The Board of County Commissioners voted to conditionally approve docket LUDash25-0003, the Miska‑Saboda earthwork and grading application, after a hearing in which neighbors raised legal, visual and geotechnical concerns and applicants and staff defended the proposal as necessary for emergency vehicle access.

Staff from Community Planning and Permitting recommended approval subject to conditions including: an easement for the retaining wall footing within 621 Fountain Tree; a boundary-line field survey; engineer-stamped construction plans; required observation reports; adherence to submitted geological hazard recommendations; removal and lawful disposal of rock waste; installation of catch fencing downslope; and an updated drainage report and stormwater quality permit at building permit.

Applicants said the work implements previously approved site plan access and that a cantilevered elevated roadway design previously considered was declined by the homeowners association, prompting this retaining‑wall solution. Planning consultant Rosie Dennett said the proposal "is designed to meet the requirements of the fire district and county public works." Property owner Eric Miska told the board the design was reviewed with the fire chief using the fire district’s vehicle turning specifications and said the access improvements are intended solely to meet emergency‑vehicle access needs: "This is a life safety issue," he said.

Opponents — owners of 570 Fountain Tree Lane and others — argued the proposed retaining wall and grading would encroach on Outlot A and the neighbors’ property, present an ongoing maintenance and liability concern for the HOA, and significantly understate cut-and-fill volumes. Attorney John Sullivan and adjacent property owners said alternative access options were not adequately analyzed in the application and said that a pending lawsuit raises property-rights questions. Speakers provided engineering notes the opponents said show higher cut-and-fill volumes than the application states; applicants’ design team responded that differing estimates came from non-application structural-engineer placeholder figures not relied on for the land‑use review.

County attorneys reviewed the pending litigation and advised the board that the ongoing court case did not require the county to pause or table its land‑use review. During deliberation, commissioners said they were constrained to apply land‑use code criteria and staff’s conditions and not to resolve private legal disputes or HOA enforcement matters. Commissioner Loicherme said the decision felt difficult given the neighbors’ concerns but that the application, with staff conditions, met the code criteria.

Formal action: Commissioner Stoltzmann moved to approve LU‑25‑0003 as conditioned by staff. The motion passed with the commissioners present voting in favor. Staff will require the easements and field survey and will not release building permits until conditions are satisfied.

Why it matters: The decision allows immediate site work and retaining‑wall construction tied to meeting current fire‑district access requirements while leaving unresolved civil disputes about easements and HOA enforcement to the courts. Conditions imposed by staff aim to reduce geotechnical and drainage risk and require monitoring and mitigation during construction.

Key facts: Staff recorded the requested earthwork amount as 672 cubic yards of non‑foundational earthwork; staff flagged the site as within a landslide susceptibility area and recommended observation reports and geotechnical conformity. Neighbors contested the stated cut/fill volume and asserted the retaining wall height and impact are larger than the applicants reported; applicants said the structural engineer’s preliminary placeholder figures do not reflect final grading submitted in the land‑use packet.

What’s next: Staff will require the agreed easement (for retaining wall footings), boundary survey, final engineer-stamped plans, drainage revisions and stormwater permitting before issuing building permits. The neighbor petition and pending litigation remain separate civil matters.