HEARING INFORMATION / Public Comment
Roaring Fork Planning Commission Hearing - TO BE RESCHEDULED.
Embedded Files
Eagle County Land Use Code REWRITE MEETING on February 18
FILL THE ROOM! Critical Hearing: Roaring Fork Valley Planning Commission (RFVPC) to DECIDE on El Jebel Crossing Development. They will RECOMMEND that the Board of County Commissions (BOCC) either APPROVE or DENY the Aspen One's Planned Workforce Housing, as proposed.
Watch the County Planner present their staff report (i.e., their detailed evaluation of the Case File and recommendations) When released, the Staff Report will be posted HERE
Listen to the Applicant, answer questions from the RFVPC
Speak you opinion during public comment (3 minute limit)
Watch the planning commission deliberate and form their recommendation(s)
Take away sufficient information to prepare for the BOCC hearing. Time - TBD
Listen to our Podcast type Discussion
Participate Remotely: If you cannot attend in person but still wish to speak, you can call in remotely Remote contact information is posted with the agenda.
Watch Online: You can watch the proceedings on Eagle County TV; however, please note that watching online does not count toward official attendance numbers.
Submit written public comment to: planningcomments@eaglecounty.us.
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
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)
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
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
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
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.
Comments/Questions for Commissioners:
Comments/Questions for Commissioners:
WRITTEN COMMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
TO: RFVRPC
FROM: [Your Name / Organization]
DATE:( )
SUBJECT: Opposition to EJ Crossing Application – Evidence of Failing Traffic Infrastructure
Introduction
We respectfully urge the commission to recommend denial of the application and any associated variances for the proposed EJ Crossing development. A side-by-side comparison of the developer’s original December 2025 Traffic Impact Study and their revised January 2026 Traffic Impact Study reveals a stark reality: the initial impacts were severely underreported, and the local infrastructure cannot safely or adequately support this project.
The revised data proves that the adjacent intersections currently fail to meet County Standards, and the addition of this development will only exacerbate these dangerous conditions.
1. A 37% Unexplained Jump in Project Traffic
In the original December 2025 study, the applicant classified all 111 units as "Affordable Housing" (ITE Code 223), resulting in an estimated 534 daily weekday trips.
The revised study quietly corrects this misclassification, splitting the development into 18 Townhomes, 79 Multifamily Low-Rise units, and only 14 Affordable Housing units.
Because of this correction, the actual estimated traffic generation is 732 daily trips.
The Takeaway: The applicant initially underreported their daily trip generation by nearly 200 trips. We cannot approve a massive development when the foundational data regarding its impact has shifted so drastically.
2. Admission of Physical Infrastructure Failure (Queueing)
The original December study claimed that all vehicle queues would remain safely within existing turn lane lengths through 2050.
The revised study retracts this claim, explicitly admitting that the northbound dual left-turn lanes at the SH-82 and El Jebel Road intersection will overflow.
These lanes only have 225 feet of storage capacity. The applicant's own engineer now admits that the vehicle queue will stretch to 258 feet by 2028 and a massive 362 feet by 2050.
The Takeaway: The intersection is already physically incapable of handling projected traffic, creating a bottleneck that will back up into through-traffic lanes and create severe safety hazards.
3. Persistent "LOS F" (Failing) Conditions and Unfunded Mandates
Both studies confirm that the northbound Valley Road and southbound J W Drive approaches at SH-82 currently operate at Level of Service (LOS) F, which represents "long delays" and poor operations. This failing status is projected to persist into the future.
To "mitigate" this, the study suggests restricting minor street turning movements to right-turns only. This does not solve the traffic problem; it merely forces 732 new daily trips to make U-turns or cut through neighboring residential streets to reach their destinations.
Furthermore, the signalized SH-82 and El Jebel Road intersection is projected to operate at LOS E during the afternoon peak hour by 2050.
The study admits that maintaining acceptable traffic flow will require SH-82 to be expanded to three through lanes in each direction by 2040.
The Takeaway: Approving EJ Crossing places an immediate, unacceptable burden on an already failing (LOS F) intersection, while accelerating the need for a massive, unfunded six-lane highway expansion.
Conclusion The applicant's own revised engineering data confirms that the surrounding roadway network is already strained beyond its limits. Adding 732 new daily trips to an area with documented LOS F delays, overflowing turn lanes, and no immediate funding for highway expansion is a direct violation of adequate public facility standards. We strongly urge the Committee to recommend denial of this application.
LINKS TO PUBLISHED DOCUMENTS (Use the link to ensure the latest information)
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.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse