Planning commission continues review of mixed‑use plan at 555 Basalt Avenue; asks for more traffic, floodplain and design detail

The Basalt Planning & Zoning Commission on Jan. 20 paused formal action on a proposal to redevelop 555 Basalt Avenue into a mixed‑use project that would remove existing industrial buildings, build 54 commercial storage spaces on the south portion of the 4.84‑acre parcel and construct 48 multifamily residential units on the north side, including 12 deed‑restricted rental units.

Staff described the application submitted by MREH, LLP as a special review that also requires concurrent master plan and PUD (planned unit development) amendments because the town’s current typology designates the site as Work Mixed Use and the applicant is proposing spatial separation of residential and commercial uses. James, the town planner who introduced the item, told commissioners the project “is in close proximity to the Basalt Park and Ride and BRT stop” and that the Affordable Community Housing Commission (BACH) will review the applicant’s proposed level of mitigation for deed‑restricted units.

The applicant’s team said the residential buildings were located on the north side to encourage transit use and to reduce truck and industrial traffic intensity compared with the existing Myers Steel operation. “This development would remove that use, and have a little bit less intensity as far as construction, trucks, and traffic during the days,” an applicant representative said while presenting multiple layout iterations that sought to avoid raising the base flood elevation.

Traffic generation, CDOT access and floodplain constraints were central concerns. Staff explained a narrow sliver of CDOT land currently limits access such that CDOT approvals allow only five vehicle trips per day at that location; the applicant has requested CDOT amend that approval to permit access for the proposed 48 units and staff said a CDOT response was expected in late January. Staff also noted a third‑party reviewer, Charlier and Associates, questioned the applicant’s use of a single weekday traffic count (May 2025) and recommended broader counts to validate trip assumptions.

On the traffic study the applicant reported that, based on their counts, “the development will not generate more traffic than the current Myers Steel operation.” Several commissioners and members of the public pushed back on that conclusion, saying for‑sale storage products often draw business users (contractors and jobbers) who generate more daily trips than personal storage users; commissioners asked for clearer enforceable limits on storage uses and for traffic modeling that accounts for realistic user mixes and construction traffic.

Floodplain and design issues were also discussed. Staff said the town’s contract hydrologist, Robert Kraybill of Matrix Design, and the applicant worked to produce a site plan that would not increase base flood elevation by keeping first floors open where flood flows can pass. The applicant requested a PUD amendment to allow a parapet/top‑of‑parapet height of 38 feet (the PUD’s maximum is 35 feet) and noted mechanical screening and elevator/stair overrun exceptions could apply; commissioners asked the applicant to clarify whether the requested additional height meets the PUD’s public‑benefit standard.

Commissioners asked for clearer architectural renderings and a simplified plan that separates property lines, pedestrian connections and utility/linework so commissioners and neighbors can see proposed pedestrian routes to the nearby BRT stop. The chair suggested a landscape‑style pedestrian plan and other commissioners proposed traffic calming or one‑way options for the narrow Feu/Fio Lane to preserve mature trees while addressing public‑safety concerns.

Public comment combined support for the deed‑restricted housing with worries about neighborhood traffic and the potential for storage units to be used as small business operations. One attendee said converting storage into mixed‑use commercial activity would “increase traffic significantly,” while also praising the affordable housing component given the site’s transit proximity.

Outcome and next steps: After the discussion the commission voted to continue the public hearing to Feb. 3, 2026, directing staff and the applicant to return with additional materials including expanded traffic counts and methodology, clarification of CDOT access and approvals, refined architectural and pedestrian‑connectivity drawings, BACH recommendations on affordable housing mitigation and more detail on floodplain design measures. No development approvals were made tonight.