Carbondale planning panel recommends denial of 24256 Main Street plan over rooftop access and floor‑height concerns

The Carbondale Planning and Zoning Commission on April 9 voted to recommend denial of the combined major site plan and two alternative compliance requests for 24256 Main Street, citing insufficient documentation that the proposed rooftop deck would be regularly available to the public and worries that reduced ground‑floor ceiling heights would constrain future commercial uses.

The recommendation to the Board of Trustees followed a motion by Commissioner Jarrett, seconded by Commissioner Cindy, and was recorded as the commission’s formal finding after discussion of letters of support and technical clarifications. Town staff had told the commission it was still recommending denial based on previously stated concerns and the commission’s prior direction. "We're still recommending denial of the application based on our previously stated concerns," staff member Ellie said during the meeting.

The project team presented four letters of support from local nonprofits — including Carbondale Arts and Stepping Stones — that described potential nonprofit uses of a rooftop deck. Applicant representatives said the deck was intended to provide community benefit and downtown activation. "Without the roof deck, it's a building. With the roof deck, it's a building that does actually have community benefit," Andrew, an applicant representative, told the commission. Owner Zach Smith, who identified himself as the owner of Smith Mountain Builders and a local resident, said the developers wanted a project "that the community loves" and described outreach to nonprofits to secure support.

Several commissioners said the letters did not supply the objective details the commission had asked for at prior meetings — specifically, a written schedule, an administration plan for how nonprofits would use the deck, and documentation tying access commitments to the project record. Commissioner Ann said she had expected "a schedule or something in writing saying that this would be a public space and how it would be administrated," and added that the letters appeared to have been solicited by the applicant rather than independently offered.

The commission also weighed technical and accessibility issues. Staff and the applicants clarified that the building, as designed without an elevator override to the roof, would meet the town's height limits but that making the roof publicly accessible with stairs generally triggers International Building Code (IBC) accessibility requirements that would require elevator access. "You can't provide a stair that allows most of the public to get somewhere without also providing fair and equal access," an applicant representative said, summarizing accessibility obligations under the IBC.

Commissioners expressed concern that allowing a reduction in ground‑floor ceiling height to obtain the rooftop deck (and the elevator override) could limit the types of tenants that could occupy the first floor long term. Several members said that, absent clear, enforceable commitments about how and when the rooftop deck would serve the public, the deck appeared more likely to benefit building residents and private events than the wider community.

After discussion, Commissioner Jarrett moved to recommend denial of the combined application; Commissioner Cindy seconded the motion and the commission voted to forward a recommendation of denial to the Board of Trustees. The commission asked staff to draft findings consistent with the packet and discussion for the Board’s review.

The application will next be considered by the Board of Trustees. Staff and commissioners suggested that documentation such as a concrete schedule, written management/administration procedures for rooftop use, and clearer commitments tying community use to the project would strengthen any future resubmittal.