A proposed El Jebel hotel, pool-energy fees and another delay at 555 Basalt Avenue

Council is not being asked to approve the hotel on September 8. Staff recommends treating this as an introduction to the application, hearing presentations and public comment, identifying unanswered questions, and continuing the public hearing to October 13, 2026. The eventual approvals would include site-plan and special reviews, changes to the property’s planned unit development and annexation agreement, housing mitigation review and related land-use actions. A planned unit development is a site-specific zoning agreement governing what can be built and under what conditions. Future meetings are expected to include a master-plan map resolution and an ordinance granting or denying the development approvals.

WalshDupart applied on behalf of Bowtie Partners to redevelop the former Movieland theater property at 218 East Valley Road. The site is Lot 2A of Old Orchard Plaza, a roughly 2.1-acre commercial parcel near El Jebel, Sopris Village, City Market, the Willits area and the Roaring Fork Transportation Authority bus stop. The original annexation agreement was recorded in 1995 and amended in 1999 and 2000. It was written around a movie theater of a particular size, so almost any substantially different redevelopment requires amendments. The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the hotel and recommended denial, while the Basalt Affordable Community Housing Commission recommended approval of its housing provisions.

The proposal is a three-story, 93-key Residence Inn by Marriott with three deed-restricted rental homes for hotel employees. The application gives total project floor area as approximately 67,226 square feet, including about 65,423 square feet of hotel space and 1,803 square feet associated with employee housing. Elsewhere it lists a slightly different total of 67,352 square feet, an inconsistency council may want clarified. The proposed floor-area ratio—the building area compared with lot area—is 0.74, with a requested maximum of 0.8. The old agreement allows 16,800 square feet because of restrictions tailored to the theater, while the underlying commercial zoning would otherwise allow substantially more.

The proposed maximum building height is listed as 34 feet 5 inches, with roof, parapet and screening elements reaching 35 feet 11 inches. Another application section describes the building as 34 feet 11 inches at its highest point, again leaving a small discrepancy to resolve. The underlying commercial district generally allows a 35-foot roof height. The applicant says designs were revised several times during Planning and Zoning Commission review, including removal of architectural features that contributed to earlier height concerns. The project would provide approximately 25,717 square feet of landscaping, or about 28% of the site, and a single wall sign of roughly 50 square feet.

The three proposed employee homes would be Category 2 rentals, an income-limited category under Basalt’s housing rules. Their stated sizes are 553, 643 and 457 square feet, each exceeding the 415-square-foot minimum for a Category 2 studio. Each would have 50 square feet of storage, bicycle storage and required kitchen and bathroom amenities. Instead of separate decks, the applicant wants to combine the private outdoor-space requirement, an approach previously allowed in Willits Town Center. Hotel employees would receive first occupancy priority; if they do not fill the homes, Basalt’s normal priorities for essential and other local workers would apply.

The housing calculations need reconciliation. Staff’s summary says the applicant projected 16 jobs, translating to 13 employees, nine households and a 1.35-unit requirement at Basalt’s 15% mitigation rate. The revised application instead estimates 23 employees, 19 jobs after adjusting for people holding multiple jobs, 13 households and a 1.95-unit requirement, rounded to two homes. Three would be provided. One application table also mistakenly refers to two residential units despite repeatedly proposing three. Council can ask which employment estimate and mitigation calculation will govern the final approval.

Parking and traffic are also central questions. Staff calculates a minimum of 97.5 spaces: 93 for lodging and 4.5 for housing. The applicant’s materials calculate 99.5 by adding two owner or manager spaces, even though no manager’s unit is proposed. Ninety-three spaces would be built. Twelve are subject to a reciprocal easement benefiting adjacent businesses, leading staff to describe the request as a 16.9% reduction if those spaces are counted, or effectively about 4.7% below the project’s direct need. The applicant gives different figures of 6.5% and 18.6%. A parking-pass system and nighttime monitoring are proposed to keep guests from using nearby streets or private lots.

Kimley-Horn’s traffic study concludes that the hotel would generate no more peak-hour traffic than the theater’s most recent condition and could produce fewer trips than other uses considered for the property. The Colorado Department of Transportation reviewed the application and is not currently requiring an updated highway access permit. The hotel would add a separate emergency entrance from Sopris Village Drive. The applicant also proposes employee bus passes, airport shuttles, guest e-bikes and possible cooperation with WE-cycle. Council must weigh those findings against neighborhood concerns about East Valley Road, El Jebel Road, parking spillover and the reliability of comparisons with a theater that is no longer operating.

A proposed good-neighbor plan includes quiet hours from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m., guest parking passes, nighttime parking checks, on-site pet-relief areas, monthly litter cleanup along the pedestrian route toward the Willits roundabout and signs directing guests away from Sopris Village Park. The hotel would reconstruct the sidewalk bordering Sopris Village and monitor exterior areas. Sopris Village’s water line crosses the parking lot, and the applicant says no structure would be placed over it. The applicant also agreed to monitor the nearby Sopris Village well using an approach similar to the plan required when the El Jebel park-and-ride was built.

The applicant estimates construction could begin in May 2027 after an October 2026 building-permit submission, with the hotel and housing opening in October 2028. It projects $15.4 million in sales taxes, development fees and property taxes over ten years, including $11.8 million for Basalt and the Roaring Fork School District and $4.2 million from Basalt’s 6% lodging tax. These are applicant estimates, not guaranteed receipts. At this introductory meeting, residents may comment for three minutes during the opening public-comment period and again when the hotel hearing is called. Written comments can also be emailed to council for the public record; the supplied packet does not list a dedicated email address.

Council is being asked to approve Ordinance No. 22, Series of 2026, on first reading and schedule a public hearing and second reading for September 22. A first reading is the preliminary council vote that allows an ordinance to advance; it is not normally the final enactment. The proposal would amend Town Code Section 18-14 on fees, Section 18-23 on sustainable-building regulations and Appendix C to clarify exemptions from the Renewable Energy Mitigation Program fee for pools and spas. Planning Director James Lindt and Mitch Miller are listed as presenters.

The Renewable Energy Mitigation Program, commonly shortened to REMP, is the town’s system for addressing certain energy-intensive features through renewable-energy measures or a mitigation payment. The agenda identifies pools and spas as the focus of this amendment, but the supplied packet does not include the staff report, the existing code language, the proposed replacement language or a fee table. It therefore does not reveal exactly which pools or spas currently qualify for an exemption, which additional facilities might qualify after the change, or whether the amendment narrows rather than expands an existing exemption.

That missing language matters for property owners because an exemption determines whether a fee is owed during building review. The agenda says the purpose is to “more clearly define” exemptions, which could mean council is resolving an ambiguity rather than changing the policy’s financial effect. It could also alter how the rule applies to different kinds of projects. The materials provided do not distinguish among indoor pools, outdoor pools, permanent spas, portable hot tubs, residential projects, commercial lodging facilities, replacements or repairs. Residents should not assume any particular category is included without seeing the ordinance text.

The agenda also does not provide the current Renewable Energy Mitigation Program fee amount, the formula used to calculate it, or examples showing the cost for a typical pool or spa. No estimate is given for how many permits would be affected annually or how much revenue the town might gain or forgo. There is likewise no budget line, funding source or explanation of how collected mitigation fees are spent. Those are reasonable questions for council because even a technical clarification can have a direct effect on construction costs and town energy programs.

Three separate portions of the code would change. Section 18-14 concerns fees, suggesting the ordinance may adjust or cross-reference the town’s payment rules. Section 18-23 contains sustainable-building regulations, where the underlying requirement and exemptions likely sit. Appendix C is also named, but the agenda does not reproduce it or explain whether it contains calculations, tables or definitions. Council and the public will need the full ordinance to understand how those three changes work together and whether any wording conflicts remain.

The proposal affects owners considering a new pool or spa, contractors preparing bids, architects and engineers designing projects, and town staff reviewing permits. It may also affect buyers evaluating future improvements to residential or commercial property. The agenda does not identify a particular neighborhood, so the rule appears to apply townwide rather than only in Old Town, Willits, Southside or El Jebel. It also does not state whether already-filed applications would be reviewed under the old rule or the amended one.

For Basalt as a whole, the policy question is how to balance understandable permitting rules with the town’s energy and climate goals. Clear exemptions can prevent inconsistent decisions and unexpected bills. Broader exemptions, however, could reduce incentives to offset the energy used to heat and operate pools and spas. Narrow exemptions could strengthen the mitigation program but add costs for property owners. Without the proposed language or an estimate of energy and financial effects, the packet does not establish where Ordinance No. 22 falls along that spectrum.

Council’s options at first reading are to approve the ordinance and set September 22 for the final hearing, amend it if the changes can be made within the meeting’s legal notice, ask staff for revisions, or decline to advance it. Questions worth raising include the definition of a pool and spa, whether size or heating method matters, whether an exemption is automatic or must be documented, and whether renewable systems installed on the property can substitute for a fee. Council could also ask for side-by-side old and new language and several sample calculations before the final vote.

The timeline is short. If first reading passes, the ordinance is scheduled to return two weeks later for a public hearing and second reading, which is the final council vote. The supplied agenda does not state an effective date, grandfathering rule or administrative deadline following adoption. Those details should appear in the ordinance itself. Until that language is available, property owners with active or planned permits should confirm the applicable requirements directly with the town rather than relying on the agenda title alone.

Residents may speak for up to three minutes during the general public-comment period near the start of the meeting. Because this item is also listed as a public hearing, they may comment again when Ordinance No. 22 is called. Written comments may be emailed to council for inclusion in the record; the supplied agenda does not provide a dedicated council email address. The most useful comments would identify a concrete permitting situation or ask staff to explain, in dollars and energy terms, who is exempt before and after the amendment.

Council’s immediate action is procedural but consequential: the consent agenda would continue both 555 Basalt Avenue hearings to September 22, 2026. Resolution No. 34 would change the 2020 Basalt Master Plan’s future land-use map, while Ordinance No. 18 would grant the site-specific development approvals. A continuance keeps the public hearings open and moves the decision to a later date without approving or denying the project. Because both items are on the consent agenda, council could postpone them together without a new presentation unless a council member removes them for discussion.

The applicant, MREH LLC, requested the additional delay through a letter from Mareike Blodgett. The letter says the development team wants to conduct more neighborhood outreach and more thoroughly explore concerns raised at the August 25 hearing. It says a family medical emergency prevented that work from occurring before September 8. The applicant therefore asks council to continue the hearings to September 22. The agenda follows that request for both the master-plan resolution and development ordinance.

This is the latest step in a long review of the Myers and Company property at 555 Basalt Avenue. Council has considered the application at least six times, including meetings on March 24, April 28, June 9, July 14, August 11 and August 25. On August 11, Ordinance No. 18 passed first reading 4-3, with Council Members Hannah Berman, Angela Anderson Ward, Angele Dupre-Butchart and Elyse Hottel supporting it and Greg Shaffran, Rick Stevens and Mayor David Knight opposed. A first reading is a preliminary vote; the ordinance still requires a second reading and final approval.

The current plan contains 42 homes: 30 condominium-style units in two northern buildings and 12 live-work homes incorporated into the warehouse area. It also includes 42 warehouse-style units and two 880-square-foot community-serving commercial spaces. Twenty-seven of the 42 homes would be deed-restricted, a 64% share. All 12 live-work homes would be Resident Occupied units, meaning they must serve as the occupant’s primary residence under Basalt’s housing rules. Five would include a local-priority purchase process.

The warehouse component has also evolved. Eighteen units could accommodate light-industrial businesses as well as storage, while 24 would remain storage-only to comply with traffic limits. Only 12 of all 42 warehouse units would be unrestricted free-market storage under the latest applicant presentation. Three deed-restricted spaces are intended for artist incubators or craft and maker uses. The two community-serving commercial spaces would prioritize organizations such as nonprofits, government services or local meeting uses whenever they change ownership, and a small grocery or market has been added as an eligible use.

Infrastructure promises include up to $175,000 for Fiou Lane improvements following the Charlier Alternative 4 concept, up to $180,000 for East Cody Lane paving and drainage work, and another $40,000 for improvements at the Cody Lane roundabout. The applicant estimates total infrastructure contributions and fees at approximately $2.6 million. The Fiou Lane concept would make the route one-way, an element that has drawn substantial Southside concern. Residents have also asked whether Summerset should remain a trail, whether a second Southside exit should precede more development, and whether the site plan could be reversed so homes face Fiou Lane and warehouse uses face Cody Lane.

At the August 25 hearing, speakers raised traffic congestion, emergency evacuation, school-hour backups, truck movements, lighting, visual screening and the cumulative effects of the remaining Stotts Mill development. Several called for another connection to Highway 82 or an underpass before additional Southside growth. Others questioned whether more storage is the best use of a major site and whether live-work units meet family housing needs. Some supported the higher deed-restriction percentage but urged council to seek more conventional workforce homes.

The applicant says the existing Myers Steel business creates substantial truck and employee traffic that would disappear if the redevelopment proceeds. The project’s traffic consultant previously concluded that the new uses would result in no net increase compared with master-plan traffic assumptions. Some residents disputed the scope of the studies and requested an all-day analysis rather than peak-hour counts. Emergency access remains a broader policy concern because Southside traffic ultimately reaches Basalt Avenue even when individual streets are reconfigured.

Other proposed conditions address exterior lighting, electric and solar readiness, drainage, construction order and certificates of occupancy—the town approvals allowing completed spaces to be used. Council members have debated whether free-market homes or storage units should be prevented from receiving occupancy approval until enough deed-restricted homes are finished. Screening is another unresolved detail: neighbors have requested a fence or substantial landscaping along Southside-facing edges, while council members have differed over which approach would be more attractive and effective. Fire rules limiting vegetation near buildings complicate that choice.

The linked legal steps matter. Resolution No. 34 would remove the site’s current industrial designation from the master-plan map. Ordinance No. 18 depends on that change and would approve special review, site plan and a planned unit development amendment—the negotiated zoning rules for this property. Council could ultimately approve both, deny either, amend conditions or continue them again. Mayor Knight and Council Members Stevens and Shaffran have voiced concerns about changing the area’s industrial character or allowing development before major access improvements.

No new dollar amount, unit count or condition is proposed in the September 8 agenda. The only stated change is the applicant’s request for two more weeks to complete outreach and evaluate concerns. If council approves the continuance, the hearings return September 22 rather than being decided at this meeting. Residents may still use the three-minute general public-comment period on September 8. When the hearings return, they may comment again when each item is called, and they can email council beforehand so their comments become part of the written record.