Castle Pines study session reviews Central Business District zoning, design guidelines and site-plan approval process

Castle Pines City held a study session on July 9, 2024, in which city planning staff presented proposed updates to the Unified Land Development Code aimed at shaping development in the Central Business District and asked council for direction on five topic areas, including permitted uses, design guidelines and the level of review for site improvement plans.

Donna Ferguson, the staff presenter, described the session as "a theme discussion" intended "to set up a further discussion about our unified land development code that we are updating," and laid out slides showing the CBD boundary, legacy and emerging areas, and the code sections staff proposes to revise. Ferguson said the legacy business area covers "about 130 acres" with "52 lots or tracts" of which "29 [are] developed," and walked council through the current classification of principal, accessory and special-review uses.

Why this matters: changes to the code would govern what kinds of businesses can locate in the city’s central commercial area, how close commercial buildings can be to residences, and whether future site improvement plans are decided administratively or require discretionary public review—decisions that affect property owners, developers and nearby residents.

Key details and debate

- Permitted uses and nonconforming operations: Staff explained that permitted, accessory and uses-by-special-review are distinct categories under the proposed code. Ferguson cautioned that existing legal nonconforming uses, such as restaurants that predate a change, may be able to continue unless their operations are abandoned for the period specified in the code (discussed in the session as roughly a six- to 12-month window).

- Development standards: Ferguson said the draft keeps a maximum building height of 60 feet ("probably four to five stories, depending on commercial or residential"), and described typical stepbacks and setback rules: 75 feet from a regional arterial (for example, Interstate 25), 40 feet from a minor arterial and 20 feet from a collector. She noted there is currently no minimum lot size in the business district and that small lots could be difficult to develop without adjustments to setbacks and parking requirements.

- Interface with residences and mitigation options: Staff identified mitigation tools—setbacks, building orientation and screening, landscaping, berms and use limitations—to reduce impacts where business parcels abut residences. Several council members urged preservation of open-space and trail connections when the city assumes ownership of small parcels being transferred from a Metro District.

- Special-review uses and public-safety facilities: Council asked whether specialized uses (examples raised in the discussion included helipads, hospital-related landing sites and fire/police stations) should remain subject to special review or be allowed as accessory uses. Staff recommended tailoring special-review criteria where public-safety justification exists.

- Site improvement plan (SIP) review level—administrative versus discretionary: A central point of debate was whether SIP approvals should be made administratively under tightened, black‑and‑white criteria (a "check-the-box" approach) or remain discretionary with Planning Commission review and the opportunity for public input. One council member argued the consequence of a strictly administrative SIP process is that "if it meets the criteria, it doesn't matter how many people show up to not support it," while others emphasized that public input is crucial during formation of the criteria and design guidelines that would govern administrative review.

What staff will do next

Staff committed to compiling examples from peer communities and returning to council with options that include clearer, enforceable criteria for administrative review, and alternatives that preserve discretionary public review for selected uses. The sign-code discussion was deferred until staff completes that homework. Ferguson summarized the takeaway: making SIPs administrative requires very precise, codified standards and, if council prefers public scrutiny, certain items should remain discretionary.

No formal votes or motions were taken during the session. Council closed the study session after agreeing staff would research models, refine draft criteria and report back; the Chair adjourned the meeting at about 7:30 p.m.