Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Castle Pines board approves setback variance for proposed Advanced Auto Parts store
Summary
The Board of Adjustment approved a variance allowing a reduced setback for a proposed Advanced Auto Parts store on a small, easement‑encumbered lot. The 11.2‑foot setback request (where 20 feet is required) passed on a 4–3 vote with conditions including payment of city fees and a future site improvement plan review.
The Castle Pines Board of Adjustment on March 26 approved a setback variance that would allow a new Advanced Auto Parts retail‑service building to be sited as close as 11.2 feet to Leguay Road, down from the 20‑foot setback required by the zoning code.
Senior planner Lisa Rollinout told commissioners the request is narrowly about building placement, not land use. “The applicant is requesting a variance to the minimum building setback requirement in order to construct an advanced auto parts retail service building,” she said. Rollout summarized staff findings that the lot is constrained by overlapping utility easements, a regional detention facility and topography and that referral agencies returned no objections. According to staff, the requested 11.2‑foot setback represents about a 44% reduction from the 20‑foot standard.
Developer and applicant representatives said they explored multiple layouts and prototypes. Lucy Deneen of Cadence Capital, the applicant’s development representative, described fixed constraints that limited placement: “So just to be really clear, what we're asking for is on the east side of the building, there is a 20 foot building setback required. We could only, in our fine tuning, could only get to, on 1 side of it, 11.2 setback, and the other at the closest was 14.” Advanced Auto’s senior project manager Adam Schroyer said the company’s prototype and parking needs drove the request and that reducing building area to avoid the variance would threaten the store’s operating model.
Commissioners pressed the applicant on alternatives — smaller prototypes, shifting the building, and whether the detention pond could be reconfigured — and asked staff to clarify the standard the board should apply. Staff noted the code permits relief when strict application would cause “peculiar and undue practical difficulties” and that variance approval commonly considers practical difficulty (Section 26.03 as cited in the staff analysis).
When the motion to approve was made, it included two conditions: the applicant must remit all fees and costs incurred by the city and its consultants, and the applicant must submit a site improvement plan for subsequent review and approval by the planning commission. The motion to approve passed on a 4–3 vote. The clerk recorded votes and public discussion before the chair declared, “The motion passes.”
What happens next: the applicant must file the required site improvement plan application and return for planning commission review of site‑level design, landscaping and final engineering. The approval is conditioned on the agreed fees and the future site improvement plan review.
