Castle Rock's Planning Commission voted 6-1 on Aug. 13 to recommend approval of Chateau Valley, a 402-home subdivision on just under 112 acres. The recommendation now goes to Town Council, which makes the final decision.
The site sits north of the Baldwin Park subdivision, south of the South Ridge Townhomes, and east of the Glover subdivision and Memmen Ridge Open Space.
The land has been zoned for houses since 1983
This is the part that shapes everything else about the application. The property was annexed into Castle Rock in 1983 as part of the Young American Planned Development, a PD that covers two components — Baldwin Park Estates and the South Memmen portion, where Chateau Valley sits.
Town planner Brad Boland walked the commission through the entitlement history. The PD as a whole allows roughly 1,025 residential units. The South Memmen portion specifically allows 666. Some of that has already been built, including the South Ridge Townhomes, which leaves 561 units still entitled on the remaining ground.
Chateau Valley proposes 402.
Rusty Hall, the engineer presenting for the applicant, characterized that as a 28% reduction from what the zoning permits. That framing is the applicant's, but the underlying numbers came from town staff.
What that means practically: the question in front of the commission was not whether houses get built here. That was settled in 1983. The question was what the layout, density and open space look like.
What's actually proposed
- 402 home sites — 148 duplex lots and 254 single-family detached homes, plus one clubhouse
- 45% of the site in open space, roughly 50 acres
- More than 3,700 feet of regional trail and 2,800-plus feet of soft-surface trail
- Four detention basins, with the 100-year floodplain kept off all private lots
- Open space buffers along the perimeter where the site meets existing neighborhoods
The plan puts 60-foot lots along the edges backing onto the Baldwin and Glover subdivisions, which the applicant said was deliberate — matching the larger existing lots at the boundary rather than putting the smallest product against established homes.
The site also carries some history worth noting: 14 acres were dedicated to the town back at the 1983 annexation, land that now forms part of the 43-acre Memmen Ridge park.
Water was dedicated to Castle Rock at the time of annexation as well. Under the annexation agreement, the town provides water service to the property in exchange for that dedication.
Water capacity came up directly. Asked whether a treatment plant now under construction would roughly double the town's ability to deliver water, Matt Roth told the commission it will double that plant's output — "we're going from 6 mgd plant to a 12 mgd plant once that project's completed" — but corrected the framing on the rest: it doubles that facility, not the town's overall capacity. For scale, staff said daily demand ran 18 to 20 million gallons across this summer.
What neighbors raised
About a dozen residents spoke during public comment. Two themes dominated.
Open space and privacy came up most often — concerns about tree cover and forested areas that could be preserved, and about what happens to the character of land adjoining Memmen Ridge.
Traffic was close behind, including added pressure at the Memmen Ridge Open Space access.
A notice issue also surfaced. Staff explained that the mailed-notice radius changed partway through the project's review: earlier rounds went to property owners within 500 feet, while the most recent round went to 1,500 feet. That accounts for why some residents said they'd only recently learned about a project that has been in process for some time.
We're not naming the residents who spoke. They're private citizens who showed up to a public meeting, and the themes matter more than the names.
The traffic study
Mike Rocha, of SM Rocha, presented the traffic impact study for the application. He told the commission it was prepared in accordance with the town's adopted Transportation Design Criteria Manual and Transportation Master Plan, using the methodologies the town applies in development review. That's the applicant's engineer describing his own work — not an independent town review of it.
The counts underneath it are not new. Rocha said the study began in September 2021, with later revisions, and growth projected forward at 2% annually over a 20-year horizon. That's the applicant's methodology as presented to the commission, not an independent finding.
How the vote went
The commission recommended approval 6-1.
Voting yes: Chair Todd Warnke, Vice Chair Kevin McHugh, and commissioners Alex Delaney, Tom Martinez, Jeff Samuelson and Mitchell Sawin. Commissioner Carlos Salinas voted no.
Boland offered one framing during the discussion that's useful for context regardless of where you land on the project: what has actually been built in the Young American PD so far is less than the entitlements allowed.
Updated Aug. 31: what the Town Council staff report adds
The agenda packet for the Sept. 1 Council meeting posted on Aug. 27, and the staff report in it fills in several things the Planning Commission hearing didn't cover. It was written by Development Services Director Tara Vargish and Planning Manager Brad Boland, through Town Manager David Corliss.
The precise numbers. The site is 111.72 acres, and open space is 50.24 acres, about 45% of it. The applicant is Highline Engineering & Surveying on behalf of 113 M, LLC. The staff report also puts a firmer number on public comment at the Aug. 13 hearing: thirteen members of the public spoke, all in opposition.
The traffic study was revised after neighbors objected. This is new. The plan connects to four existing street stubs — Ash Avenue, Elm Avenue, Eaton Street and Santana Drive — and residents raised concerns about those connections at the neighborhood meetings. In response, the developer re-ran the traffic analysis modeling both a connected and a non-connected street layout. Staff's summary of the result: the roadway network still meets town standards whether those neighborhood connections end up open or closed to general traffic. That leaves the connection question as a live choice rather than a technical requirement.
What the town would collect. The staff report estimates the development generates about $12.48 million in impact fees and $17.99 million in water system development fees — roughly $30.5 million combined, before land-use, permit, inspection, utility and use-tax revenue on top.
Transportation is the largest single impact fee at about $6.86 million, followed by parks and recreation at roughly $4.38 million, with fire, police and municipal facilities making up the rest. On the water side, the water resources fee alone accounts for about $11.73 million of the $17.99 million.
Those are estimates, and staff say so plainly. They assume the town's average home size of 2,500 square feet applied to both housing types, priced against the fee schedules that took effect July 1, 2026. Fees are actually collected as individual building permits are issued, under whatever schedule is in force at that moment, and buildout runs over multiple years — so staff note the real total could end up higher. Separately, the developer is responsible for building the infrastructure, including a South Valley Drive bridge, drainage and streambank work, water and wastewater facilities, sidewalks, trails, landscaping and traffic calming, with financial assurances posted for the public pieces. Those construction obligations are on top of the fees.
Updated Sept. 2: Council didn't vote. It sent staff to look at buying the land.
Town Council took Chateau Valley up as item 16 on Sept. 1 and did not decide it. The plan was neither approved nor denied. Council continued it to its first meeting in January, and before doing that, voted unanimously to send town staff after the land itself.
The acquisition motion came first. Council member Max Brooks moved to direct staff to explore acquiring property both next to and inside the project: the parcel that sits south of the existing open space, and the forested area within the proposed Chateau Valley development. He asked staff to look at every mechanism available to them, in his words "up to and including possible condemnation." He was explicit about the limit of it, too, saying he did not mean the town would look at purchasing the entirety of the development and apologizing if he had given that impression earlier in the night. Council member Mark Davis seconded. On a roll call, it passed unanimously.
Mayor Pro Tem Laura Cavey wanted to go further. She offered a friendly amendment directing staff to look at every available option, naming Douglas County, a nature conservancy and Colorado lottery money, to buy the entire Memmen Young property and place it in a conservancy permanently. Brooks asked that it be handled as a separate motion so the two efforts would not be tied together if one failed. It was set aside to come back on its own and has not been voted on.
Then Mayor Jason Gray moved to continue the plan to January. Council member Tim Dietz seconded. Gray said he believes in landowners' rights and noted the entitlements date to 1983, but that he has other issues with the property: he does not think the buffering is enough, and he thinks the plan may fall into dissimilar uses next to the existing neighborhood even though both are single-family. He also said he wants staff to see how much land the town can get back. His summary: "I would like this development to go back to the drawing board. Sharpen the pencils and do a little better job."
Dietz agreed there is "a lot of work left to do here." Cavey, who said she has lived in Castle Rock since 2007 and walked the edge of the property the weekend before, said the town should "do whatever we can to preserve as much of this property as possible," and that doing so "preserves the character of Castle Rock." Brooks said moving the item past January still leaves time for staff to work and does not take the acquisition question off the table.
One clarification from the dais worth recording: Council member Kevin Bracken said he had asked Town staff during the drought discussion whether the town has enough water for the town and its future developments, and that it was Mr. Marlowe who stated the water is there for future projects, not Bracken himself.
🔴 One thing is not on the record yet: the vote count on the continuance. The Town's own caption file for the meeting captures the roll call on the acquisition motion but not on the continuance, and Council moves straight to the next agenda item afterward. As of Sept. 2 the meeting minutes are still marked Draft, and the Legistar file for RES 2026-098 shows zero history records and no final action. So we can say the item was continued to January. We cannot yet say how each member voted on it. We will update this when the minutes post.
What residents told Council
Public comment ran long, and the themes were consistent with the Planning Commission hearing but sharper.
Traffic. One speaker walked Council through the town's own transportation plan showing congestion on Crowfoot Valley and Meadows Parkway, estimated the development would add 4,000-plus daily trips, and asked Council to commission independent studies on traffic, water and public safety before approving anything.
Neighborhood streets. A resident who lives off Ash described a street with no HOA, cars parked on both sides, and sidewalks two feet wide, leaving roughly 22 feet of usable roadway. He said his daughter rode a scooter five miles each way to Mesa Middle School because bus service was not consistent, and asked what added cut-through traffic does to kids on those sidewalks.
Emergency response. The same speaker cited a current response time of about eight minutes for priority one calls and asked whether the police and fire staffing grows with the rooftops.
Privacy. A resident on Sandhurst Drive told Council her home is built into the land, with a small backyard, a six-foot retaining wall, and the development beginning immediately above it. She said a 30-foot or even 100-foot buffer still means the new homes tower over hers, and that neighbors would see into her master bedroom, kitchen and living room. Her phrase for it: "an animal on display in your own home."
We are not publishing residents' full names. They are private citizens who spoke at a public meeting, and the substance matters more.
The petition, by the numbers
A Change.org petition titled "Reject & Revise - Chateau Valley Proposed Site Development Plan" was started Aug. 14, 2026 by Castle Rock resident Vanessa Church Kiley. As of Sept. 2 it carries 1,371 verified signatures, with 274 added in the past week. Change.org reports that 76% of the people signing it live in 80104, 80109 and 80108.
The petition does not ask Council to block housing. It makes two specific asks: keep a minimum of 150 feet of undeveloped natural land between the new homes and the existing Glover, Baldwin Park and Southridge Townhomes neighborhoods, and expand Memmen Ridge Open Space to take in the forested land out to Valley Drive.
Both the petition and a flyer promoting it were filed into the Council record as agenda attachments on Aug. 31, alongside the written public comments.
What happens next
The item returns to Town Council at its first meeting in January 2027. In the meantime, town staff have direction to explore acquiring land beside and inside the project, and Mayor Pro Tem Cavey's broader motion to pursue the whole Memmen Young property could still come back separately.
Two dates to watch before then. Castle Rock's November 3 election puts three seats on the ballot, District 3, District 5 and Mayor, with ballots mailing Oct. 2. Brooks holds District 5 and Gray is the sitting mayor, so the Council that takes this back up in January will not necessarily be the one that continued it. Town Council also meets Sept. 15, by which point the Sept. 1 minutes should be published with the recorded vote.
Anyone can watch or find agendas at CRgov.com/CouncilMeeting. The Planning Division is at 303-660-1393.
This story is based on the Aug. 13, 2026 Castle Rock Planning Commission record, the Sept. 1, 2026 Town Council agenda packet, and the Town of Castle Rock's own video and caption record of the Sept. 1 Council meeting. Updated Sept. 2. We will update it again when the minutes are published and when the item returns in January.