Author: Lakewood News from Karen

The widespread zoning changes Lakewood made in 2013 resulted in a resident-initiated movement known as “strategic growth.” Residents were unhappy with the increased, high-density residential units being built that unbalanced the economic growth of the city. Ten years later, city leaders are still not listening to residents. On December 9, 2024, Lakewood City Council passed a resolution stating the city will have a “zoning rewrite that is bold, imaginative, embraces innovation, and the diversity of needs for the full City of Lakewood.“

This resolution is not normal procedure. Normally, there is a proposal presented to the public that will show specific plans on promoting homes for the unhoused, increased density, and decreased greenhouse gas emissions. This is not that.

Rather, it is a declaration that the city already has its mind made up to implement these changes. And because they seek to be “bold”, the Council will approve whatever the contractor recommends, whether or not the public likes it.

Residents are waking up to the fact that the “anti-growth” narrative was just a way to belittle those who disagreed with the establishment. Look at how residents react to the proposed developments at Whippoorwill and Belmar for proof that no one is asking to stop all development. They just want it done reasonably and in line with existing neighborhoods.

Residents are also waking up to the fact that the “affordable housing” narrative is false because Lakewood doesn’t have a housing shortage. These two narratives are how Lakewood justifies the need for this zoning code change. Lakewood needs to pass this resolution and zoning code before more residents wake up. Going through proper public discussion took years for a short-term rental policy and the zoning code is much more significant.

Being “bold” seems to be a new political buzzword meaning leaders are crossing a line. Bold is fast-moving, which could be dangerous in government designed to work slowly through public discussion.

In this case, as you can see below, the new zoning code will potentially destabilize neighborhoods by extensively changing the rules to densify development in every code. The zoning code was established to keep neighborhoods stable, so residents know the type of neighborhood they are moving into. With these proposed changes, the zoning code can even be used to expedite spending for the homeless, which is a budgetary process normally outside the scope of zoning.

The resolution cites the new comprehensive plan as proof that residents approve of this zoning code change. This is disingenuous at best because:

  1. The comprehensive plan doesn’t mention specific action, just “feel-good” goals. Think in terms of everyone agreeing on world peace except that for one person peace means the peace that comes after world war.
  2. Lakewood hired a consultant to rewrite the zoning code BEFORE the results of the comprehensive plan were finalized, substantiating that the game was rigged.

Read the resolution below and see how wonderful it sounds. For each bulleted objective from the resolution, there is an example (in white italics) that shows how it could be twisted into something that residents would not like, most of which have been mentioned by city and state leadership.


The revised Zoning Code will:

Be a zoning rewrite that is bold, imaginative, embraces innovation, and the diversity of needs for the full City of Lakewood, including:

  • Strategies that target the full range of housing needs compatible in scale and form with existing neighborhoods;
  • Increase flexibility in all zoning districts where appropriate to provide needed additional density;
    • (A pertinent example of this in the Belmar Park development fiasco where a new mega-apartment complex will be built that does not match the existing neighborhood. And that’s within existing zoning! Imagine an apartment building in place of your next-door neighbor’s house or the gas station on the corner.)
  • Lead to an increased supply of housing that is more affordable and attainable for individuals below 100% AMI, including for seniors, teachers, first responders, frontline workers, artists, and younger families.
    • (Since there is no way to guarantee new housing goes to seniors, new housing will likely go to investors just like it goes to investors now. This point is just emotional blackmail.)
  • Eliminate minimum lot sizes while maintaining reasonable setback and other dimensional standards;
    • (Buildings are now being built within a few feet of the sidewalk, as opposed to having ten feet of grass and a parking lot in front. This change increases wildfire hazard. It could also mean eliminating the original house to put four tiny houses on one lot – as discussed during a planning commission meeting. Or putting 15 units per acre, as per state suggestions.)
  • Improve connected lighting, sidewalks and bike paths;
    • (More bike lanes and less car lanes. Think of the separated lanes on Garrison or narrow lanes in Belmar.)
  • Improve mixed-use development;
    • (the 2013 rezoning already “improved” mixed use, resulting in replacement of promised commercial units with purely residential. This will eliminate even more business space.)
  • Codify a 90-day deadline to approve affordable housing projects;
  • Adopt a meaningful inclusionary zoning policy, either as part of, or as an accompaniment to, a zoning rewrite, which creates below market sale and rental units.
    • (inclusionary zoning is a market manipulation. It is modern day rent control, demanding all other units have high prices to subsidize around 10-20% of units being below market rate.)
  • Promote strategies and policies that will meaningfully and measurably reduce Lakewood greenhouse gas emissions, conserve water, and incentivize sustainability, each with timely goals and implementation;
    • (This includes eliminating parking requirements, even less gas stations or bringing back the fee-in-lieu option for parkland.)
  • Lead to Lakewood* meets the requirements of Proposition 123 (as modified by HB 23-1304) regarding Affordable Housing Programs;
    • (assuming this means fully adopting the state agenda and giving up the fight on local zoning rights that other cities are picking up.) *-”Lead to Lakewood” is in the original resolution. No idea what this means
  • Put fewer constraints on homeowners and renters, give Lakewood residents more choice, raise property values over time, and promote naturally occurring affordable and attainable housing;
    • (For example, there have been several suggestions to remove occupancy limits which could lead to overcrowding, health and fire hazards. Group homes in the middle of R1 neighborhoods have already caused problems in Lakewood. There are also suggestions to eliminate emergency staircase standards.)
  • Expedite the site selection and procurement of temporary sleeping units and shelters, and promoting and prioritizing permanent supportive housing;
    • (Give less notice that a homeless shelter is moving into your neighborhood – there are too many things wrong with this to list. And procurement has no place in a zoning code.)
  • Require that the construction, maintenance, and improvements of buildings owned or leased by the city will, where reasonably appropriate, minimize emissions, maximize sustainable design   principles, and be built, maintained, and improved with a view towards also serving as a community asset beyond their utilitarian function.
    • (Some City Councilors are concerned that the city is not getting LEED certified or have net zero emissions, both of which are EXTREMELY expensive.)

The Lakewood resolution was written at the direction of the City Manager, thus by-passing public input. This allowed City Council to “signal” residents that this bold change was coming. That way there is nothing for residents to oppose until it’s too late to make changes.

The reality is Lakewood does not have a shortage of housing. Changing the zoning code in the name of affordable housing is misleading. Read “The Totally 100% Fake Housing Shortage”.


Limiting New Gas Stations

Lakewood passed a new ordinance to reduce new gas stations in order to increase public health, January 13, 2025. Not only will this decrease the number of future gas stations, the ordinance demands the new gas stations provide electric charging stations, one of which must be the latest, fastest technology. This is will substantially increase the cost to construct a new gas station while benefitting a diminishing number of customers who are purchasing electric vehicles. Lakewood also eliminated two zoning codes from permitting gas stations.

If Lakewood’s plans to bring in thousands more residents through affordable housing efforts pay off, everyone in Lakewood can anticipate waiting longer in lines. Gas stations are one of the few businesses that are still thriving in Lakewood.

Rather than re-inventing the wheel, please read the article below for more of the adverse effects of similar legislation in Denver. In another parallel move, Denver passed the same legislation as Lakewood, a week before Lakewood voted (correction 1/15/25 – Denver’s ordinance only passed to committee)

Lakewood’s ordinance is more extreme than Denver’s because of Lakewood’s market manipulation in demanding charging stations, even dictating the type of stations, but otherwise the legislation is similar. The adverse effects were not discussed by Council.

Don't Denver My Lakewood

Sharf: Denver gas station ban a swipe at car mobility

January 13, 2025 By Joshua Sharf, Complete Colorado

Denver city councilors last summer proposed to limit the construction of gasoline stations in in the city, ostensibly in response to a citizen outcry a deluge of new gas stations being built on land that could instead be used for housing.

Actual legislation has now been okayed by the city planning board, and is worse than imagined.

A sweeping ban

The ordinance would enjoin new gas stations from the overwhelming majority of Denver, including near areas where new, higher-density housing is being built.  It is hard to escape the conclusion that the proposed legislation is part of the city council’s campaign to make driving in Denver as miserable as possible.

Sponsored by council members Paul Kashmann and Amanda Sawyer, the bill would ban new gas stations within ¼ mile of any existing gas station, within ¼ mile of a light rail station, and within 300 feet of any protected districts, zoned for low-density housing.

A staff study from last May discussed exempting gas stations catty-corner to existing stations, but now there will be no such exemption.  There will, however, be an exemption for gas stations that are part of new large-sized grocery stores with over 20,000 square feet of space.

Read more…


  • Lakewood blighting new development
  • New designation allows city funding participation
  • Votes seem cemented due to prior planning with developer
  • Property not blighted prior to sale

On January 22, 2025, the Lakewood Planning Commission will vote on designating a new development area as an Urban Renewal. This designation will allow the city to fund part of the development. The development in question is called “The Bend” and is located on what used to be the Denver Federal Center, southeast of the 6th and Union intersection. The property includes an ex-Superfund site that has not been remediated. However, the property was not blighted before the property sale, when all buyers could plan for city assistance. Instead, the area was deemed a prime location for commercial activity, according to comprehensive and special studies.

Aerial map of Union Blvd area
Site boundaries from the Union Blvd Corridor Plan, 2011, pg 2

Once again, Lakewood has contracted a study to prove to the residents that they have no choice except to do what is really a discretionary action. The study by Ricker Cunningham shows that “the survey concluded that nine (9) of the 11 total possible factors [for blight] are present at varying degrees of intensity, but all at levels considered adverse to properties, businesses, and persons living, working, and traveling through the area.”

Read the study:


The study is some research but more justification for what the city apparently wants to do. There is no explanation from anyone about why it wasn’t blighted anytime in the last 30-50 years since the site was decommissioned. An earlier designation would have created a more equal playing field for those bidding on the property, in the name of full disclosure. As it stands, it seems that one developer is getting a special deal.

The study even documents that the Planning Commission meeting is a foregone conclusion:

“… in addition to the public hearing (February 24, 2025), were scheduled, noticed, and conducted. Specifically, the Authority considered the Plan on XXXXXXX at a duly noticed meeting, and the Planning Commission reviewed the same on January 22, 2025, where they determined it to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.“ – Study, pg 8

Jefferson County, City of Lakewood, Jefferson County School District R-1, West Metro Fire Protection District, and Mile High Flood District have already negotiated tax assessment and revenue agreements, prior to the public hearing.

“It is the intention of City Council in adopting this Urban Renewal Plan that the [Lakewood Reinvestment] Authority has available to it any and all powers authorized in the Act and considered necessary and appropriate to implement this Plan.  Because powers conferred by the Act include facilitating the completion of improvements for which public money may be expended, the intentions of this Plan are considered to be in the public interest and a necessity, such finding being a matter of legislative determination by City Council with its adoption.” – Study, pg 9

Lakewood May Pay for Site De-Contamination

Is this prime location for commercial activity really an area of blight? Debatable since it is called both prime and deteriorated in city documents but without this blight designation, Lakewood cannot fund the development.

“Union Boulevard has grown over the years and has achieved recognition as a prime location for business” – Union Boulevard Corridor Plan

To qualify for a blight designation, the site has been deemed deteriorated. This property was a federal military site that contains a toxic landfill. The study says the city may pay for old infrastructure and decontamination. Is the city signing up to pay for environmental remediation? Or is that only useful for designation purposes. So far no one has suggested actually decontaminating the site. Instead, the proposal is silent with respect to current plans but in the past the intention was to build over the hard parts.

In the quote below, the bold is the blight condition, and the suggested city contribution follows.

Deterioration of site or other improvements – removal of trash, remnant infrastructure, weeds, and contaminants;” – Study, pg 11

Many of the conditions of so-called “blight” mean that the property is undeveloped. For example, to read this report, any property without a water line, or a street without curbs should be blighted.

Existence of conditions that endanger life or property by fire or other causes – fire protection equipment, water lines, and storage facilities to ensure adequate flow;” – Study, pg 11

Since these are all conditions of an undeveloped property, and the developer bought the property knowing this and is now asking for the property to be blighted so the city can contribute, the question is: how much did the city promise the developer before purchase?

How much did the developer plan on receiving? Did they ever plan on doing this on their own?

The primary purpose of the plan is to allow the city to spend money

“the first objectives of any and all urban renewal plans is to provide the municipality with a workable program for expending available resources to mitigate and prevent the spread of blight, foster needed rehabilitation of improvements within designated locations, and advance community priorities expressed in adopted policy and planning documents.”-  Study, pg 9

Contrary to what may sound like an innocuous renewal area recommendation, this is a major commitment to develop an environmentally sensitive area, with contentious high-density homes in an already congested traffic area.

The plan aims to “advance community priorities,” which is a very subjective statement. The plans refer to designs started in 2008. Think of how much traffic has increased since then. The 2017 traffic study says traffic allowances will be needed and makes several recommendations, see below, which the city will also pay for.

Union area transportation study 11-22-2017

Current plans for the Union corridor are based on the layout of Portland, Oregon to increase density and walkability (see page 30). The new walkability plan completely rewrites the original city plan and block layout of a previous generation. The current plan also claims to be written for the next 50 years but is evidence that 50-year planning is difficult at best. This plan is a complete overhaul and urbanization of the Lakewood people here love.

Do residents want to partner with developers to build 2000 units near an unremediated toxic landfill?

The plan is to “use financial resources available to the [Lakewood Reinvestment] Authority for the express purpose of the same; and to actively  promote and partner with private investment and reinvestment interests.” – Study, pg 10

The vote to approve the blight is January 22, 2025 with the Lakewood Planning Commission.


*All opinions expressed in this article are the personal opinions of the author


Radiant Painting and Lighting
720-940-3887
karen@paintwithradiant.com
https://paintwithradiant.com/

Note: This is pertinent to Lakewood because Lakewood is trying for exactly the same kind of high-density, multi-unit homes. They have already contracted new codes to be written, and it’s scheduled to be voted on this spring. This is not a resident-led iniative but a regionally coordinated agenda.

From Rachel Saurer, KDVR.com

LITTLETON, Colo. (KDVR) — On Tuesday (7 Jan), the city of Littleton held a public hearing to allow people to provide feedback on a proposal to amend Littleton’s Unified Land Use Code regarding housing types.

At the end of the meeting, city officials made the decision to indefinitely postpone the ordinance.

“Our goal is to see if we can address some of the housing issues that we have here in Littleton and the whole metro area,” said Mayor Kyle Schlachter.

Read more and watch video…


Radiant Painting and Lighting
Phone: +1 (720) 940-3887
Email:  karen@paintwithradiant.com
Web: https://paintwithradiant.com/

via reader notification – thank you!

The CDPHE Air Pollution Control Division is actively working with Terumo BCT to further reduce ethylene oxide emissions. A draft permit modification for Terumo BCT to install and operate additional devices to reduce ethylene oxide emissions from the facility is now available on the division’s website.

Terumo BCT currently uses a device known as a “dry scrubber” to reduce ethylene oxide emissions. The proposed permit modifications would allow Terumo to use a new control device called a “thermal catalytic oxidizer abatement plant” as its primary emissions control. The dry scrubber would then serve as a backup control.  

The draft permit is open for public comment from January 7, 2025 – February 6, 2025. Division staff will review all public comments received and use relevant comments to inform the permit updates. The permit is available on the division’s air permit public notices web page. That web page has details and tips for submitting effective public comments.

Terumo BCT has indicated new control equipment could be fully operational in early 2025. Once the equipment is fully operational, Terumo BCT would have to test ethylene oxide emissions to ensure it meets the permit requirements. These tests would use U.S. EPA-approved methods to evaluate emissions reductions.  

More air quality monitoring around Terumo BCT 

The air division conducts its own air quality monitoring around Terumo BCT and will continue doing so after the new equipment is in place. The division will make this data available to the public on its website once it has undergone quality control assurance and review. The division will use this information to inform its ongoing work protecting clean air in Colorado’s communities.

New regulations and proposals that apply to Terumo’s emissions of ethylene oxide

March 2024 federal ethylene oxide rule

Terumo BCT must comply with the U.S. EPA’s new rule to reduce harmful ethylene oxide emissions and exposures. This new rule applies to four commercial medical sterilization facilities in Colorado, including Terumo BCT. The federal rule is expected to reduce ethylene oxide emissions at these facilities. Learn more on EPA’s website.

Ethylene oxide proposed as priority air toxic in Colorado

From January 16-17, 2025, the Air Quality Control Commission will hold a rulemaking hearing on a proposal to identify up to five priority air toxics in Colorado. Ethylene oxide is one of the five priority air toxics proposed for commission consideration. After the commission determines priority air toxics, Colorado will then work to establish health-based standards for each one through a separate rulemaking later in 2025.

This is one of the requirements under Colorado’s Public Protections from Toxic Air Contaminants Act. The division developed the draft proposal with input from monitoring and modeling data, the public, and a technical working group of scientific experts. The division may propose adding more priority air toxics in the future.

You can register to offer a verbal public comment or listen to the January 2025 rulemaking hearing. A registration link to listen or offer verbal public comment is available on the commission’s website

Contact us

To submit permit comments, visit the division’s air permit public notices web page.

You may contact us anytime at the following email addresses:


Radiant Painting and Lighting
Phone: +1 (720) 940-3887
Email:  karen@paintwithradiant.com
Web: https://paintwithradiant.com/

From SaveBelmarPark.com

Have you noticed that Lakewood City Council has dug in pretty deep on their pretend parkland ordinance crisis and their related commitment to litigation and media manipulation over their job which is legislation to address the issues they created?  We hope a more constructive attitude eventually emerges on city council.

In fact, we noticed the other day a Lakewood resident and attorney popped up on TV news with an issue that Lakewood wants 1,300 square feet of parkland dedication to allow her ranch home to be leveled and a new home built.

While this nice lady made some excellent points, the news reporting seemed to implicate the thousands of good citizens of Lakewood who brought forward the fee-in-lieu removal ordinance for causing the problem as if City Council has no authority or responsibility to consider any useful changes to the ordinance they adopted.

I did take the liberty of contacting her architect from their public email address and suggesting that City Council is authorized to address her concerns.  I had previously communicated that information to the reporter but apparently some facts are not news.

Read the full email here…


And read more about the housing design strategy already used in Europe here…to learn about

  • Suitable for multifamily infill development on small lots or even half lots.
  • Less land needed means lower land acquisition costs.
  • Lower construction cost.
  • Financially feasible for smaller, local developers to participate.
  • And more!


 By Andrew Haubner, CBS News

Note: Thank you Andrew Haubner for shining a light on Lakewood in time for people to learn about the special election! The election will be held before March 25, 2025.

Some residents of the municipality of Lakewood are concerned about the possibility of low turnout in an upcoming special election. There are two city council seats, Ward 3 and Ward 4 — two of the largest wards in Lakewood — that are up for grabs this year.

Council member Rich Olver, who was known as a dissenting voice on the council, resigned and moved to Arizona.

Resident Karen Morgan said his voice was needed in the face of a council that typically is in lockstep. 

“[There are] little details that Rich would bring up and that was great,” she told CBS Colorado, “and we won’t have that.”

Some of the largest issues in Lakewood persist; crime, homelessness, and housing. In Ward 3, in particular, the continuing fight over property development in Belmar Park will be an important part of the voters’ decision.

Read more and watch video…


Bring Color and Light to Your Life with Radiant Painting and Lighting
Phone: +1 (720) 940-3887
Email:  karen@paintwithradiant.com
Web: https://paintwithradiant.com/

Radiant Painting & Lighting

Promoted post

At Radiant Painting & Lighting, we are more than a service provider; we are partners in transforming your home. Led by Karen Gordey, a longtime Lakewood resident, our team delivers personalized, professional, and exceptional painting and lighting solutions across the Denver Metro Area. Karen’s background as a customer service executive and paint expert ensures that every project is approached with care. She starts every job, uses quality products, and makes sure the job is completed flawlessly.


CONTACT:

https://paintwithradiant.com/

720-940-3887



From Cathy Kentner

This week it came to light that the city of Lakewood is disseminating purposeful and gross misinterpretations of the new parkland dedication ordinance. City officials have made the decision to require land dedication for the replacement of a single family home while blaming it on the recently passed Save Open Space Green Initiative.  And, what is even more ridiculous, they have told a landowner they must create an easement, a part of their yard, that would be open to the general public. This is clearly not what the new ordinance states.

1. The parkland dedication ordinance does not require land dedication when an individual is replacing a single family home with another single family home. For decades the parkland dedication ordinance, and resulting formula, has been based on the number of anticipated residents added to the city. Therefore, when replacing a single family home with another single family home, no land dedication is required because there are no residents being added.

2. The parkland dedication ordinance does not require an easement for public access on private property. Even if the city were to erroneously require land dedication, the ordinance clearly states “The land area that may remain in private ownership must be added to the project’s open space requirement…”  The open space requirement on a home does not require an easement open to the public.

It would seem that the City is deliberately putting up an unnecessary barrier for a single family home replacement and blaming it on the newly passed ordinance. Yet at the same time, the city is going out of their way to mitigate if not eliminate any barriers that would inhibit large developments of market rate and luxury apartments. Instead of encouraging families to stay, we cater to big money developers and corporations. In the process we displace longtime residents who can’t afford to live here anymore and cause urban sprawl as they go further from Lakewood for a single family home.

The Save Open Space Initiative was not created on false pretenses. There is no covert agenda to stop growth as some have suggested. The reality is we have a finite amount of land. If it is being absorbed by large expensive developments with no required provisions for open space, parkland dedication, trees, or affordable units, we will be creating an unaffordable, unhealthy environment for future generations. This initiative aims to restore the balance of open space and parkland with the creation of the kind of housing that is wanted and needed. Much was lost over the past 12 years when developers all chose to pay a fee in lieu of land dedication.

The Save Open Space Lakewood Green Initiative was passed by the city council who can, and arguably should, direct their staff to follow it appropriately. If necessary, council could very easily amend the ordinance to clarify that adding one unit does not meet the threshold for parkland dedication.

Perhaps if the city supported its residents with the same vehemence shown to developers, we could diminish the divisiveness that dominates our discourse.


Original News Story

Lakewood family looking to rebuild home told they must give up part of property under new ordinance, Danielle Kreutter, Denver 7


Lakewood Crime for December

Maps clipped from Community Crime Map for the month of December, 2024, in Lakewood, Colorado.

Community Crime Map displaying 232 crimes in Lakewood, CO, December, 2024
Legend for crimes included in the statistics
Type of crimes included
Community Crime Map – Density analysis showing 284 crimes in Lakewood, CO

NoteStatistics seem to vary slightly per application (density map versus event map). This website is very user friendly and can be zoomed in for better detail although exact locations are changed for privacy.


Compare to December of 2023 below. Note that comparison is done visually since numbers for “Lakewood” include parts of of Denver, which doubles the number of crimes.

Community Crime Map December, 2023
Community Crime Map – Density analysis for “Lakewood”, December, 2023

Lakewood Informer


Resident generated news for Lakewood, Colorado.

Contact Info


Subscribe


© 2022 Lakewood Informer | All Rights Reserved
Designed by Mile High Web Designs