Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Site Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commissioners recommend approval of 230 Park Avenue project with staff conditions and rent‑pool preference
Summary
The P&Z recommended approval for a five‑unit workforce housing project in the Basalt Industrial Park that includes two deed‑restricted studio units meeting the town's inclusionary requirement; staff conditions include signed residential parking, deed restriction filing before CO, wildfire resiliency compliance, and a request that units remain in the full‑time rental pool.
At a public hearing, the Planning & Zoning Commission reviewed a special review and site plan for 230 Park Avenue, a proposal to add a second story and create five residential units above an existing industrial building in the Basalt Industrial Park.
Sarah Nadeaule of the Planning Department summarized staff findings: the lot (about 29,000 sq ft) is zoned Industrial PUD where residential uses require special review and must remain subordinate to the primary industrial/commercial use. The applicant proposes about 6,000 square feet of residential floor area above the existing 6,800 square‑foot ground floor industrial space and offers 10 off‑site accessory parking spaces. Staff recommended conditions addressing parking configuration (signed and angled parking for residential use), a license agreement for town maintenance of off‑site parking, combined landscaped open space in lieu of private patios for some units, wildfire resiliency compliance, and deed restriction filing prior to certificate of occupancy.
Planning staff said the project meets Basalt’s residential inclusionary requirement (25% of net residential square footage and 20% of units) through two deed‑restricted studio units categorized as Category 2 rentals. Staff reported that the Basalt Affordable Community Housing Commission (BOC) did not support an applicant‑proposed occupancy priority that would have given first priority to the owner’s employees; staff recommended removing that priority and addressing tenancy preferences through lease terms instead.
Applicant representatives (Giles Thornley of Connect 1/Lionheart and architect Brad Elliott) described design elements: preserving ground‑floor industrial storage uses, adding residential units above with a range of unit sizes (studios through a three‑bedroom), combined open space with landscaping and a small “mini forest,” angle parking, bike storage, and EV charging infrastructure considerations. The applicant also proposed shared exterior storage, a landscaped detention feature that doubles as amenity space, and an elevator to meet accessibility and fire‑department gurney access requirements.
Commissioners asked detailed questions about elevator sizing and gurney access for the three‑bedroom unit, ongoing maintenance of the detention/landscaped open space, real‑world traffic and truck circulation in the industrial park, EV charger locations and indoor charger code compliance, and short‑term rental restrictions. No members of the public spoke.
Commissioner (speaker 7) moved to recommend approval subject to staff recommendations and to include in the recommendation that the units remain in the full‑time rental pool (to discourage short‑term rental use); the motion was seconded and approved by voice vote. The commission’s recommendation will go to Town Council as the final decision maker.
Next steps: staff will forward the commission’s recommendation and attached conditions to Town Council for final action; the applicant must file the deed restriction and meet conditions before obtaining a certificate of occupancy.
