A history of 40 years of Growth in Golden

Not really Golden, but not too different either

I received the information below from a very long term Golden resident. She was very active in Save the Mesas and has been paying attention to growth for a long time. Her insights are valuable, and important to be aware of.

By Charlene Pazar

HERITAGE DELLS went through several developers and PUD changes prior to its approval. However, after the fact, looking at the grading of the land that was done on this site as this left a number of houses with drop-off back yards or no back yard.

We then instituted a 1% growth process as we did not want all the taxpayers in town to have to bear the cost of new development; we wanted slow growth; well this definitely did not happen and I do not begin to understand how the city handled the 1% growth; to say we were naive is an understatement. (Editors note: Here is a graph showing that growth was actually lower than authorized).

After we defeated the proposal of Western Paving to mine North Table Mtn, then this definitely gave value to the Foss land and Peery land on which were built houses during the 80's and 90's. About this same time, the CSH 93 bypass was built and the townhouses in north Golden (Altitude) and the housing development west of 93 were built. All open land was gone in a flash.

We also instituted a policy of controlling growth on the slopes of our mtns; a policy was put into place that would prohibit building on slopes (I do not remember what degree of slope was protected) This was not arbitrary as the slopes of NTM and STM are constantly moving as evidenced by the bumps on west 44th/10th Ave and the road that was cut on STM by a professor at CSM for a housing development on the slopes; this cut had collapsed within a week. I am aware that a road cut in the Foss development was allowed by someone that was originally not allowed; this is also true of an area in the Peery development on NTM.

A service line was created encircling the valley beyond which a developer would have to bear the cost of pumping water out of the valley, pumping sewer water back into the valley, a water tank sufficient to effect the required gravitational flow. Genesee builders made a road cut in the Mesa Meadows subdivision which, I feel, they were prepared to "march" further north around the mountain but they did not, I feel, because they would have to pay for all of this.

Additionally, Golden had joined the Metro Sewer District which would treat water for municipalities around Denver; as far as I know, Golden is the only town that de-annexed itself from this district because Golden was in danger of losing water rights as the return flow was too far down the valley. Hence Golden has Coors treat our sewer water.

Pleasant View; many years ago, Golden wanted to annex PV but the residents of PV said NO. In the l980's residents of PV came to Golden and asked to be annexed; after much discussion, Golden turned down this request because we felt we could not afford to do this; PV needed a lot of improvements including water, water and sewer lines, paved street, gutters and sidewalks; it became apparent that the residents of PV would not be able to afford to do all the improvements needed and that the residents of Golden would be footing the bill for this and the Golden residents said they were not willing to do so.

Tripp Ranch area which the family had hoped to include in Jeffco Open Space (it was a Centennial ranch) but this did not happen and the land was developed into houses (in the l980's-90's). The Shelton land was annexed at their request some years ago and I understand that this site is now owned by CSM/State of Colo. (Editors Note: Shelton Ranch Flag 2 is mostly still held by the owner/developer, just north of this CSM does own all the survey field properties)

Moreover the County took over a very large parcel of land when they created the County Complex (late l980's- l990's which complex was built by the use of Certificates of Purchase, with no voter approval)

So, for a consultant to say we need over 3000 housing units, I say WHERE; the only thing I can think of is if we allow developers to raze our old neighborhoods which currently consists of old, small, affordable housing; I hope the city does not encourage the destruction of our old neighborhoods.