Proposed Eagle County Zoning Map REVEALED!

The Fields Development

IS BACK!

While The Fields Development is not part of Missouri Heights, we share information about this project due to: Increased traffic congestion at the intersections of El Jebel Rd and Hwy 82 and Catherine Store Rd and Hwy 82. A new application has been submitted!

Location: 554 Valley Road - Parcel # 2391-334-01-003

Application Materials: ZC-009604-2025, SSP-009607-2025, 1041-009605-2025, VIS-009606-2025

Hearing Information:

RFVRPC (TBD)
BoCC (TBD)

Public Comment Information:

Submit public comment form: Project: The Fields
To watch the meeting live please visit 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.
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

Analysis of Applicant Responses to Referral Comments

Here is an explanation of the referral responses provided by LANDWEST on behalf of "The Fields" development, along with a detailed breakdown of whether each response addresses the respective agency's concerns based strictly on the provided document.

Agency-by-Agency Response Breakdown

1. Eagle County Wildfire Mitigation

Summary of Response: The Applicant acknowledges Eagle County’s anticipated adoption of new wildfire regulations. They commit to complying with all applicable wildfire mitigation, ignition-resistant construction, defensible space, access, and emergency signage requirements when they apply for building permits and begin development.
Does it address the concerns? Yes. The response addresses the concern by agreeing to full future compliance with both current and upcoming county wildfire safety standards.

2. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE)

Summary of Response: The Applicant states that they will comply with any applicable regulations referenced by the CDPHE in their referral comments.
Does it address the concerns? Yes. It directly addresses the agency's concerns by promising total regulatory compliance.

3. Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT)

Summary of Response: The Applicant notes that CDOT submitted no referral comments regarding the application.
Does it address the concerns? N/A. There were no concerns raised by CDOT to be addressed.

4. Colorado Geological Survey (CGS)

Summary of Response: The Applicant agrees with the recommendations outlined in the project's geologic and geotechnical reports. They commit to conducting design-level geotechnical engineering investigations for individual building sites once architectural plans and final building locations are set. They also pledge to consult qualified professionals and evaluate mitigation measures if any sinkholes or subsidence are discovered during future construction or investigations.
Does it address the concerns? Yes. The response actively addresses geological concerns by concurring with the initial reports, mapping out site-specific future testing, and establishing a plan of action for potential hazards like sinkholes.

5. Roaring Fork Fire & Rescue Authority

Summary of Response: The Rescue Authority raised concerns regarding emergency access within the subdivision. The Applicant explains that Waverly Street is designed to meet County Road standards for a Suburban Residential Road, featuring a 24-foot width from flowline to flowline and mountable curbs. They note that on-street parking will be strictly prohibited and signed accordingly to remain compliant with the Eagle County Engineering Criteria Manual. Additionally, they point out that the road satisfies the International Fire Code (Appendix D), which requires an unobstructed access road width of at least 20 feet.
Does it address the concerns? Yes. This response thoroughly addresses emergency access concerns by citing technical compliance with both county road specifications and international fire codes, alongside a plan to ban and sign against on-street parking obstructions.

6. Pitkin County & Town of Basalt Community Development Department

Summary of Response: Both entities submitted comments highlighting conflicts or differences between the Town of Basalt's regulatory standards, goals, and policies versus those of Eagle County. The Applicant acknowledges these distinctions but emphasizes that the development is located within Eagle County's jurisdiction, legally binding them only to Eagle County's regulatory standards and Comprehensive Plan.
Does it address the concerns? No / Jurisdictional Dismissal. The response does not alter the project to fit Basalt's goals; instead, it legally dismisses the relevance of the concerns by pointing out that Eagle County is the sole governing jurisdiction.

7. Town of Basalt Police Department

Summary of Response: The Police Department voiced concerns regarding the project's impact on mutual aid services and requested a financial contribution from the developer. The Applicant states that while they understand the concern, regional service impacts and financial contributions are policy-level coordination matters that belong in an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) between the jurisdictions, rather than being handled on a project-by-project basis.
Does it address the concerns? No. The Applicant declines the request for a direct financial contribution, deferring the issue to a broader, government-to-government policy framework.

8. Town of Basalt Engineering Department

Summary of Response: The department raised concerns about local transportation conditions and multimodal connectivity. The Applicant counters by noting that Eagle County is already constructing major upgrades at the El Jebel Road/Valley Road/East Valley Road intersection, which already factor in the projected traffic from The Fields (which their study shows is a minor percentage of total volume). Additionally, the Applicant highlights extensive pedestrian improvements they are building along Valley Road, including 860 linear feet of new public sidewalks, curb and gutter, drainage, ADA ramps, and raised pedestrian crosswalks equipped with Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs).
Does it address the concerns? Yes. The response comprehensively addresses traffic and connectivity concerns by clarifying that regional intersection capacity is already being expanded and by detailing significant, self-funded pedestrian and traffic-calming improvements.

NEW APPLICATION SUMMARY

The proposed development at 554 Valley Road, known as "The Fields," involves a significant intensification of land use and necessitates multiple deviations from established County standards. This 19.39-acre project seeks to replace historically irrigated agricultural pastureland with a 41-unit residential subdivision, requiring a rezone from Rural Residential (RR) to Residential Suburban Medium (RSM).

Density and Zoning Concerns

Significant Density Increase: The project would shift the property from a rural designation allowing one single-family unit per two acres to a suburban medium-density district allowing lots as small as 8,000 square feet.
Loss of Agricultural Land: Implementation of the project requires the permanent loss of 14.3 acres of historically irrigated land and the termination of all existing agricultural activities on the site.
Tenant Displacement: To make way for construction, the developer will terminate the leases of current residents living in four existing structures on the property.

Infrastructure and Traffic Failures

The project relies heavily on Variances from Improvement Standards (VIS) because it cannot meet the County’s standard safety and operational requirements:

Failing Intersections: Nearby high-capacity intersections at SH 82/El Jebel Road and SH 82/JW Drive already operate at a Level of Service (LOS) F during peak hours, which is a failing grade by County standards.
Roadway Deviances: Due to a "limited right-of-way," the developer is requesting variances to skip mandatory road standards, including the requirement for 60-foot right-of-way widths, 15-foot lane widths, and detached sidewalks or paths.
Increased Volume: The subdivision is projected to add 389 vehicle trips per day to a corridor that already faces documented speeding and pedestrian safety issues.

Environmental and Geotechnical Risks

Sinkhole Potential: Geotechnical investigations identified a potential risk for ground subsidence (sinkholes) due to the underlying Eagle Valley Evaporite bedrock. While the applicant rates this risk as "low," it is a known hazard in the area.
Wildfire Exposure: Portions of the property are rated as "FireShed High" due to existing conifer and cottonwood trees, requiring mandatory ignition-resistant construction for all new buildings.
Wetland Degradation: While the applicant claims the on-site wetlands are "non-jurisdictional" because they were induced by agricultural irrigation, development will result in the discontinuance of this irrigation, effectively eliminating these existing green features.

Public Benefit vs. Project Impact

While the applicant highlights a $5.07 million public benefit package, the vast majority of this value ($4.32 million) is derived from the projected "affordability gap" of 5.6 units built beyond the minimum requirement. The remaining physical improvements, such as the Valley Road sidewalk and traffic calming measures, are proposed to mitigate the impacts and safety deficiencies introduced by the development itself.

FORMER APPLICATION VERSUS THE NEW APPLICATION

Based on a comparison between the 2026 application materials and the 2020 application, the major differences represent a significant reduction in project scale and a shift in housing density.

The primary differences include:

1. Significant Reduction in Unit Count and Density

2020 Application: Proposed up to 135 dwelling units. This included a sketch plan approved in 2016 for 110 units.
2026 Application: Proposes only 41 dwelling units.
Density Change: The gross density has dropped from approximately 7 units per acre (the maximum suggested by the 2018 Mid Valley Area Community Plan ) to 2.1 units per acre in the current proposal.

2. Shift in Housing Type and Layout

Arrangement: The 2026 plan features 29 single-family market-rate lots and 12 half-duplex affordable units. The earlier higher-density versions likely required more multi-family or clustered configurations to reach 110–135 units.
Subdivision Strategy: Initially, the affordable units were shown as a single lot containing multiple buildings. Following County feedback, the new application was revised to create six individual duplex lots (Lots 20-25), ensuring only one residential building exists per lot to comply with RSM zoning standards.

3. Enhanced Public Benefit and Affordable Housing Commitment

Affordable Housing Percentages: While the 2020 application included 54 equivalent affordable units , the 2026 application prioritizes a "Public Benefit" package by providing 188% of the County's required affordable housing (12 units provided vs. 6.38 required).
Monetary Value: The applicant now quantifies the public benefit at over $5 million, which includes the "Affordability Gap" for providing 5.6 units more than required.

4. Infrastructure and Pedestrian Facilities

Valley Road Sidewalk: The new application commits to building approximately 860 linear feet of new public sidewalk, curb, and gutter along the north side of Valley Road.
Traffic Calming: Unlike prior iterations, the current plan proactively includes two raised pedestrian crosswalks with Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB) to address neighbor concerns regarding speeding on Valley Road.

5. Variance Requests

Level of Service (LOS): The 2026 application includes a new formal request for Variances from Improvement Standards regarding the Level of Service at Highway 82 intersections. The applicant noted that the lack of this variance in the prior application was a point of concern for County Commissioners in 2023.
Roadway Standards: The current application seeks variances for Valley Road's width and shoulder type, citing that the narrow, fixed right-of-way makes it impossible to meet standard County suburban collector designs.

6. Environmental and Resource Refinements

Water Conservation: The current plan features a dedicated pressurized raw-water irrigation system using 173 shares of Arlian Ranch Ditch water to eliminate the use of treated potable water for the 7.0 acres of open space.
Tree Preservation: The landscape plan was updated to replace Manchurian Ash trees with American Lindens to protect against the Emerald Ash Borer.

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse