parking

Lakewood Passed the First Sections of the Zoning Code   The first portions of the new zoning code have already been passed as of August 25, 2025. Before then, public opposition caused City Council to delay the vote for two weeks, because the final version wasn’t ready on time and the public wanted adequate review time. But opposition was ongoing. Finally, City Council voted to break the approval into four parts, amidst public talk of third readings. These actions comforted residents with the thought they would have more time to change Council minds. Those residents were wrong. The first sections, 6-14, were passed without delay. No Council Member suggested a third reading was necessary and no one suggested tabling discussion for a fresh meeting despite the late hour of the proceedings (final vote was around midnight). Every member of council approved an amendment making it clear that single-family zoning was eliminated in the definition to “residential”. These changes started the densification process already. These votes showed that the delays and speeches were political ploys meant to appease residents, rather than make substantial change. As stated above, when the proposed code was broken into separate hearings, it was understood that the whole code must pass together or the entire legislation would fail. It was written as a whole, by a contractor, with instructions to increase density. It would be difficult to enforce the newly approved sections without passing the rest of them. Passing one set practically guarantees the rest will be passed just as quickly. During approval, a total of 10 amendments were made that the public could not comment on because there was no public notice. None of the amendments were substantive changes to the overall high-density plans of the zoning code. This one single hearing means approval of elimination of single-family housing and parking minimums. The votes for the amendments ranged from unanimous to 8-3, with details below. The final vote approving all sections 6 through 14 passed 8-3 with no further discussion. Nays were LaBure, Rein, and Nystrom. No reason was given for any support or denial of the motion. Amendments made Councilor Nystrom made an amendment on the details for special glass to be used in new buildings to protect against bird strikes. Interesting notes were that many Councilors had questions about this amendment and pointed out the lack of data, the contradictory data, or the number of more effective alternatives. This is emblematic of the most details in the zoning code. Mayott-Guerrero pointed out that if the data shows that this won’t help birds, then why do it? (The same thought “why do it?” could be said of the entire zoning code change, which data shows is not effective for affordable housing.) This bird strike amendment passed 9-2 (nays being Shahrezaei and Mayott-Guerrero) Mayor Pro Tem Shahrezaei suggested an amendment related to parking lot islands to add an option to allow for drought-tolerant plants. Shahrezaei says she’s concerned by all the sprinkler system usage along Colfax. After only 30 seconds of discussion, there was unanimous approval of the parking island amendment. Councilor Ken Cruz made an amendment to allow on street parking to count for developer credit towards any requirements, only where it can be proved safe. This discussion proved slightly longer, with one minute of congratulations, before there was unanimous approval. Interesting to note on this item is that the public documents available show that there was a change between the redlined and final version of the code so that the words “may be counted toward the minimum number of parking spaces required only if spaces are new, indented parking outside of the lanes of traffic” were eliminated. The new amendment takes the place of the safer provision that was there to begin with.  Councilor Ken Cruz made another amendment to require sites that will have three or more homes on one lot to share a driveway… unless sharing driveways don’t work. Councilor Low says this was aimed at “cottage court” configurations and would necessitate driveways for people who don’t need them because they don’t have cars.  Councilor Nystrom pointed out that there were several neighborhoods in Lakewood that were not suitable for on-street parking. She asked to make sure that property will not be developed without the required off-street parking in those areas. Staff answered that parking is not required in transit areas. Since that doesn’t answer the question at all and has built-in assumptions that transit areas will have no parking problem, this was a significant dodge by Director Travis Parker. Mayor Strom points out that banks require parking and Lakewood will now be relying on banks to make parking happen. The amendment passes 8-3 (nays being LaBure, Mayott-Guerrero, and Low). Councilor Roger Low suggested an amendment regarding the timing allowed for natural disaster repair. The amendment was drafted during the meeting, in response to a suggestion made during public comment by Karen Gordey, who pointed out that 18 months was not long enough time to rebuild from a disaster.  The amendment increased the time allowance up to three years in some cases. There was a lot of discussion about this amendment because there were problems like this during the Marshall fire. At that time, people asked to rebuild the way their houses were, not having to build them to new sustainable standards, which were considerably more expensive and required permits to bypass. That amendment passed 9-2 (nays being Mayott-Guerrero and I. Cruz). Mayor Pro Tem Shahrezaei made an amendment to the exemptions granted to affordable housing developers with regards to sustainability provisions. With the amendment, the definition of affordable housing changed from 120% AMI to 100% AMI to match Prop 123. (To better understand this amendment, please research Prop 123 and the expensive “EDM” sustainability measures that Lakewood now requires on all new buildings.) The final amendment passed unanimously with no discussion. Shahrezaei made another amendment to change religious institutions to make sure “schools” include vocational schools and universities. In other