Castle Pines Considers Controversial Crowsnest Annexation
Nearby government entities voice major concerns
The City of Castle Pines successfully fought off the development of a 24-hour McDonald’s in 2024 and prevailed in 2025 when the developer for that project, Ventana Capital, sued the city in an effort to overturn the City Council’s decision. Now Ventana is back, asking for Castle Pines to approve a controversial annexation of 795 acres — Crowsnest — that would hold a 3,600 home, master planned development.
What is flagpole annexation?
The Crowsnest proposal requires a “flagpole” annexation because it would not otherwise meet requirements for contiguity with existing city limits. Typically, municipalities annex land that is fully contiguous with their borders to increase the size of the municipality. Flagpole annexation allows a municipality to expand to a non-contiguous parcel of land (the flag) if it is connected by a narrow band of land, often a road (the pole). In the request for the City of Castle Pines to annex Crowsnest, that narrow band connecting the 795 acres to Castle Pines would be Crowfoot Valley Road.
Crowsnest (the blue Proposed Annexation Area in the map above) is situated in unincorporated Douglas County, contiguous to the southern border of the Town of Parker. Without the legal provision for flagpole annexation in Colorado state statute, Ventana would be forced to seek annexation from the Town of Parker in order to develop the land slated for Crowsnest.
Flagpole annexation tends to be controversial with residents. In 2025, the Colorado Springs City Council approved the Karman Line annexation, but voters reversed that decision in a June 2025 election with an overwhelming 81.8% vote against the annexation.
The concern? Water.
What are the concerns about Crowsnest?
Castle Pines residents have banded together to form People Against Annexing Crowsnest. Their concerns include destruction of wildlife corridors, higher density in Crowsnest relative to existing Castle Pines neighborhoods, and the distance between the proposed community and existing Castle Pines boundaries. Ventana’s original Crowsnest Fiscal Impact Analysis (FIA) estimates 4,000 single family homes and 50 acres of retail space to be developed. On that developed land, most single family units would be built on dense, 40-foot wide lots; only 140 units (less than 5% of the total) would be built on lots larger than 70 feet.
Home values in Crowsnest are estimated to start at $575,000. Castle Pines currently has a median home value of $875,000 according to data from Zillow. In ongoing negotiations with the City of Castle Pines, Ventana revised the proposal in early March to reduce the number of homes from 4,000 to 3,646 and to nearly double the dedication of open space.
People Against Annexing Crowsnest also expresses concern about the city’s obligation to provide emergency services to a remote area and the strain on resources that obligation would create. Crowsnest would be required to dedicate land to South Metro Fire District for a future station to be built at the fire district’s discretion. Until then, existing resources would serve the new community. The City of Castle Pines would provide law enforcement through its existing agreement with the Douglas County Sheriff’s Office. A 4.5 mills property tax currently funds law enforcement for Castle Pines.
Castle Pines residents aren’t the only ones worried about Crowsnest. Mayor Joshua Rivera and other citizens of Parker have raised concerns including population density and the increased use and maintenance requirements for Parker roads and parks that would be created by residents of the proposed development.
Mayor Jason Gray of nearby Castle Rock has also weighed in with concerns related to traffic, water supply, and wildlife in a letter addressed to Mayor Tracy Engerman and the Castle Pines City Council.
The question about where the planned development would get its water — and at what cost — remains unanswered. In an overview of the Crowsnest Annexation request, The City of Castle Pines notes a requirement that Crowsnest be included in the Parker Water & Sanitation District:
“Water and Sewer – Prior to any development, the developer will be required to be included into the Parker Water/Sanitation District so the City is assured that the development will have the necessary water and sewer services.”
However, the letter from Mayor Gray asserts that the developer does not have a “will serve” letter from Parker Water and Sanitation District for water and sewer services. He goes on to state that without a will serve commitment from the utility, Crowsnest may be forced to rely on access to non-renewable groundwater supplies, which would negatively impact Castle Rock’s access to that same non-renewable source.
An additional concern is the lack of a will serve letter from Parker Water and Sanitation District(Parker W&S) for Crowsnest. If Crowsnest is seeking to have its own water system served solely off of a non-renewable groundwater supply – rather than connect with Parker W&S, this may endanger groundwater supplies that currently serve Castle Rock. The entire region is moving towards a renewable water supply.
Given the size of the proposed development and the location, this development must be connected to an existing water provider with access to renewable water supplies like Parker W&S. We would strongly oppose a system developed based solely off of non-renewable groundwater as potentially damaging to our long-term water supplies and the needs of Castle Rock and the broader region.
— Mayor Jason Gray in a letter to the City of Castle Pines Mayor and Council
The document Ventana Capital has provided to the City of Castle Pines labeled “Water Supply Evidence” on the city’s website is included below. Not only is there no commitment to provide service, but the final paragraph of the letter from Parker Water & Sanitation also clearly references an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) between Parker Water and the Town of Parker that could prevent such service.
What are the possible benefits of annexing Crowsnest?
The primary benefits to the City of Castle Pines would be increases in projected tax revenues and one-time fees for the city. However, an impact analysis conducted for the city by consultant Tischler Bise concluded that the developer’s initial estimates grossly overestimated those revenue increases. For example:
While the Crowsnest Fiscal Impact Analysis (FIA) estimates a 236% increase in annual property taxes for the city, the city’s own consultant corrected that rate to a much more modest 55% gain.
Crowsnest FIA estimates of a 102% increase in sales tax revenues were also “drastically overstated” according to the Tischler Bise analysis.
The Crowsnest FIA projected a $10 million net surplus after all service costs, but Tischler Bise calculated a only 1/3 of that value — a $3,309,249 net surplus.
The property tax projections rely on absorption schedule estimates. “Absorption Schedule” is a measure of the number of homes that will be built and sold per year so that they can begin to fully contribute to a municipality’s property tax base. Ventana’s projected growth and absorption rate is an aggressive 667 housing units per year over 6 years. That exceeds the city’s highest ever annual development rate of 620 in 2021 and triples the average rate of just under 200 units per year since 2021. For context, The Canyons in Castle Pines, slated for 5,000 homes, began building and selling homes in 2019 and is now about halfway built out, according to the Denver Post. That calculates to an average absorption rate of around 350 homes per year over that 7-year period. Ventana is proposing development of Crowsnest at twice the absorption rate of The Canyons.
Population growth resulting from annexation is estimated at around 10,000 with Ventana’s 5th Amendment reduction from nearly 4,000 single-family homes to 3,646. That represents a 58% increase in the city’s estimated population of about 17,300.
Three separate fiscal impact analyses were conducted: one on behalf of Ventana, one by City staff, and the Tichler Bise study commissed by the City. An overview of the findings from all three concluded that “Crowsnest development is projected to generate revenues that exceed the estimated cost of providing municipal services. As a result, the proposed development is projected to produce positive long-term fiscal outcomes for the City
What’s next for the Crowsnest proposal?
March 26 @ 5:30pm - Castle Pines Library: The Planning Commission will consider Ventana’s proposed Planned Development zoning in order to make a recommendation to the Castle Pines City Council.
The next regularly scheduled City Council meeting is April 7th at 5:30pm at the Castle Pines Library.
Questions We Need Answered
Why is Ventana pursuing annexation to Castle Pines instead of Parker?
How effectively does Ventana’s most recent amendment to the annexation proposal — decreasing the number of homes to be built by about 10% and doubling the dedication for open space — address the concerns of Castle Pines and surrounding communities?
Since Crowsnest is required to be included in the Parker Water & Sanitation District prior to beginning any development, what happens if the city annexes Crowsnest and then Parker Water & Sanitation declines to provide service?
Based on the concerns of Castle Rock over groundwater resources, what entities would be subject to legal action taken by Castle Rock to protect those resources if the City of Castle Pines decides to annex Crowsnest?
Sources & Recommended Reading
Denver Post: Resistance grows as developer seeks ‘flagpole’ annexation to Douglas County city for 3,650-home project
Denver Gazette: Parker mayor raises concerns over potential ‘dense’ Douglas County development
CBS News: Court sides with Castle Pines in Colorado development dispute over a McDonald’s
Colorado Public Radio: New Colorado Springs annexation is approved, but water and other concerns remain
The Fence Post: Colorado Springs voters reject Karman Line Annexation amid lower Arkansas Valley water concerns
Great reporting from Kim - as always. She explained the situation in a clear succinct manner. Thanks Kim!
One of the best summaries of the annexation issue I have read. Thanks for pulling all the facts together.