Carbondale planning commission continues hearing on proposed mixed‑use building at 242256 Main Street amid height, shading and public‑access questions

The Carbondale Planning and Zoning Commission on Feb. 12 continued the public hearing on a proposed three‑story, mixed‑use development at 242256 Main Street so staff and the applicant can provide additional studies and clearer commitments on public rooftop access and shadowing.

The proposal, presented by Andrew Dillon, a partner at ForumFi, would replace a one‑story commercial building with about 15,000 square feet of new space — roughly 9,000 square feet of commercial space and 6,000 square feet of residential units — and asks the commission for two alternative compliance exceptions: a reduction in ground‑floor floor‑to‑floor height from 14 to 12 feet and height overrides for stair and elevator overruns to permit roof access.

Why it matters: commissioners and members of the public focused on whether the project’s mass at this block of Main Street — adjacent to the Village Smithy — would harm the downtown’s historic character and reduce winter sunlight on the Smithy yard and Main Street. Commissioners also pressed the applicant for a binding mechanism to guarantee that the rooftop deck would function as a public amenity rather than a rarely used private amenity.

Staff presentation and HPC feedback

Ellie, planning staff, summarized packet materials and the Historic Preservation Committee’s (HPC) courtesy review, saying HPC members were “not very supportive of the current proposal” and flagged the building’s massing and relationship to the Smithy as primary concerns. Staff also noted that the four alternative‑compliance criteria — consistency with the intent of the standard, advancement of comp‑plan goals, community benefits that exceed the standard, and no greater impacts on adjacent properties — had not been clearly demonstrated in the materials provided.

Applicant argument and design details

Andrew Dillon said the building meets the district’s three‑story limit, that the design breaks the 75‑foot facade into smaller 25‑foot bays, and that the roof deck elevation (the usable deck) would sit at about 33 feet 4 inches, below the 35‑foot typical roof limit; the taller measurements sought were limited to stair/elevator overruns needed for access. "We're not asking for an alternative compliance to take the overall mass and scale of the building up," Dillon said, arguing the elevator and stair elements would be set back and largely not visible from the street.

On the ground‑floor height request, the applicant said reducing floor‑to‑floor from 14 to 12 feet yields livable second‑ and third‑floor units while preserving the street appearance. "From the street side, there is no difference between the design as it sits from either 14 or 12 feet," Dillon said.

Public concern: scale, shading and use of rooftop

Multiple public commenters urged caution. Susan Ray, a resident, pointed to the comp plan direction to preserve downtown character and urged the commission to consider winter shading, not just summer sun studies. "When I look at the last drawing that they had up ... it sure looks like it fits in with the bakery building next door," Ray said, but added concerns about shading and likely future requests for liquor or extended hours.

Max Phyllis, a Carbondale‑based general contractor and Main Street property owner, said the proposed mass did not fit the town’s historic core and warned that the project would cast significant winter shade on Main Street and the Smithy. He cited UDC language intended to mitigate visual impacts of large buildings.

Rooftop access and public amenity questions

Commissioners repeatedly asked how the public would know when the rooftop was open, and whether the town could secure minimum public‑access days. Dillon said the roof would be public only for scheduled events (for example, First Fridays) and that private events would be by invitation. "If the building's open on First Friday ... it's open to anyone who's out on the street," he said, and signaled that a development agreement or contractual condition could be explored to formalize access and safety requirements.

Commission deliberation and next steps

Commissioners expressed mixed views: some said the façade treatment preserves the pedestrian experience and that a carefully drawn precedent could be acceptable; others raised concerns about setting a precedent that could be invoked by future applicants. Commissioners requested revised and additional materials, including a winter solstice and mid‑season solar/shade study, clearer language or agreements to guarantee public rooftop hours, material samples or more realistic renderings showing elevator/stair screening, and clarification of measured floor‑to‑ceiling examples from existing Main Street buildings.

The commission voted to continue the hearing to the March 12 P&Z meeting to allow staff and the applicant time to supply the requested studies and revised materials. Chair (name not stated) said staff would aim to have materials in time for review ahead of the next meeting and encouraged the applicant to provide information early enough for a staff memo prior to the reconvened hearing.

What’s next

The hearing was continued to March 12 to allow the applicant to deliver additional solar/shadow analysis, revised renderings and proposed public‑access conditions or development agreement language; staff indicated a short turnaround will be required to prepare a supplemental staff memo for commissioners ahead of the next session.