The Jefferson County Planning Commission voted unanimously on June 25 to forward a recommendation of approval for Case 24-113412RZ, the Palo Verde Park Estates official development plan, which would rezone a 3.67-acre property at 3942 South Palo Verde Road in Evergreen to a planned development following Mountain Residential 3 (MR-3) standards and allow up to 12 dwelling units.

Planning staff case manager Sarah Hoemeyer told the commission staff had reviewed the proposal against compatibility, conformance with the county Comprehensive Master Plan (CMP), mitigation of negative impacts, infrastructure and services, and health, safety and welfare. Hoemeyer said staff found the request in conformance with applicable CMP goals and policies and recommended approval. “Staff recommends approval of the rezoning request,” Hoemeyer said.

The applicant, represented by Richard Miller of Progressive Planning Services of Colorado, described two conceptual layouts: one with eight single-family lots and one showing six two‑family structures for a total of 12 dwelling units. Miller said the plan includes a minimum 28% community parks and trails and that one layout option dedicates 36.7% of the site to parks and trails. He said wildlife‑friendly fencing would be required and that Troutdale Scenic Road would not be used for construction access. “We will accommodate the access to that property. We will include the easement that will be drawn on the plat document, and we will make sure that that access is preserved,” Miller said.

Two nearby residents testified in opposition or with concerns during the public‑testimony portion. Benjamin Galbreth, who identified himself as a building consultant and neighbor at 3982 Palo Verde Road, said the applicant’s conceptual drawings did not fully reflect recorded easements and believed an easement could cut through some proposed lots and park space. “I just don’t think that the plans that we are reviewing are accurate,” Galbreth said.

Neighbor Anthony Klobuchar, who lives at 3972 Palo Verde Road, said the development would substantially increase traffic on a narrow dead‑end road and could negatively affect the immediate community. “This would almost triple it,” Klobuchar said of the number of households on the road.

County staff and the applicant responded that the conceptual site sketches shown at the rezoning stage are illustrative only and that exact lot layouts, access, traffic impacts and engineering will be evaluated in detail during the subsequent preliminary and final plat process and referral to engineering and emergency‑services agencies. Nick Nelson, planning supervisor, told the commission that if off‑site portions of county right of way do not meet standards, “it would be on the developer to bring that road to standard” as part of the plat/permit process.

Commissioners who summarized their positions cited compatibility with surrounding uses, a lower intensity of uses compared with the site’s existing C‑1 (Commercial 1) and A‑2 (Agricultural 2) zoning, and potential public‑safety benefits from required wildfire mitigation and road improvements during the plat stage. Commissioner Larocque said she was “in support,” and Commissioner Spencer noted the rezoning would allow less‑intensive uses than other options and could improve wildfire safety. After discussion, Commissioner Mezner moved approval and Commissioner Lyles seconded. The commission’s roll call produced unanimous approval; the matter will be sent to the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners on July 22.

Case details and conditions included in the official development plan: the rezoning would limit the site to a maximum of 12 dwelling units (single‑family, two‑family, or a combination), require at least 28% of the site to be community parks and trails, set wildlife‑friendly fencing standards (maximum 42 inches, no chain link), and require adherence to mountainous‑area lighting standards and a wildfire mitigation plan at platting.

The planning commission record shows three written public comments in opposition prior to the hearing, with concerns noted about increased on‑site population, wildlife, and the potential for an increased unhoused population; staff said no unresolved citizen comments remained in staff’s analysis.

The planning commission’s recommendation will be advisory; final authority for zoning decisions rests with the Board of County Commissioners, which will consider the item on July 22.