ordinance Archives - Lakewood Informer

Park Land Ordinance Battle Continues – Legal Intervenors

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on February 4, 2025.

Over the last month, Lakewood has been sued over the new park land dedication ordinance, has hired outside counsel and is now trying to quickly amend or repeal the ordinance. Lakewood staff and City Council say they are trying to make the ordinance legal. Others say Lakewood has an obligation to fight for the citizen-led ordinance, a belief summarized below. Also below is an article detailing how residents are getting involved in the legal fight as intervenors, hoping to fight for the ordinance they believe the city is leaving behind.

On February 3, 2025, there was a City Council executive session and workshop on the subject. Second and third readings of possible changes are scheduled for February 10 and 24.

From LakewoodSpeaks public comment:

The City of Lakewood is legally responsible to defend the Parkland Dedication law our citizens brought forth by petition and City Council subsequently voted to incorporate into our laws. The right to this democratic petition process is protected by our National Constitution and passed down by our City’s upper tier documents. It is disrespectful and dangerous to attack this revered democratic process (or bully those citizens in need of utilizing it) that has been created and implemented by our democratic leaders to provide a voice to downtrodden citizens who feel their Government is not listening to all people.

There is concern by many residents that the City will protect their long-standing history of favoring developers over citizens, by putting forward a weak, unprofessional and half-hearted defense of this law that requires parkland dedication to the community by developers.

Now the reality of this concern that the City will ignore their responsibility to 100% defend our law has been cast in broad daylight. When the contractor filed for an injunction to ignore this new law initially set in motion by the people of Lakewood, the motion did not even receive a public hearing before it was granted. A public hearing on the request for an injunction was not convened BECAUSE NO ONE (READ LAKEWOOD ) OBJECTED TO THE REQUEST FOR AN INJUNCTION. This is the first glaring proof of the City turning their back on performing their assigned judicial responsibilities. Can the next example be far behind?

From Save Open Space – Lakewood

Judge orders injunction against Lakewood Green Initiative, allowing monstrosity at Belmar Park to proceed: Citizens cry foul

Wednesday, January 29, 2025 – On January 14, District Court Judge Jason Carrithers granted a Preliminary Injunction against the Lakewood Green Initiative, which means the Kairoi Residential project adjacent to Belmar Park can proceed as if the citizen initiative petition had never existed.

The judge’s decision was predictable because the City offered no opposition to the developer’s desire for an injunction.

In response to the Unopposed Injunction, two Motions to “Intervene” were filed on behalf of the Initiative. In the Motion filed Friday, January 17, “Proposed intervenor Save Belmar Park, Inc., (“SBP”) seeks intervention to defend the O-2024-28 ordinance as adopted and the requirements it imposes on the City and the Plaintiffs to protect the interests of SBP’s members in maintaining the character and aesthetic of Belmar Park from profit-driven unreasonable and unsustainable developer overreach. The City Council’s public statements and its actions so far in this litigation indicate that it cannot be relied on to protect SBP’s members’ interests. The preliminary injunctive relief granted to Plaintiffs is a litigation tactic sought to circumvent a robust and thorough evaluation of all parties’ rights. A preliminary injunction in this matter only benefits Plaintiffs to the degree they could seek approval of their proposed plans under the old municipal code without the disputed ordinance’s provisions. Once that approval is obtained and building permits are issued the provisions of O-2024-28 would no longer apply and the need for any further pursuit of this litigation would be moot. Plaintiffs’ Complaint also fails to address that the relief postured by Plaintiffs to apply only to them would affect all developments city Un-wide, where other developers could rely on the findings of this declaratory action to avoid complying with the Lakewood Municipal Code as currently adopted.

The City would then also have the political cover to attribute to the Court the need to make city-wide changes in the disputed ordinance rather than take up the issue with its electorate in an open and public debate.”

In the Motion to Intervene filed Tuesday, January 21, petition representative Cathy Kentner claims, “The mere fact that the City of Lakewood did not oppose the Motion for Temporary Injunction, and at the same time states they plan to oppose this Motion to Intervene on their behalf, is evidence that the City does not intend to adequately defend… In fact, it appears that both the Plaintiff and Defendant are attempting to moot this action by allowing irreparable harm to happen while this action is in court process.”

Kentner further points out that the City of Lakewood has a history of not adequately defending citizen positions. For example, “In the case of Colorado Christian University v. City of Lakewood (2021CV30629), District Court Judge Russell B. Klein granted intervention stating:

‘The proposed intervenors in this case argue that the City of Lakewood did not oppose a temporary restraining order and that the temporary restraining order filings contained false information – as a result their interests are not being adequately represented…Here the Court finds that the interests of the City of Lakewood and the two proposed intervenors are different, and that difference is not reduced to a disagreement as to trial strategy. The City of Lakewood has an interest in defending the constitutionality and application of its ordinances, whereas the proposed intervenors have an interest in the impact of the ordinances on their neighborhood and residences. Thus, the Court finds that the unique interest that each party maintains (the City of Lakewood vis-a-vis the two proposed intervenors) do not sufficiently overlap, and the Court finds that the interests of the two proposed intervenors are not adequately represented.’”

Lakewood surely is celebrating the ruling that allows them to continue their 13-year tradition of taking money for large developments while they claim to care for residents, their safety, their quality of life, the environment, huh global warming, wildlife and declining bird population.

Citizens are justified in feeling this “temporary” injunction could become permanent. If delayed long enough, Kairoi could be issued a building permit effectively mooting any issues.

The City’s response to Kairoi’s initial complaint is due to be filed this week. Both the City and Kairoi have 21 days to respond to the Motions to Intervene.

Order_re Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Injunction Download

1.0 Motion to Intervene – Final Download

Exhibit B – Complaint – Final Download

Kentner Motion to Intervene Exhibits Download

Council Passes Metro District Ordinance

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on February 4, 2025.

Lakewood voted unanimously to pass a new ordinance for metropolitan districts on January 13, 2025. The overwhelming feeling was that Council truly believes that this ordinance is better at regulating metro districts than the basic state law. Almost every City Council Member spoke of the multiple meetings they held to work on the ordinance, which was started years earlier when a metro district was expected. In fact, former City Council Member Dave Skilling was apparently advising current Council Members, according to publicly made comments. The new ordinance included an underlying assumption that cities had to allow metro districts. This belief was voiced by city attorneys and Councilor Rein. Several other Councilors deferred to Rein’s contributions on crafting this ordinance. Only Councilor Cruz voiced the opinion that Council could still vote “no” on a metro district application, but even she voted to approve this new ordinance.

Councilor Rein led the charge to prove Lakewood was not able to “ban” metro districts. He started the discussion by asking city attorney Lauren Stanek about banning metro districts. Although Stanek said that it couldn’t be done, there are several mechanisms other cities have used to “ban” metro districts. Any of these mechanisms below, or none of them, allow the city to vote against metro district creation.

Commerce City passed a moratorium on metro districts.
Longmont passed a bill limiting metro districts to non-residential development (the vast majority of metro districts are for residential development)
Westminster passed a policy of opposition.

Lakewood staff never presented any of these options, or even just the option of voting no, to City Council. However, Councilor Cruz pointed out that this ordinance does not bind Council to approving new metro districts.

As attorney Stanek* advocated, the Lakewood ordinance has some extra provisions that Lakewood hopes will provide extra safety to future residents. However, as Lakewood Informer news pointed out previously, many of those protections are limited.

*It is difficult to confirm any Lakewood staff title. In response to a request for an org chart, Lakewood Informer was told that the city didn’t have one because “it is all embedded into our HRIS system and doesn’t print out in a org chart manner“. No substitute was offered. Very few names, titles or phone numbers are located on the website.

Most Council Members agreed that these extra provisions made passing the ordinance worthwhile. They all seemed very cognizant of the dangers that metro districts pose. The hope is that future residents will do their own homework and discover anything they might object to before purchasing a home (ex. terms of extra taxes). This is more difficult than Lakewood disallowing objectionable items, but the information will be there.

Councilors Shahrezaei and Rein offered changes for additional transparency including:

Hosting copies of annual reports on the city website
Eliminating the possibility of a study session before approving a metro district
Disclosure requirements for any board candidate that has ties to the developer

Mayor Strom said she is very supportive of this new ordinance. She says, “This is really an opportunity for the city to make sure that development is paying their own way so that our newer residents are paying and it’s through a financing mechanism that allows a developer to not have to sell a house with an extra $30,000 on top because of the sidewalks that they had to put in.”

Strom’s base assumption – that metro district housing is more affordable – has been proved untrue overall by the Anderson Economic Group. They “found that issuing bonds to finance metropolitan district infrastructure costs reduces the typical home buyer’s down payment by an average of 4% relative to a scenario in which that same home is built outside of a metropolitan district. We further projected that a homeowner’s long-term housing costs will be 2% higher over the course of a 30-year mortgage due to the debt service property taxes levied in metropolitan districts. Additionally, we found that a metropolitan district’s housing costs may be even higher…”

So they found that a metro district adds at least 2% more total costs than traditional development but developers can say the cost is 4% lower at time of sale. Someone has to pay for the sidewalks but that will ultimately be the homeowners, not the developer. This metro district bill has nothing to do with making developers “pay their own way.”

A cheaper alternative would be for the city not to demand improvements like extensive sidewalks and bike lanes. There may be people who would like to have homes with fewer infrastructure amenities in exchange for a lower cost. Or if tens of thousands is the true cost and extensive infrastructure is universally desired, telling people upfront what the cost of total home package is might allow them to finance it themselves at more favorable prices. But those options were not presented either.

Councilor LaBure echoed the “affordable housing” narrative by saying that without metro districts, Lakewood would not have any development. Other Councilors have made similar statements in past meetings. This is the official talking point of the developer-run Metro District Education Coalition (MDEC). MDEC was the only outside expert invited to City Council study sessions last year. Competing grassroots organizations who know the dangers of metro districts were not involved.

These statements show that at its base, metro districts help developers and all Lakewood can do is try to minimize the harm to residents. Public comment online was unanimously against the creation of metro districts.

Scorecard: Regulating Metropolitan Districts

Strom: Aye

Shahrezaei: Aye

Sinks: Aye

Mayott-Guerrero: Aye

Cruz: Aye

Low: Aye

Rein: Aye

LaBure: Aye

Nystrom: Aye

Mayor Suspends Rules for Parkland Dedication Issue

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on January 20, 2025.

Mayor Wendi Strom suspended normal City Council procedures to have an emergency discussion on January 13, 2025 regarding issues resulting from the new parkland dedication ordinance. Strom says this was time sensitive so it couldn’t wait until the next meeting and most of Council agreed with her. However, even with the suspension of city policies, Lakewood is still bound by the Colorado Open Meetings laws that require public notice for agenda items. Without that notice, there was no public comment regarding the discussion because no one knew it was happening. One issue Strom initially raised was concern that single-family homeowners are being required to dedicate part of their land to parks. However, other Councilors showed that the real issue was overall development. Strom says the city has not issued any permits since December 7, 2024, when the ordinance was approved. Council Member Nystrom, the only Councilor to sound positive about the new ordinance, pointed out that there may be inaccuracies on how the ordinance is being applied. Nystrom’s point of view was echoed by the author of the ordinance, Cathy Kentner.

Mayor Strom did not say how many people were adversely affected by the new ordinance, but this move is extraordinary. Even in other time-sensitive circumstances, such as when hundreds of Belmar Park residents were begging for emergency intervention, Strom did not suspend the rules. In fact, with her inauguration, she has moved public comment to the end of the meeting in a move that guarantees most people do not stay for comment. The parkland ordinance itself was time sensitive due to the ballot initiative deadlines. Council chose not to address the issue at all.

Strom asked for a vote to direct staff to present some amendments to the ordinance at the January 27 meeting. She also later agreed with Councilor Roger Low’s statement that “it would be incumbent on members of council to proactively draft those amendments and work with the city attorney’s office, presumably to draft those amendments and circulate them [we] will be authoring the amendments and staff merely writing them up.”

It is evident that many processes will still be decided over the next month. No data was presented to demonstrate the problem, but Mayor Strom says that will be coming as staff present real life stories of the harm the ordinance is doing to residents and staff. No one mentioned the residents who were positively affected by the ordinance except for Councilor Nystrom.

Accusations of Bait N Switch

Strom says she does not believe residents knew what they were signing or the unintended consequences of the original petition. This narrative was espoused by several Councilors at previous meetings, including multiple times by Council Member Roger Low. It’s an ironic stance to take coming from the council who approved official ballot language to de-TABOR the city without ever mentioning TABOR.

Council Member and Mayor Pro Tem Shaharezaei went so far as to accuse the resident petition gatherers of pulling a bait and switch. She says they touted the initiative as a way to get more parkland but really it was about reducing density. She says these unintended consequences are something that needs a response.

Shahrezaei did not acknowledge that the parkland dedication initiative was a result of unintended consequences of City Council not being accountable for adequate oversight of the existing ordinance. That issue has been ongoing for over a decade. But Councilor Low ran through some math to acknowledge that resident density and parkland should have some sort of equilibrium.

Parks Versus Development

The ordinance is not about development per se. It is about the fact that more people need more parks in order to sustain the equilibrium Councilor Low spoke of. For decades people have moved to Lakewood for the plentiful parks. So much so that Lakewood Council recently pushed a bill to de-TABOR, partly to fund park expansion.

Many Councilors returned to the original argument from months ago that there was no way to mandate reasonable parkland dedication and still allow development. Those Councilors just want the development. Urban versus suburban development.

Councilor Mayott-Guerrero said that she hears the frustration of residents but there are several projects in her ward that are underway and are affected by this ordinance. She says that she has not heard any objection to developing several large lots in her ward. “Whatever your motivation and your impetus is, I believe that the way that this was written is going to result in a level of cost to the people of Lakewood and to the community that is really irresponsible for us to allow to continue.”

Council Member Cruz pointed out that this is impacting affordable housing developers. Affordable housing developers include Metro West Housing (MWH). Cruz did not discuss the MWH attempt to put 44 units on 1.6 acres, without including enough parking or a wide street, let alone neighborhood parkland for these new residents.

Councilor Sinks clarified that there was not a ordinance rewrite. Councilor LaBure agreed, stating that this would not be a rewrite, but rather tweaking some words.

Willful Misinterpretation

Councilor Nystrom says there are inconsistencies and, in her opinion, inaccuracies around the way the new ordinance has been applied. She also pointed out that there are many positive emails from residents, it’s not all negative as the other Councilors state.

Nystrom’s comments hint that the ordinance interpretation may be being used as a political football. She is the only Councilor to bring up a contrarian view and sound supportive of the resident-sponsored initiative.

Normal City Council procedure requires Councilors to submit a Request for Council Action to start a discussion. In other governments, elected officials can introduce legislation and call for a vote. In Lakewood, instead of Council Members authoring legislation, they must gain agreement from a majority of Members to hold a study session to generate ideas. Alternatively, they can assign staff or a committee to find solutions.

No Time to Think It Through

City Attorney McKinney-Brown says this move is “unusual but nothing illegal.” City Council must work by passing ordinances. She continues, “If the City Council believes they have plenty of time to workshop this and think their way through it, then you can start from a, a less intensive jumping off place.”

Her statement seems to suggest that Council may be acting off gut reactions and hasty conclusions. However, Council Member Low “signaled” that a third reading may be used to add additional time due to the amount of public interest in the topic and Councilor Rein agreed.

Council voted unanimously for the motion to have a first reading January 27.

Tag: ordinance