Castle Pines study session weighs 60‑foot caps, setbacks and lot rules for proposed mixed‑use district

City staff led a study session to discuss draft changes to the Unified Land Development Code (ULDC) that would reclassify Castle Pines City’s 130‑acre legacy business district as a mixed‑use district and set standards for future redevelopment.

"Mixed use is a form of development that integrates residential and nonresidential land uses," said Donna (S1), the staff presenter, as she described vertical and horizontal integration patterns and asked commissioners to consider building heights, public amenities and setbacks when shaping the district’s character.

The draft code introduced four use categories: permitted uses, a new "limited use" category (allowed only when objective conditions are met), uses by special review, and accessory uses. Donna said staff moved parking structures from the limited‑use column into "use by special review" so a parking structure could not occupy a lot without a demonstration of need and discretionary review.

Key numeric proposals in the draft include a 60‑foot maximum building height, minimum ground‑floor heights of 15 feet for retail and 12 feet for office, 20‑foot setbacks proposed from Castle Pines Parkway (a reduction from the existing business district standard in some places), 10‑foot setbacks from collectors, 5‑foot interior lot line setbacks within the mixed‑use district, and a 60‑foot residential stepback where new buildings adjoin existing residences. The draft lists a minimum lot size of 1,000 square feet, a figure staff said they will verify.

Commissioners praised the flexibility of allowing both vertical and horizontal mixed‑use forms but repeatedly raised concerns about how to manage transitions between existing one‑ and two‑story commercial or residential properties and new multi‑story buildings. "Given the current layout, we should probably give ourselves enough flexibility to opt for both," said Commissioner (S3), urging options that fit irregular parcels. Commissioners urged buffering and stepped heights closer to neighborhoods and suggested taller buildings might be appropriate closer to I‑25.

Several commissioners questioned the 1,000‑square‑foot minimum lot size shown in the draft. Donna noted a sample vacant lot near Castle Pines Parkway measures about 0.653 acres (≈28,444 square feet) and said staff would review parcel records and return with recommended minimums; one commissioner said they expect a more realistic floor in the 8,000–10,000 sq ft range for many redevelopment scenarios.

On measurement and build‑form questions, Donna confirmed setbacks are measured from the property line (typically at the back of the sidewalk along Castle Pines Parkway), so a 20‑foot property line setback would generally be about 25 feet from the curb where a public sidewalk sits. Commissioners also noted fire and building code implications of zero lot‑line approaches and favored a small interior setback to avoid long windowless walls.

Public amenities were a recurring topic. Commissioners suggested requiring public amenity space or a percentage of site area for larger developments while offering cash‑in‑lieu for smaller infill parcels to pool funds toward larger, usable public spaces. Donna said those implementation details would be handled through site improvement plan requirements and thresholds to avoid discouraging redevelopment.

Next steps: staff will verify the smallest parcel sizes in the district, confirm applicable setbacks (including any differences on the east side of I‑25 and CDOT right‑of‑way implications), revisit landscape and gateway standards, and report back at the next study session on the fourth Thursday. No formal votes or ordinance adoptions occurred during the session.

The Planning Commission will continue the technical review, with staff returning with clarified lot‑size data, comparative setback examples and recommendations for location‑based height limits and public‑amenity thresholds.