Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Three Mile Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Castle Pines Planning Commission approves updated three‑mile plan, forwards it to council
Summary
The Planning Commission voted 6‑0 on April 23, 2026, to adopt Resolution 2026‑PZ‑R‑01, approving an updated three‑mile plan that maps future land uses within three miles of the city's boundary; the plan will be transmitted to city council for ratification.
The City of Castle Pines Planning Commission voted 6‑0 on April 23, 2026, to adopt Resolution 2026‑PZ‑R‑01, which approves an updated three‑mile plan and amends the city's comprehensive plan. Commissioner Werbaugh moved to approve the resolution and the motion passed after a roll call vote in which all voting commissioners recorded “yes.”
Community Development Director Donna Ferguson told commissioners that “a 3 mile plan is a guiding document for the city's future growth,” and emphasized that the plan itself does not annex property or change zoning: “The 3 mile plan does not annex property.” Ferguson said the plan compiles maps and existing‑conditions analyses and will be incorporated into the comprehensive plan and forwarded to city council for ratification.
The commission's action followed a staff presentation that described the statutory basis for a three‑mile plan under the Colorado Municipal Annexation Act, the mapping workshops used to develop seven subareas, and the future land‑use categories shown on the plan's map. Ferguson highlighted areas designated for mixed use along the South Havana corridor, a small commercial node near the Happy Canyon/I‑25 interchange, an industrial designation west of I‑25, and open‑space designations in other subareas.
Two public commenters raised concerns before the vote. One speaker, Mr. Kaser, urged commissioners to revisit specific wording in the resolution's final paragraph and argued that the sentence authorizing the community development director to make modifications “as directed by the planning commission or the city council” appears inconsistent with municipal code. Another commenter, Lori Ball, urged the commission to pair the map with explicit annexation criteria, measurable public‑benefit thresholds, capacity triggers (water and schools) and fee schedules before areas are considered for annexation.
By adopting the resolution the commission completed the local step required by the city's code; the resolution will be forwarded to city council, which retains final legislative authority over annexations and related policy decisions.
