Carbondale commission reviews detached 660‑sq‑ft ADU proposed at 734 Garfield on structure‑of‑merit lot

The Carbondale Historic Preservation Commission reviewed a proposal for a detached accessory dwelling unit at 734 Garfield during its meeting. Staff and the applicant described the project as a roughly 660‑square‑foot, two‑story ADU about 18 feet tall sited to the side and set back from the street on a property identified in the town inventory as a structure of merit. The homeowners are Lucy and Zane Kessler.

The project team described the design as “very simple” and intended to be compatible with the house’s minimal‑traditional style while remaining visually distinct. A staff presenter said the ADU would be “a detached ADU … about 660 square feet, 2 stories, 18 feet tall,” and that the proposed breezeway would connect the ADU to a later, nonhistoric addition to avoid triggering fire‑separation requirements for two separate buildings.

Commissioners and the applicant discussed siting, materials and detailing. The project designer said the ADU is “set back further from the street… minimizing its visual impact from the street,” and noted that the structure would use horizontal wood siding (likely a durable product such as hardy board) with more contemporary window proportions so the ADU “stands on its own” rather than copying the existing house.

Several commissioners suggested modest historicizing details rather than an exact replica: dormers or refined fascia and trim, paint colors that relate to the existing house, and window types that are appropriate to the pedestrian context. Commissioners also advised the design team to consider window operation on the west elevation (awnings or double‑hung rather than projecting casements) because a walkway and door align along that side.

Commissioners queried technical constraints. Staff and the designer explained the breezeway connection is proposed in part to address the building‑code fire‑separation requirement for separate structures on a single lot; that requirement was described as the reason for linking the roof line to the later nonhistoric addition. The team said the project is at schematic design and has not completed building‑department review; the designer noted, “this hasn't gone through the building department yet,” and that code reviewers may require changes (for example to the loft stair design).

Other clarifications from the discussion: the lot has about 5‑foot sideyard setbacks and the proposed ADU footprint is constrained to roughly a 14‑foot width; the ADU includes covered bike storage and a small balcony; the applicants plan to demonstrate two on‑site parking spaces as part of the future land‑use application (the town’s ADU rules require parking to be addressed); and the owners prefer to keep the ADU as a one‑bedroom unit—the commission confirmed local code allows only one‑bedroom ADUs in that zone.

Commissioner Jess Patterson recused herself from the ADU review because of a stated conflict. The commission offered design feedback but did not take a formal vote on the project; staff described this meeting as a courtesy review and said the next steps are further zoning and building‑permit review.

The applicant and staff were encouraged to return with refined material samples, a clearer front‑facing entry sequence (to avoid a sliding door reading as a primary street entrance) and clarified parking/land‑use drawings when the project advances to formal review.

No formal permit or land‑use decision was recorded at the meeting; the item will proceed through Carbondale’s land‑use and building‑department processes.