Planning commission recommends approval of Canyons Preliminary Plan amendment

The Castle Pines Planning Commission on June 26 recommended approval of the Canyons Preliminary Plan No. 2, 2nd amendment, after staff said the application met the city’s preliminary‑plan approval criteria.

Senior planner Lisa Roemhat presented the staff review, telling commissioners the proposal would create 137 residential lots and 16 tracts for utilities, drainage, buffering and open space. Roemhat said the subdivision largely sits in Planning Area 11 with small encroachments into Planning Areas I and 9, and that prior plats satisfied park and school dedications so no additional dedications were proposed. “We did confirm that the minimum open space requirements for planning area I and J have been met with previous plats, so staff does support these shifts in the boundary,” Roemhat said.

Applicant Ryan McDermott of Shea Homes described the project as an infill phase within The Canyons PD and said the developer expects to add smaller, alley‑loaded single‑family products to offer lower square‑footage and price‑point options. “We’re probably roughly 60% through the housing units,” McDermott said, and noted Shea has already built about eight miles of trails and five parks in the PD, with additional trails and parks planned.

Commissioners asked how traffic improvements identified in the project’s traffic impact study would be implemented and tracked. Staff and the applicant clarified that identified intersection and roadway improvements are typically triggered and enforced through the city’s development agreements and SIA/SIP (site improvement/annexation) requirements tied to platting and building permits, not at building permit issuance alone. Roemhat summarized staff’s findings that the plan conforms with the comprehensive plan, shows evidence of water and sewer, identifies geotechnical constraints, provides adequate drainage, protects cultural and natural resources, and ensures necessary public services.

A commissioner moved to recommend approval subject to conditions (payment of fees, remediation of minor technical items before filing the preliminary plan). The motion was seconded and passed by roll call after a brief debate in which several commissioners voiced support for the proposed lot layout and the potential for smaller, more affordable lots. The clerk noted one commissioner participating remotely could not vote on this quasi‑judicial item under the electronic meeting policy.

The commission’s recommendation will be forwarded to City Council, which makes the final decision on preliminary‑plan applications.