References
1. Annexation Eligibility & Contiguity
Municipal Annexation Act – Contiguity Requirement
Impact: The developer uses a narrow “flagpole” corridor along Crowfoot Valley Road (four separate maps) to claim the required 1/6 perimeter contiguity. Opponents argue this is artificial and does not create a genuine shared boundary with the city core.
2. Community of Interest & Service Extension
Municipal Annexation Act – Community of Interest
C.R.S. § 31-12-104(1)(b) and subsections (I) & (III)
Impact: The law requires a true community of interest and that urban services can be extended “on the same terms and conditions” as existing residents. The remote flagpole location makes equal service delivery (police, fire, roads, parks) physically impracticable, potentially violating this core eligibility test.
3. Urbanization Requirement
Municipal Annexation Act – Definition of Urban Development
Impact: The law defines “urban” as land with improvements or active preparation (subdivision, utilities, streets). The property is currently non-urban/rural per Douglas County’s 2040 Plan and has no existing urban development, so it may fail this eligibility criterion.
4. Annexation Impact Report Requirements
Municipal Annexation Act – Annexation Impact Report
Impact: C.R.S. § 31-12-108.5 requires the City to prepare a detailed impact report on services, schools, and financing. Critics note that the submitted report was developer-prepared, remains conceptual, and lacks confirmed commitments from PWSD and DCSD—issues also raised in the City-commissioned TischlerBise review.
5. Three-Mile Plan Requirement
Municipal Annexation Act – Three-Mile Plan
Community Development and Planning, Three Mile Plans
Impact: Any annexation within three miles requires an annually updated plan describing infrastructure, parks, and open space impacts per Colorado Public Law, Section 31-12-105. Castle Pines’ plan (last updated 2013, integrated 2021) is outdated and does not mention or analyze Crowsnest. The city has scheduled a meeting on March 5th to update the 3-mile plan to include the Crowsnest Annexation area.
6. Water Supply & Sanitation
Zoning Ordinance – Water Supply Sufficiency
Section 1503.10 & Section 18A (Water Supply Overlay District)
Impact: The ordinance requires proof of sufficient, dependable water before PD approval. Parker Water & Sanitation District has issued only a preliminary letter — not a formal “will-serve” — there may be capacity concerns.
7. Wildlife Habitat & Corridors
Castle Pines Comprehensive Plan
LU-1.3, LU-1.5, LU-1.6, PR-2.4
Impact: The Plan requires minimizing wildlife impacts and conserving corridors. The 9.4% open space (mostly linear Lemon Gulch) fragments habitat and creates barriers, contrary to these policies.
8. Traffic & Transportation
Castle Pines Comprehensive Plan
Impact: The Plan demands safe, efficient roads and consistency with regional plans. The project adds 44,000+ daily trips to a failing corridor with no guaranteed full widening or integration.
9. Drainage & Stormwater
Castle Pines Comprehensive Plan
Impact: The Plan requires best management practices for erosion and downstream impacts. Only a conceptual Phase 1 drainage report exists; no Master Drainage Plan or downstream verification has been provided.
10. Open Space & Community Character
Castle Pines Comprehensive Plan
LU-1.2, LU-1.3, H-1.3, PR-4.2 (pp. 53 & 38)
Impact: The Plan emphasizes preserving open space and small-town character. Proposed 9.4% open space (vs. 36–38% in comparable projects) fails these standards.
11. Fire Apparatus Access & Life Safety
International Fire Code (IFC) – Appendix D (Fire Apparatus Access Roads)
Adopted via Castle Pines Municipal Code § 18-6-10 (2021 IFC with amendments), IFC Appendix D
Impact: Section D107.1 requires two separate and remote fire apparatus access roads for residential developments exceeding 30 dwelling units (or 120 with sprinklers). The proposed Crowsnest land relies on a single arterial road (Crowfoot Valley Road) as the primary access. This creates a “single point of failure” that could trap residents in emergencies (wildfire, chemical spill). No secondary remote access is guaranteed, potentially violating IFC requirements for life safety in large-scale residential development.