Carbondale planning commission hears Buckman annexation options for 99 Garfield Ave., raises utility, access and affordability concerns

The Carbondale Planning and Zoning Commission on April 10 heard a work session presentation from property owners Josh and Michelle Buckman and consultant Mark Chane on proposals to annex 99 Garfield Avenue into the town and redevelop the 15,200-square-foot site with housing.

The Buckmans told the commission the lot sits adjacent to town limits, is served by town utilities, and has been in their family for about 25 years. Josh Buckman said the family seeks a type of housing that allows buyers to build equity rather than produce short-term rentals, and presented three broad concepts that range from a nine-unit residential high-density (RHD) building to lower-density collections of small or modular homes and tiny-unit clusters.

Commissioners and town staff framed the discussion around three practical constraints: the town's annexation criteria in the comprehensive plan, the capacity and likely upgrade costs for water and sewer infrastructure, and site access and emergency-response requirements.

"This piece of property feels like it's in Carbondale," Josh Buckman said, explaining why the family has pursued annexation for about 15 years. Consultant Mark Chane said the parcel lies immediately adjacent to town zoning districts labeled RHD and HCC and is located a half-block from Main Street. Chane said the assessor's records show a modular unit placed on the site in 1991 and confirmed the lot is connected to town utilities.

Why it matters

The town's comprehensive plan lists "phase 1 annexation areas" for properties directly adjacent to the town and says annexations should provide a "valued asset," citing three examples: public trails/open space, affordable or attainable housing that exceeds municipal-code minimums, or agricultural land conservation. Staff said meeting that annexation threshold for a very small parcel is challenging; the Buckmans said they are willing to pursue RHD zoning and the exactions required under the UDC but need workable flexibility to produce attainable units.

Development concepts and affordability

Chane described three illustrative site concepts included with the packet: a nine-unit RHD building with enclosed parking, a mid-density plan with eight attached small units (roughly 476 square feet each in the concept), and a low-density option adding three separate homes or modulars accessed from the alley. The nine-unit design, Chane said, produced back-of-envelope sales prices that would push unit prices to roughly $1.5 million each under current local construction costs, which he and the applicants said would not meet the goal of producing attainable ownership opportunities.

"We don't need any more million-dollar condos," Josh Buckman said, arguing the nine-unit option would not produce housing affordable to local workers. The Buckmans and their consultant said modular or tiny-home approaches and smaller unit footprints could bring sale prices down but that construction and site costs, plus on-site improvements and code requirements, still risk making other units unaffordable.

Utilities and infrastructure

Town planning staff and public-works representatives told the commission the existing wastewater and water infrastructure in the immediate area is at or near capacity. Jared (planning staff) explained that depending on the final density an annexation or development could require upsizing sewer or water mains back to mains on Second Street or Main Street, adding significant cost and complexity to any project.

"Really adding any load is gonna exceed that capacity and could have larger issues," a public-works comment noted during the discussion. Marble Distilling's owner Carrie Shanks said the distillery recently paid to upgrade a water service in the same area and warned that alley utilities and pavements have been heavily used and sometimes damaged by deliveries.

Access, alleys and emergency response

Multiple speakers raised safety and circulation concerns tied to the site's primary and secondary access options. The parcel has an alley connection that several presenters described as a 20-foot-wide town alley that currently serves loading and deliveries for adjacent businesses. Commissioners, a fire-service speaker, and nearby business owners said relying on the alley for day-to-day ingress/egress for a multifamily project could create choke points for delivery trucks and impede fire apparatus. The fire representative said a design dimension they consider for apparatus deployment is roughly a 26-foot turning width, larger than the alley.

Public-works staff also said additional curb cuts from Snowmass Drive are not being entertained; that left Garfield Avenue as the likely primary access for most development concepts, with the alley as a possible emergency or secondary route.

Public comment and neighborhood concerns

Neighbors and business owners spoke in favor of the Buckmans developing the site while urging limits and protections. Carrie Shanks of Marble Distilling said her business supports development on the parcel but requested a codified agreement limiting drop-off/pick-up in the alley (due to the nearby children's center), clear protocols for heavy deliveries, and a plan to address alley maintenance and paving if traffic increases. Connie Baker, a Marble Distilling founder, described local workforce shortages and urged the commission and staff to enable housing for town workers.

Staff guidance and potential next steps

Jared and other staff members told the applicants the annexation review will be a negotiation with the Board of Trustees and that the comprehensive-plan annexation criteria require proposals to demonstrate a valued asset. Jared said there are multiple pathways the town could consider to meet the "affordable housing" valued-asset test: increasing the number or depth of deed-restricted units, adding a local real-estate transfer assessment to fund affordability, or including local preference terms for sales. The town has not required every annexation to achieve the plan's three example assets in the same way; staff said the trustees would weigh the application's response to the criteria.

Commissioners recommended that, before filing a formal annexation application, the Buckmans and staff clarify three items: (1) a circulation plan showing safe, primary access (Garfield Avenue preferred) and how emergencies and deliveries would be handled; (2) a utilities analysis showing whether and where sewer and water mains would need upsizing and who would pay for those upgrades; and (3) an affordability strategy that explains how the project would "exceed" the code minimums or otherwise meet the comprehensive-plan annexation test.

No formal application or vote occurred at the work session; staff said they will not perform a technical plan review until a formal annexation and development application is submitted. The Buckmans said the practical failure case is that, without a viable path to annexation and redevelopment, the site could remain a single unit and effectively block redevelopment for many years.

What happens next

Staff encouraged the applicants to return with a formal application that includes utility and circulation details and a draft affordability approach or pre-annexation concepts that the trustees could consider. Commissioners suggested the applicants consider modular or mixed-size units and flagged the alley maintenance, emergency access and potential capital costs for utility upsizing as items that must be resolved in future submittals.