Lakewood Informer

Resident generated news about Lakewood, Colorado

Lakewood Informer

Resident generated news about Lakewood, Colorado

Author : Lakewood News from Karen

Will Lakewood approve illegal subdivision at 777 S Yarrow St

From SaveBelmarPark.com The developer of the ‘Properties’ (as we now know they are referred to by their attorneys) at 777 S Yarrow and 777 S Wadsworth has proposed a subdivision re-plat of the 777 S Yarrow location described as a lot line adjustment. However, it does not qualify under Article 16-5-2 of the subdivision code as only a lot line adjustment because several additional changes are included to vacate, add, and modify various easements, an additional tract A is created and it conflicts with the laws requiring subdivision plats to have utility easements delineated and approved. The link above brings up the drawings of the re-plat and if you care to scroll down to page 4, you will notice there is a prominent 30-foot wide easement provided for the Bancroft Water District.   However, there is no provision for electrical service or natural gas!  Yet Colorado statute requires that: (3) Subdivision regulations adopted under provisions of this section shall require that a subdivider, as defined in section 30-28-101 (9), C.R.S., submit to the commission evidence that provision has been made for facility sites, easements, and rights of access for electrical and natural gas utility service sufficient to ensure reliable and adequate electric or, if applicable, natural gas service for any proposed subdivision. Submission of a letter of agreement between the subdivider and utility serving the site shall be deemed sufficient to establish that adequate provision for electric or, if applicable, natural gas service to a proposed subdivision has been made. Lakewood’s own subdivision code states: “Utility easements shall be delineated as required.” 16-3-6 “All subdivisions must comply with the serving utility entities’ requirements, and receive service availability confirmation from the serving utility entities.” 16-3-7 Providing for these easements is required by state and local law. It is surprising that these critical easements are missing since Xcel Energy previously reviewed the documents over two years ago and informed Lakewood Planning that a typical 10-foot wide dry electrical easement for electrical service ‘does not seem feasible’. Read more here… Further details include how Lakewood City Council claim to be mere “administrative officers” rather than legislators.

Kairoi attorneys admit Belmar Park project scope much larger than previously disclosed!

From SaveBelmarPark.com Attorneys for Kairoi have now filed a lawsuit regarding the recent ordinance adopted by Lakewood City Council that eliminated the option to pay a fee to avoid providing open space with land development projects. You can read the court filing HERE. Kairoi’s own attorneys have made it crystal clear that the project scope is NOT reflected by any of the four Major SIte Plan submittals Kairoi has filed with Lakewood. We are pointing out that this fact arguably means Kairoi has never filed a ‘substantially complete application’ for their project because over half of the project’s units have not yet been included in their Major SIte Plan submittals! This means Kairoi has no basis to claim that previous city ordinances or other commitments written or oral made by the city should be binding on the city until a full and substantially complete application is brought forward. After all, even for just the 777 S Yarrow site, Kairoi has made no effort in their MSPs to date to even comply with the basic utility easement requirements for water, sewer, natural gas, transformers and electrical service!   So even those MSPs are not ‘substantially complete’ because the developer may have to make significant revisions including modify building setbacks and footprint in order to comply with the basic utility easements! Their own attorneys go into detail about Kairoi’s development process including their contractual provisions for land acquisition of the two parcels from the same seller. They state two 12-story buildings are also planned for the 777 S Wadsworth location directly across the street from 777 S Yarrow Street! Read more here…

Lakewood Makes Bank on Plastic Bag Fees

In less than a year, the $0.10 fee from shopping bag sales have generated $692,000 for Lakewood so far. That revenue was only 60% of the $0.10 fee. The remaining 40% stayed with the stores, which means local stores made about $461,333 from plastic bags fees. Lakewood revenue from bag fees will be used to support multiple sustainability projects in 2025, including an Organic Waste Pilot Program as well as a project focused on Multi-Family Waste Diversion Resources. The plastic bag fee is a state law even though “plastic bags result in about half the emissions of alternative bags,” a fact known since at least 2014. The Organic Waste Pilot Program would include a variety of test programs aimed at increasing participation in both backyard composting and community collection hub programs for food waste. The Multi-Family Waste Diversion project would develop toolkits, educational resources, and provide technical expertise to property owners and managers of multi-family buildings with the goal of supporting the establishment of recycling and potentially organic waste collection service. These seem to be expensive education projects but new projects could still develop. Lakewood anticipates generating over $250,000 every year from this fee.

City Council Wants More Done To Fight Climate Change

Most of Lakewood City Council is concerned that Lakewood will not reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050. Although Lakewood has been increasing climate change regulations and spending for over a decade, it’s not enough and the city will be increasing both spending and regulation in 2025. Are these goals achievable and which programs are most effective? Lakewood is still developing its model to predict emission reduction. It is almost impossible to attribute which programs result in the best emission reductions because every result is intertwined not only with other programs but with the existing climate, which by definition is changing. Lakewood has more sustainability goals than surrounding cities. Lakewood is named “one of 119 cities across the globe providing leadership in environmental action and transparency by the Carbon Disclosure Project”, showing Lakewood is more aggressive than most of the world. The city is currently working on a new climate vulnerability study, a new sustainability plan, updating zoning codes and building codes for increased required sustainability measures. Votes on the new codes are scheduled for spring. Full-time sustainability staff has increased from 2, in 2014, to 12 in 2025. Dozens more part-time staff are employed throughout all city departments. According to Sustainability and Community Development Director, Travis Parker, about 30% of the new comprehensive plan focuses on sustainability. Despite already doing so much, every Council Member present asked about doing more during the November 18, 2024 Study Session on Sustainability. The key to City Council goals was to secure more funding. Council Member Jeslin Shahrezaei points out that cities like Fort Collins and Denver have a dedicated sustainability budget. She says grants for one project at a time is not a long-term solution. She believes residents want more funding to go to sustainability efforts. According to Shahrezaei, Lakewood played a pivotal role in securing a regional $200M grant because it has the tracking numbers for emissions and workforce. Council will talk about new revenue generating possibilities at the annual retreat workshop. Council Member Paula Nystrom asked for a new program and budget for residential greenhouse gas emission reduction for the upcoming revised budget. Lakewood has not asked residents to support the climate change fight directly with their pocketbooks before. Staffing initiatives often start as “free money” from other sources and continued past the grant’s expiration date without a public discussion. More direct taxing and funding suggestions represent a significant new direction for Lakewood, especially on the scale of new programs at millions of dollars a year. Councilor Glenda Sinks was concerned about being able to track sustainability spending through the budget. This was a good question without a good answer. According to Director Parker, Lakewood is not showing much in the budget yet because it is in the “enviable place of having more money available than we have plans for yet but that won’t be the case for long.” There was no answer as to where the money is shown in the current budget. Councilor Roger Low echoes the need for clear spending and goal tracking in the budget. He would like to see more progress on SolarApp implementation. Council Member Sophia Mayott-Guerrero floated a new idea to expand the greenhouse gas fee and have a larger spending pool to be used for things like sidewalks, bike lanes, lighting, park maintenance, road maintenance, climate impact and water impact. All of these could be viewed as “sustainability” measures. Several Councilors, including Cruz and Shahrezaei, were interested in making sure that money was distributed equitably. They want to make sure that low-income areas were first in line for assistance, as was intended through the federal program that Lakewood receives funding from. Councilor Jacob LaBure would like to be a national leader in sustainability efforts. LaBure points out that much of the federal money may be lessening under a new administration. As a result, he suggests Lakewood do more internally. For instance, Lakewood may require garbage and waste contractors to only use contractors with EV vehicles. Mayor Strom echoes the benefits of buying or contracting EV vehicles companies. Councilor LaBure would like to mandate new buildings, especially city buildings, be LEED certified through the building code. Director Travis Parker says some buildings could already meet LEED standards but do not want to pay the quarter million dollars to get certified. Councilor Rein would like to see more specificity in the sustainability plan in order to get Lakewood on track for less emissions. He is interested in the city getting a LEED certification. City staff say big new projects under city control, like the new maintenance facility, may not be able to get LEED certification but will be sustainable on some level. Rein asked staff if the current budget has enough funding to improve sidewalk connectivity and make the city more walkable in order to cut down on vehicle traffic. Staff answered there was not enough funding.

School Sales Approved

From the Jefferson County Board of Education Update, November 15, 2024* The Board of Education has voted unanimously to approve the contracts for the purchase of the Vivian, Thomson, and Glennon Heights properties. This decision follows the unanimous recommendation from the Property Disposition Advisory Committee (PDAC), which included ad-hoc community members representing each site and district staff. Below are the details: Glennon Heights Jacob Academy, a local daycare and early childhood education provider, will relocate one of their campuses to this site. They also plan to reuse the building and site as is. Thomson This site is contracted to Evoke Behavioral Health, a provider of services for children and young adults with autism and other behavioral support needs. They will reuse the building and site as is. Vivian The property is under contract with Carlson Associates, a local home developer. The plan is to build 30-33 single-family homes and to collaborate with the City of Lakewood to develop a roughly 3-acre park. What Can Neighbors Expect Next? Thomson and Glennon Heights Since these properties will be reused without changes and fall under existing zoning regulations, no further city governmental approvals are needed. The contracts are expected to close in approximately three months, once the buyers complete their due diligence. Vivian This property will have a longer timeline for completion as it involves development requiring additional community engagement with the City of Lakewood’s planning department. This includes the platting of home sites and the development of the park. The total entitlement process will take up to 540 days beyond the initial 90-day due diligence period. (*Note: Post copied in its entirety because the BOE website has not updated at this time to provide full information)

Lakewood Drop Off for Black Santa Toy Donations

Lakewood resident Suzanne Gould is supporting Denver’s Black Santa Project by providing a porch drop-off for unwrapped toys and gifts for infants through teens for the west metro area. This annual event is all-inclusive and serves children of all races. Donations are also accepted on the Black Santa website. Checks can be made payable to The Center For Advancing Black Excellence in Education. Unwrapped toys can be dropped off at 2397 S Eldridge Ct, 80228 through December 16.

1515 Whippoorwill Update: Letter to the City from our Attorney, email follow up from the Mayor 

From Applewood Heights Community Organization Despite a 5 1/2 hour Subdivision Public Hearing on 8/21, regarding the development site and both the community and the Planning Commission sharing the same concerns surrounding the safety of the access through W. 15th Place, lack of street connectivity, and making our driveway unsafe to access/unusable in winter, the developer (Metro West Housing Solutions) submitted their 5th rendition to the major site plans to the City without addressing the safety concerns that the community and the Planning Commission had. The City has returned their redlines to the developer without addressing the concerns of the Planning Commission or the Community.   On October 14th, we filed a formal request with the City Attorney to have the Major Site Plan review to be turned over by the planning commission as today the City doesn’t have a public hearing for major site plans and it does not go before the Planning Commission. Site plans are simply approved by the Director of Planning. Attached is the letter that was sent by our attorney to Travis Parker via the City Attorney. We are still waiting to hear back from Travis Parker to see if it will be approved to go before the Planning Commission. We will keep pressing on this as we feel that with this being a complex site location, this should be put in front of the Planning Commission.  We also attended the City Council meeting which helped us to gain some traction with the Mayor and City Council. After the meeting, the Mayor and a number of City Council members have reached out directly to us. Below is the email written to us from Mayor Strom. While we don’t know what changes they are proposing, it is a step in the right direction.  “It has become public knowledge that City of Lakewood staff have provided design services to Metro West [Housing]. This kind of interaction only exacerbates the existing conflict of interest between the City of Lakewood and Metro West, which is the housing organization of the City of Lakewood.” From MST Evaluation Letter above On Thu, Oct 24, 2024 at 12:26 PM Wendi Strom <WenStr@lakewood.org> wrote: Jonna and team, Thank you for staying in touch on this, and for everyone’s time spent in reaching out to your Councilors and coming to speak to City Council recently. Though I’ve not lived in your area of Lakewood, I’m aware of some of the history and safety concerns surrounding this stretch of road and agree with you that the added the number of vehicles (and trips) to this space as a result of this project would likely only make things worse for your neighborhood (and the new residents that would ultimately be moving in).  I am working closely with Mayor Pro Tem Shahrezaei and city staff to address these concerns and with the hope of coming up with a solution that will not pose heightening these risks upon your neighborhood community.  While I do not have any solutions to report right now, I want to let you all  know that we hear you, that I agree that safety is the number one issue, and that work is being done to try to improve this project.  Thank you for advocating so tirelessly for your neighborhood, I know this has been a long road.  We’ll share more when we have it. Warm regards, Wendi Strom Mayor, Lakewood Colorado

Glennon Heights Elementary Goes to Private Daycare

Information provided by Lakewood resident Anthony Farr. Thank you! Jefferson County School Property Disposition Advisory Committee recommends selling Glennon Heights Elementary to Jacob Academy, a private daycare facility. Jacob Academy hopes to serve 205 children at this location. Lakewood did not offer to buy this for community parkland like it did for Vivian Elementary. Many Lakewood council members feel Ward 4, where Glennon Heights is located, has more than its fair share of parks already. However, the property will utilize the existing school building and space for the new daycare. The final sale approval will be made November 14. There will be no other public involvement. One developer did not pursue buying the property after discussing the situation with Lakewood. The recommended bid came in under appraised value. Newly constructed homes near Glennon Heights at West Exposition Ave and South Oak St remain mostly empty, with steady price drops since they were made available for rent in February, 2024. Those units were not available for sale. The school board briefly discussed whether this daycare would be a direct competitor for state education dollars, since preschool is now a subsidized, guaranteed business model. More research will be presented at the next school board meeting but due to buliding restrictions, such as safety doors, the public schools do not expect to expand preschool at this time. Glennon Heights sale contract details from school board presentation:

Vivian Elementary Recommended for Developer Sale

Information provided by Lakewood resident Anthony Farr. Thank you! Vivian Elementary is recommended to be sold to Carlson Associates Inc. Carlson plans to develop into 34 homes on 6,000 sq. ft. lots. Carlson will work with the City of Lakewood and Jeffco Public Schools to have 3 acres of land set aside for a city open space. The purchase price is under the appraised value and under the posted cost of recent renovations that residents paid for through bonds. The final sale approval will be made November 14. There will be no other public involvement. Two developers did not pursue buying this property after hearing that Lakewood would demand parkland dedication. So Jefferson County Schools did not receive top dollar bids. The recommended bid came in under appraised value. The sale of the property is managed by JLL Investor Center. This same firm who is recommending buyers also recommended which schools to close, along with a school disposition committee. The City of Lakewood approved negotiations to buy the Vivian Property in what was likely an illegal executive session that did not notify the public of their intent to buy parkland from one school but not the other. Terms for the sale to Lakewood have not been disclosed or finalized. Vivan Elementary neighbors started a petition to get the city to save the property as a park. As of November, they gathered 1,126 signatures. This is large number of residents but ironic, given that Lakewood City Council recently derided the 8,000 signatures gathered as part of a recent park land petition. Council, including Councilor Mayott-Guerrero, said the 8,000 signatures wasn’t enough to listen to. In the Vivian case, the city acted on a much lower number. Contract details from the school board presentation: According to the 2024 Financial Report, the school board paid $1,868,804 for completed renovations in 2020, just four years ago. However, the Jeffco Builds webpage shows a total budget of $2,251,226 – more than the potential sale price of the property.

Lakewood Irritated by Yard Signs?

From Geek Nexus As election season approaches, neighborhoods across America are transforming in more ways than just the changing colors of fall. Yards are blossoming with red, blue, and everything in between, as homeowners proudly display campaign signs, turning their lawns into political statements. This colorful display, however, isn’t just a form of expression – it’s sparking debates and, in some cases, irritation among neighbors… The upcoming elections will shape the political landscape for years to come, so it’s no surprise that some Americans want to make their views visible. But while political yard signs are an essential part of the democratic process for many, not everyone appreciates them. To find out where these signs are causing the most contention, Geek Nexus surveyed 3,000 homeowners, ranking 175 cities based on the level of irritation sparked by neighborhood yard signs. In a ranking of the top 10 cities most aggravated by political signs, Fort Lauderdale, FL, topped the list, followed by Little Rock, AR, and Pasadena, CA. When it comes to Colorado, residents of five cities emerged among the most irritated when their neighbors decide to erect political yard signs in their front yards: Arvada (which ranked in #91st place nationally), Aurora (#118), Lakewood (#140), Thornton (#142), and Denver (#151). While Colorado may not be a battleground state, it seems residents of these cities would prefer if their neighbors kept their political views a bit more private – at least when it comes to yard signs. Whether it’s a disagreement over political beliefs or simply the cluttered look of campaign slogans across the neighborhood, many locals would likely agree that a little less lawn politics could go a long way in maintaining good neighborly relations. Interestingly, the list also includes two cities in ‘swing’ states: Surprise, AZ, and Ann Arbor, MI. Here are the top 10 cities most frustrated by political yard signs: 1. Fort Lauderdale, FL2. Little Rock, AR3. Pasadena, CA4. West Palm Beach, FL5. Portland, ME6. Omaha, NE7. Surprise, AZ8. El Paso, TX9. Ann Arbor, MI10. Salt Lake City, UT Infographic showing complete city ranking Beyond the rankings, Geek Nexus’s survey revealed some interesting insights into Coloradans’ attitudes toward political yard signs. For example, 60% of respondents said they knew their neighbors’ political leanings, while 40% weren’t sure or preferred not to know. As for the actual influence of yard signs, opinion was split: 46% of people think these signs can sway voters, while 54% believe they’re just lawn ornaments with no real effect on election results. Most respondents agreed that political yard signs should have their season, with 76% supporting the idea that signs should only be displayed during specific times of the year, like the lead-up to an election. And while only a small group (24%) admitted they’d consider removing a neighbor’s sign if they disagreed with it, the majority (76%) were clear that they’d rather not cross that line. Then there’s the matter of legality: 58% of people were unaware of laws regulating the display of political yard signs. And it’s not just the signs that cause tension – yard aesthetics, in general, can be a source of neighborly friction. In fact, 34% of homeowners admitted to having clashed with a neighbor over property appearance in the past. “Yard signs are a way for people to express their beliefs, but they can also create tension, especially during an election,” says Jake Valentine of Geek Nexus. “What we’re seeing is that something as small as a lawn sign can have a big impact on neighborhood dynamics. It speaks to the importance of balancing personal expression with community harmony, especially in a time as charged as election season.”

Scroll to top