SCOPE OF HEARING

Based on the provided documents, a hearing regarding the EJ Crossing 1041 Permit Application and the accompanying Variance from Improvement Standards (VIS) would primarily cover the project’s compliance with Eagle County Land Use Regulations (ECLUR) for areas and activities of state interest.

The scope of such a hearing would include the following key areas:

1. 1041 Permit Approval Criteria

The hearing should evaluate if the project meets the standard approval criteria for "Matters of State Interest," including:

• Property Rights and Infrastructure: Ensuring the project does not impair others' property rights and that all necessary permits (stormwater, grading, utility extensions) are obtained.

• Technical and Financial Feasibility: Confirming the applicant (Aspen One) has the expertise and funding to complete and operate the 111-unit workforce housing community.

• Environmental and Wildlife Impact: Assessing if the project avoids significant degradation of air quality, visual quality, surface/groundwater quality, and terrestrial or aquatic habitats.

• Local Government Services: Verifying that the project will not exceed the capacity of schools, water/wastewater systems (Mid Valley Metropolitan District), and emergency services (Roaring Fork Fire Rescue).

2. Variance from Improvement Standards (VIS)

The scope would specifically address two requested deviations from standard county engineering requirements:

• Level of Service (LOS): The applicant is seeking relief from standard intersection LOS requirements, arguing that project traffic (a 5–7% increase) will not significantly degrade existing conditions and that no further intersection improvements should be required.

• Right-of-Way (ROW) Dedication: The applicant requests a variance from the 50-foot ROW requirement for internal roads. They propose using Access and Utility Easements instead, as the roads will remain private and maintained by the developer.

3. Traffic and Circulation

The hearing would cover the findings of the Traffic Impact Study, specifically:

• Primary access via JW Drive and the adequacy of the proposed internal 24-foot wide roads.

• The provision of Dual Access, which currently proposes restricted emergency-only access at Jaci Lane and Gillespie Drive due to the inability to secure full public connections.

4. Community and Socioeconomic Impacts

• Workforce Housing Needs: Reviewing the project’s contribution of 111 rental units (including 14 deed-restricted units) to meet regional housing shortages.

• Economic Impact: Assessing the benefit to the local economy versus the loss of underutilized agricultural land.

5. Specific Design Features

• Berm and Screening: Compliance with the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for large berms along Highway 82 intended for visual and noise screening.

• Sustainability: The project's commitment to being 100% electric and utilizing modular construction to reduce environmental impact.

Questions for Commissioners:

To put the Eagle County Planning Department and the Board of County Commissioners on notice, these questions are designed to be "technical traps"—they force the applicant to defend their methodology rather than just their conclusions.

You can submit these as part of the public record or use them during a public hearing.

Technical Inquiries Regarding VIS-9583-2025 (EJ Crossing)

Regarding Trip Generation & ITE Methodology

1. The "Workforce" Discrepancy: The applicant utilized ITE Code 223 (Affordable Housing). Given that this is Employer-Sponsored Workforce Housing for Aspen One (ski resort/hospitality), where shift times are highly synchronized and (by proving +300 parking spaces (vehicle dependent)) why was ITE Code 221 (Multifamily Housing) not used as a more conservative and accurate baseline for peak-hour impact?

2. Under-counting: If ITE Code 221 or 220 were applied, what would the resulting percentage increase be at the SH-82/El Jebel Road intersection, and would that increase then exceed the CDOT 20% threshold for mandatory highway improvements?

Regarding Eagle County LOS Standards

3. Violation of Code: Eagle County Land Use Code Article 4-720(C) requires intersections to operate at LOS D or better. Since the applicant's own study admits specific movements at SH-82/El Jebel Road are currently failing (LOS E/F), how can the County approve a project that knowingly exacerbates a pre-existing violation of its own standards without requiring off-site mitigation?

4. The "Tipping Point" Analysis: At what specific number of additional peak-hour trips does the 95th-percentile queue from SH-82 spill back into the Shadowrock Drive roundabout? Has the applicant provided a Sensitivity Analysis to show how close the current design is to this "gridlock" threshold?

Regarding Cumulative Impacts & Safety

5. Adjacent Projects: How does the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) account for the Roaring Fork School District’s imminent housing project on the adjacent parcel? Will the County require a Cumulative Traffic Analysis before granting a Variance, to ensure these two projects combined do not create a public safety hazard for emergency response?

6. Fire District Concerns: Roaring Fork Fire Rescue has flagged this area as "very congested." Has the applicant provided a Time-Motion Study showing exactly how many additional seconds of delay an emergency vehicle will face when the single gated access point is blocked by "stacked" traffic on El Jebel Road?

Regarding the Variance Request (VIS)

7. Hardship Verification: The applicant claims a second full-use access is "legally unfeasible." Has the County Attorney or a third-party engineer verified that a Prescriptive Easement or a shared-access agreement with the Gillespie Drive/Jaci Lane property owners is truly impossible?

8. Density vs. Infrastructure: Is the "need" for a Variance a result of the site's physical constraints, or is it a self-imposed hardship created by proposing a density (111 units) that the existing road infrastructure cannot legally support?

• Example Letter to Planning Commission

Location: 

 Parcel # 2391-343-18-002 & 2391-343-18-001

Application Materials: 1041-009568-2025

• Application Materials

• Referral

• Referral Letter 12.18.25

• Referral Response 1.12.26

• Public Comment 1.13.26

Application Materials: VIS-009583-2025

• • Application Materials Updated 12.12.25

  • Referral 

Application Materials: FONZ-009582-2025

• Application Materials

• Referral
  
  

Hearing Information:

• RFVRPC - February 5, 2026  Cancelled rescheduling for a future date

  • 1041-009568-2025 Application 

• BoCC - TBD

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.