Carbondale planning commission continues review of 522 Highway 133 restaurant after debate over stone-to-concrete change

The Carbondale Planning and Zoning Commission continued public hearing review of a material-change request for a proposed restaurant at 522 Highway 133 after debate over replacing an approved stone wall with poured concrete.

The applicant, Ryan Lee, told the commission the application under review was “really just the material change” and that the team proposed switching a portion of the approved stone cladding to poured concrete to improve constructability and reduce cost. Lee said the proposed concrete would be a gray, earth-toned finish intended to “preserve the original earth tone aesthetic” and that the altered area is “probably less than 15% of [the] overall area.”

Commissioners and nearby residents have treated the site as a gateway to town, and members pressed the applicant on appearance and durability. Commissioner Franco Palumbo said he was “Disappointed to see the proposal, not to have that stone,” arguing the stone fit the character of the entrance. Other commissioners and attendees suggested design compromises that would keep costs down while avoiding a single, unbroken gray face — for example, staining or pigmenting the concrete, applying texture, or using an art or community treatment on the large vertical expanse.

Lee said the concrete option was driven partly by structural and constructability considerations: a poured-in-place concrete core was the most practical way to tie a large reclaimed-bridge structural element into the building. He also described the primary facade material for the remainder of the building as thermally modified pine; he said that product will keep its golden hue for “probably 10 to 15 years” before graying and that a maintenance plan to restain the wood would be needed in the long term.

Commissioners pressed for more detail on the proposed finish. The applicant said the concrete would be poured and predominantly a gray tone similar to the proposed stone, but commissioners asked for physical samples or a 16-by-16 mockup showing aggregate, pigment and formwork so the body could assess whether a concrete finish would harmonize with nearby buildings and the Rio Grande Trail gateway.

After discussion the commission voted to continue the public hearing to the commission meeting on June 26, 2025, and directed staff to continue permit review work where feasible while the commission considers final finish details at the continued hearing. The commission and staff agreed that if the commission is comfortable with concrete as the material choice, staff could proceed with nonfinal permit review while final finish samples are returned to the commission for approval.

At the meeting several commissioners said they would prefer a finish that avoids a single, unmodulated gray wall: suggestions included pigmented concrete to better match local stone tones, stamped or textured concrete, or a community art treatment to break the plane. The applicant and staff agreed to return with finish samples and additional detail on constructability and maintenance for the continued hearing.

The hearing continuation means the applicant must return with physical or photographic finish samples and a clearer specification of the proposed concrete mix, pigments and formwork. Staff said it will support the commission by reviewing submittals and advising whether permit review can continue in parallel with the finish review.

Votes at the meeting included approval of routine consent minutes and the commission’s decision on the 522 Highway 133 item. For the restaurant item the commission continued the public hearing to June 26, 2025, by vote (motion moved by Commissioner Kim; second not specified). Two commissioners recorded a “no” on the continuation; the chair announced the continuation passed 5–2. The commission also approved the May 8, 2025 meeting minutes as part of the consent agenda.

The commission also heard staff updates: mandatory boards-and-commissions training is scheduled (staff asked members to attend or notify staff about conflicts), and planning staff said it will ask the commission at an upcoming meeting to initiate a code-text amendment process regarding accessory dwelling unit regulations. Staff described the ADU item as a multi-step project that would include an initial commission direction and later a formal public hearing this summer.

Commissioners gave the applicant direction to return with finish samples and additional detail on how the concrete wall would be textured, pigmented or otherwise treated to avoid a single flat gray face, and asked staff to work with the applicant on a timeline for permit review and the continued hearing.

The commission adjourned after the continued-hearing vote.