HCM unveils about $32 million schematic plan for west side of Soaring Hawk Park in Castle Pines

Castle Pines — Designers from HCM presented a schematic design for the west parcel of Soaring Hawk Park at a Parks and Recreation Advisory Board meeting on Jan. 15, describing sports fields, courts, inclusive playgrounds, trails and a phased build approach with a west-parcel cost estimate of about $32 million.

Robin Bartling, principal and state architect with HCM, said the schematic refines the park’s 74-acre master plan and focuses on the roughly 25-acre west parcel. “What schematic design is…is the next step after master plan,” Bartling said, explaining the team’s work to translate community input into a set of features and a more detailed cost estimate.

Mia, a presenter with HCM, walked the board through the plan from east to west, describing a synthetic multiuse athletic field striped for multiple sports, scoreboard and shaded spectator seating; two tennis courts and eight pickleball courts (including two larger ADA-accessible “adaptive” courts); and a central inclusive playground with separate 2–5 and 5–12 play areas and an accessible hillside play zone. She said the field parking area would include about 85 spaces and the central playground area a separate lot of about 120 spaces.

The team emphasized ecological design and reduced turf: Bartling said the plan uses synthetic turf for the athletic field but otherwise prioritizes native grassland plantings, focused pollinator areas, limited planting beds and materials such as gabion walls, boulder seating and a warm wood palette for shade structures. “We wanted to play off” the community’s natural landscape and architectural character, Bartling said.

HCM presented initial phasing options to break construction into manageable packages: (1) the athletic field, sports field and east parking; (2) courts and associated support; (3) the playground and its associated parking; and (4) trails as a separate phase. The firm’s west-parcel cost estimate was presented as “just shy of $32,000,000”; the board and public framed that as a near-term planning figure that could change as design and funding are refined.

Board members and attendees asked detailed questions about pedestrian access, neighborhood impacts, maintenance and amenities. One board member asked whether sidewalks circled the parcel; HCM confirmed sidewalks connect most sides but noted the Cross Canyon Trail currently lacks a paved sidewalk and that some internal connections will rely on stabilized crusher-fines trails designed to be accessible. On neighborhood impacts of pickleball, a board member recalled earlier neighborhood disputes over noise and asked how close courts would be to housing; HCM and other board members said site placement, fencing/netting, choice of balls and lighting controls would be used to limit disturbance, and acknowledged adjacent roadway noise as a moderating factor.

The meeting returned repeatedly to the long-running community conversation about a public pool. Bartling and board members said a pool was a frequently requested amenity in the master plan but was excluded from the current west-parcel schematic because of cost and maintenance trade-offs; they suggested exploring other locations or partnership models (including private fitness operators) rather than placing a large, city-funded pool on this parcel.

HCM also described maintenance approaches for native plantings and temporary irrigation for establishment. The team proposed educational signage explaining native and adaptive species to help set public expectations about seasonal appearance and maintenance needs.

No formal votes were taken on the schematic at this meeting. The board heard the presentation, asked clarifying questions, and members and staff said the design and phasing would be revisited as budgets and community priorities are refined. The board is expected to provide feedback to city staff and HCM as design development continues.