A rooftop view and community benefit were items at the center of discussion in town government on Tuesday, as developers tried to convince the Carbondale Board of Trustees that the juice from their three-story building design would be worth the squeeze.
Carbondale-based architecture firm Forum Phi and local contracting company Smith Mountain Builders are looking to replace a non-historic, one-story commercial building located at 242-256 Main St., directly east of the Village Smithy. Currently occupied by Smith Mountain Builders, the companies hope to level the existing structure and construct a three-story building made of glass and brick, including a mix of three commercial and four residential units, one of which would be deed restricted.
At the center of the discussion were the applicant’s Alternative Compliance Requests under Carbondale’s Unified Development Code. The code mandates that buildings in the Historic Commercial Core meet a first floor height of 14 feet, floor-to-floor — the distance from the surface of the first floor to the surface of the second floor. The code also limits the rooftop height directly off of the Main Street “right-of-way” to 27 feet, and the height of rooftops set back 20 feet from Main Street to 35 feet.
The applicants’ three-story design proposes a first-to-second floor-to-floor height of 12 feet and a max building height of 46 feet. The max height marks the top of an elevator override which, along with a slightly shorter stairwell enclosure, protrude past the 32-foot, 10-inch rooftop that would otherwise fit within the Unified Development Code, as it’s staggered back from Main Street.
“We’re talking about 5% of the total roof area,” Forum Phi Partner Andrew Dillon said of the amount of the roof extending past the 35-foot limit.
The max-height compliance requests are predicated upon a desire to create a rooftop deck serving as a shared space for residents and visitors, Dillon told the trustees. The space also has potential to double as a concert space or community gathering area on select dates like First Fridays, according to the applicants. It would not, however, be open to the public at all times, and there is nothing written in the companies’ application guaranteeing any public use.
The applicants requested the bottom floor be lowered to account for a slightly below-max roof surface height. Forty-six feet is the max height a building can reach to remain eligible for an Alternative Compliance Request. Anything higher than that would trigger a larger review process. At 32 feet 10 inches, the surface height of the roof is more than 2 feet shorter than the max allowed to account for the 46-foot max height of the elevator.
As such, the applicants requested the bottom floor-to-floor height be compressed to 12 feet to ensure the second and third floors have high enough ceilings.
Trustees, however, didn’t in general sup-
port the Alternative Compliance Requests.
“Exceptions need to be made for exceptional properties,” Trustee Ross Kribbs said, adding later “I’m not sure that anyone’s looking at this and immediately thinking, ‘Wow, this is something that fits, that makes sense.’”
According to the Unified Development Code, Alternative Compliance Requests can be approved if they result in a benefit to the community “that exceed benefits associated with the subject standard; and imposes no greater impacts on adjacent properties that would occur through compliance with the specific requirements of this ordinance,” among other criteria.
After their own review of the application in February, March and April, the Planning & Zoning (P&Z) Commission recommended the trustees deny both Alternative Compliance Requests on the grounds that the proposed building height “does not result in benefits to the community that exceed the benefits associated with the subject standard because the proposed rooftop deck does not include permanent, consistent or defined public access and will only be accessible to the building occupants and their guests at their discretion,” the commission stated in a memorandum.
The height also “imposes visual impacts on adjacent properties and the public right of way,” the commission stated.
The commission argued that the reduced floor-to-floor height on the ground floor did not result in “benefits to the community that exceed benefits associated with the subject standard” because the reduced height only benefited the occupants of the second and third floors of the building and private rooftop access.
Trustee Colin Laird told the applicants that the board is reluctant to go against what the P&Z and staff have recommended. Mayor Erica Sparhawk brought up the longevity of infrastructure.
“I think we have to remember that the building is going to last longer than you guys,” she said.
The board did not approve or deny the application on Tuesday, but agreed to continue the public hearing with the applicants on July 28. Trustees suggested the applicants return with a better defined rooftop access proposal, putting in writing how the public would be able to use the rooftop, and asked that they submit an alternative building design without the same height exceptions.