Description of responsibility for required grading permit

Relevant facts withheld from Planning Commission regarding unpermitted demolition

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on .

From SaveBelmarPark.com

Greetings Supporters of SaveBelmarPark.com,

The 777 S Yarrow project was approved by Lakewood’s Planning Commission by a lockstep vote of 5-0 on May 7, 2025.

Despite in-person and online expert testimony and informed and articulate personal testimony from hundreds of citizens who raised a wide range of serious issues and potential violations of the Zoning Ordinance that will never be addressed or mitigated by the current proposal, the commissioners still approved the proposal.

If it is possible for a planning commission to be replaced by artificial intelligence software, this might be a good place to start a proof of concept.  Maybe even remote-controlled rubber stamps would suffice.

At one point, ‘Mr.’ Buckley asked about the grading in the park.  As you may know, the city claims the park will not be touched.  That is a false claim.  As the city engineer admitted, it is necessary to grade park property so the developer does not have to build a retaining wall.  You are not supposed to build a retaining wall within 10 feet of the property line in Lakewood.  So it would not be feasible to require the developer to stay on their own property since they would have to modify their site plan to build a retaining wall with a proper setback.

So Mr. Buckley asked what the grade change difference would be and was told only 2 feet. No big deal, right?  However, the developer’s site plan shows the floor of the building at 5,528.75 feet.  The park path adjacent to the graded area is at 5,518.  Guess what?  That is more than a 10 foot difference in elevation.  Not 2 feet.  The fire road is at 5,524 which is a 6 foot difference.  But none of that matters.  Because facts don’t seem to matter to the Planning Commission.  They can simply be ignored and replaced will false statements such as telling the public that the park won’t be touched.  Problem solved.

This type of deceptive behavior is rooted in the history of land development.  Look at Stanford University.  When Leland and Jane Stanford passed away, they left 8,000 acres of land to the university with the provision it could never be sold.

Yet visitors to Palo Alto, CA who visit the Stanford campus are amazed at all the development on that 8,000 acres that supposedly could never be sold.  How did developers and the university get around that seemingly ironclad restriction?  Enter the 99 year lease!  Stanford leases their land which has allowed all manner of development including residential, retail, you name it.  Just as if it had been sold.  Maybe Leland Stanford got railroaded on that!

Similarly, May Bonfils did not envision the abuse and exploitation that would occur with her property at 777 S Yarrow Street after her passing.

(And coincidentally, Planning Commissioner Overall is a Stanford grad.)  

In a previous update, I mentioned the possibility the developer would bring attorneys or other advocates to put a positive spin on their proposal.  However, they did not make any attempt to put a positive spin on their project.  But to their credit, they also readily re-confirmed the project plans to provide only market priced rental units with no affordable units other than what the market will bear.

Perhaps they already knew there was zero chance of not gaining approval from their supportive anti-science minions on the planning commission.

Commissioners warmly welcomed the few supporters they obviously knew who showed up.  Yet addressed an accomplished PhD conservation biologist from Cornell and CSU who visited the site and the park and created an excellent presentation as ‘Mr’ Pardo.

And after years of working on this project, who did the commission turn to for the ridiculously obvious question – how much does bird resistant glass cost?  Not the planning staff.  Not the developer.  Such an obvious question was apparently above their pay grade.  They expected Dr. Pardo to have done their homework for them.  He offered to follow-up on that.

During the hearing, the commissioners asked specifically whether the demolition of 777 S Yarrow was properly permitted because various citizens were aware it was not and commented to that effect.

They were assured by staff with Mr. Parker present that there were no problems with permitting and were not told that demolition began without being properly permitted.

In fact, staffers denied that there were any issues with permitting.  

I initially reported about the improper permitting and subsequently the Lakewood Informer carried that report and subsequently a portion of the Informer reprint was read back to the commissioners during the hearing.  They disparaged the report as something unreliable from a ‘blog’ and terminated the conversation.

The city and Planning Commission should issue a public apology for that disparagement, inability to manage the permitting process and refusal to consider relevant facts on the matter brought to their attention by citizens during the hearing.

Instead, they were not told a required grading permit (as shown above) was not issued until a citizen complained that it had not been issued.

They were not told even the most minimal erosion control measures such as straw socks and tire shakers were not installed until after a citizen complained via a ticket in Lakewood’s user.govoutreach system.

As per the image above, the very FIRST requirement specified by the developer’s own Kimley-Horn engineers is the grading permit which was never even requested until a citizen raised the issue.

They were not told demolition continued for a period of time without any erosion control measures in place in contravention of Kimley-Horn recommendations and without a required grading permit as specified in the image above.

This happened in early March.  It has been two months and the commissioners apparently were not aware of this breach. But they were at the ready to disparage accurate reports of it that were brought in to the public hearing.

We predict no action will be taken regarding the unpermitted start of demolition, lack of even minimal erosion control measures and failure to provide a reasonable disclosure to commissioners in response to direct questions during a public hearing that discussed the improper permitting.

But as a result of the public display, many more members of the public may have been educated to the fact that aspects of this proposal are out of control and relevant facts are not necessarily being allowed to enter the conversation.

There is no reason to believe any of these issues would have been mentioned without a citizen watchdog first blowing the whistle on the city.  

Unfortunately, this means we have to question how much confidence citizens should have about the ability and willingness of the city to manage the project in a safe, legal and professional manner.

By the way, I have also updated the PC to their shared email address including images from their eTrakit system showing that the proper permitting process was not followed.  I invited any PC members to respond.  As yet, no response has been received.

So the death of Belmar Park as a wildlife sanctuary could be at hand. The approved plan allows them to divert rainwater away from the wetlands and starve it for water.  They are going to shade the park with the huge shadow cast by the building which is likely to further reduce the value to birds and other animals as a habitat.  And there is already a small bridge over Weir Gulch which means they could claim the wetlands could be filled in since they are not connected to the Waters of the United States due to that bridge which allows the water to escape your vision for a split second.

Belmar Park is 132 acres but only a fraction of that is underwater.  If they can just get rid of the pesky wetlands by filling them in, the entire park could be developed.

Hopefully, Colorado will find a way to prevent reckless destruction of wetlands and riparian habitats but the 2023 Supreme Court Sackett decision looms large as a green light to greedy developers who want to eliminate precious wetlands around the country.

And what about all the growth in Lakewood and the urgent need for more housing?  Not supported by Lakewood’s own housing study that reveals a full housing pipeline many years into the future.  And haven’t you heard?  They are even closing schools.  And trying to sell off vacant schools at below market value. Growth?  Seriously?

Something we were right about.  The commissioners really want everyone to just be quiet.

Stay tuned and thanks for listening,

Steve

Picture of Belmar Park

Likely Defect Identified in Planning Commission Software

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on .

From savebelmarpark.com

The 777 S Yarrow public hearing is very close on:

May 7th at 7:00 PM at 480 S Alison Parkway, Lakewood, CO

You may now enter public comments online at: https://lakewoodspeaks.org/meetings/869. You may have to click on item 3.

Unfortunately, a likely defect in the Planning Commission’s online file upload process has been identified and was reported via a follow-up public comment.  However, that public comment was rejected by Lakewood for violating comment policy.

It appears the comment was rejected out of an assumption that the Planning Commission software could not possibly be broken.

The city clerk was also very helpful in providing examples of other comments with attachments that were publicly posted as proof that the upload process is not broken.

Notably, NONE of the examples provided by the clerk included the .doc file extension.

Therefore, because Lakewood was obviously not going to investigate a reported defect that could potentially have been suppressing public comment file attachments for a long time, perhaps years, I investigated.

It turns out that the Planning Commission does NOT accept all of the file extensions specified on the file upload dialogue (which is shown in the image at the top of page).

Once I converted the .doc file to a .pdf file, then the upload process was successful!

If you upload a file with a supported  .doc file extension, for example, it appears to work properly. However, if your comment is approved for publication, the attachment is never displayed.

This is a material error because members of the public may reasonably assume their upload was successful since no error message is ever produced at any point in time during this process.  

Nor does the moderation process capture file upload errors and notify users.  

Nor are members of the public ever advised that the software may be unreliable and may silently dispose of file uploads.

Upon reviewing public comments just this morning, one person who supports approving the Kairoi project referenced his attached letter.  But no attached letter was displayed.  So his attachment may also have been lost by the software.

Therefore, members of the public or any parties with a matter to be heard by a quasi-judicial panel could upload files for the official hearing record and discover after the hearing record is closed that their file uploads were rejected.  Then it is too late to re-submit their files.

This problem is also complicated by a significant conflict of interest due to the fact that Mr. Parker, Lakewood’s executive in charge of making development recommendations to the Planning Commission and/or City Council, is also and incredibly an advisor on the executive team of the same software company that is at the crux of possibly suppressing public comment by silently rejecting documents intended for quasi-judicial hearings.

We suggest the city is indifferent both to the public perception and the risks of this conflict of interest.

We also suggest that as a result of enabling this conflict of interest, the city is also indifferent to the requirement for software quality control.

Please consider that a quasi-judicial hearing is a legal proceeding.  What if the clerk of a court periodically discarded or lost documents delivered by litigants without telling anyone?  What do you think would happen to that court clerk if this malfeasance came to light after years of discarding court documents?

We are not suggesting any Lakewood employees are disposing of these files.  The comparison is being made to the apparently inconsistent software vs what if an employee hypothetically did the same thing?  We doubt that an employee would get off so easily. But in Lakewood, the software does get off easily.

And consequences can be significant if a court is not diligent regarding management of important technology used in processing court documents or evidence.

Consider the Colorado Bureau of Investigation and the fiasco over their DNA tests.  It was recently revealed that hundreds of DNA tests were allegedly ‘manipulated’ over a 30-year time period and as a result material facts were omitted from official records even though no DNA matches were falsified.  The CBI Director stated: ““Our actions in rectifying this unprecedented breach of trust will be thorough and transparent.”  

Will Lakewood be as forthcoming regarding ignored software defects that potentially corrupted public hearing records?

Has this defect been suppressing relevant files for years?  It is possible.  Especially considering Lakewood does not seem responsive to any report that the software does not work properly.  Anyone who has previously reported a problem may have received a similar response that it was user error because other people can upload files – but of a different file type.

Therefore, we strongly urge that Mr. Parker be required to recuse from any matter that may eventually involve the Planning Commission or City Council where the PeopleSpeak software is used to accept public comments for any quasi-judicial hearings or city council meetings.

In the meantime, any past decisions made by the Planning Commission or City Council where online public comments were accepted from the public should be reviewed and new hearings potentially announced once the software is fixed.

Stay tuned and thanks for listening,

Steve

Profile picture of Anita

Springsteen Files Injunction Regarding Emory

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on .

Former Lakewood City Councilor and attorney Anita Springsteen is no stranger to Lakewood’s backroom dealing and use of executive sessions. Springsteen has filed two lawsuits against the city for using “negotiations” as the context for an executive session. Allegedly, those meetings were open meetings violations because they didn’t provide enough detail on the “negotiations” involved. Those allegations are playing out about the purchase of Emory school. Even residents living next to Emory had no idea the city was trying to purchase the school for the Action Center.  Springsteen filed an injunction to prevent the city from voting on the property purchase April 28 but Springsteen says “the Court held that the issue was moot when Council held the vote despite being on notice of the request for injunction.” She plans to refile the motion to prevent further actions by the city. She is also communicating with the Jefferson County Schools so they are on notice of breach of fiduciary duty.

Councilor Mayott-Guerrero asked for an attorney to explain why residents have not seen open conversations about purchasing Emory before. The attorney for the city said negotiations are protected by executive sessions so there has been no public notice until now. The April 28 meeting, during which this conversation and vote took place, was duly noticed, he advised.

Unfortunately, that still left many residents in Lakewood feeling like they were unprepared, not informed and left in the dark. Which is entirely reasonable since, as Lakewood just admitted, they did not tell residents they were working on this until now. Lakewood did not put the address of the property on which they were negotiating in the notice for executive sessions.

City Council and staff were very clear that this was only the first step and that the city needed to proceed in this matter so they could progress to formal negotiations. But then what were they doing in previous executive sessions?

Lakewood could have been transparent and told residents in September of 2023 that they were interested in buying the school on behalf of the Action Center, as documents show. Instead of fully explaining the plans for Emory, Lakewood cried “misinformation” and only addressed limited misunderstandings. There are also allegations that Jeffco was hiding talks because they were involved in negotiations to sell the property four months before it was officially disposed of.

Council and staff still say that no decisions have been made and that they will listen to resident input at future meetings. Of course, that’s a variation of what they have said for the past year and a half while decisions were being made. There is no indication that plans will change based on resident input at the city level but that may be different at the school district level. There is also the possibility that the expanded interests of the Action Center will persuade people that this is the best use of Emory.

The purchase of Emory for the Action Center was a priority for Lakewood since the school’s closing. It was the first and only one on the municipal option list to begin in January of 2024.

Springsteen was one of four Councilors who demanded transparency before allowing an executive session to proceed. The session involved the City Manager’s contract renegotiation. The four Councilors calling for transparency prevented a super majority vote, which is required for an Executive Session to proceed.  This forced the contract renewal to take place at a public meeting so that the public could see who voted to renew the City Manager’s contract, which increased her benefits.

Springsteen has filed three lawsuits regarding open meetings violations, two of which pertain to property negotiations. Springsteen says “the third case was for an Executive Session involving ‘legal advice’ on a CCU issue that had already been resolved upon appeal a year prior, which calls into question the purpose of the meeting.”

Headline from Denver Gazette with author photo

Lakewood’s shady Jeffco Schools business deal

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on .

By Jimmy Sengenberger, in the Denver Gazette

The backroom deal I warned about last year is now playing out in broad daylight.

In February 2024, I asked whether Lakewood was eyeing a bargain on the closed Emory Elementary — a deal that could dodge public input and leave Jeffco taxpayers holding the bag.

Fifteen months later, the answer is a resounding yes.

On Monday, Lakewood’s City Council authorized a $4 million below-market purchase of the school — a site that got $2.6 million in taxpayer-funded upgrades before Jeffco closed it in 2023. It’s now on track to become the new home of the nonprofit Action Center — courtesy of a taxpayer-funded workaround.

The Action Center’s mission may be noble, serving vulnerable families and individuals. But the process? Not so much. It reeks of an almost theatrical disregard for transparency and taxpayer interests — with a straight face.

In January 2024, Jeffco Schools quietly introduced a new “Municipal Interest” process giving municipalities like Lakewood first dibs on shuttered schools — without competitive bidding or public input. COO Jeff Gatlin confirmed Lakewood’s “interest in the Emory property,” revealing they were already “working through the municipal interest route.”

Translation? A backdoor sale — letting Jeffco Schools unload taxpayer-funded property at a loss. A consultant even advised this process empowered the district to skip community feedback entirely.

Read the rest of the article….

Belmar Park can't speak at the hearing but you can

Mark Your Calendars for May 7 to Speak for Belmar Park

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on .

From savebelmar.org

At long last the date for the Lakewood Planning Commission to hear the review of the major site plan of 777 S. Yarrow St has been set. MARK YOUR CALENDARS FOR MAY 7. We will need everyone available to pack council chambers. You can:

  • Sign up to STAND UP and SPEAK! If only a few people speak, it will look like there is more support for the project!
  • Comment on the lack of buffer between the development and the park that fee-in-lieu made possible!
  • Comment on the environmental degradation due to noise from construction and the potential for bird window strikes.
  • Comment that 65 mature trees will be cut down
  • Comment on the traffic and parking during festivals and concerts that will become worse with 412 additional apartments

OR Donate your time to a speaker who would need more than 3 minutes

It is STRONGLY RECOMMENDED that everyone who has a comment, whether they speak or not, enter their statement on Lakewood Speaks at Lakewood Speaks – May 7, 2025 Planning Commission Meeting. Submit comments before 5 pm day of.

It would be beneficial to tie your comments to a section of the zoning code. For example,

Article 17.2.7.2: Review Criteria states that:

Recommendations and decisions regarding site plan applications shall be based on the following criteria:

A. Major site plans shall comply with standards outlined in Articles 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10 of this Zoning Ordinance.

B. The Director shall evaluate how well the proposed modifications contribute to the overall performance of the site and how well the proposed changes meet the standards in Articles 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10 of this Zoning Ordinance.

Let’s see how well these standards are met:

under Article 17.3.1.1: Purpose and Intent

This Article describes each zone district established within the City of Lakewood. The purpose of the various districts is to:

A. Ensure compatibility of land uses

Is this requirement met with a 5-6 story apt complex directly adjacent to the lake?

Article 17.3.4.1: Purpose and Intent

The mixed-use (M) zone districts are specifically intended to:

C. Maintain the integrity and viability of the adjacent residential neighborhoods

Is this requirement met with a 5-6 story apt complex adjacent to the 1 and 2-story townhomes at Belmar Commons?

Article 17.4.1.3: Determination of Use

B., the Director shall consider, among other relevant factors, traffic generation, density of population, and hours of operation of the proposed use as compared to:

3. The goals and policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan.

The Comprehensive Plan states “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.”

Is this requirement met with the 5-6 story apt complex?

Page 196 of the Comprehensive Plan reads

Lakewood Sustains

Guiding Principle

Lakewood will be a leader in sustainability principles, practices, and education. Lakewood is committed to the well-being and health of its citizens and environment. The city will reduce its impact on natural systems

It is the goal of sustainability to achieve balance between the economy, the natural environment, and social values; however, human society depends on the environment first and foremost in order to achieve social and economic sustainability. In other words, without a healthy environment, a community would be unable to achieve economic success and social well-being.

Are we promoting sustainability and a healthy environment by cutting down 65 trees and degrading the environment? Declining bird populations will now have to endure noise pollution from construction, window strikes from 6 stories of apartment units, and reduced habitat from tree removal.

Article 17.4.1.4 : City Owned Open-Space and Parks

City-owned land which is used or held for open-space or park purposes shall not be permitted to be used for any purpose other than open-space or park purposes.

Is the developer staging equipment and/or regrading part of the park adjacent to the site?

Article 17.6.5.8, 17.7.7.7: Existing Tree Preservation

A. Existing trees with trunks greater than 8-inch caliper, measured 1 foot above grade, within a development shall be preserved to the extent reasonably feasible and will help satisfy the landscaping requirements of this Section. Such trees shall be considered “protected” trees within the meaning of this Section. Streets, buildings, and lot layouts shall be designed to minimize the disturbance to protected trees.

B. The Director shall determine through consultation with the City Forester when it is not feasible to preserve and retain protected tree(s) or to transplant them to another on site location. If it is determined that it is not feasible to preserve or transplant protected tree(s), the applicant shall replace such tree(s) according to this section. Replacement trees shall be used to satisfy the tree planting standards of this Section.

Has this requirement been met? Was the site plan designed to preserve mature trees? Not if the plan is to remove 65 mature trees.

Article 17.13.1.1: Purpose and Intent

This Article establishes standards for sustainable development in the City of Lakewood. The purpose of these standards is to ensure that development implements the goals articulated in the community’s adopted plans for resilient and efficient development that is adaptable to infrastructure changes in the face of climate change, minimizes its impact on limited resources, contributes to communitywide greenhouse gas emissions targets, and becomes a positive asset within the community.

Does extensive tree removal and consequent habitat removal satisfy sustainability standards?

Use one or more of these articles in the zoning code to frame your concerns about the 777 S. Yarrow St development.

Belmar Park is NOT an amenity for 777 S. Yarrow St!

See you on May 7!

CITY OF LAKEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION FOR A SITE PLAN AND WAIVER APPLICATION The Lakewood Planning Commission will hold a public hearing at 7 p.m., Wednesday, May 7, 2025, to consider the major site plan (SP22-0010) and minor waiver (WI24-0003) applications for a new multifamily development proposal at 777 S Yarrow St. The development applications have been referred to the Planning Commission by the Planning Director for a decision. For information, please contact Brea Pafford, Project Planner at 303-987-7534 or Tyler Sibley, applicant, at 210-817-0024.

Public Hearing for Massive Belmar Park West Housing Project Announced

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on .

From savebelmarpark.com

May 7th at 7:00 PM at 480 S Alison Parkway, Lakewood, CO

You may now enter public comments online at: https://lakewoodspeaks.org/meetings/869. You may have to click on item 3.

If you submit a comment online or in-person, we suggest you specify to which specific section in Lakewood’s Zoning Code or Comprehensive Plan your comment is relevant.

Simply submitting a general comment without linking it to the Zoning Code or Comprehensive Plan may result in your comment being disregarded or misinterpreted.

If you can afford to hire an attorney to help formulate your concerns and possibly submit your concerns on your behalf, that would be excellent. 

This is a quasi-judicial hearing which closely resembles a court proceeding rather than a city council meeting.

You may also view the hearing online at LakewoodSpeaks.Org

Please feel free to attend and comment in-person.  However, since Lakewood is not consistent with transferring oral comments into the public record (other than archived videos), you may want to also submit your comment online which allows you to verify the comment was accepted.  

If you attend in-person, keep in mind a quasi-judicial proceeding is similar to a courtroom so applauding comments or cheering comments could get you removed from the chamber or other negative consequences could accrue. 

The hearing concerns whether the large housing project at 777 S Yarrow Street adjacent to Belmar Park in Lakewood, Colorado should be approved.

If the commission approves the major site plan, there could be a legal challenge to that decision raised in a court of law because some citizens have funded a charity that has retained an attorney and stated its intention to raise such a challenge if necessary.

Having comments submitted from informed citizens who explain how the major site plan fails to comply with the zoning ordinance and/or comprehensive plan could possibly be utilized in such an appeal, especially if such comments are researched in advance by your attorney in order to improve the legal impact and clarity of your citizen comments.

Assuming there is a future appeal in a court of law, any comments you submit to the Planning Commission could eventually be rebutted by the developer’s lawyers so comments that have been legally vetted by your attorney may be more effective.

Because any attempt to introduce additional evidence will likely be rejected at the appeal level, it is important to get all relevant documents and comments into the hearing record on May 7.  You may upload one document per comment.

You can rely on the fact that the developer will have top notch legal representation at the hearing.  It is up to the public to debunk the rosy presentation those attorneys may make on behalf of the developer.

Some developers find advocates that can make almost any type of project sound like a dream come true.  That could be the type of presentation the public will be up against on May 7th.

Therefore, especially if you have a legal background or can afford to enlist legal support, please step up now and prepare to make your best argument to the Lakewood Planning Commission.

Screenshot of kdvr news story

What Is the Government Solution to Homeless

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on .

Lakewood residents reach out for a government solution to homeless encampments, as written about on kdvr.com by Alliyah Sims. Lakewood says encampments like these are the reason to open more shelters and offer more resources. But not everyone takes the resources offered.

The problem, as noted in the article, is that these encampments (not all) are located in an area that caters to homeless. Lakewood’s Navigation Center is half a mile away, the Action Center less than a mile away, outpatient services near this encampment at 14th and Vance, and others close by.

But what if the unhoused do not want the resources provided? Governments can force taxpayers to provide resources but they can’t force people to utilize them as intended. Lakewood police say help has been offered but not often accepted.

As the author of San Fransicko wrote, ““Homeless is a propaganda word” because it also describes the open-drug scene. Because when you say homeless you think it’s a housing problem and people who only have housing problems are the easiest populations to help. The overwhelming problem with the homeless is street addiction and untreated mental health crises.”  – Michael Shellenberger

Cities like San Francisco and Denver have been experimenting with government solutions but the only continuing metric of success is the amount of people served and money spent. The increasing number of homeless in these cities is disregarded as irrelevant.

From kdvr.com:

“Neighbors living in Lakewood are calling for the city to come up with a permanent solution to homeless encampments popping up in their neighborhoods.

“They say the sites near 14th Avenue and Vance Street have been a problem within the last year, but they have seen it grow with the recent cleanup at the 6th Avenue and Wadsworth Boulevard interchange that happened last week.‘Long time coming’: Lakewood homeless encampment cleared

“Lakewood police say while they are aware of the camp, they can not confirm if it’s the same people from the 6th and Wadsworth clean-up.

“They say they offered help to everyone living there, but a lot of times it’s just not accepted, creating an endless cycle.

“I’ve been at this location for almost 10 years now, and we love the work we do and love helping others,” said Marie Archambault.”

Read the full article….

map of Kipling and Alameda showing Milestone property location

Rezoning affects Milestone Property

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on .

By Russha Knauer, Cross-post with permission from nextdoor.com,

The upcoming Rezoning Ordinance meeting is being held on Wednesday evening at 7pm at 480 S Allison Pkwy. This meeting will cover several rezoning issues. If you live in the area of Kipling and Alameda or Alameda and Garrison, this meeting will be especially important for you to submit public comments or attend and make your voices heard. Find information about the meeting and how to submit public comment here: https://lakewoodspeaks.org/items/4256.

Specifically, the zoning ordinance updates will allow for the land along Alameda and Kipling informally known as the Milestone Property to be rezoned to allow for high-density, mixed use urban development. That means that high-rise, high-density development up to 96′ can be developed. This will go against the current zoning and surrounding development of the area.

There are several things that are important to know about this rezoning proposal. First, the rezoning proposal was included in the non-residential zoning map, so many people are unaware that this could happen and how it could directly affect them. Second, this is one of two properties slated for rezoning in this manner; the second is already developed and the rezoning ensures the current development is allowable within zoning regulations. Third, the city stated that the Milestone property is one of 10 “difficult to develop within current zoning regulations” pieces of property. To be clear, this land is currently zoned to be developed as single family homes with mixed commercial use on the corner of Alameda and Kipling. However, the developers have fought the neighborhood for two decades to rezone the property to allow for high-density development. The only thing difficult about developing this land is the developers, not the zoning. Fourth, the city planning department recently told the Planning Commission in a meeting on 4/9 that the implementation of “Envision 2040” is the “city’s”, meaning there is no duty for the City to engage neighborhoods when development or re-development is proposed. Further, the city’s planning department stated in a presentation on 4/18 that going forward, developers will be the ones who have the option to engage neighborhoods when development is proposed, further abdicating the City of their role in engaging neighborhoods. Finally, the City has made this information difficult to understand and find when it comes to identifying nuanced information and how it will affect specific areas and neighborhoods.

Please come and make your voices heard! Make sure the City knows that developers should not be valued more than tax-paying residents; that the City has a duty to engage neighborhoods when development is proposed; and that rezoning should not be allowable in plans that are difficult to understand and provide no clear forewarning to affected areas.

Aerial view east along 6th ave including The Bend site

Toxic Legacy: Uncovering the Chemical Contamination at the Denver Federal Center – Part 3: The Bend Project and the City’s Blight of Transparency

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on .

By Karen Gordey

See Part 1 and Part 2 for more background

The Lakewood Planning Commission met on January 22, 2025; the day after the West Metro Fire Department Board of Director meeting.   During this meeting, Anne Ricker from Ricker Cunningham presented “The Bend” to the Planning Commission.  Commission Kolkmeier stated, “Just note for folks, listening and reminder to commissions and folks in attendance today that this is an unusual matter that comes before us.  We don’t typically get asked to make a recommendation as it relates to compliance the comprehensive plan on an urban renewal project.  But it is pretty straightforward.  The specific question that we will be discussing today is whether or not the proposal that is presented is in compliance with the comprehensive plan already adopted by the city of Lakewood.  That is the current plan, not the next plan that is still in process.”

The documents (located on Lakewood Speaks) provided to the Planning Commission were the following:

List of documents from Lakewood Speaks: 9.11.24 The Bend @ Lakewood Urban Renewal Plan revised 12.30.24 corrected 1.8.2025 1.22.2025 The Bend Planning Commission Presentation corrected 1.8.2025 PC Draft Resolution--The Bend Urban Renewal Plan 1-8-25 PC Staff Memo for The Bend--1.8.25 (003) Lakewood 2025: Moving Forward Together (Comprehensive Plan) Federal Center/Union Blvd. Corridor Connectivity Plan Union Blvd. Urban Design Plan Union Area Transportation Study 11-22-2017

Where is the Blight Report also known as a Conditions Survey? Why does the Lakewood Planning Commission not know what the actual approval process for Urban Renewal project is? 

The blight survey, while mentioned in the presentation, was not presented separately to the Planning Commission.    On February 3rd, I submitted a CORA request and subsequently received the blight report.   It is a 42 page document.  The closest document (shown above) would be the first one titled, “9.11.24 The Bend @ Lakewood Urban Renewal Plan revised 12.30.24 corrected 1.8.2025.  However, that document is only 32 pages and is missing the following pertinent information (and therefore is not the Blight Report/Conditions Survey):

The Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment

Environmental remediation

Institutional Controls

CDPHE findings

Any land use restrictions

Red Flags in the Blight Report

Here are just a few of the inconsistencies:

  • Date confusion: The cover page is dated July 2024, but the first paragraph says it was prepared in September 2024. Which is it?
  • Page 4 notes a 2017 restrictive notice recorded by GSA: No soil disturbance including digging, drilling, or grading  on the northern section.
  • Page 6 references the Lakewood 2025 Comprehensive Plan to justify land use; a plan not yet enacted in 2024.
  • Page 23 includes quit claim deed excerpts mentioning pesticides, VOCs, MTBE, and asbestos but, omits TCE, DCE, and other known contaminants that appear in EPA documents and past cleanup reports.
  • Page 25 is the most damning: It confirms that no soil disturbance is allowed on the northwest corner and that groundwater to a depth of 100 feet is restricted due to PAH contamination. If the land is not federally owned, a special construction dewatering permit is required from the Water Quality Control Division under Colorado law.

Feel free to look over both documents using this link:  https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1O0eNIOLdCo833C0xGKrvvRAeH9sUeVez and ask yourself why would this type of pertinent information be omitted from the public documents.

Is This Really “Blighted”?

Because the property is predominantly open land, the statute requires at least 5 out of 11 blight factors to justify a designation.

The planning commission presentation claims the land meets 9 out of 11.  A striking figure, considering the area’s size and federal legacy.  The City Council has yet to vote this as a new urban renewal project so it is not yet officially blighted.

Additionally, the deed and the developer both mention an underground storage tank that leaked VOCS and MTBE.  However, do we know where this underground storage tank was located on the DFC?  Historical government documents tell a different story.  They reference TCA, TCE, DCE and never mention MTBE.  Building number at the Denver Federal Center changed over time, so: is the tank even in the location cited?  Is it the same tank?

(Editors note: You can research underground storage tank locations at the EPA website)

If the full report acknowledges multiple land use restrictions, how did the Lakewood Planning Department approve this development, phased or otherwise?

The Missing Piece: Where’s the GAP Analysis?

The gap analysis is supposed to justify public financing tools like TIFs. It reveals whether costs; such as contaminated land, demolition, or regional infrastructure make a project financially unfeasible without help.

But in this case, no gap analysis exists.  A Colorado Open Records Act (CORA) request was made.  Below you can see the response from the city of Lakewood.

Records request to Lakewood asking for GAP analysis for financial planning. City responds that there are no responsive records
Records request to Lakewood asking for GAP analysis for financial planning. City responds that there are no responsive records

This is especially alarming because contamination at the DFC is well documented – and (contamination) has even been used to justify TIFs in other cities (like Castle Rock and the Gates property at Broadway & I-25).  Additionally, I am not sure why the Lakewood Planning Department would think the Federal Government would do a gap analysis on private property for a potential Lakewood Urban Renewal project.

Finally, one final question is what portion of the land is the development planning on giving the city for parkland dedication?   Per the latest ordinance, hazardous land cannot be given to the city.  This means that the landfill area with the “no ground disturbance restrictions” cannot be dedicated for parkland.  Yet another reason to do a gap analysis to determine what amount of money this will cost the developer, city, taxpayers etc.

Water Woes: The Lawsuit You Should Know About

Lincoln Properties has been trying to obtain a commitment to water and sewer service from the Green Mountain Water Board (GMWSD)  since approximately July 6, 2023.  Because a decision has not been made, Lincoln Properties has filed a lawsuit against the Green Mountain Water Board.  In court filings from Jefferson County District Court, Lincoln claims that the district has withheld service, or at least failed to act, on its application for water and sewer hookups since July 6, 2023.

GMWSD did receive a 74 page environmental report from Trihydro in August of 2024. However, no new testing has been conducted since the board could not decide how to proceed, including no testing for the 26 chemicals in the consent decrees.  I attended the April 8, 2025 board meeting and spoke during public comment.  In short, I explained I am not anti-growth but rather I am for common sense growth.  Lakewood will not go back to being the bedroom community we were years ago. 

The northern piece of the property has a build restriction and the entire property has a groundwater restriction. There are additional questions that need to be answered:

  1. Is the plan to build lot line to lot line like other recent projects in Lakewood?
  2. Is it possible it will be disturbed during Phase 1?
  3. Has the southern portion of the land been tested for 26 chemicals in the consent decrees?
  4.  Is the northern portion clearly delineated at the surface on this property?  In other words, when the earth-moving equipment gets on site will they inadvertently disturb the northern portion of the land because they are unsure where the northern portion is?
  5. If no, are there plans to fence off the northern portion?  Plans to cover the land with something so that the soil is not disturbed in any way?
  6. Has the northern portion specifically been tested for the 26 chemicals (12 of which are known to cause cancer) that were listed in the consent order back in 1996 and 1997?  If not, why not?
  7. The developer has said well if we come across something we will stop what we are doing.  The problem with this statement is that unless there is a 50 gallon drum or something is discovered the presence of chemicals will be invisible.  Why take that chance?

It will be interesting to see how the GMWSD court case plays out.  City Council is meeting on this topic during a study session on April 21, 2025 which is a virtual meeting.  Per the agenda and the accompanying materials, they will be learning about metro districts and TIFS.  Additionally, the builder is seeking guidance from the city on availability of sewer services from the city.   How much is that going to cost the taxpayers of Lakewood?

As you can see, there are a lot of unanswered questions that need to be answered.  Maybe it is safe to build and maybe it is not. The community deserves these answers now versus 10 years or more down the road.  Will City Council listen to their constituents or just rubber stamp yet another project?

Please Note, the author did send an email on April 7th to the Mayor and City Council requesting to talk about this project.  No one has yet to respond.

Important Upcoming dates:

April 21st at 7pm – Virtual Study Session with City Council and the Lakewood Reinvestment Authority (LRA)

May 8th at 6:30 pm – Screening of the movie “Half Life of Memory, Rockleys Event Center 8555 W Colfax Ave, Lakewood, CO 80215.  This event is free!

May 12th at 7 pm – City Council Meeting, 400 S. Allison Parkway, Lakewood, CO, 80226.  7pm  Public Hearing for the 1.) Creation of Urban Renewal District 2.) Creation of Metro District 3.) Approval of parkland dedication including improvements in-lieu of a site greater than 15 acres.

For professional level aerial photography, contact Lakewood local, StratusDrone at Dylan.stratusdrone@gmail.com

StratusDrone at Dylan.stratusdrone@gmail.com
Colorado Revised Statute 31-25-107

Toxic Legacy: Uncovering the Chemical Contamination at the Denver Federal Center – Part 2: Blight or Oversight? The Bend, the LRA, and Lakewood’s Shortcut

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on .

By Karen Gordey

“Transparency isn’t optional when taxpayer dollars and contaminated land are involved.”

A New Name, A Familiar Pattern

Most Lakewood residents haven’t heard of “The Bend.” That’s because it was previously known in city discussions as the 6th & Union, 4th & Union, or simply part of the Denver Federal Center redevelopment. To longtime residents of Lakewood, it is known as the Horseshoe Property. It quietly rebranded, and with it came an expedited process that skirted public scrutiny.

I attended a West Metro Fire Protection District Board meeting on January 21, 2025, out of concern for wildfire readiness. What I stumbled into instead was a vote on tax increment financing (TIFs) for a development I’d never heard of—The Bend—on land I knew all too well.

As a result of hearing this, I went out to the Lakewood website to refresh my memory on the Lakewood Reinvestment Authority (LRA). From the Lakewood website: “The fundamental mission of the Lakewood Reinvestment Authority (LRA) is to encourage private reinvestment within targeted areas of Lakewood. The LRA has been created by citizens to enhance the City’s ability to preserve and restore the vitality and quality of life in the community.”

So let’s first look at how the Lakewood Reinvestment Authority (LRA) process is supposed to work. (Below is a bullet point version. However if you are interested in seeing the full presentation it is on Lakewood Speaks and you can search for the LRA meeting from March 4, 2024.)

Lakewood’s Reinvestment Authority (LRA) process, aligned with Colorado state law, outlines a clear and deliberate path for redevelopment:

  1. Blight Study / Conditions Survey: Performed non-intrusively by a third party, this survey determines how many of the 11 conditions of blight per state statute are present.
  2. Planning Commission Review: The Planning Commission is supposed to review the blight study and the Urban Renewal Plan (2 separate documents) and make recommendations to City Council.
  3. City Council Vote: Council receives both documents and votes to approve or deny.
  4. LRA Plan Approved: If approved, this becomes a 25-year plan governing redevelopment in the area.
  5. URA Designation: The project area is officially defined and adopted.
  6. Intergovernmental Agreements (IGAs) + TIFs: Other taxing entities (like West Metro Fire) enter IGAs, and TIFs are created after financial need is demonstrated through a gap analysis.

What Actually Happened with The Bend

  • The land is owned by Lincoln Properties; however, they used a company by the name of Lakewood Land Partners, LP for the deed.
  • The project was rebranded mid-process, obscuring its identity from the public.
  • The Developer negotiated TIFs with at least the West Metro Fire Department prior to the Planning Commission meeting or City Council approval for a new urban renewal project.
  • The Planning Commission met and approved the development plan without ever reviewing the blight study.
  • TIFs were approved by West Metro Fire before proper public process was complete.
  • This project was set to be heard at City Council for blight designation on February 28, 2025 (per the presentation at the planning meeting) however it is now slated to be discussed in a study session on April 21, 2025 followed by a City Council meeting on May 12, 2025.

Sidebar: Past Precedents

Lakewood has a documented pattern of fast-tracking redevelopment by combining steps for blight designation and plan approval. For example, consider these past projects:

  • Alameda 1 – Council Reso 1998-48 (5/26/1998)
  • Colfax & Wadsworth (Creekside) – Council Reso 1990-70 (8/9/1999)
  • Alameda 2 (Belmar) – Reso 2000-82 (9/11/2000)
  • Lakewood West Colfax Corridor – Council Reso 2005-79 (12/1/2005)

Developer Negotiating TIFs?

At the January 21, 2025 West Metro Fire Department Board of Directors meeting, officials explained that they were approached, not by the City but rather by the developer regarding a new urban renewal agreement for the near 6th Avenue and Simms/Union. This land lies within West Metro’s boundaries, but not currently in their response area.

The meeting minutes show active negotiations over TIF revenue shares, which should raise eyebrows because the developer has no role in negotiating government taxes.

This raises a critical question. Was the developer acting as an agent of Lakewood? Was the developer acting on behalf of a presumed new metropolitan district? 

Screenshot of the minutes from West Metro fire on January 21, 2025, discussing urban renewal agreements
Screenshot of the minutes from West Metro Fire on January 21, 2025, discussing urban renewal agreements

Just weeks later, at the February 18 meeting, the Fire Department approved the TIF Sharing Agreement with the City of Lakewood for the Bend project, again detailing the revenue splits.

Screenshot of the minutes from West Metro fire on February 18, 2025
Screenshot of the minutes from West Metro Fire with vote details on February 18, 2025

While both of these documents can be found on the West Metro Fire Department website, both meeting minutes have been downloaded and can be found here on our google drive:  https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1O0eNIOLdCo833C0xGKrvvRAeH9sUeVez

Here’s the problem: under the Colorado Urban Renewal statute  https://colorado.public.law/statutes/crs_31-25-107 developers are not authorized to negotiate Tax Increment Financing (TIF) agreements. That duty lies exclusively with the Urban Renewal Authority (URA) in this case, the Lakewood Reinvestment Authority (LRA) or the City itself, acting in that capacity.  The minutes of West Metro make no mention of negotiating directly with Lakewood.

Under the statute section (9.5)(a), the taxing agreements must be worked out with the appropriate entities before the plan is approved but there is no new metropolitan district approved, unless one was promised behind closed doors. Even if a new metro district was granted, there should be a meeting and A VOTE of that Board of Directors, with conflict of interest disclosures filed. In this case, the property owners and developers will likely be the only board members so they will act as their own government. They will negotiate deals as a government that will enrich their personal property in a direct conflict of interest. They will be able to do this legally if Lakewood City  Council approves their service plan in May. 

Why It Matters

The LRA has extraordinary powers: it can borrow money, sue and be sued, condemn property, and distribute public financing to developers. When oversight is minimized or skipped, or in this case handed over to the developer; transparency, accountability, and public trust suffer.

And when that’s happening on top of a Superfund site, it’s not just a process problem, it’s a public health issue and fiscal irresponsibility.

Article 3 will dive into the specifics of what’s in the blight report/conditions survey, the gap analysis,  what the city has currently approved for this property, and the lawsuit filed by Lincoln Properties against the Green Mountain Water Board.

Please Note, the author did send an email  on April 7th to the Mayor and City Council requesting to talk about this project.  No one has yet to respond.

Important Upcoming dates:

April 21st at 7 pm – Virtual Study Session with City Council and the Lakewood Reinvestment Authority (LRA)

May 8th at 6:30 pm – Screening of the movie “Half Life of Memory, Rockleys Event Center 8555 W Colfax Ave, Lakewood, CO 80215.  This event is free!

May 12th at 7 pm – City Council Meeting, 400 S. Allison Parkway, Lakewood, CO, 80226.  7pm  Public Hearing for the 1.) Creation of Urban Renewal District 2.) Creation of Metro District 3.) Approval of parkland dedication, including improvements in-lieu of a site greater than 15 acres.

Lakewood Informer

Resident generated news for Lakewood, Colorado.

Subscribe

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