Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Commercial Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developers tell Castle Pines council that ‘rooftops first’ are needed to support a mixed‑use village center
Summary
At a Sept. 23 study session, developers Tony DeSimone and Jeff Hanlon told Castle Pines City leaders that predictable rules and residential rooftops are prerequisites for viable mixed‑use commercial development; staff noted owners may later seek an amendment for about 2,000 units to reach needed density.
Tony DeSimone, CEO of Confluence Companies, and Jeff Hanlon, founder of Oread Capital and Development, briefed the Castle Pines City Council at a Sept. 23 study session on why municipalities must pair predictability and creative incentives with developer engagement to attract mixed‑use commercial projects.
The two developers told the council that regional market conditions — elevated interest rates and higher construction costs — have slowed deal flow, and that the most reliable path to a walkable, mixed‑use village is to secure housing “rooftops” first to support ground‑floor retail and office. Jeff Hanlon said developers frequently plan 3–7 years from approval to construction and that achieving a true mixed‑use center typically requires a large number of residential units around the commercial core.
Why it matters: Castle Pines has a small set of large parcels left for development, including Parkway Plaza, a southwest parcel owned by Jack Vickers, and land held by North Canyons/North Cadence LLC on the east side. Staff told council there are limited remaining allocations in the commercial mixed‑use designation and that an owner could later request roughly 2,000 units by way of a PD amendment to reach the density developers described.
Tony DeSimone described Confluence’s vertically integrated approach and said municipalities can attract the right operators by offering predictability — a clear process, a framework development plan and upfront public‑private terms. “Predictability and creativity” were his two main asks; he said municipal tools such as tax increment financing, business improvement districts and targeted incentives can make complicated vertical mixed‑use projects feasible.
Jeff Hanlon recommended property‑specific engagement and noted that statewide affordable‑housing rules are best applied in a negotiated, tailored way in a small city: “A blanket approach is often the wrong approach and especially in a city of your kind,” he said, arguing that mutually negotiated solutions — not one‑size‑fits‑all mandates — tend to yield better outcomes in smaller markets.
Council members pressed the developers on practical steps. Speakers raised parking and traffic as common public concerns that can be mitigated by studies and by providing municipal solutions such as publicly financed parking or infrastructure contributions. One council member said residents want more restaurants and shops — an ice cream parlor was mentioned as a local example — and urged staff to define a clear vision the development community can act on.
Developers and staff recommended running a property‑specific concept or framework development plan in parallel with citywide code and comp‑plan updates, using technical assistance such as a ULI technical advisory panel when helpful. Jeff Hanlon recommended the city define community benefits under its community benefit zoning (CBC) now so landowners and developers know what the council expects.
What’s next: Council members agreed to continue the conversation and take advantage of an upcoming ULI exercise; staff flagged potential DPZ engagement and a need to align the comp plan and land‑use code with any parcel‑specific concepts. The study session adjourned to allow the council to start its regular business meeting.
