Golden Planning Commission Regular Meeting & Study Session

May 20, 2026, the Golden Planning Commission met at 5:30 p.m. in regular session to consider a proposed Urban Renewal Plan area boundary for affordable housing, conduct elections for Chair and Vice Chair, and then adjourned to a study session on historic preservation design guidelines. The meeting was called to order by Chair Ross Fraser, and all eight commissioners were present. The session concluded with adjournment at 6:33 p.m.

Consent Calendar

• Approval of the Agenda (5:30 p.m.): Moved by Rutter, seconded by Webb. Passed 7-0 voice vote.
• Approval of Minutes of April 1, 2026: Moved by Hilliard, seconded by Rutter. Passed 7-0 voice vote.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Non-agenda public comment (5:32–5:32 p.m.): No speakers appeared; comment period closed without testimony.
• Written comment on PC26-22: One email was received (posted online in the packet) objecting to the use of the term "blight" for the property and neighborhood. The commenter argued the area is not a slum or blighted.

Discussion Items

• Regular Business – PC26-22: 17455 W. 16th Ave. GURA Plan Area Boundary

  • Staff presented the proposed urban renewal plan area boundary for a single 2.4-acre property owned by the Church of the Nazarene, zoned R-2. The purpose is to enable tax increment financing (TIF) to support redevelopment as affordable housing (targeting 80-120% AMI). The urban renewal area would capture incremental tax revenue for 25 years.
  • Commissioners questioned: whether the tight boundary precludes TIF funding for adjacent improvements (e.g., sidewalks) – GURA director confirmed it does not; why this property when similar conditions exist elsewhere – staff explained the opportunity arose from the church approaching GURA; and the blight findings (asbestos, deferred maintenance, failing HVAC, unsafe parking configuration).
  • Commissioner Klein noted that Comprehensive Plan goal CN.1 (improving water quality, reducing runoff) was marked “not applicable” in the staff analysis, despite drainage issues cited in the professional memo. Staff acknowledged the oversight and agreed to revise the analysis to include a finding that future development would rectify drainage and further that goal.
  • Commissioners generally found the proposal consistent with the 2026 Comprehensive Plan and the South Golden Road Neighborhood Plan (2016), noting alignment with housing diversity, affordable housing, transit proximity, and park access goals. The developer (Shanahan Development) and Elevation Land Trust are involved. A conceptual plan shows 47 townhomes.

• Commission Elections

  • The Commission nominated and elected a Chair and Vice Chair for the upcoming term.

Key Outcomes

• PC26-22 – GURA Plan Area Boundary: Motion by Rutter, seconded by Webb, to APPROVE Resolution PC26-22 and forward it to City Council, finding the proposed urban renewal plan conforms with the 2026 Comprehensive Plan, including goal CN.1. Passed 6-1 (roll call), with Commissioner Hilliard dissenting. The dissenting vote was Hilliard.
• Chair Election: Commissioner Rutter nominated Fraser to continue as Chair. Approved 7-0 voice vote.
• Vice Chair Election: Commissioner Rutter nominated Webb for Vice Chair. Approved 7-0 voice vote.

Study Session – Historic Preservation Design Guidelines

• Staff (Lauren Simmons and Lucas Markley) presented an overview of Golden’s preservation history, current guidelines, and proposed updates. The draft guidelines aim to focus on architectural styles rather than site planning (now covered by zoning code) and to address styles up to the 1970s (including commercial and mid-century).
• A central discussion point was the level of authority for the Historic Preservation Board: current (voluntary compliance), partial (e.g., ability to grant setback relief for historic structures), or full (binding design and zoning decisions within districts). Commissioners engaged in a “quiz” on potential regulatory areas, including roof styles, materials, porches, accessory structures, lot layout, building placement, and architectural design flexibility.
• Commissioners offered input: many supported giving the Historic Board partial authority with formal recommendations to Planning Commission rather than full decision-making; some emphasized the need for interaction between boards. There was general support for allowing the Board to regulate materials, roof shapes, porch design, and accessory structure design (especially if visible from the street), and for flexibility in setbacks and building placement to encourage preservation.
• Next steps: staff will take feedback to the Historic Board, develop draft ordinance language, and potentially convene a focus group of former board/commission members. A second draft of guidelines and zoning amendments is anticipated in late summer.