedule of uses of commercial districts*
Note 15-42: Introduction of conditional use in schedule of uses of industrial districts*
Note 15-51: Transition of Developing Resources District to legacy zone district
Note 15-67: Relocation of medical marijuana facilities/establishments to Chapter 6
Note 15-67: Relocation of Natural medicine section to Chapter 6
Note Table 15-2: Introduction of Data Centers as Prohibited Use in Residential Zone Districts
Note Table 15-8: Introduction of Data Centers as Prohibited Use in Commercial Zone Districts
Note 15-33: Inclusion of reference to adopted Midland Avenue District Design Guidelines in C-2
District
Note Table 15-15: Introduction of Data Centers as Special Review Use in Industrial Zone District
Note 15-33: Inclusion of reference to adopted Midland Avenue District Design Guidelines in C-2
District
Note 15-34: Inclusion of reference to adopted Midland Avenue District Design Guidelines in CSC
District
General: Formatting and cross chapter reference cleanup
Note Table 15-2: Bed and Breakfast changed from Conditional to Special Review Use Residential
Zone Districts
Note Table 15-8: Introduction of Data Centers as Prohibited Use in Commercial Zone Districts
Note 15-24: Updated R-3TN Yard Requirements
Note Table 15-15: Introduction of Data Centers as Prohibited Use in Industrial Zone District /
General Storage and Goods and Mini Storage Warehouse changed from Conditional to Special
Review Use in Industrial Zone District
General: Formatting and cross chapter reference cleanup / all references to conformance with
Master Plan updated from “general” to “substantial”
Note 16-11: Establishment of Development chapter
Note 16-18: New Section for Common Development Procedures (NP)
Note 16-36: Approval of insubstantial PUD amendments administratively
Note 16-42: Approval standards and criteria for PUDs (from CPSS)
Note 16-5: Standard Development Procedures article (New Article)*
Note 16-69: Accessory Dwelling Unit Article (New Article)
Note 16-142: Parking reduction criteria for mixed-use developments*
Note 16-150: Administrative approval of parking reductions
Note 16-231: Establishment of Natural and Environmental Hazards Article
Note 16-241: Consolidation of Hillside and Steep Slope Regulations, Flood Damage Prevention,
and Rivers, Wetlands and Environmentally Sensitive Areas Articles
Note 16-371: Conditional Use and Special Review Requirements and Procedures (New Article)*
Note 16-26: Colorado Prop 123 Section (New Section)*
General: Formatting and cross chapter reference cleanup
General: Formatting and cross chapter reference cleanup
Note 17-1: Consolidation of definitions in Chapter 15
Note 17-2: Relocation of Technical Review Committee to Chapter 2
Note 17-3: Relocation of Vested Property Rights to Common Development Procedures Section
Page 3 of 4

17 - Subdivision

90%
Draft

17 - Subdivision

95%
Draft

General: Formatting and cross chapter reference cleanup
Note 17-9: Language change to change “conformance” to “substantial conformance” with Master
Plan
General: Formatting and cross chapter reference cleanup

Page 4 of 4