El Jebel Crossing

Protecting the Character and Safety of El Jebel

We all recognize the need for thoughtful housing solutions in Eagle County, but the proposed El Jebel Crossing development is simply the wrong project at the wrong scale. The developer is attempting to force a massive 111-unit, three-story complex onto a 20-acre parcel, effectively dropping an urban-density development right into our established suburban neighborhoods. We are opposing this project because it directly threatens the safety, infrastructure, and daily lives of our community. Based on the developer's own revised traffic data, EJ Crossing will dump 732 new daily vehicle trips onto local roads and intersections that are already failing, threatening emergency response times and turning daily commutes into gridlock. Instead of scaling the project back to safely fit our infrastructure, the developer is asking the County for special "variances" to bypass critical public safety rules. We are standing together with our neighbors below Missouri Heights to demand that Eagle County enforce its 1041 regulations, deny these unsafe waivers, and ensure that any new development respects the physical limits of our roads and the character of our community.

NEW UPDATES POSTED TO THE EJ CROSSING APPLICATION

HERE'S THE SUMMARY

The transition from the November 2025 application to the January 2026 materials represents a shift from a preliminary referral response to a finalized technical package that formally requests exemptions from Eagle County’s safety and infrastructure standards.

The most significant changes concern the formalization of Traffic Impact and Legal Access, moving the project from a "compliance" phase into a "variance" phase where the developer admits the existing infrastructure cannot support the project as currently designed.

If you are tracking this for the public hearing, the Engineering Report (2.4.26) and the Holland Hart Access Letter (Exhibit M) are your most important targets for review, as they contain the developer's arguments for why they should be allowed to fail the traffic standards.

Key Changes and Updates in the February 2026 Materials

Based on a comparison of your "old application" (November 21, 2025) and the new list of February 2026 materials, several critical updates have occurred:

Feature

Old Application (Nov 2025)

New Materials (Feb 2026)

Traffic Data

Labeled as "WO Traffic" (Without Traffic); projections were preliminary.

Exhibit G (Engineering Report) and Exhibit M now include a full Traffic Impact Analysis.

Legal Status

A regular 1041 Permit and standard PUD application.

Now includes a formal VIS (Variance from Improvement Standards) request for traffic and road width.

Site Layout

Focused on residential density and basic utility extensions.

Added Exhibit D (Illustrative Site Plan) and Exhibit F (Landscape Plans) featuring a massive screen berm along Hwy 82.

Access Points

Primarily one point of access on JW Drive.

Updated to include three access points: one primary on JW Drive and two emergency-only gates (Jaci and Gillespie).

Exhibit Structure

Limited exhibits (A-G).

Reorganized into a more formal Exhibits A-M structure to meet County "Sufficiency" requirements.

Impact on Traffic: The "Variance" Controversy

The February 2026 materials confirm a critical turning point for the community regarding traffic. The engineering report and the associated Holland & Hart Access Letter (Exhibit M) now explicitly address three major traffic failures:

1. Admitted "Level of Service F" Failure

The developer’s updated study admits that the project will push the JW Drive and Highway 82 intersection into LOS F (total failure) during peak commuting hours.

• The Change: Instead of reducing the number of units (111) to mitigate this, the Feb 2026 materials formally request a Variance (VIS) to allow the project to proceed despite this failure.

• The Conflict: The Town of Basalt and Roaring Fork Fire Rescue have already submitted comments (found in your documents) expressing "sincere concern" that this will cause gridlock and impede emergency response times.

2. The "ITE Code 223" Trip Generation Gap

• How Exhibit G SUPPORTS the opposition:

○ The applicant has conceded part of this point. They are no longer applying ITE Code 223 to the whole project.

○ They now use ITE Code 220 (Multifamily Low-Rise) for the majority of the units (79 units) and ITE Code 215 (Townhomes) for 18 units.

○ They only retained ITE Code 223 for the 14 specific "Affordable" units.

3. Dual Access and Neighborhood Cut-Throughs

The Holland & Hart Access Letter (Exhibit M) is a new legal justification for why the developer should not be forced to provide a second "daily use" road.

• The Impact: Eagle County staff recommended connecting the project to Gillespie Drive for daily traffic. The Feb 2026 materials refuse this, keeping it as a gated emergency exit only.

• Traffic Result: This forces all 111 units to exit through the single JW Drive point, concentrating the traffic impact on the already stressed Highway 82 intersection and potentially causing residents to "cut through" Blue Lake to reach closer bus stops.

Summary Recommendation

The February 4, 2026, update is a "sufficiency response," meaning the applicant believes they have finally provided enough data for the County to set a public hearing. However, this "sufficiency" is achieved by asking the County Commissioners to ignore the standard traffic rules via a variance.

Notice: This information was prepared using Artificial Intelligence to synthesize and organize public records from published data, CORA responses, and other relevant documents.  While this tool assists in identifying patterns and structuring data, users should perform their own independent verification of quotes, dates, and technical data points against the official Eagle County case file before using this information in formal testimony or legal filings.  Notice: This application is part of a quickly moving process. Due to the rapid nature of the development process, residents are encouraged to stay proactive. KMOHR works to provide updates as new information becomes available via public records to ensure the community remains well-informed between official notice periods. However, some of the information here might be Overtaken by Events (OBE).  Open Records Request.  For residents seeking the primary source documentation associated with this application, the Eagle County Open Records process is an excellent resource for detailed review.