For those interested, the property at 1031 S. Union Blvd., next to the Green Mountain Swim Club, will have a public hearing for subdivision on Wednesday, July 16, 2025 @ 7:00PM.
“Notice is hereby given that the Lakewood Planning Commission will conduct a Public Hearing at 7 p.m. on Wednesday, July 16, 2025 in the City of Lakewood Council Chambers, 480 S. Allison Parkway, to consider Preliminary Plat and Final Plat applications for a 12 residential lot Major Subdivision in the Small Lot Residential (R-1-6) zone district, submitted by Matt Hill and Matt Dendorfer of Compendium Developers for the property located at 1031 S. Union Blvd. The meeting will also be available to live-stream via Lakewoodspeaks.org. For information, please contact Kara Mueller, Project Manager at (303) 987-7982.”
This lot is next to Green Mountain Elementary but does not involve the closed school. The single-family housing has been planned for about three years.
Comprehensive plans are easily readable documents that explain a vision for the future of the city in a moment of time. It speaks in plain English to what the zoning code describes in technical detail. The problem is that the zoning code details are what carry the force of law and because technical details are harder to read, it is easy for residents to overlook inconsistencies in proposed zoning compared to plans. This is otherwise known as a bait and switch.
For instance, in the comprehensive plan, Lakewood promises to maintain neighborhood character; while in the zoning code, Lakewood implements high-density urbanization which resulted in the destruction of Belmar Park-adjacent property.
Pieces of Lakewood’s Comprehensive Plan were used as evidence to fight against the Belmar Park development. Lakewood officials discounted all such arguments.
Now that residents have caught on to the inconsistencies, Lakewood staff argues against using the Comprehensive Plan to guide zoning. Instead, Lakewood proposes changing the ordinance so that the zoning code is no longer tied to the comprehensive plan. With this change, residents could not form legal challenges based on compliance with the comprehensive plan and there is less room to fight against maximum buildout in adjacent properties.
Do Residents Need a “Vision” Document
Why have a comprehensive plan at all? This is a long-term plan that locks in the vision for this moment in time. It includes aspirational goals with no implementation details. Therefore, the details are filled in by staff using their discretion to interpret the zoning code.
Technically, one government cannot bind future governments to its decisions. If tomorrow’s City Council wanted to change the vision of Lakewood, it could choose to do so. However, having a long-range plan laid down by yesterday’s Council is a roadblock that is not easily overcome.
Residents would better understand the zoning code if each change had to be justified with open debate. Instead, as is currently occurring, the entire zoning code can be changed by saying the code matches the ambiguous goals of the comprehensive plan. For example, the as-yet unapproved Comprehensive Plan seeks affordable housing. Therefore, City Council reasons that ANY CHANGE to the zoning code will be acceptable as long as affordable housing is the intent, not necessarily the outcome.
There is no need for an updated 100-page vision plan document to update 300 pages of zoning code. Why not just introduce one little change at a time that is easily understood by the residents, and easily tested for effectiveness?
The proposed zoning changes are still being discussed and changed. City Council have taken months to understand these detailed changes. Residents will have a couple weeks. However, residents did spend months providing input into the comprehensive plan, that will no longer have much meaning.
The Proposed Change
Lakewood intends to remove the binding zoning code connection to the Comprehensive Plan. As first noted by savebelmarpark.com:
“Lakewood now intends to remove the requirement that land use decisions be consistent with the comprehensive plan. Instead, under a proposed revision to 17.1.3,
“The Comprehensive Plan shall be treated as an advisory document unless otherwise stated herein.”
It is becoming ever more challenging for citizens to keep up with the dedicated efforts of the well-staffed taxpayer-supported city machinery — and their apparent efforts to transform city government into a completely secret, back-room land development bargain basement!” –savebelmarpark.com
Lakewood zoning code currently states that the Comprehensive Plan is the foundation for the Zoning Ordinance. However, the proposed redline removes the “consistency with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan”. When the new zoning passes, all the aspirational goals laid out in the plan can be disregarded at will. Which really is no different than today, as shown by the Belmar Park debate except that today such a decision could be legally challenged and tomorrow it can’t.
This specific change to the zoning code was not discussed at any public meeting.
The Comprehensive Plan states (pg 4-10): “Through the site plan review process and design guidelines, ensure that new multifamily, mixed use, and commercial developments adjacent to single-family neighborhoods are compatible by incorporating appropriate design, scale, height transition, and connectivity to seamlessly integrate with the neighborhood.”
Residents compiled argument after argument to show that 777 S Yarrow St does not integrate with the neighborhood and does not meet environmental goals from the plan. Residents can clearly see that the Comprehensive Plan promises integration with the neighborhood. Residents can also clearly see that is not what staff implemented be allowing trees cut down to develop to the lot line near Belmar Park and new high-density apartments that don’t match the nearby buildings.
.
15-minute Cities
In other communities, residents are also waking up to this bait and switch. An opinion piece in the Boulder Daily Camera highlights this problem by examining Boulder’s 15-minute cities. This is particularly relevant since Lakewood leadership constantly mentions their desire for 15-minute city amenities. The proposed zoning code allows retail in residential zones for 15-minute planning. Steve Pomerance, in the Boulder Daily Camera, addresses this issue:
“The underlying problem with this whole conceptual framework is the self-contradictory assumption that we can have commercial centers in neighborhoods that provide an adequate variety of goods, services and transit, all within 15 minutes of where people live, but still keep our relatively low-density neighborhoods intact. This is simply not supported by the economics or the geography.” – Steve Pomerance
Read the rest of that article to understand the same sense of contrasting values Lakewood is “selling” to residents. The new development at The Bend is promising 15-minute city amenities.
“Selling” is the appropriate term used here because the zoning was contracted before the comprehensive plan was finalized. In another eerie coincidence with Boulder, Pomerance wrote, “It’s as if those who wrote these objectives had already decided that the results of the cost/benefit study would support implementing this concept, and thus support the massive densification required to create such neighborhoods.
Community Input Into Zoning
Up to this point, residents have had no input. It was not a resident-driven development.
Lakewood’s Chief of Sustainability and Community Development, Travis Parker, has been attending ward meetings to educate and also to promote the good points of the new zoning code — as if there are no other options.
No one has addressed the dissatisfaction with the current densification in Lakewood.
Does a desire for affordable housing mean automatic agreement to sacrifice current neighborhoods?
More Word Games
Lakewood would say that the Comprehensive Plan was only an “advisory” document from the beginning. However, that phrasing appears different from what was initially intended and written into the zoning code. So, they now propose to “clean up”, i.e. revise the code, rather than say they are changing the original intent.
Residents would have a much clearer idea of what was happening if there was no comprehensive plan and Lakewood proposed individual changes to the zoning code — with clear justification.
What is the point of the comprehensive plan if it is being ignored and revised when it doesn’t fit into Lakewood’s “new vision”?
Clearly, the comprehensive plan was intended to be the foundation of Lakewood’s Zoning Ordinance by making sure it would remain true to the City’s original purpose and promise. As previously, stated this promise includes “to maintain neighborhood character” by becoming a city of parks and green spaces, rather than a city of concrete jungles.
Wheat Ridge is facing the same pressures as Lakewood. Both cities want to turn established neighborhoods and properties into something completely different with little public input. Does any of this sound like the Belmar Park problem to you? High-density, no setback, no parking… a big change that the city has to make big changes for while not listening to big public pushback.
Update: A quick count of the days shows that Wheat Ridge is giving residents 9 days to petition instead of 10 because July 4 is a holiday. There’s always another challenge. Let your Wheat Ridge friends know to get over to sign soon!
Save the land at the Old Lutheran Hospital from becoming a high-density housing project! 1,200 Signatures needed. Wheat Ridge residents: Meet at The Historic Blue House @ Old Lutheran Hospital to sign June 24-July 3 , 7am-7pm
What’s up with the new zoning of the old Lutheran campus? Here’s what people are saying:
A change of this magnitude should be voted on by all citizens of Wheat Ridge.
In the past, we’ve voted on the rezoning of small properties – we should vote on the rezoning of 100 acres in the Heart of Wheat Ridge
Allows the creation of a crowded urban environment on much of the property:
More than 2,000 housing units can be built, according to the developer. [Sec. 26-1404] Maximal building coverage. [Sec. 26-211, 26-1405]
No limit on how much of a parcel can be taken up by a building.
In contrast, our normal high-density zone (R-3) allows only 40% building coverage.
No setbacks. [Sec 26-1405]
Buildings MUST be placed close to the street. No separation between buildings required.
Minimal landscaping and open space [Sec. 26-1405; 26-1409, 26-502].
Note: the 20% mentioned is much less than our normal requirements.
No landscaping or useable open space around multi-unit buildings is required.
No parkland dedication to the City is required. [Sec. 26-414]
In contrast, our normal regulations require a developer to develop and dedicate parkland to the city at the rate of 7.5 acres per 1,000 residents.
No parking spaces required for multi-unit buildings.
On-street parking (including on Dudley St) counts toward the parking space requirement for single homes and duplexes.
Variances from even these minimal standards are allowed, including variances of more than 50%. [Sec 26-1416]
No Historic Designation or Registry of the Blue House, Chapel or Tuberculosis Tent.
Only the actual structures are mentioned, with no limitation on how they can be repurposed. No requirement for rebuilding in case of damage. No penalties. [Sec. 26-1411]
Nothing about affordable homeownership. [It’s not found anywhere in MU-LLC regs.]
We need ownership options for first responders, teachers, young families.
No limit on the number of units that can be rentals. [It’s not in the MU-LLC regulations.]
Wheat Ridge already has one of the highest percentages of rentals in the metro area
NO traffic studies have been done.
Where is the analysis of the impact on 32nd and 38th? We should know before we give a developer the right to build so many units.
Because “biological annihilation” is happening NOW according to Stanford biologists Paul Ehrlich, Rodolfo Dirzo and colleague Gerardo Ceballos. Key quotes from the paper:
“Earth’s sixth mass extinction episode has proceeded further than most assume.”
“The window for effective action is very short, probably two or three decades at most.”
“Wildlife abundance on the planet decreased by as much as 58% between 1970 and 2012.”
“This biological annihilation underlines the seriousness for humanity of Earth’s ongoing sixth mass extinction event.”
The scientists document “a massive anthropogenic erosion of biodiversity and of the ecosystem services essential to civilization.”
“The massive loss of populations is already damaging the services ecosystems provide to civilization.”
“Wildlife in Africa is disappearing at a horrific rate. There is perhaps 1/10 of 1% of the wildlife in Africa as there was 200 years ago.” Lawrence Frank Ph.D. at 53:50 in presentation on African wildlife conservation as a field biologist.
What is Lakewood City Council doing locally to help the planet deal with this crisis?
Lakewood’s answer is to ignore science and promote luxury housing that will harm a riparian habitat while citing the fake ‘housing shortage’.
Yet the city council wants everyone to think there is not enough housing for a ‘growing’ population. City council, when does your denial of reality cross the line from being misinformed to being blatantly dishonest?
The county has lost 4% of population in 4 years. The local school district has closed 21 schools since 2021. School buildings are actually up for sale in Lakewood. Lakewood’s housing pipeline already has a 10-15 year supply based on the city’s own study! Zillow shows over 1,500 rentals advertised in Lakewood today including hundreds of units within walking distance of Belmar Park.
Council members, if this summation is not correct, then please explain why you refuse to protect habitats including Belmar Park. Eminent domain is at your service if needed.
Yes, the Kairoi Belmar housing project, as planned without a science-based raptor buffer zone, will harm the rare riparian wildlife habitat at Belmar Park.
Lakewood City Council cannot fix a global problem. But they can show leadership and be a model for how cities can play an important role.
City Council, please do not take comfort just because you are not alone in participating in the sixth mass extinction event and stealing from the future of our children.
Lakewood, this is exactly how to give the children a planet struggling to support human life. Or worse.
Colorado Parks and Wildlife recommends a raptor buffer zone at Belmar park based on ‘best available science’!
Is that too much to ask?
Some might say why worry? There is plenty of wildlife in Africa, so let’s eat, drink and be merry and forget about protecting habitats here. The planet is too big for humans to ever ruin it.
Unfortunately, Dr. Lawrence Frank is quoted above regarding the ‘horrific’ loss of wildlife in Africa over the last 200 years.
He spent decades tracking and studying lions in Africa. He started back before GPS tracking collars for lions were even available.
Back then, once you had a collar on a lion, you had to drive around off road in Kenya to try and get in radio range of the collars using a YAG antenna to track and count the animals. He told me bouncing around on that terrain was very hard on his back.
He explains during the Q&A at the end of the video that as humans continue to encroach on habitats in Africa, what wildlife still remains has a very uncertain future.
Dr. Ehrlich’s paper points out that species extinctions over the last 200 years should have taken 10,000 years!
What is happening is a global crisis. Protecting habitats will be the best and probably the only way out of it.
Some might cite the recent example of the dire wolf that was supposedly extinct but brought back to life via genetic engineering by a company called Colossal Biosciences. The hope the company was claiming is that other species could be resurrected from extinction using the same technology.
But the company’s chief scientist has now admitted just a few weeks ago the animal was not a true dire wolf but simply a grey wolf with a few modified traits to make it resemble the appearance of a dire wolf.
Humans make up less than 0.5% of the total biomass of the planet, yet we are responsible for the ongoing 6th extinction event.
Wild mammals make up even less of the total biomass than we do!
It is up to us stop it.
The Ehrlich paper explains that ecosystem services essential to civilization are already being eroded and damaged.
There are 20 to 30 years at most to stop the mass extinction event.
It is time to wake up. That includes you, City Council. Wake up. You are responsible for protecting habitats in Lakewood. Please do your job for the sake of your own children.
You’d be forgiven if you missed it — after all, the City didn’t exactly roll out the red carpet for public input — but Lakewood is in the middle of completely rewriting its zoning code. And on May 21st, the Planning Commission passed 16 amendments in one night. Sixteen. Because who doesn’t want to restructure the entire city with the speed and clarity of a late-night city hall cram session?
Here’s the kicker: Lakewood is a home rule city, meaning we have the power to make our own land use decisions. But instead of using that power to protect neighborhoods or push back on one-size-fits-all state mandates, the City Council passed a resolution last year (Resolution 2024-62) that basically says, “Tell us what you want, Colorado — we’ll make it happen.” Meanwhile, six other cities are suing the state to protect their local control. Lakewood? We’re sending engraved invitations to the bulldozers.
If you’re not paying attention yet, you should be. Because staff expects these changes to take effect in September and if residents don’t start showing up and speaking up, we’ll be stuck with zoning we didn’t ask for, can’t undo, and won’t recognize.
“Home Rule vs Statutory Rule”
Before we go any further, it is important to understand the difference between statutory rule and home rule. So that there is no confusion, I went to the Colorado Municipal League’s website (www.cml.org). The following is their explanation of the two: “Colorado cities and towns operate under provisions of Colorado state statutes (and are referred to as “statutory” cities and towns) unless voters adopt a municipal charter to become a “home rule” city or town.
Home rule is based on the theory that the citizens of a municipality should have the right to decide how their local government is to be organized and how their local problems should be solved. Municipal home rule derives its authority directly from the Colorado Constitution. It affords residents of cities and towns that adopt a local charter freedom from the need for state-enabling legislation and protection from state interference in “both local and municipal matters.” The Lakewood City Charter was established on November 1, 1983. While it has been modified by the voters 5 times (the latest on November 2, 2004, we are still a home rule city.
Lakewood City Charter and Lakewood Together
Page 27 of the City Charter talks about planning and zoning. According to the charter, the city council could have established Ward Advisory Committees to try to corral all these changes but instead are using Lakewood Together for community input. In fact, I attended the Ward 5 meeting on June 14th and Councilman LaBure said that he tried to create committees last year and did not have support for this.
Let’s take a look at the Lakewood Together site. On the front page of the zoning updates section (Lakewood Together Zoning Updates), it clearly references the state law requirements and again we are a home rule city so we are allowed to do what is best for our community. This will be important to remember when I talk about the 16 amendments.
The 2024 City Council Resolution: Pre-Commitment to State Zoning Goals
The City Council passed a resolutionResolution 2024-62that sounds harmless — values like affordability, walkability, and sustainability — but when you read the details, it’s a blueprint for surrendering home rule. The resolution adopts state-level zoning goals before zoning code revisions or public feedback were complete. That includes:
Eliminating single-family zoning
Legalizing zero-lot line housing
Codifying 90-day approvals for affordable housing
Committing to Proposition 123 (as modified by HB 23-1304) requirements
Requiring compliance with parking minimum elimination
Bottom line: Lakewood didn’t just “revise” its zoning goals; it absorbed the state’s playbook wholesale. This was covered briefly by the Lakewood Informer: Jedi Mind Tricks – The New Zoning Code WILL BE Good
Why Didn’t Lakewood Join the Lawsuit with Other Home Rule Cities? Good question!
At the Ward 5 meeting on Saturday, June 14th, I asked our Councilors a simple question: Was our absence because of Resolution 2024-62, which essentially pre-commits Lakewood to implementing state zoning goals? And if the lawsuit is successful, meaning those cities win back their rights to local control, won’t we be stuck with sweeping zoning changes we didn’t have to make?
Councilman LaBure responded:
“We are a home ruled city but we are also a state entity. The state passes things all the time that encroach on local control. The argument has been historically well zoning and parking issues and all those things are matters of local concern and not the state concern. And Judiciary had tended to draw a line there. However, the state has increasingly been making the argument that there is a housing crisis statewide so we need more and more control over local zoning issues because it is actually a matter of state concern. I would have been happy to have jumped on that lawsuit however, other cities already did it and we are part of the Colorado Municipal League (CML). And CML has supported that lawsuit and in that sense we are member and if not the largest so in some sense we are part of that because of our CML affiliation. And it is a fair question to ask about if the lawsuit is successful, then we would be stuck with zoning changes that were not needed.”
Translation: we could have stood up for home rule; but we’ll just let other cities take the heat and hope our dues to the Colorado Municipal League somehow cover us by association.
Councilor Nystrom added that she did ask the City Attorney the same question but didn’t get a clear answer. She also pointed out that HOAs aren’t safe from this zoning overhaul either. While HOA covenants are seen as contracts between homeowners and their associations, local zoning ordinances will override those agreements. So yes, if you live in an HOA and thought you were protected, think again.
The bottom line? There is still no clear reason why Lakewood didn’t join the lawsuit, especially when we had the opportunity and the legal standing. In the words of Councilman LaBure, we’re “essentially deregulating zoning.” Deregulation is one thing. Doing it blindly and permanently, without any legal backstop or flexibility, is another; and it’s not necessarily a good thing for current residents or future housing stability.
The 16 Amendments Passed on May 21st
Let’s talk about transparency or the lack thereof. As of this writing on June 16th, the Lakewood Together website still links to the April 23rd Planning Commission meeting, but not the May 21st meeting where 16 amendments were introduced and passed. You read that right: the most significant zoning overhaul in years, and they can’t be bothered to upload the meeting where it happened. The most recent version of the proposed zoning code amendments? Dated May 19th, which doesn’t even reflect what was voted on.
The May 21st meeting video is available on lakewood.org, which makes it difficult to miss important updates since they aren’t keeping everything together, as originally portrayed. Amendments are still possible but this isn’t up for public discussion on the latest revisions yet.
At the Ward 5 meeting on June 14th, I asked when the public could expect a clean, updated version of the zoning ordinance. Councilor Nystrom responded that Planning Director Travis Parker and his team were “supposed to be” updating it and she will check on that. Spoiler alert: they haven’t. It’s been nearly four weeks, and residents still don’t have access to a finalized copy of the changes that are supposedly going into effect in September.
So what gives? Is the Planning Department deliberately withholding information from the public or are we just witnessing yet another performance of Lakewood’s Greatest Hits: Bureaucratic Incompetence, Volume 23?
Below is a chart of the 16 amendments passed. The most recent redline version of the zoning code? A casual 409 pages. And yes, buried in that bureaucratic brick are more than a few red flags.
Let’s start with the Authority section (17.1.5). It originally cited “the city home rule charter” — a key phrase affirming Lakewood’s autonomy. That language? Now redlined. Gone. Instead, we’re left wondering whether the City is scrubbing references to home rule on purpose… or just by accident (which, frankly, would be just as troubling).
Then there’s section 17.1.7 – General Provisions, which now reads:
“Except as hereinafter provided, no building, structure, property, or land shall be used or occupied and no building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, constructed, reconstructed, altered, repaired, moved, or structurally altered except in conformance with this Zoning Code.”
Sounds straightforward, right? Except it’s not. Take Article 5, for example it limits the square footage of homes above grade. Basements are exempt (for now), but let’s say your 4,000 sq. ft. above-grade home burns down. Under the new code? You may not be able to rebuild it to the same size above ground. Goodbye, replacement value.
And then, scattered throughout this 409-page monster, are things like:
Building re-use allowances, perfect if you’re excited to see old office parks or shuttered schools converted into multi-unit housing or whatever else they deem appropriate. (Spoiler: I’m writing about Emory Elementary next.)
Subdivision of residential land, your neighbor could sell, split the lot, and slap up a quadplex or a village of tiny homes right next to you.
Zero parking requirements and lot line-to-lot line construction, great for density, not so great for your driveway, your view, or your sanity.
Up to 750 sq ft of commercial space allowed in any home, in any neighborhood — for so-called “personal services,” with no parking required. Think hair salons, spa treatments, dry cleaners and even coffee shops… in what used to be a quiet cul-de-sac.
Horse property? That charming acreage you paid a premium for? It could be surrounded, subdivided, or rezoned into oblivion.
Commercial creep into residential zones, yes, more blending of use types with less notice and less input from the people actually living there.
In short: this isn’t a “minor update.” This is a wholesale rewrite of how Lakewood builds, lives, and grows and it’s happening fast, without your input.
Final Call to Action: Speak Now or Get Steamrolled
This zoning overhaul is tentatively scheduled for first reading on July 28th, with the second reading and public comment set for Monday, August 11th. Mark your calendars, but don’t wait until then.
The time to speak up is NOW. Choose any upcoming City Council meeting and use the General Public Comment period to voice your concerns. Demand a town hall. Ask for transparency. Hold them accountable.
Then on Monday, August 11th, we need to pack the room and show up in force. Sign up to speak on the zoning ordinance agenda item and make it clear that these changes are not welcome without real public involvement.
Let’s be honest, this City Council has a long history of ignoring the will of its constituents, and we should be prepared for them to pass this anyway. If that happens, the work doesn’t stop, it begins. We’ll have 30 days to gather petition signatures to either force Council to reverse their vote or take the issue to the ballot as a referendum.
We’re actively looking for team leaders to help organize signature collection across the city. If you’re interested in helping coordinate efforts in your ward or neighborhood, email me at KarenBGordey@gmail.com and include your name, contact information and ward.
This isn’t a drill. It’s your driveway, your street, and your city. Pick a meeting. Grab the mic. Let’s save our Lakewood!
Upcoming City Council Meetings (note: there are no additional meetings in June)
A new analysis shows an overwhelmingly disproportionate amount of new apartment buildings. A Lakewood resident developed the pie chart above by researching Lakewood’s current project list. This is something that has been obvious to resident for awhile but it helps to see the graphic and we at Lakewood Informer appreciate the insight. Thank you.
Statistically, 95% of current projects are for high-density, multi-family units. 88% are for apartments and 7% are for condos. Low-density, multi-family townhomes account for 5%.
Continuing this projection, this many new multi-family units will quickly change the voting patterns and priorities of Lakewood residents. Lakewood management hopes to accelerate this trend of thousands of new units through the new zoning code that will substantially change neighborhoods.
The narrative of “affordable housing” is clashing with the desire to maintain Lakewood’s natural character. This has caused some residents to question the need for government interference in the housing market.
This also shows the lack of balance in bringing new jobs to the area with no commercial economic development.
Many of you are aware of the ongoing attack on Front Range habitats including Belmar Park, Chatfield State Park and Bear Creek Lake Park. Unfortunately, habitats are under pressure globally which threatens the web of life for everyone on the planet.
This trend is often justified locally by proclaiming the need to ignore the value of habitats because there is a ‘housing shortage’ and building more housing is necessary above all else.
While statistics are not supportive of that argument for the Lakewood area, proponents continue to repeat it for lack of anything better to spout.
Some even claim that regardless of whether there is an actual shortage of housing, it is necessary to build more housing in order to reduce the cost of rent. In other words, if there are enough vacant, unused rental units, THAT will cause rent to come down significantly.
Yet that 20,000 units was actually a much larger than average inventory increase.
“This growth far exceeds Denver’s average annual construction of 11,400 units over the past five years” according to JP Morgan.
Because adding 20,000 units was such an outsized increase, it should have reduced rents significantly but for many local residents the $56 was not enough relief.
Yes, rents declined but according to the FOX31 report, developers also reduced apartments under construction by over 36% which will exert upward pressure on rents.
Proponents of continuously building more and more rental units might say the minimal rent reduction was due to the upward pressure on rents caused by the population increase!
They claim we need to keep building rental units to accommodate the population increase in Lakewood which is causing the so-called ‘housing shortage’.
What population increase are they talking about?
Developers don’t seem to agree with the growth argument since they reduced the amount of units under construction by 36%.
The US Census Bureau shows Lakewood has experienced a population increase of less than 1,000 people from April 1, 2020 through July 1, 2024. That is almost zero growth over 4 years!
Even Denver has increased only 13,500 which is less than 2% total growth in that extended 4-year time period. Compare that to the 20,000 units added plus the 11,000 units per year average for earlier years. It would seem a lot more units are getting built than are needed.
Jefferson County has actually lost 4,000 population in that same time period.
Neither Lakewood nor Jeffco are in a population growth mode.
As you probably know, because the secret is finally out – Jefferson County is closing schools! Even selling off school buildings. That is not exactly an indication of population growth. Just the opposite.
So let me ask, if I can find this data and you can click and easily verify it, why can’t the Planning Commission or the City Council find these relevant facts to inform their planning horizon and policies? What is that different drum they are dancing to?
Why do we have to sacrifice the habitat quality of Belmar Park to accommodate population growth that does not exist?
And as far as the use-by-right argument for private property? We have previously exposed the fact use-by-right is irrelevant since the developer has to do earth moving in Belmar Park itself and they needed Lakewood to surrender valuable easements to enable their project.
Instead of use-by-right, we should call it use-by-deception.
So the question still stands. What is that different drum?
The May 7th Planning Commission meeting was a travesty of a public hearing. Lakewood cared enough to give residents an outlet for their grievances. No one cared enough to enact a single change. And sometimes they outright laughed at us.
Watch the video below from the end of public comment, starting at min 2:58:25. One resident got up and publicly read an article from the Lakewood Informer. Watch the city staffer seated in the background unsuccessfully hiding her laughter during this reading. All of which was proved to be true. All of which city staff ignored and the entire Planning Commission dismissed — just like so many other valid resident points.
The meeting started with Lakewood Chief of Sustainability and Community Developer Travis Parker explaining that he didn’t think this meeting wouldn’t change anything. He said that there were “pretty significant misunderstandings” of what staff could do. He said that “attacks on staff for being, you know, incompetent or malfeasant or acting in bad faith, demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the good and hard work that’s done by people that are experts.”
No one doubts city staff work hard. They all deserve thanks. But we also can’t assume they are always right and the residents are wrong about everything. We can’t assume that there is no other way to evaluate base assumptions. But that’s exactly what the Planning Commission decided to do.
Ironically, one of the main points of the Belmar Park battle was about cutting down all the trees that could have formed an expanded buffer. Mr Parker himself has been educating residents on new zoning codes from Lakewood that will not increase the setbacks to what they were pre-2012, but will now require RESIDENTS to get a permit to cut down their trees.
So the meeting was a pretty show that started and ended with all the well-researched points the residents brought forward being dismissed. Sadly, the best thing to be said is that being dismissed was more respectful than being laughed at.
Required Grading Permit – Evidence not reported by city staff
The permit pictured above is from Lakewood’s eTRAKit system, showing the grading permit that was applied for and received within one day of the complaint, just as reported by Steve at savebelmarpark.com
The permit below is for demolition, which was applied for a month earlier. No malicious intent was implied and the problem was quickly corrected. Thanks to residents who apparently know less than city staff.
Grading permit requirements below
Actual permit that must be displayed before construction:
From Save Belmar Park, Inc., – a Colorado non-profit
What happened at the May 7th Lakewood Planning Commission hearing was deeply disappointing—though sadly, not unexpected. After several speakers delivered well-researched, thoughtful, and heartfelt presentations, the audience erupted in applause. The public’s support for protecting Belmar Park was undeniable.
So how does a small group of City officials override the will of the residents?
Despite an overwhelming outpouring of public opposition—including emails, social media comments, and a nearly 10-to-1 ratio of anti-this-development comments on Lakewood Speaks—the Commission still voted 5–0 in favor of the 411-unit Kairoi apartment building. And they did so even after being presented with a powerful, evidence-based case showing that the proposed development directly contradicts Lakewood’s own zoning code, comprehensive plan, and parks master plan.
This vote was a slap in the face to the community. It disregarded common sense, environmental preservation, and the very planning documents the city is supposed to uphold. The proposed zero-lot-line, six-story building is incompatible with the surrounding two-story Belmar Commons townhomes, overwhelms local infrastructure, and threatens the ecological balance of Belmar Park.
The city has rolled out the red carpet for billionaire developers—again—ignoring the public and prioritizing profit over people, parks, and trees. Dozens of mature, century-old trees will be clearcut. Wildlife will be displaced. Belmar Park’s peace and beauty will be irreversibly damaged (if we don’t stop them).
But, we have NOT given up—and we’re not stopping now!
Our next step is filing a lawsuit under a 106A appeal, which will go before a Jefferson County district court rather than more city insiders. We believe we still have a strong chance at a different outcome—despite the city’s push to bulldoze trees—because the proposed development blatantly contradicts Lakewood’s own zoning laws, comprehensive plan, and parks master plan, giving us solid legal ground to challenge it in court.
This is our last real chance to stop this destructive project, and we’re counting on supporters like you to help us make it happen. Legal fees are significant, and this is a fight the community should not have to fund—but we must because the City of Lakewood refuses to listen.
Please stand with us—again. If this park means something to you, dig deep—and give as generously as possible (then smile knowing you’re helping to save something irreplaceable). Every dollar helps us hold the line against this destructive plan. Then share our campaign and spread the word. We’re fighting for what’s right: environmental integrity, community character, and the future of Belmar Park.
Lakewood may be forcing a property owner to blight their own land in a backroom trade deal wherein staff pledged a positive vote from City Council for a metro district. The deal would give The Bend development city financing in exchange for metro district status.
In January 2025, a representative for The Bend developer made the following public comment:
“The city is actually only allowing a Metro District to be put in place if the URA (Urban Renewal Area) passes so that it is a vehicle for this infrastructure and tax increment financing. They actually would not pass our Metro District standalone. They’ve made that very clear.” – Allie Meister, Lincoln Properties, at Green Mountain Water Board Meeting, min 40:13.
This deal illuminates why Lakewood is rushing through a URA and metro district public hearing on the same night. Staff presentations have repeatedly touted the advantages of doing both the URA and the metro district at the same time. They claim these are complementary structures.
But they are not complementary. Rather, these are essentially overlapping structures that could finance the same set of infrastructures. Apparently, financing public infrastructure is a profit center.
Overlapping financing is duplicative. Even worse, for The Bend, neither metro district nor URA is appropriate. The Bend is not a “serious and growing menace” to the public health, safety, morals, and welfare, which is the statutory reason for Urban Renewal. The Bend does not provide public services, which is necessary for a metro district. The metro district will only be used for financing. Therefore, the most appropriate government assistance, if any, would be a Business Improvement District (BID). BIDs are the more accountable, less powerful, way to achieve development financing but no one is advocating for its use.
Instead, developers prefer to form metro districts. This initially involves the developer loaning money to the new metro district. Then the metro district issues a bond, with interest, to pay back the loan. Since the developer and the metro district are the same people (different legal entity), the developer has now gained itself government immunity, as well as millions of dollars of interest payments. In many cases, the interest payments never end – they only continue to grow. This outcome isn’t possible with a BID.
Therefore, developers generally want that metro district as a profit center, rather than as a way to finance development, since they front the funds in either case.
A URA is also meant to fund public infrastructure. Much of the public infrastructure was repeated under both the URA and metro district justification. Only one method is needed to finance infrastructure, and, as noted, the developer will provide the base funds in any event. As Karen Gordey reported in the Lakewood Informer, there was no required financial gap analysis completed to show that city funding was required. Therefore, with a metro district there is no need for a URA. This conclusion is also shared by a report from the Independence Institute. A URA has not required a metro district in the past.
However, Lakewood can trade URA financing for affordable housing. Lakewood is not allowed to pay for housing directly. Lakewood is not even supposed to demand any percentage of affordable housing. There is no zoning or ordinance that requires it. The irony is that Lakewood City Council itself sunset the Strategic Growth Initiative ordinance. Under that ordinance, this development would have fallen under the allocation review system wherein Lakewood could have asked for affordable housing to permit this many units in a TRANSPARENT process. Instead, the city is now working behind the scenes to make this same thing happen.
So, through the URA, Lakewood will gain affordable housing, aka government housing or government-subsidized housing. Those units can be used to qualify for state grants for even more development in Lakewood.
“Without the Urban Renewal plan, in our case, we wouldn’t be able to deliver kind of what they want to see or their vision for this piece of land which includes housing retail and affordable housing they you know both the state and the city and the county do have a desire to have a portion of the site have affordable housing in it.“ Allie Meister, Lincoln Properties, Jan 28 2025, min 35:57
Lakewood residents will pay for The Bend development by giving the developer financing. The new taxes from that development are diverted out of the general fund, which pays for Lakewood resident services like police, and instead will pay for The Bend development responsibilities like streets and pipes.
The decision for an Urban Renewal Area is very separate from the decision to approve a metro district. The developer did not originally desire to be in an Urban Renewal Area and Lakewood may not approve a metro district as a standalone decision. But, operating together, the developer and city can trade financial incentives that residents throughout Lakewood will pay for. The developer offers blight and gets metro district status and financing. The city offers URA financing to indirectly offset affordable housing units and gets a basis for more state grant funding.
“Municipalities are using a tool (URA) meant only for serious threats to the public as a tool for gaining a competitive advantage in economic development. Which, essentially, is a way to financially reward development partners and a method to force the public into a future desired by government planners.” -From The Empty Promise and Untold Cost of Urban Renewal in Colorado
Just like Lakewood’s deal to buy Emory Elementary, residents should know the full plan to leverage this deal for more high-density development using state grant funds from the affordable housing units. Without that knowledge, which has not been disclosed, neither the URA nor the metro district decision makes any sense.
There will be a City Council vote on the metro district and URA on Monday, May 12 that is open to public comment.
The representative from Lincoln Properties, Allie Meister, did not reply to requests for comment.
This article is written as the personal beliefs of Karen Morgan under the Lakewood Informer banner.
