Read our October letter to supporters with important updates!
The application is seeking approval for a 1041 Permit and a Variance from Improvement Standards (VIS) for EJ Crossing. The VIS request specifically seeks relief from two Eagle County standards: (1) the Level of Service (LOS) requirement for nearby intersections, and (2) the requirement for a 50-foot right-of-way (ROW) dedication for residential streets.
Here is a comparison of two developments, EJ Crossing and The Fields.
EJ Crossing
Project: A 100% workforce housing neighborhood.
Location: El Jebel, Eagle County, Colorado.
Size: 20.384 acres.
Total Units: 111 rental homes.
Unit Mix: A mix of one-bedroom apartments to four-bedroom townhouses (specifically 86 apartments and 24 townhouses, plus a manager's unit).
Target: 100% workforce housing, with 14 units deed-restricted for households at 80-100% AMI and the rest prioritizing Aspen One employees and the local workforce, serving incomes from 80% to 250% AMI.
Commercial Space: None. The project includes a small community center and maintenance facility for residents.
Funding: Fully privately funded by Aspen One, with no public subsidies requested.
Key Features: Designed as a 100% electric, transit-oriented community adjacent to an RFTA BRT stop.
The Fields
Project: A large-scale, mixed-use, master-planned community.
Location: Eagle, Eagle County, Colorado.
Size: Approximately 291 acres.
Total Units: 682 residential units proposed.
Unit Mix: A mix of 208 single-family homes and 474 multi-family units.
Target: A general mixed-use community, not exclusively workforce housing.
Commercial Space: Includes 80,000 square feet of commercial space.
Key Features: A large master-planned development including residential, commercial, and dedicated open space/parks.
The 1041 permit in Eagle County, Colorado (and throughout the state) refers to a special type of permit required for certain major development projects that are considered "Areas and Activities of State Interest."
Here is a breakdown of what that means:
State Authority, Local Control: The permit is rooted in Colorado's Areas and Activities of State Interest Act (House Bill 74-1041, hence the name). The state legislature gave local governments, like Eagle County, the authority to regulate development projects that have impacts beyond the local community.
Purpose: The primary purpose is to give the county local control and oversight over projects that are significant in size or impact, even if those projects might otherwise fall under state or federal jurisdiction (like a highway or a major utility).
Permit Requirement: If a project involves an activity or is located in an area that Eagle County has officially designated as a matter of "State Interest," the developer must apply for and receive a 1041 permit from the county.
Local governments can choose which specific areas or activities to regulate using their 1041 powers. In general, they fall into categories like:
Areas of Interest
Natural Hazard Areas: Such as floodplains, geological hazard areas, and wildfire zones.
Mineral Resource Areas.
Areas containing, or having a significant impact upon, historical, natural, or archaeological resources.
Areas around Key Facilities: Like airports or major interchanges.
Activities of Interest
Major Utilities: Site selection and construction of major public utility facilities.
Water and Sewer: Construction or major extension of domestic water and sewage treatment systems.
Transportation: Site selection of arterial highways and interchanges, and rapid/mass transit terminals.
Solid Waste: Site selection and development of solid waste disposal sites.
New Communities: Site selection and development of new communities.
For a project in Eagle County (which includes mountainous terrain, major highways like I-70, and valuable natural resources), the 1041 permit process is often used to ensure that major developments are properly mitigating risks related to natural hazards and are planning for the efficient use of water and the impact of major infrastructure.
The requirement for an Eagle County 1041 permit for new employee housing stems from Colorado state legislation that gives local governments power to regulate matters of statewide interest.1
Here is a breakdown of why this permit would be required for a project like new employee housing:
State Authorization: Colorado House Bill 74-1041 (the "1041 powers") allows local governments, like Eagle County, to identify, designate, and regulate certain "Areas and Activities of State Interest" through a local permitting process.2
Local Control: This gives Eagle County significant local control over projects that have a potentially major impact on the region's environment, economy, and infrastructure.3
While new employee housing is a critical local need, the scale and impact of the development can often trigger 1041 review under various categories, such as:
Major New Residential Development: Large-scale housing developments, regardless of their purpose (market-rate or employee housing), often fall under 1041 jurisdiction due to their impact on traffic, utilities, and infrastructure.
Impact on Key Facilities/Areas: New housing can significantly impact:
Transportation/Traffic: Increased trips on county roads.
Water and Wastewater Systems: Increased demand on utilities.
Natural Resources: Development in sensitive areas.
3. The Purpose of the Permit
The 1041 permit process ensures that the development of new employee housing conforms to county planning and resource protection goals, even though the housing itself is intended to solve a community issue.
The process forces the developer to demonstrate:
Compliance: That the project complies with all relevant Eagle County Land Use Regulations, including specific chapters dedicated to "Matters of State Interest" (Chapter 6 in their Land Use Regulations).
Mitigation: That potential negative impacts—such as strain on infrastructure or environmental effects—are adequately mitigated.
Orderly Development: That the project is integrated into the community in a planned, phased, and responsible manner, in line with the County's Comprehensive Plan and local housing guidelines.
In short, while the County strongly supports employee housing, the 1041 permit acts as an essential regulatory mechanism to manage the side effects of large-scale development and ensure it aligns with the region's long-term sustainability and resource planning.
EJ Crossing 1041 and VIS Permit
Parcel # 2391-343-18-002 & 2391-343-18-001
RFVRPC - TBD
BoCC - TBD
Submit written public comment:planningcomments@eaglecounty.us
All public hearings will have the option of attending in-person or virtually for public comment. Pre-registration for in-person or virtual public comment is not required. Virtual public comment links will be activated on the date and time of the scheduled hearing Virtual Public Comment link
If you would like to watch the meeting, there is a live feed at www.ecgtv.com . If you're not planning to participate directly in the meeting, then we highly encourage you to use the streaming link provided above, to avoid bandwidth issues.
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION
This document is an application for a 1041 Permit and Variance from Improvement Standards for EJ Crossing, a proposed 100% workforce housing neighborhood in El Jebel, Colorado. The project is being developed by Aspen One and Crawford Properties, LLC, and will provide 111 rental homes on a 20.384-acre site. The application was submitted on August 20, 2025, and updated on September 29, 2025, with responses to sufficiency comments. The Land Studio, Inc. prepared the application.
Traffic Problems and Analysis:
Traffic Impact Study (TIS): A Traffic Impact Study was required and prepared by Kimley-Horn. The study evaluated the intersections of SH-82 and Valley Road/JW Drive, SH-82 and El Jebel Road, and JW Drive and El Jebel Road.
Projected Traffic Generation: EJ Crossing is expected to generate approximately 534 weekday daily trips, with 40 trips during the morning peak hour and 51 during the afternoon peak hour.
Impact on SH-82 Intersections: The addition of project traffic is expected to increase existing traffic volumes on the north JW Drive leg of the SH-82 and JW Drive intersection by approximately 4% (10 project trips / 257 existing trips). For the north El Jebel Road leg of the SH-82 and El Jebel Road intersection, project traffic is expected to increase existing volumes by approximately 5% (42 project trips / 810 existing trips). These increases are well below the 20% threshold at which CDOT would require improvements, so CDOT access permits are not expected to be required. However, access permits may be established to memorialize future traffic volumes.
Existing Level of Service (LOS) Issues:
SH-82 and Valley Road/JW Drive (#1): This unsignalized intersection currently operates with long delays and a poor level of service (LOS F) on the northbound Valley Road and southbound JW Drive approaches during peak hours. These issues are projected to continue into the future, with or without project traffic. A traffic signal is not warranted, and left-turn accelerations already exist. Kimley-Horn recommends restricting turning movements on the minor street approaches to right turns only to improve operations and safety. By 2050, the eastbound left turn from SH-82 to northbound JW Drive may also operate at LOS F during the afternoon peak hour, even with potential widening of SH-82.
SH-82 and El Jebel Road (#2): This signalized intersection currently operates acceptably at LOS C during both weekday peak hours due to a long 180-second cycle length. In 2028, with or without project traffic, it is anticipated to continue operating acceptably at LOS D or better. By 2050, the afternoon peak hour is projected to operate at LOS E, with or without project traffic. To maintain LOS D or better by 2050, CDOT may consider three through lanes in each direction.
JW Drive and El Jebel Road (#3): This T-intersection currently operates acceptably at LOS B or better during both peak hours. With or without project traffic, it is anticipated to continue operating at LOS B or better through 2050, so no improvements are needed.
JW Drive Access (#4): A new full-movement access is proposed along JW Drive for the project. A "STOP" sign is recommended for the northbound approach exiting the development, with a single lane for shared left and right turn movements. This access is anticipated to operate with acceptable LOS A during peak hours through 2050.
Variance from Improvement Standards (VIS) Request - Level of Service: The applicant is requesting a variance from the county standard requiring roads to operate at LOS C or better and intersections at LOS D or better. This request is based on the minimal traffic increase (5% to 7%) from the project at the studied intersections, which is well below the 20% CDOT threshold for requiring improvements. Additionally, major improvements were made to the El Jebel Road/HWY 82 intersection in 2017, and a Road Impact Fee will be paid by the developer.
Queue Analysis: A vehicle queuing analysis was conducted, and all vehicle queues are anticipated to remain within existing turn lane lengths through 2050, so no modifications to turn lanes are needed.
Pedestrian and Transit Connections: The project is designed to support pedestrian and bicycle traffic and connect to existing RFTA transit stops, including a BRT station at SH-82 and El Jebel Road. This is expected to reduce vehicular traffic to and from the site.
Sources:
Here is an explanation of how traffic engineers likely arrived at those numbers and why they make sense in this context.
These projections are not guesses; they are calculated using a standard methodology accepted by transportation engineers and municipal planners.
1. The ITE Trip Generation Manual
The primary tool used for this is the Trip Generation Manual published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). This manual provides standardized data, collected over decades from real-world sites, that estimates the number of trips a specific land use (like an apartment complex, an office park, or a coffee shop) will generate.
Here is the basic process:
Identify Land Use: EJ Crossing has 111 units, which fall under ITE Land Use Codes like "Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise)" (Code 220) or "Residential Condominium/Townhouse" (Code 230).
Find the Rate: The manual provides an average "trip rate" per dwelling unit for a typical weekday, an AM peak hour, and a PM peak hour.
Calculate Baseline: The number of units (111) is multiplied by the ITE trip rates.
2. Why the EJ Crossing Numbers Make Sense (Adjustments)
The "raw" ITE number is almost always adjusted downward based on the specific context of the development. The numbers you provided (534 total, 40 AM, 51 PM) seem plausible because EJ Crossing has two major factors that reduce car trips significantly:
Workforce Housing (Internal Capture): The project is 100% workforce housing, explicitly prioritizing local employees (like those of Aspen One). This means residents are less likely to have long-distance commutes. They may walk, bike, or use employer shuttles (if available), which doesn't count as a vehicle trip.
Transit-Oriented Development (TDM): This is the biggest factor. As noted in the project description, the development is located "adjacent to an RFTA BRT stop." Traffic studies allow for significant trip reductions (sometimes 20-50%) when a project has direct, high-quality public transit access. Residents are expected to use the bus rather than drive.
3. Breaking Down the Numbers
Let's look at the math based on those context points.
Daily Trips (534): This number (534) represents total "trip-ends" for the entire 24-hour weekday—meaning all vehicles entering and exiting the site. If we divide 534 trips by 111 units, we get 4.81 trips per unit. This is a reasonable (even low) average, reflecting the fact that many residents will use the bus or not own a car. (A typical suburban single-family home, by contrast, might generate 9-10 trips per day).
AM Peak (40) vs. PM Peak (51):
These numbers represent the busiest 60-minute period during the morning and evening commutes.
For residential developments, the PM peak is almost always higher than the AM peak, just as shown here (51 > 40).
This is because morning trips are usually focused on one purpose (going to work or school) in a concentrated window. Afternoon trips are more varied and spread out (returning from work, running errands, going to the gym, picking up kids), but the "return home" peak is still the busiest hour.
In short, the 534 trips (4.8 per unit) make sense because this is a dense, transit-oriented, workforce housing project, not a typical suburban subdivision where every resident is expected to drive for every trip.
ABOUT THE VARIANCE
The El Jebel Crossing project proposes 111 rental townhomes and apartments in El Jebel, Colorado, as workforce housing. The developers, Aspen One, are requesting a Variance from Improvement Standards (VIS) from Eagle County for two main reasons:
1. Level of Service (LOS) Requirement: Despite county standards requiring roadways at LOS C or better and intersections at LOS D or better, the JW Drive/Highway 82 intersection already operates below these standards. The project is expected to add only 5-7% traffic, causing minimal changes in delay and no significant degradation, and the developers argue that requiring off-site improvements would be an unnecessary burden. They will also pay a Road
Impact Fee.
2. Right-of-Way (ROW) Dedication: County standards require a 50-foot ROW for urban residential roads. However, Eagle County staff do not intend to maintain the internal roadways, so the developers propose dedicating access and utility easements instead of ROW, arguing no functional benefit to dedicating ROW to the County since they will maintain the streets.
The document identifies potential weaknesses in the variance argument:
● Existing LOS Degradation: Traffic analysis shows that some approaches at the SH-82 and Valley Road/JW Drive intersection consistently operate at LOS F or E, and the SH-82 and El Jebel Road intersection could degrade to LOS E by 2050. The project does not improve these existing failing conditions.
● Roadway LOS: The traffic study doesn't explicitly state the roadway LOS for JW Drive or El Jebel Road, making it unclear if the project contributes to sections operating below the LOS C standard for roadways.
● "Minimal Traffic Impact" vs. County Standards: While the project's traffic addition is below CDOT's 20% threshold for improvements, the core issue is that the intersections already operate below Eagle County's LOS D standard. The project, however minimal its impact, still contributes to an existing failing condition.
● Public Purpose of ROW Dedication: The argument that ROW dedication serves no public purpose if the County doesn't maintain the roads could be debated, as ROW can serve other long-term public interests like future access or infrastructure expansion. The use of easements instead of dedicated ROW might not fully protect these interests.