What if Mesa Drive went through to 93? Updated Late October of 2025
Update November-ish 2025
After publishing the mixed result of the updated survey, which says even if gated it would be a bad idea to open Mesa Drive, I received a long email from Jim Smith who was aware of some of the history. I also found a circa 2021 email from Richard Gardner, historian, who says that there are legal issues about putting a road in on park land. So…I think the issue is dead on arrival and while I’m glad to document this discussion, I think we’re done.
Text from Richard Gardner - “I'm not sure, but it may be the fact that part of putting a driveway through would mean putting it through the parcel that is Norman D. Park, which can be problematic. Under the City Charter our official public parks can only be sold or otherwise disposed of by vote of the people, and this may be operative in terms of putting a street through its parcel, even if the City still owned that street. Otherwise I should note that Mesa Meadows did not create the additions to Golden that such a drive would go through; those were added by the Peery and Kilgroe families, so anything Mesa Meadows might've said is not binding on them. I should further note that Norman D. Park is a war memorial, created and named by his family to honor Cpl. Norman Douglas Peery, killed in action at Thua Thien, South Vietnam on April 17, 1970 in the Vietnam War. His death is a very sensitive issue to his family to this day. It would be important to know if anyone would propose to alter the park in a substantial way what the family intended for it and how they envisioned it existing to honor him. Personally I'm already occupied as it is dealing with the damage done to the names of Golden's first two fallen servicemen (part of the vandalism by rioters at the state capitol) that I'd hate to add one of ours from Vietnam also to that list. If one wants to think about altering the park, I highly encourage proceeding with great care.
- Rick Gardner
Text from Jim Smith
Hi, Don.
One of my proudest moments of civic engagement was when I got this proposal defeated back when Norman D. Peery’s brother Peter (?) tried to convert part of the park named after his deceased Vietnam veteran brother into a through street to enrich himself in the development of the subdivision behind it. Also, he lived in the North Forty subdivision (which he also developed), so the street would have been more convenient for him and his family personally while dishonoring his brother. I like to think that he moved to California after this loss out of shame.
I lived in Mesa Meadows at the time. I was alerted to the proposal by the family who lived in the former Peery home that is about 10 feet from the park’s northern property line. The big surprise in our campaign was the contribution of an important historical fact by Rick Gardner. Rick found out that there is a state supreme court precedent from an effort in Colorado Springs to construct a government building on parkland that was donated as a condition of building a subdivision. The court decision stated that the city would be perpetrating a fraud upon those who purchased homes in the subdivision, since the park land was a condition of granting the subdivision.
The court precedent was so clear and applied so obviously to this proposal that it was clear any decision by Council to approve it would be overturned by litigation.
I’m sure Rick could reproduce the raw data and documents he provided at the time, which led to Golden’s City Council denying the request to build that road through the park. The fact that it would be used only for emergency access shouldn’t matter. The Colorado Springs decision involved municipal structures/use also.
Minutes from the City Council at the time clearly proved that the donation of land for Norman D. Memorial Park was part and parcel of approving the subdivisions built north and south of the park. The fact that not all that donated land was landscaped into the park we know today does not change the fact that the undeveloped land north of the creek was part of the donated park land.
In light of the above, I would be surprised to see this revived proposal approved.
Cell: 303-525-1851
Current time zone: Denver + 8 hours
Blogging at http://WhereAreJimandRita.substack.com
With only 10 new responses, read this with caution.
The first graph above shows that with more responses, and some time, that fewer people are opposed to completing Mesa Drive. But diving down deeper, on the second pie chart, you see combining “only for emergency,” and “only for Joseph Circle residents”, it’s 50% of the people who would like it open. Still, it’s certainly NOT the case that there is a huge push to open up Mesa Drive, and especially not for general use. There were some very thoughtful comments in the survey as well. Here are a few:
Emergency Access. Emergency access was provided originally but the builder was later allowed to build a house and eliminate it.
A tough one, I guess it could make life easier for the people that live in those few blocks but they knew what the limited options were when they moved there. It reminds me of people that complain about airport noise even though the airport was there first.
This undeveloped Mesa Drive segment is an important wildlife corridor especially given its proximity to the gulch. We have seen moose, bear, deer, birds, and other animals in that gulch. Finishing the rest of Mesa Drive just seems like more pavement at the expense of wildlife habitat. Having a road there will also change the ambiance (and potentially the safety of) Norman D Park. We don’t mind driving around if it means keeping a little more nature around Norman D park and the bike path.
In January of 2022 I posted survey results from late 2021 on opening Mesa Drive. But the Marshall fire was in December of that year. Has the mood changed? The survey is open again with a new question added.
Original Post Below
So here is a controversial topic, but aren’t they all? There is a survey at the bottom to let me know your thoughts on this. It includes some pictures if you want to get some context.
When part of Mesa Meadows was platted there was a note on the plat that stated that when the north section was completed, Mesa Drive would be completed to connect to 93. Oddly I saw that note once, but can’t find it now, nor did I ever see it recinded. The city owns about 4.5 acres of land for the right of way and could in fact connect Mesa Drive if there was a strong push to do so. If and when 93 is realigned, Mesa Drive would connect to “Old 93”, the slower, low speed version, but for now that is not yet funded, so Mesa Drive would provide a through connection to Hwy 93 as it is in 2021.
Pros - Ford street has a ton of through traffic up to Pine Ridge, especially north of Iowa, just to connect to Mesa Drive or Wyoming on the East side. Likewise there is a lot of traffic on Ford to connect to Alaska or North Jackson with the only way “in” via Iowa or Pine Ridge. Since there is a light where Mesa would come out (opposite of Golden Gate Canyon) traffic could go south or north on 93, where as it can only go North now if you come out at Pine Ridge. So, traffic would likely decrease on Ford, decrease on Iowa, probably decrease on Pine Ridge, but obviously increase on Mesa. For safety, if there were a fire or some other reason people wanted to exit Joseph Circle or Tucker Gulch Way, there would now be egress for safety. Likewise for fire access to Mesa Drive and roads east it may cut down on drive time.
Cons - Obviously the people on the houses that back to this would be highly affected (Ford, Idaho, Tucker Gulch Way). Depending on the actual alignment, design speed (hopefully super low), and location it would affect some neighbors more than others, and could affect quiet at Norman D park. Already Ford gets a lot of cut through traffic going south, if people want to avoid the light at Washington and cut over, it may lead to more, not less cutthrough traffic. The intersection at Mesa Drive and Ford would have to be redone, as a more complete roundabout, and some people don’t like those. Dealing with peds and bikes would be challenging too. Around town roads with easy access to highways allow for quick exit by bad actors, such as burglers who enter garages and steal bikes. Having an alternate route out may give easier access to these bad actors.
I’m interested in what people think about this, but don’t want to open a back and forth that is frankly, uncivil, so click here to provide input on a survey and I will post the results at some future date.