December 2025 Draft Document - Public Review Feedback

December 2025 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 (November 21 - December 15). 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.


Chapter 1 - Introduction

  • General Public Feedback
    • Extend the RTD Gold Line into Golden at 311 10th Street (repeated for every chapter)
    • (Pg 15) Reword 'Don't feel isolated as a driving light household.' It was unclear exactly what is being conveyed
    • Use new picture for 'City is Fiscally Responsible'
    • Improve consistent of statements so they read the same (some read as a direct quote and others as summary statements.
    • More specific mention of local industry (e.g. NREL) and population makeup and changes over the years.
    • Downtown is the place to be, but there are so many special places across town not captured here (e.g. Cannonball area, South Golden).


Chapter 2 - How to Use the Comprehensive Plan

  • General Public Feedback
    • Be more specific about how general public and residents will use the plan. Land use is a big word that doesn't mean much to the average person.


Chapter 3 - The System of Plans in Golden

  • General Public Feedback
    • (Pg 25) Grammar mistake
    • (Pg 26) Clarify when Comprehensive Plan is abbreviated as 'the Plan.'
    • In the interactions section include a graphic instead of text
    • Note when each plan is set to be updated
    • Move towards a GIS-based way of keeping these plans versus PDF documents.


Chapter 4 - Housing in Golden

  • General Public Feedback
    • Expand the Boyd/SH58 interchange (repeated for all subsequent chapters)
    • Nothing directly written about Beverly Heights which has been impacted by new housing for Mines. There is only one way out of the neighborhood in the event of a wildfire. This needs to be addressed in this section.
    • (Pg 44) Unclear grammar related to banking under the growth ordinance
    • Get rid of all parking minimums (not just for affordable housing) and get rid of the growth cap.
    • Add more emphasis on how more housing positively affects transportation, sustainability, inclusivity and affordability.
    • Address the 'informal' housing marking (e.g. co-living, not illegal) which is often created via Facebook and word of mouth. Not sure how this translates into policy support, potentially things like reducing or abolishing the minimums for ADUs.


Chapter 5 - Regional Partnerships

  • General Public Feedback
    • (Pg 56) Clarify what 'town-gown' means, not everyone knows this term.
    • Mines claiming exemption from City zoning is becoming a problem. Who has final say when enough is enough? The increase in dorms and students and the poorly designed US6/19th Street overpass is increasing traffic. The City and community should assert when enough is enough.
    • Address NREL, Clayworks, Coors (turn all of their parking lots into usable space). Coors should have a larger commitment to the Golden community such as funding a RTD Gold Line extension.
    • Tired of hearing residents complain about Mines, they are a part of our community and the City needs to flip the script on 'what can Mines do for Golden' to how can we accommodate students and residents.


Chapter 6 - Economic Vitality and Development

  • General Public Feedback
    • Have a wider focus than just downtown Golden
    • More mention around active and sustainable transportation methods, how will we connect these areas of the City.


Chapter 7 - Historic Preservation

  • General Public Feedback
    • Historic preservation should not impede Golden's affordable housing goals.


Chapter 8 - Strategic Growth and Water Conservation

  • General Public Feedback
    • Limit growth to 1% as previously voted upon
    • We should be pushing for true infill rather that open space development on the fringes of the community (e.g. Canyon Point, Jeffco) to provide density.
    • (Pg 70) Grammar mistake
    • (Pg 70) Emphasis statement about majority of housing and population growth expected to come from non-single family developments. This is great information.
    • (Pg 81) The indoor water use timeframe is 2020-24 while the outdoor water use timeframe is 2020-2040. Either use the same date range or make them two separate graphs


Chapter 9 - Goals and Implementation Actions

  • General Public Feedback
    • No feedback to date
Share December 2025 Draft Document - Public Review Feedback on Facebook Share December 2025 Draft Document - Public Review Feedback on Twitter Share December 2025 Draft Document - Public Review Feedback on Linkedin Email December 2025 Draft Document - Public Review Feedback link