Commission approves Rockwood Meadows rezoning after floodplain and traffic disputes, vote 5–4

The Jefferson County Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5–4 to approve PB25‑018, a rezoning and development plan that would convert a PUD‑zoned 6.17‑acre site at State Highway W and Highway 109 into a PR‑2 development with 56 attached single‑family units (duplex‑to‑quad formats).

Staff told commissioners the proposed plan would yield about 56 units — roughly 9 dwelling units per acre under the PR‑2 zone — and that the site is entirely within the 100‑year floodplain. Staff recommended approval with conditions and noted any development in the floodplain must meet floodplain‑development permits and applicable mitigation options (including elevation and LOMA/LOMR processes) required by county and federal rules.

William Levinson, president of Benton Home Builders, described the project as 56 “luxury townhomes” with two‑car garages and maintenance‑free amenities and said the product targets renters seeking low‑maintenance homes. David Volz, the project engineer, presented a traffic summary of the developer‑commissioned CBB study and said the project is expected to add about 26 trips in the AM peak and 29 in the PM peak. Volz contrasted that estimate with the traffic that would have been generated by previously approved commercial development on the site (estimated at roughly 620 AM / 870 PM trips) and said the residential plan is therefore a materially lighter use for the local intersections.

Several residents opposed the plan. Speakers cited repeated flooding at intersections nearby (including 2017 and other recent events), questioned water pressure and electric reliability as more homes are added, and raised concerns about emergency services and school capacity. Steve Casten said, “This property will flood. These homes will flood,” and asked whether future homeowners would face high FEMA flood‑insurance costs.

Petitioners and staff replied that floodplain development is allowed under code with the appropriate engineering and federal permitting steps, that the traffic report did not recommend additional intersection improvements for the proposed residential use, and that utility capacity checks will be part of subsequent site‑plan and permitting work.

Commissioners discussed master‑plan intent and the long history of commercial vacancy at the intersection; several noted the property had been zoned commercial for decades without development. Supporters said the PR‑2 proposal yields a transition from commercial uses at the intersection to detached housing and is consistent with the newly adopted master plan’s urban‑node guidance. Opponents emphasized repeated flood events and infrastructure strain.

After closing public comment, the commission approved PB25‑018 by a 5‑to‑4 vote. The approval carries conditions in the staff report and remains subject to subsequent site‑plan review, floodplain permits and other department reviews before building permits are issued.