Embedded Files
APPLICATION WITHDRAWN! HARVEST ROARING FORK
Eagle County LUC Reform Webpage (Administrative Content, meeting recordings, etc.)
The Eagle County Land Use Code Reform Portal is HERE! (Allows online commenting)
Share the link:
https://online.encodeplus.com/regs/eaglecounty-co/page/lurreform
The Land Use Regulation Reform Project is aimed to revise existing land use regulations through a detailed Module breakdown and review with the Board of County Commissioners, Land Use Reform Advisory Committee, and both the Eagle County and Roaring Fork Valley Planning Commissions.
All meetings are public meetings and they will be accepting feedback through email and through an online portal.
WE ARE ENCOURAGED
BY THE DISCUSSION AROUND MISSOURI HEIGHTS AT THE MARCH 31 BOCC MEETING!
BUT LET'S STAY VIGILENT. IT'S NOT OVER YET.
This is a summary of the March 31, 2026, Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) Workshop Presentation regarding the future of Missouri Heights.
This presentation (below) is a pivotal document for residents and property owners, as it outlines the county's updated vision for one of the most unique "character areas" in the Roaring Fork Valley.
Future Planning for Missouri Heights: Insights from the March 2026 BoCC Workshop
Future Planning for Missouri Heights: Insights from the March 2026 BoCC Workshop
At the end of March 2026, the Eagle County Board of Commissioners held a focused workshop to discuss the Land Use Regulation Rewrite and how it specifically impacts the Missouri Heights area. As our community balances the pressure of growth with the desire to remain rural, this presentation highlights the "guardrails" being put in place.
1. Preserving the "Rural Character"
1. Preserving the "Rural Character"
The primary theme of the presentation is the preservation of Missouri Heights as a distinct rural plateau. Unlike the higher-density developments seen in the valley floor (Basalt/El Jebel), the county is reinforcing Missouri Heights' status as an elevated desert environment with fragile resources.
Zoning Priorities: The BoCC emphasized maintaining large-lot residential and agricultural zoning.
Commercial Limits: There is a clear stance against "unbridled" commercial development that would be incompatible with the current residential quiet.
2. Infrastructure & Vital Resources
2. Infrastructure & Vital Resources
A significant portion of the workshop focused on the physical limitations of the plateau. The county acknowledged that Missouri Heights cannot support urban-style density due to two major factors:
Water Scarcity: Most properties rely on private wells and shared ditches. The presentation highlights the need for stricter water-resource monitoring for any new land-use applications.
Traffic & Access: With Cottonwood Pass and Highway 82 already under pressure, the county is looking at how any new development might impact Level of Service (LOS) at key intersections.
3. Wildfire Resiliency
3. Wildfire Resiliency
In light of Colorado’s updated Senate Bill 23-166, the presentation introduced new Wildfire Resiliency Code updates. For Missouri Heights residents, this means:
Hardening Structures: New construction and significant remodels will likely require fire-resistant materials (Class A roofing, ember-resistant vents).
Defensible Space: Stricter landscaping regulations to ensure a buffer between homes and the surrounding brush.
4. The "Character Area" Designation
4. The "Character Area" Designation
Missouri Heights is officially recognized by Eagle County as a "Character Area." This is a critical legal distinction. It means that any development application must prove "substantial conformance" with the specific goals of the Missouri Heights Future Land Use Map (FLUM).
What’s Next?
What’s Next?
The county is moving toward a final presentation of the new zoning map scheduled for June 3, 2026. Between now and then, public comment is highly encouraged via the county's "EnCode" online portal.
Why This Matters to You
Why This Matters to You
If you own property in Missouri Heights, these regulations will dictate what you can build, how you manage your land, and how your property value evolves. The county is clearly listening to the "Keep Missouri Heights Rural" sentiment while trying to balance state-mandated housing and safety requirements.
For Missouri Heights Specific Information, see slides 12 - 15.
BOCC Workshop Presentation 3-31-26 1.pdfSUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS POSTED FOR MARCH 31
The public comments for the Eagle County Land Use Regulation (ECLUR) rewrite reveal several key areas of concern ranging from administrative transparency to specific geographic protections for the Missouri Heights and Roaring Fork Valley areas.
The following categorized breakdown summarizes the input provided from late 2025 through March 30, 2026.
1. Missouri Heights & Roaring Fork Valley Specific Protections
1. Missouri Heights & Roaring Fork Valley Specific Protections
A significant volume of recent comments focuses on the perceived incompatibility of the general code with the rural character of Missouri Heights.
Missouri Heights Overlay District: Karen Moculeski and Susan Sullivan (KeepMOHRural) repeatedly requested a special overlay district to ensure the Mid-Valley Community Plan remains the primary guiding document for their area, protecting it from "one-size-fits-all" county rules.
Opposition to "Agritainment" and Commercialization:
Michelle Holland and Doug Graybeal argued that allowing high-intensity uses like bars, nightclubs, campgrounds, and amphitheaters in agricultural zones (specifically the proposed AR1 district) would destroy "quiet solitude" and create unmanageable nuisances.
Cheryl Niro and William Niro emphasized that these uses provide a "backdoor" for commercial developers to bypass residential protections.
Infrastructure, Safety, and Water Limits:
Michelle Holland noted that Missouri Heights has a "sole-source" aquifer and fragile geology that cannot handle intensive development or increased septic runoff.
Diane Knight and Cathy Jacquemin highlighted that high-intensity uses create tenable risks for wildfire evacuation on narrow, steep roads like Upper Cattle Creek.
Emma Area Protections: Cathy Markle requested that hospitality and large event uses be prohibited in the Emma area to protect riparian and elk habitats and maintain its quiet residential nature.
2. Conservation, Agriculture, and Open Space
2. Conservation, Agriculture, and Open Space
These comments seek to ensure the new code respects historical agricultural operations and permanent conservation commitments.
Deference to Conservation Easements: Jessica Foulis (Eagle Valley Land Trust) recommended that the code explicitly defer to easement holders on interpretations and state that easement restrictions prevail if they conflict with the land use code.
Open Space Permanence: EVLT also urged that conservation subdivisions require perpetual conservation easements to ensure that "protected" open space does not become temporary.
Recognition of Agricultural Rights:
Laura Bohannon (Eagle County Conservation District) requested the inclusion of the Right to Farm Act (CRS 35-3.5-101) and the Colorado Soil Conservation Act into the code.
Larry Calhoun (Calhoun Ranch) expressed concern that new zoning rules might terminate "Use By Right" for long-standing horse boarding operations, which are the livelihood of legacy ranching families.
Request for Advisory Role: Laura Bohannon and Denyse Schrenker (ECCD) requested that the District be included in advisory meetings as a voting member to provide essential natural resource guidance.
3. Landscaping, Turf, and Water Efficiency
3. Landscaping, Turf, and Water Efficiency
Comments in this category address the balance between aesthetic landscaping and the reality of water scarcity.
Stricter Turf Limitations: Eagle River Water & Sanitation District (ERWSD) recommended prohibiting turf in front or side yards, limiting residential backyard turf to 500 square feet or 45% of the area, and requiring smart controllers for all new construction.
Soil and Irrigation Standards: Denyse Schrenker (ECCD) proposed that soil organic matter be tested prior to turf installation, requiring amendments if levels are below 5%.
Opposition to Over-Regulation: Mark S. Bergman countered several ERWSD suggestions, arguing that annual water requirement calculations are too informational for code and that the proposed turf restrictions are "overly restrictive" and potentially "costly".
4. Administrative Procedures and Governance
4. Administrative Procedures and Governance
Commenters here focused on curbing "administrative discretion creep" and ensuring public transparency.
Curbing Director Discretion: Karen Moculeski and Susan Sullivan (KMOHR) argued against giving the Director broad power to waive pre-application meetings or decide if a project has "material impacts." They proposed objective "call-up" triggers, such as five unique public objections automatically forcing a public hearing.
Public Notice and Transparency:
KMOHR recommended expanding notification radiuses for rezonings and subdivisions to 1,000 feet and requiring QR codes on physical notice signs.
Cathy Markle questioned why no notice is required for minor subdivisions and argued that the Planning Commission should be allowed to make recommendations to applicants rather than just asking questions.
Continuance Abuse: KMOHR noted that granting multiple continuances to applicants can "beat down the opposition" through increased professional fees, citing a specific case that cost neighbors $10,000.
5. Housing Affordability (Article 5.2)
5. Housing Affordability (Article 5.2)
Anonymous public input from early 2026 addressed the efficacy of proposed housing mitigation strategies.
Inclusionary Percentage: Multiple commenters questioned if a 15% inclusionary requirement is sufficient to meet identified housing needs.
Fee-in-Lieu Concerns: Concerns were raised that allowing fee-in-lieu payments as a routine alternative to physical construction would reduce the delivery of deed-restricted housing near transit and employment centers.
Middle-Income Gaps: Input highlighted a lack of provisions for households earning above 140% AMI, despite documented needs in that spectrum.
WE MET WITH THE ECLUR TEAM!
THEY AGREED TO IMPLEMENT UNIQUE STANDARDS FOR THE MO HEIGHTS CHARACTER AREA.
......CONTINGENT UPON THE BOCC'S AGREEMENT
Gmail - Public Comment – Recommended Standards for RE and AR Zoning based on Mid-Valley Community Plan Policies (Townships T6S & T7S).pdfREVIEW NEW PROPOSED PROCEDURES AND KMOHR'S COMMENTS.
THESE WILL AFFECT HOW WE PRESERVE RURAL CHARACTER IN MO HEIGHTS!
2026 Meeting Schedule - THIS IS WHEN THE RUBBER MEETS THE ROAD!
The dates and general topics for 2026 are as follows:
March: Review of Chapter 6, Administration (including nonconformities and development review)
March 3: BOCC
March 4: joint ECPC/RFVRPC (in Eagle)
March 4: Advisory Committee
April: Full Code review
April 7: BOCC
April 15: Advisory Committee
April 16: joint ECPC/RFVRPC (in El Jebel)
May:
May 5: last day for public comment on the new code
No meetings in May (so we can receive final public comment and incorporate into code)
June 3: Presentation of new zoning map to ECPC (in Eagle)
June 3: Presentation of new zoning map to Advisory Committee (in Eagle)
June 4: Presentation of new zoning map to RFVRPC (in El Jebel)
June 16: Presentation of new zoning map to BOCC
July 2: Recommendation of approval of new code by RFVRPC (in El Jebel)
July 15: Recommendation of approval of new code by ECPC (in Eagle)
July 28: BOCC adoption hearing
KMOHR Board Members have a Seat at the Table
KMOHR President, Karen Moculeski, and Communications Director/Treasurer, Susan Sullivan share a "seat" on the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) for the Eagle County Land Use Code Reform project.
You can find all past meetings and attachments on the Eagle County ECLUR Rewrite Project webpage and comment on modules on the EnCode site.
This is a select committee of stakeholders that meet to inform the direction of the code as drafts are released for public comment.
If you have input or would like to be part of a "Core Group" that works together on the Land Use Code Reform, please email keepmohrural@gmail.com
PUBLIC COMMENTS (12/15/2025)
1) OBJECTING TO PROPOSED LAND USES IN RESIDENTIAL AND AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICTS
2) PROPOSING A SPECIAL OVERLAY DISTRICT FOR THE MISSOURI HEIGHTS CHARACTER AREA
Gmail - Public Comment regarding apparent _Backsliding_ and Process Concerns in Land Use Code Rewrite (Part 1 - Objections).pdfGmail - Public Comment regarding Special Overlay District for Missouri Heights (Part 2 - Solution).pdfCode rewrite work sessions will continue into December
"Stewardship was a big part of the latest update to the Eagle County Board of Commissioners about rewriting Eagle County land use regulations. Todd Messenger, an attorney with Fairfield and Woods, is working on that rewrite. Messenger and Assistant County Attorney Beth Oliver provided that update, which focused in part on how land use policy can affect stewardship."
"Commissioner Jeanne McQueeney noted she’s talked with people who want the county to expand its current standard of dual access points for new developments. But Messenger cautioned against putting too many new roads into rural areas, and recommended giving the county’s engineering department more responsibility for road standards."
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse