Housing choices, speed cameras and charging fees

Council is not being asked to approve construction or a land-use application at this meeting. During a 5 p.m. work session, staff and the project team will present the latest outreach, site plans and reduced-density options for the Willits Housing and Community Space project on Parcel 2E. Staff recommends scheduling two more work sessions: one on housing density, cost per unit, total cost, financing and construction phases, and another on the community space’s size, operating plan and construction cost. No formal decision is required while council reviews this information.

Parcel 2E is a nearly 2.5-acre town property on Lewis Lane in Willits Town Center. Council directed staff in November 2023 to study affordable housing and a community facility there. Basalt received a $200,000 More Housing Now grant from the Colorado Department of Local Affairs in February 2024 for daycare and affordable-housing design and engineering. The award came from state severance-tax proceeds. The town then selected a Charles Cunniffe Architects and Design Workshop team after issuing a request for proposals in May 2024 and interviewing design teams that August.

The project follows earlier ideas for the site, including an arts center with artist housing in 2011 and a childcare facility with staff housing in 2021. Affordable housing was the highest-ranked problem in public outreach for Basalt’s 2020 Master Plan, which placed an affordable-housing overlay on Parcel 2E. In 2021, voters approved the 2030 Basalt Forward bond initiative, which included support for affordable-housing progress, with 71% approval. The packet does not say how much bond funding is available for this particular project or commit that money to construction.

The current design shows 44 homes, or 30 units per acre, with all residential parking on site. It includes 23 homes in the Lewis Lane building, 11 in the Willits Lane building and 10 townhomes. The Lewis Lane building would be three stories over the community center and gym, with six homes on a partial fourth floor and parking below. The Willits Lane building would be two stories with partly buried tuck-under parking. The townhomes would be two stories with on-site parking. Plans also show pocket parks, a green roof, a community roof deck, landscaping and an existing pedestrian path.

The full community center is shown at 13,500 square feet: 5,850 square feet of flexible community space and a 7,650-square-foot gymnasium. Thirty-five street parking spaces are shown for the community use. A reduced-density scenario would remove 5,900 square feet and the partial fourth floor of the Lewis Lane building. That could lower the total to 38 homes by removing six units, or preserve more housing while reducing community-center space. Community-space alternatives range from 7,600 to 13,500 square feet and include eliminating the gym or providing a half-size, 3,825-square-foot gym with 3,775 square feet of other community space.

For context, the packet says nearby residential development averages 54 units per acre. It lists the Hub at Willits at 43 units on 0.75 acres, Lumen Residences at 31 units on 0.5 acres, Willits Seven at 50 units on one acre, Triangle Park Lofts at 42 units on 0.75 acres and Market Street Lofts at 44 units on 0.75 acres. The project team also prepared views from Robinson Street, Willits Lane, Lewis Lane, Lumen Residences and Market Street Lofts. Nearby building heights listed in the presentation range from 40 feet at One Willits Place to 55 feet at the Element Hotel, measured from sidewalk level.

Public opinion remains mixed. Fall 2024 outreach generated 132 survey responses, 1,029 visual-preference responses, 26 completed game boards and nine focus groups. Participants narrowly preferred community space over recreation space, 51% to 49%. Youth favored a basketball court, while other frequently supported ideas included after-school programming, flexible rooms, a youth zone, a community kitchen, cooking classes, outdoor space and a vegetated buffer. Fall 2025 outreach drew 69 attendees, 131 written sticky-note comments and 43 preference votes. Top choices included youth programming, flexible space, cooking classes, native plants, landscape lighting, shade and public art.

Neighbors raised unresolved concerns about traffic, overflow parking, building height, density, wildlife, lighting and the overall intensity of combining housing with a public facility. Some participants want the site devoted entirely to town-owned affordable housing; others support a community center, while some question whether existing facilities already meet that need. Council previously directed the team to retain community space but reduce the 44-unit concept’s height, particularly along Lewis Lane. The central trade-off is that fewer homes or fewer floors may reduce neighborhood impacts but increase the cost per home or reduce the public space available.

The packet does not provide a construction budget, operating subsidy, proposed rents or sales prices, income limits, bedroom mix, financing package or completion date. Those questions are intended for the next two work sessions. If council eventually supports the concept, it would proceed into sketch-plan and land-use review during 2026, followed by preliminary and final review and another year of public outreach. Residents may speak for three minutes during the regular meeting’s call to the public and may comment again when the work-session item is called; comments can also be emailed to council for inclusion in the public record.

Council will hold a public hearing and consider the second reading of Ordinance No. 04, Series of 2026. A second reading is the final council vote ordinarily required before an ordinance can become law. The measure would allow accessory dwelling units in Basalt’s residential zoning districts and revise the town’s affordable-housing mitigation requirements. An accessory dwelling unit is a smaller independent home on the same property as a main home, such as a basement apartment, an apartment over a garage or a detached backyard cottage. Staff recommends adoption.

Council approved the ordinance on first reading February 10 by a 6-0 vote. First reading is a preliminary approval that moves a proposal to a later public hearing rather than making it final. During that discussion, council asked staff to explore parking options for accessory units before the second reading. The agenda does not include a staff report showing whether the ordinance language was revised, what parking alternatives were developed or whether council’s earlier request resulted in a recommended amendment.

The proposal grew out of Basalt’s 2024 Housing Needs Assessment, completed by Economic and Planning Systems. That study recommended allowing accessory units throughout town, establishing an incentive program and reconsidering the amount of affordable housing that new development must provide or help finance. Basalt then received a Colorado Department of Local Affairs Planning Capacity Grant and hired Design Workshop and Economic and Planning Systems to develop the policy framework and code language. The supplied materials do not state that grant’s amount or the town’s consulting contribution.

During 2025, the consultants worked on town-wide zoning amendments, accessory-unit incentives and changes to community housing mitigation. Housing mitigation is the requirement that certain development offset some of the demand it creates for local workers’ housing, usually by providing affordable homes or making another approved contribution. The Basalt Affordable Community Housing Commission reviewed the proposal January 22, 2026, and the Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing February 3. Both bodies generally supported moving it forward, although they raised policy questions that council must ultimately settle.

Ordinance No. 04 would amend the town code’s definitions, residential-district regulations, special rules for the R-4 Mixed Density Residential district, planned unit development procedures and Article XIX governing housing mitigation. It would also add a new Article XXIII devoted to accessory dwelling units. A planned unit development is a customized land-use approval with site-specific rules that may differ from ordinary zoning. The supplied agenda does not reproduce the final ordinance text, so it remains unclear whether details such as maximum unit size, setbacks, fees, owner occupancy and enforcement changed after first reading.

One unresolved issue from the earlier review involved smaller projects and homes. The Basalt Affordable Community Housing Commission recommended retaining a mitigation exemption for smaller homes in projects of three or fewer units, but tightening the size limits. Its proposal would reduce the qualifying maximum for a single-family home not restricted to a primary resident from 3,000 to 1,500 square feet. For a multifamily home, the comparable limit would fall from 1,400 to 1,000 square feet. The earlier draft followed council’s prior policy direction instead, and this agenda does not say whether the commission’s alternative has been added.

Another issue was whether accessory units outside the town’s incentive program must serve a primary resident. A primary-residence rule generally requires the home to be someone’s main residence rather than a vacation property, but the exact definition and enforcement method matter. The Planning and Zoning Commission asked council to consider alternative language. Council’s February 10 discussion also addressed off-street parking, possible variances and whether the town could help neighborhoods update private homeowners-association covenants. Staff explained that the town cannot itself amend those private agreements, so an association prohibition could still prevent an accessory unit even if town zoning allows one.

The measure could create more small homes within established neighborhoods and give owners rental income or room for relatives, caregivers or local workers. It could also add vehicles, parking demand and activity on individual properties. Those effects would vary by neighborhood and lot, but the agenda does not provide an estimate of how many units could be built, where demand is greatest or what rents are expected. It also does not spell out the cost or timing of an incentive program, whether existing unapproved units could be legalized, or whether any new staff or inspection resources would be needed.

Council may adopt the ordinance, amend it, continue the hearing for more work or reject it. Reasonable questions include whether parking requirements should vary by location, whether every accessory unit should house a primary resident, how to keep units available for local housing, and how much affordable-housing mitigation small projects should carry. Residents may speak for three minutes during the call to the public near the start of the regular meeting and again during the public hearing when Ordinance No. 04 is called. Written comments may be emailed to council for the public record.

Council will consider the first reading of Ordinance No. 05, Series of 2026. The ordinance would add Section 8-8 to Basalt’s municipal code to authorize the use of automated vehicle identification systems and amend the penalty schedule in Appendix C. In ordinary terms, these are camera systems that identify vehicles and document possible traffic violations. Staff recommends preliminary approval and scheduling a public hearing and second reading for March 10. The February 24 vote would move the ordinance forward, not provide final adoption.

This is the next step after a February 10 presentation by Basalt Police Lieutenant Aaron Munch and DacraTech representative Brandon Knox. Council reviewed how an automated speed-enforcement program could work and heard results from a Basalt speed study. Members asked about camera placement, snow or mud covering license plates, data storage, signs, the warning period, appeals, repeat violations, revenue, collection rates, equipment costs and whether police could receive real-time alerts about extreme speeding. Council then directed staff to return with an ordinance, financial information and options.

The underlying study was prepared by DacraTech and published January 8. Rekor Systems collected speeds from December 16 through December 22, 2025, at two Highway 82 locations: north of Original Road and south of Two Rivers Road. Both northbound and southbound traffic were measured. DacraTech converted the seven-day sample into average daily and estimated monthly figures. Those monthly numbers are projections from one December week, not a full month of directly observed traffic, which is important when weighing the size of the apparent problem.

North of Original Road, where the posted limit was 55 miles per hour, northbound traffic had a median speed of 54 and an 85th-percentile speed of 60. The 85th percentile means 85% of measured vehicles were traveling at or below that speed and 15% were faster. The study projected 349,444 northbound vehicles per month and classified 8,734 events, or 2.5%, in its automated-enforcement citable category. Southbound traffic had a median of 56 and an 85th-percentile speed of 62. The projection classified 25,200 monthly southbound events, or 6.9%, as citable.

Northbound south of Two Rivers Road, also in a 55-mile-per-hour zone, had a median speed of 51 and an 85th-percentile speed of 56. The study projected 352,864 vehicles per month, with 1,346 events, or 0.4%, in its citable category. The most serious result was southbound at that location, where the speed limit drops to 45. The median measured speed was 53, and the 85th-percentile speed was 59. Only 8.3% of vehicles were recorded at or below 45 miles per hour.

For that southbound Two Rivers Road location, DacraTech projected 345,467 monthly vehicles and classified 125,691 events, or 36.4%, as citable. The projection included 191,190 vehicles traveling from 46 to 55 miles per hour, 81,707 from 56 to 60, 28,916 from 61 to 65 and 15,069 at 66 or faster. The study supports the police department’s safety concerns, but the ordinance title does not itself approve a specific camera location, and the supplied agenda does not say whether the first installation would be near Two Rivers Road, Original Road or somewhere else.

The earlier vendor presentation described equipment mounted 10 to 14 feet high, powered by electricity or solar energy and capable of nighttime image capture. It also outlined a process in which images are captured, alleged violations are reviewed, notices are mailed and drivers may pay, contest the allegation or request a hearing. Colorado implementation steps described by the vendor included state permitting, choosing an enforcement partner, adopting an ordinance, holding public hearings, installing equipment and posting signs. Adding later sites would require a permit amendment and another site hearing.

Several practical and financial questions remain unanswered in the supplied pages. The agenda does not provide the proposed ticket amount, camera locations, warning-period length, vendor contract price, equipment count, projected revenue, operating cost or division of revenue between the town and a contractor. It does not include the full new Section 8-8 or revised penalty schedule, so residents cannot see from the excerpt exactly what violations could be enforced, who reviews the evidence, how long records would be kept or how appeals would proceed. Those details are central to judging fairness and privacy.

Council’s trade-off is between a system that could slow traffic without placing an officer at one location all day and concerns about cost, due process, privacy and whether enforcement should begin only where the strongest safety data exist. Council can approve first reading, amend the ordinance, request more details or decline to advance it. Residents may speak for three minutes during the call to the public and again when Ordinance No. 05 is called. Because the formal public hearing is proposed for March 10, residents would have another opportunity then; comments can also be emailed to council for the record.

Council will hold a public hearing and consider final adoption of Ordinance No. 03, Series of 2026. The measure would establish prices and use policies for Basalt’s six electric-vehicle charging stations. It would amend Section 8-2 and Appendix C of the municipal code. Council approved first reading February 10, and staff recommends adoption on second reading. A second reading is the final council vote normally required before an ordinance becomes law.

Basalt operates six stations with 12 charging plugs: four Level 2 stations and two direct-current fast chargers, also called Level 3 chargers. Level 2 equipment generally takes longer to charge a vehicle, while a direct-current fast charger can add energy much more quickly. Packet maps identify charging locations in Old Town and Willits, including a Level 2 station at Lions Park. The supplied materials do not list the street address and plug count for every location.

The town has been providing the electricity without a user charge, but staff says use and operating costs have grown. From September through December 2025, the stations delivered more than 78,000 kilowatt-hours. Staff used a United States Environmental Protection Agency calculator to compare that amount with the emissions from 4,720 gallons of gasoline, 4,121 gallons of diesel or 46,598 pounds of coal. Those are emissions comparisons; they do not prove that each charging session directly replaced a gasoline or diesel trip.

The proposed base price is 15 cents per kilowatt-hour at Level 2 stations and 40 cents per kilowatt-hour at Level 3 stations. Staff estimated that charging a standard-range Tesla Model 3 from 25% to 100% would require roughly 40 to 60 kilowatt-hours, depending on temperature, battery condition and other factors. At the proposed base rates, that example would cost about $6 to $9 on Level 2 or $16 to $24 on Level 3. Customers would also pay a 9% network and credit-card processing fee and any applicable taxes.

The ordinance also includes an overstay policy intended to keep a fully charged vehicle from blocking a plug. After charging finishes, a driver would receive a 15-minute grace period and then be charged 25 cents for each additional minute. That equals $15 per hour. The original proposal suspended overstay charges from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. for all stations. During first reading, council decided that Level 3 fast chargers should carry the overstay charge at all hours because faster turnover is more important at those stations. The overnight exemption would remain relevant to the slower Level 2 chargers.

Other parking rules would continue to apply. The existing penalty schedule lists a $60 fine, plus surcharges, when a vehicle that is not electric occupies an electric-vehicle charging space. The charging ordinance is separate from that parking citation. A driver using a station could therefore pay for electricity and processing, and could also face an overstay fee if the vehicle remains after charging and the grace period. The packet does not explain whether the charging network would send a text or application alert when a session ends.

Staff estimated average monthly gross charging revenue of $5,968.96 at the recent level of use. Basalt’s average monthly Holy Cross Energy bill was listed as $2,448.05, leaving $3,520.91 before software, maintenance and other costs. Staff assumed use would decline by 40% after fees begin and estimated annual revenue of $25,350.53 under that assumption. The estimate does not include possible overstay-fee collections, making that source of revenue uncertain.

Projected annual operating and maintenance expenses total $11,650. That includes $7,200 for four hours per month of Arcos maintenance, $2,800 for Level 2 AmpUp software and $1,650 for Level 3 AmpUp software. Staff therefore projects a remaining annual balance of $13,700.53. The town says that money could cover unexpected repairs or be reinvested in electric-vehicle facilities or other green infrastructure. The packet does not create a binding reserve policy or identify a particular future project for the balance.

The main policy question is whether users rather than the general town budget should cover charging costs, balanced against the town’s interest in encouraging lower-emission transportation. The two-tier price reflects the greater cost and convenience of fast charging, while the overstay fee prioritizes access rather than energy use. Council may adopt the ordinance, amend the rates or rules, continue the hearing or reject it. The earlier staff report anticipated beginning the program in spring 2026, but no exact launch date is provided.

Residents may speak for three minutes during the call to the public near the beginning of the regular meeting and again during the public hearing when Ordinance No. 03 is called. Comments may also be emailed to council for inclusion in the public record. Drivers who rely on the Old Town or Willits stations may wish to address the rates, overnight treatment, processing fee or whether the projected surplus should be reserved specifically for charging infrastructure.