Draft Document - Public Review Feedback

Draft Comprehensive Plan Document - Public Review Feedback

Below is a live summary of feedback and themes received by City staff during the draft document review period (August 13 - September 12). This summary will be regularly updated to give the public a sense of feedback on the draft document. A final summary will be posted at the end of the public review period and included in the Planning Commission and City Council public hearing packets.

This feedback will be used to inform the draft Comprehensive Plan document. The public is encourage to review this document to ensure City staff have accurately captured their feedback and can contact planningshared@cityofgolden.net with any additional ideas, questions or concerns.

What is the Plan | How Is the Plan Used (pages 6-12)

Planning Commission (August 20)
- Add more clarification around the 'catalytic change' and how the Plan would guide such development
General Public Feedback
- Seems more philosophical than specific planning
- More consistency and brevity in this section's writing
- Use more positive language
- Disappointed the focus is on expanding housing instead of limiting housing. Why can't the city purchase existing homes to make affordable housing, why do we need more development in Golden.
- Nothing in the Plan about how we keep Golden safe with increased development.
- Stronger incorporation of the City's sustainability goals

System of Plans | A Special Place (pages 13-19)

City Council Study Session (August 12)
- Move 'A Special Place' section earlier in the Plan document
- Fix "City staff will update..." sentence to make clear neighborhood plan prioritization is subject to a public planning process and part of City Council's annual strategic planning/goal setting process
Planning Commission (August 20)
- Add more detail to the System of Plans - one page per plan
- Add summary of Golden Vision 2030 and neighborhood plans
- Expand 'A Special Place' to be its own chapter discussing how the community interacts with open space, Clear Creek, downtown, School of Mines, etc.
General Public Feedback
- Add links to referenced plans
  - Where is the South Golden Road neighborhood plan online?

Goals and Implementation Actions (pages 20-23)

City Council Study Session (August 12)
- Parking availability is a constant concern and there are a lot of goals focused on reducing single-occupancy vehicle trips. Add a goal focused on parking
- Highlight how parking is included in the Comprehensive Plan
- Add goals regarding viewsheds per Golden Vision 2030
- Tie all the goals together with some sort of preamble
- Goal CN.4 - either delete goal as the City no longer does neighborhood grants or tie it to the current Thriving Communities grant program
Planning Commission (August 20)
- Page 20 reads like a table of contents, each should be its own chapter. Add emphasis, goals, strategies
General Public Feedback
- The goals seem soft in preservation, using words like encourage, support and influence.
- Housing goals support preserving existing affordable housing, but also building more. Unsure if the goals focus on both or affordable housing in particular
- Stronger incorporation of the City's sustainability goals
- Goals LU.1, LU.4 and LU.5: Are these goals exempt from parking requirements mentioned on Page 27?
- Page 27: With reduced parking requirements for permanently affordable housing what accommodations are being made for adjacent neighborhood parking?

Housing (pages 24-32)

City Council Study Session (August 12)
- Fix Canyon Gate construction date; add more dates/snapshots as appropriate with Affordable Housing Policy Coordinator
- Remove 'complete' from City Charter Development Subsidies Language Change on Table X
- Add Goal H.5 focused on diverse housing types, not only affordable housing
Planning Commission (August 20)
- Pages 24-26 seem superfluous, move to appendix.
- Add information how diversity of housing is healthy and helps with affordability, existing development patterns and composition of neighborhoods.
- Define NOAH beyond existing definition in the Plan document. Identify existing NOAH
- Talk about more strategies for keeping people in their homes
- Add strategic growth and water planning element required by state
General Public Feedback
- Move up the section on new housing within the chapter
- Reduce the tables to more concisely deliver the information that's important
- Add more language about the benefits of increased density
- The Plan only uses the term density twice. Its reference to density is neutral, feels like it is ducking the issue.

Colorado School of Mines | Economic Vitality and Development (pages 33-38)

City Council Study Session (August 12)
- Expand these sections to include local business support (similar to existing City programs) and recognize Mines' economic contributions to Golden
Planning Commission (August 20)
- Mines does not need a chapter in the Plan
- Add more discussion of regional partnerships
General Public Feedback
- Mines has been expanding and building at an amazing pace. The IGA or other guidance barely seems to work in the City's favor.
- The City should consider seeking legislation or other actions to 'level the playing field' to constrain Mines' geographic footprint in the community.
- Looks good

General Comprehensive Plan - Public Draft Feedback

City Council Study Session (August 12)
- Confusion about the Plan's general organization
- Are there better ways to incorporate Golden Vision 2030?
- REDI Task Force should review the draft document
- Phase II feedback, while limited participation, is consistent with other discussions Councilors have had with residents
- Track any document changes on a rolling basis for the public
Planning Commission (August 20)
- More public feedback
- Be honest about the state mandates requiring certain elements
General Public Feedback
- The document is interesting but seems very housing focused. Doesn't address Parks and Recreation or preservation of existing nature of Golden.
- More diversity in the photos