Crowsnest Annexation Petition Withdrawn as Castle Pines Weighs Formal Policy

VT Crowfoot Valley Landco, LLC withdrew its petition to annex approximately 795 acres into the City of Castle Pines on March 19, ending a contentious process that had drawn opposition from residents across the region and left the developer caught between two municipalities that did not want the project.

The Crowsnest property sits in unincorporated Douglas County along Crowfoot Valley Road, east of The Canyons neighborhood and south of Parker. The land qualified for what Colorado law calls a "flagpole annexation" because Crowfoot Valley Road physically connects it to Castle Pines. Parker town officials had already told the developer the town had no interest in annexing the land, leaving Castle Pines as the only realistic path forward.

If the annexation had proceeded and been approved, the site could have accommodated nearly 4,000 residences alongside 70 acres of dedicated open space, according to CBS Colorado. The Denver Post reported a slightly lower figure of nearly 3,650 homes. The development company, based in Englewood, had originally filed the petition in fall 2025, withdrawn it due to a mapping error, and resubmitted it earlier this year.

The withdrawal came as Castle Pines City Council moved to create something the city had never formally established: an annexation policy. The idea emerged from a recent council retreat, and on March 24 the Council is scheduled to consider Resolution No. 26-23, which would direct staff to begin developing that policy. The city described its intent in a statement posted to its website: "The intent of this policy would be to establish criteria, informed by resident input, to guide future decisions on annexation applications submitted by property owners. If Resolution No. 26-23 is approved on March 24, public engagement to help develop the policy will be gathered later this year."

The Douglas County Lantern reported the withdrawal as pending approval of Resolution No. 26-23, while CBS Colorado characterized the withdrawal as already complete and tied to the Council's pivot toward a policy framework. All previously scheduled meetings and hearings related to the Crowsnest annexation, including a planning commission session that had been set for next week, are canceled.

Castle Pines resident Donna Cook, who had spoken out against the project, welcomed the news. "We feel great and we feel excited that the city is working with the residents and getting our feedback as to what the criteria would be," she said. Cook had also warned what approval would have meant for the city's identity: "It would have really fragmented our city."

Parker resident Joey Lugo was more measured in his relief. "I think we've won this battle, but the war will continue," he said.

The developer, identified by CBS Colorado as VT Crowfoot Valley Landco, LLC and referred to as Ventana by the Douglas County Lantern, issued a statement signaling it has not abandoned the area entirely: "We look forward to continuing conversations with Castle Pines and other regional partners about future development and how it affects our communities. Working together is the best way to make sure we're growing responsibly and in a way that benefits everyone."

The outcome follows a pattern that has become familiar in the region. A developer recently withdrew a flagpole annexation proposal into Palmer Lake that would have enabled a Buc-ee's travel center on I-25, just south of the Douglas County line, after vocal community opposition. The Canyons, the 5,000-home development on the east side of I-25 in Castle Pines that is now about half complete, generated similar resistance nearly a decade ago over traffic and wildlife corridor concerns.

Should the applicant choose to refile, the process would restart from scratch: a new petition, a substantial compliance review, an eligibility hearing, and first and second readings for both the annexation and an annexation agreement, all under the requirements of Colorado's Municipal Annexation Act of 1965. Whether Castle Pines by then will have a formal policy governing how it evaluates such requests may determine how that conversation goes.