February/March 2026: Planning Commission Public Hearings

February/March 2026 Planning Commission Public Hearings - Public Review Feedback

Below is a live summary of feedback and themes received by City staff during the February 4 Planning Commission study session and the two Planning Commission public hearings (February 18 and March 4) prior to formal plan adoption. This summary will be regularly updated to give the public a sense of feedback on the final plan 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 final 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.

February 4 Planning Commission Study Session

  • General Public Feedback
    • No public feedback received as part of this meeting
    • Add photo captions to better explain connection to text
  • Planning Commission
    • General
      • Remove any photos on pages with goals/implementation actions to prevent bias
      • Copy editing fixes
    • Chapter 1 - Introduction
      • (Pg 5) Change Molson Coors to note location IN downtown Golden
      • (Pg 7) Change 'significantly clash..." to '...in alignment/in harmony/promote...' or similar
      • (Pg 9) Change Parks and Open Space Plan to 2025-26
      • (Pg 13) Add language to explain where the terms on pages 14-15 came from (e.g. Phase I public engagement), maybe add quotation marks
      • Copy editing fixes
    • Chapter 2 - How to Use the Plan
      • (Pg 20) Use development proposal versus development cases throughout the chapter
      • (Pg 20) Replace 'vacation of alleys' with a more common term
    • Chapter 3 - System of Plans
      • (Pg 28) Define CAPRA
      • (Pg 31) Fix mismatched plans/text
      • (Pg 33) Update dates on map
      • (Pg 33) Delete '...(policy not regulatory documents)...'
      • All pages: Bold 'proposals should consult...' language on each plan sheet
    • Chapter 4 - Housing
      • (Pg 43) The REDI added language reads as ‘the city is trying to be discriminatory’ Concerns about if the data is Golden specific or regional/national. Make sure the tone aligns.
        • Disagreement on how this reads but staff should review and add additional context. Maybe add more facts.
        • Support for moving this into Chapter 1 as part of a more historical discussion; also fold in the ‘indigenous communities since time immemorial’ sentence.
      • (Pg 44) Add the 'City's' Thriving Communities...
      • (Pg 55) Goal H.6 needs more context/clarity – Staff asked for better direction
        • Concerns about development occurring in non-form based zones and having development outcomes we don’t like. The goal could take priority over all others.
        • Revise to add more about within context – replace ‘support’?
        • Some concerns about architectural outcomes
      • (Pg 55) Goal H.5 add some implementation actions
      • (Pg 43) The REDI added language reads as ‘the city is trying to be discriminatory’ Concerns about if the data is Golden specific or regional/national. Make sure the tone aligns.
        • Disagreement on how this reads but staff should review and add additional context. Maybe add more facts.
        • Support for moving this into Chapter 1 as part of a more historical discussion; also fold in the ‘indigenous communities since time immemorial’ sentence.
    • Chapter 5 - Regional Partnerships
      • No comments
    • Chapter 6 - Economic Vitality
      • (Pg 63) Put the community marketing and visitor based economy stuff here. Provide some more examples of partner organizations.
      • (Pg 66) Add some implementation actions basically recognizing City staff work
      • Discussion of resource intensive uses, City staff said trying not to exclude specific industries/businesses but other regulatory documents and water plans would probably lead more than the Comp Plan when reviewing development proposals
        • Support for this approach
    • Chapter 7 - Historic Preservation
      • Add in more discussion of metrics, perhaps how they tie into Past Forward work. Does this live in Comp Plan or Past Forward?
      • (Pg 72) Great goals, would like more implementation actions
      • (Pg 72) HP.1 – consider incorporating architectural styles in historic districts into form overlays
    • Chapter 8 - Strategic Growth and Water Planning
      • No comments
    • Chapter 9 - Goals and Implementation Actions
      • Find better clip art logos
      • (Pg 89) Add language about goals/implementation action dichotomy
      • (Pg 89) Replace graphic with GV2030 value themes


February 18 Public Hearing

  • General Public Feedback
    • No public feedback received prior to or at the public hearing
  • Adjacent Jurisdictions within Three Miles of City Limits (required by state statute)
    • Jefferson County
      • Surprised Plan did not directly address transit oriented communities legislation
    • City of Arvada
      • No specific concerns, noted issues of mutual interest with Golden, including SH93 projects and potential annexations
  • Planning Commission
    • Planning Commissioners discussed a desire for more public engagement but recognized the extensive process
    • Chapter 4
      • (Pg 43) Housing ownership data-disparities
        • Try to find a more Golden-centric versus County data. Add a statement to this effect if we cannot find such data.
        • Change '...confront the injustices...' to 'address the issues'
        • Remove all language after 'interventions'
      • No changes or discussion of proposed edits; incorporated into final document
    • Chapter 6
      • No changes or discussion of proposed edits; incorporated into final document
    • Chapter 7
      • No changes or discussion of proposed edits; incorporated into final document
      • Planning Commissioners discussed a desire for joint coordination on relevant issues and topics with the Historic Preservation Review Board


March 4 Public Hearing

  • General Public Feedback (all received via email)
    • As a preservationist and professional historian, haven't had difficulty with the City's historic preservation ordinances or regulations designating any place connected to any group or ethnicity. However, it would be literally impossible for designations to represent various groups 'equally.'
    • Have had difficulty in designating any site or building where the City itself is the owner. If the City government wishes the community to preserve its heritage, it is important that the City itself set an example through how it treats the historical treasures the government itself owns.
    • Strong support for the Plan, specifically the goals to increase housing density through transit-oriented development and mixed-use zoning. Specifically advocate for mixed-use development beyond the downtown core, transit-oriented development, reducing bureaucratic hurdles and 'by right' approvals of projects that meet density goals, and a supply-first approach to maximize the overall number of units and businesses spaces in a sustainable way.
    • Urge the city to prioritize total housing supply and cost reduction over restrictive affordable housing mandates.
  • Adjacent Jurisdictions within Three Miles of City Limits (required by state statute)
    • No additional feedback received
  • Planning Commission
    • No additional feedback, Plan adopted via a 6-0 vote
Share February/March 2026: Planning Commission Public Hearings on Facebook Share February/March 2026: Planning Commission Public Hearings on Twitter Share February/March 2026: Planning Commission Public Hearings on Linkedin Email February/March 2026: Planning Commission Public Hearings link