Planning commission recommends annexation and plan-development plan for Pine Canyon; commissioners and public press for traffic and school clarity

The Castle Rock Planning Commission voted to recommend that Town Council approve both the annexation and a plan-development plan (PDP) for the Pine Canyon property, a roughly 535-acre enclave north of downtown that straddles Interstate 25.

Town planning staff framed the application as an unusual, longstanding case. Staff said the property has had prior county applications and that the present filing includes a pre-annexation agreement reached between the owner and the town. Tara Vargas, planning staff, told commissioners the central question is not whether development will occur but whether it is regulated by the town or by Douglas County. "This project's a little different than some, we're not talking about whether development will happen or not. It's definitely staff's opinion that development will happen on this parcel," Vargas said.

The PDP presented by the applicant proposes a maximum of 1,800 residential units across the site, with about 800 single-family units on the east side of I-25 and up to 1,000 multifamily units concentrated adjacent to I-25 and on the west side. The plan includes about 32 percent open space, 175 acres of preserved homestead/agricultural area, a potential elementary school site of roughly 12.7 acres and multiple parks and trail connections. Applicant representatives said the homestead area would continue agricultural uses and partner with local groups such as 4-H and FFA.

On water, Castle Rock staff and the town water director described a deal in which the owner will dedicate groundwater to town supply and also reserve 106 acre-feet for agricultural irrigation in the homestead area. Mark Marlow (Town staff, water) told the commission: "So on the water, the hundred and so they're bringing 757, acre feet of groundwater to Castle Rock for the development. They'll also, of course, be meeting all of our water efficiency standards." The town also said it expects the applicant to pay system development fees and to integrate into the town's renewable water plan rather than develop a standalone county well/wastewater system.

Staff and applicant materials presented transportation modeling and identified multiple off-site intersections where the applicant has agreed to improvements. The applicant and town said an updated traffic study would be required at each site-development-plan submittal; town transportation staff said the town's transportation master plan has anticipated development of this property and that the applicant agreed to identified improvements.

Public comments and commissioners' questions focused on traffic, schools and public services. Opponents urged an updated traffic study and asked for limits on construction timing and stronger protections for areas near a natural-gas pipeline easement. Supporters and others argued the project should be annexed to ensure town standards, infrastructure funding and governance rather than leave the property to develop under county rules.

The Planning Commission first voted on annexation (recorded in the minutes as carrying; roll-call summary recorded the motion as approved) and then voted to recommend approval of the PDP. The recorded outcome for the PDP vote was 7-0; for the annexation the minutes reported approval (tally recorded as 6-0 in the transcript roll call). Both items will now be considered by Town Council; staff noted separate motions and a development agreement will be part of the council review. Vargas told commissioners: "Town Council does not have to annex this property. We still have all the rights to say no, if that's the desire of Town Council."