Jacob's Golden Update
The Coorstek Rezoning: 'A Once in a Generation-Scale Development'
February 22, 2022

Earlier in February, the Planning Commission began consideration of a proposed rezoning of the Coorstek property just north of downtown. They are slated to continue consideration of the proposal tomorrow night (Feb. 23). You can email your comments to the Planning Commission.

The property in question is currently home to a Coorstek manufacturing facility, parking lots, and a few other buildings. It covers five city blocks, from 7th on the north to 10th on the south (excluding the American Mountaineering Center) and from Washington Ave. on the west to Ford St. on the east. This is a massive property by Golden standards, in the middle of the city, that will be converted from a factory into some mix of retail, commercial, and residential space. Whatever happens on that property will have an enormous effect on Golden's future for many, many decades.

PUD Zoning
The property owners are requesting a PUD (aka Planned Unit Development), which is basically a customized zoning instead of using the standard zoning options in Golden's code. PUDs can definitely be abused, but they can also offer the opportunity to do something that doesn't quite fit the existing zoning limitations but might actually be a better fit for the community. Decisions about PUD requests can be complicated because the property owner, without the PUD, still has the right to build something without needing any sort of rezoning. The Planning Commission doesn't get to ask if this proposal is the best possible use of that property. Rather, Planning Commission's question boils down to: "does the proposed customized zoning fit Golden's community character and vision, especially in relation to what the owner could build on that property without any zoning changes?"

The Process So Far
As far as I can tell, the property owners are earnestly attempting to design a project that fits within Golden's character and vision and are earnestly open to making adjustments to that end. They actually did a fair amount of community outreach on their own. The problem here, I think, is that the city's planning department treated this like any other rezoning request rather than the once-in-a-generation project that it is. The city is limited in what it can do after the property owner submits the rezoning application, but they've been working with the owner for a year now, and at any point before the application was submitted the city could have launched a real community engagement effort to help identify what zoning changes and trade-offs might make sense and which ones don't. Alternatively, the planning department could have approached City Council at the very beginning and asked them for direction on how to more fully and appropriately engage the community on a development question of this scale.

The Planning Commission rightly spent hours at that early February meeting just asking questions about the complex project because they had been asked to absorb and make far-reaching judgments on the 750-page document in less than a week. They will resume the hearing tomorrow evening, during which they could decide to reject the proposal, approve it (perhaps with some changes that the property owner agrees to), or pause long enough for a better community engagement process.

Sharing Your Thoughts With Planning Commission
If you want to share your thoughts about this proposed PUD with Planning Commission, I suggest that you email something by mid-afternoon or so. Email your comments to the Planning Commission.

If you've had the time to review any of the PUD documents, you might have opinions about the substance of the proposal. I've seen a lot of comments with substantive thoughts about height limits, parking requirements, the mix of uses, and other considerations.

My comments a few weeks ago focused more on the process, and that's what I will focus on again in my comments for tomorrow's meeting. My suggestions to the Planning Commission:

Extend or pause the hearing on this PUD proposal to give city staff time to conduct a thoughtful, legitimate community engagement process. That process should be run by a third party that has the trust of staff, the Planning Commission, City Council, the community, and the property owner. Ideally, in my view, the applicant would either withdraw the application or Planning Commission would reject it so that we can restart the process in a way that lets City Council play an important role. But even if they simply delay the hearing, that allow for a good community process.
Make it as easy as possible for community members to understand what is permissible under the existing zoning code and what would be permissible under the proposed PUD/ODP. A clear list – in plain English – of the differences between the existing and requested zoning would be really helpful. Another really helpful tool would be something showing what the worst-case buildout could look like under the current zoning, and what it could look like under the proposed zoning. Community members have the right to know what is at stake here.
Ensure that the focus throughout the process is on legally enforceable requirements. The applicant's vision for the property might be useful information, but what really matters are the requirements that are actually codified in the new zoning.

Some Links You Might Find Useful