Carbondale planning commission approves 11‑room downtown lodging project with parking waiver

The Carbondale Planning and Zoning Commission on April 24 approved a minor site plan, conditional use permit and an alternative‑compliance parking request for a proposed 11‑unit lodging development at 888 Main Street.

Planning staff recommended approval and commissioners voted to adopt Resolution No. 4, Series 2025 with the updated conditions of approval; the motion passed unanimously among commissioners present.

The project, presented by project architect Bob Ramsey and owner Mike Arnold, would place two small buildings around a central courtyard with 11 lodging units (nine ~600‑square‑foot units, one smaller “hotel‑style” unit and one ADA accessible unit), amenities including a sauna, bike parking and a fire pit, and 10 on‑site parking spaces. The applicant asked the commission for a one‑space reduction from the Unified Development Code requirement (11 spaces) and proposed removal of an existing curb cut on Main Street to create one additional public on‑street space nearby.

Ellie, a town planning staff member, told the commission the project meets dimensional standards: proposed impervious cover is about 73% (below the 80% maximum), maximum height is 23 feet (below the 35‑foot allowance), and setbacks meet the code (5 feet from Main Street and the west property line; 20 feet to the rear and to Main Court). Staff also recommended conditions to add a planting schedule and to require review by the tree board for any public‑right‑of‑way trees; the town arborist had requested removal of one spruce tree, which the applicant accepts.

Why it matters: downtown lodging is a stated objective in the town’s comprehensive plan for the “new urban” designation on this block, and commissioners described the project as a modest, pedestrian‑oriented investment intended to support restaurants and retail on Main Street.

Design and operations

Project lead Bob Ramsey described the development as a compact, courtyard‑focused lodging concept inspired by similar properties on the Western Slope. “The central courtyard is the heartbeat of the property,” Ramsey said, adding the team intentionally kept on‑site amenities limited so guests will use downtown businesses. The units will be all‑electric except for the fire pit, which will use gas. The application includes a potential solar array on the sun‑facing roof slope; the applicant said the array will be installed but panel counts are still being sized and will be shown on later plans.

The two buildings are intentionally similar in form to create a rhythmic identity on the small lot; staff flagged the UDC goal that multiple‑building developments show architectural diversity, but commissioners agreed the symmetry and scale are appropriate for this site.

Parking, circulation and public‑works items

The most substantive planning debate centered on parking and curb‑cut removal. The UDC requires one parking space per lodging room (11 spaces); the applicant proposes 10 on‑site spaces plus removing the existing curb cut on Main Street to allow one additional public on‑street space adjacent to the site. Public works staff indicated that Main Court is a low‑volume street and supported the design that would allow on‑street backing that exists elsewhere in the neighborhood. Kevin (public works director) and staff acknowledged that some streets in town (e.g., Main Street proper) are unsuitable for backing‑out parking and suggested staff could investigate whether the UDC provision about backing onto streets should be revisited for specific streets.

Commissioners and speakers raised operational questions — how cleaning staff and short‑turnover activity will be managed, how to ensure guest parking remains available and how refuse will be handled. The applicant said staff and cleaning vehicles would use on‑site spaces when available and park on‑street if necessary; refuse will be stored inside a screened enclosure (code requires a minimum six‑foot fence and building permit review will include elevation details).

Sewer and utilities

Engineer Yancey of Sopris Engineering reviewed sewer capacity analysis included in the packet. He said the local sewer main is not near capacity under normal conditions but can approach capacity during pool backflush events. He estimated the existing line might accommodate additional units before a peak‑time capacity issue would occur, but noted the system includes old clay pipe that will need replacement at some point. The project’s sewer connection will include a small lift station to address grading and fall limitations on the site.

Public comment and neighborhood concerns

Speakers at the hearing were mostly supportive of downtown lodging. Missy Moore, artistic director of Thunder River Theater Company, and Leslie Lamont, co‑owner of Tiny Pine Bistro, said the project would help downtown businesses. A nearby resident at 820 Main Court (who identified themself as the HOA president for that small grouping of townhomes) supported the project but asked the town to consider Main Court’s pavement, drainage and pedestrian improvements because that stretch currently lacks sidewalks and has recurring maintenance issues.

Commission action and conditions

Commissioners discussed staff’s recommended conditions and a last‑minute edit to condition 7. Staff removed a requirement that any change of ownership trigger a new conditional‑use permit and replaced it with a narrower rule: future expansions or changes in the motel use (such as additions to the building or expansions of the conditional use) will require a new review and conditional‑use permit. The action on the record was:

Motion: “I move to approve Resolution Number 4, Series 2025 with the conditions of approval listed in the updated resolution.” Mover: not specified in the record Second: not specified in the record Outcome: approved (ayes all around among commissioners present)

The resolution approval is conditioned on the items in the staff packet (planting schedule, tree‑board review for right‑of‑way trees, public‑works development agreement for sidewalk/curb replacements tied to the curb‑cut removal, refuse enclosure details at building permit stage, and final solar array sizing on building permit plans) and the redraft of condition 7 limiting mandatory re‑review to expansions or changes of use rather than changes of ownership.

What happens next

Staff said the project will return to building permit review, where details such as refuse enclosure elevations, final solar array sizing, and documentation of ADA accessibility will be verified. The applicant and town will finalize a development improvements agreement for sidewalk and curb work tied to the curb‑cut removal. Staff also indicated they will follow up on neighborhood concerns about Main Court pavement, drainage, and on whether code language about parking that backs onto streets warrants a broader update.

The commission’s approval clears the project to proceed to permitting subject to the listed conditions.