parks Archives - Lakewood Informer

Lakewood Council green-lights citizens’ petition with its disingenuous vote

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on November 13, 2024.

From Save Open Space – Lakewood

At a 9/4 meeting, Lakewood City Council spoke with its usual forked tongue, voting for a citizen led green initiative to expedite delegitimizing it

Monday, November 11, 2024—-At the November 4 Lakewood City Council meeting, residents witnessed the culmination of more than a year’s intensive effort by hundreds of volunteers to hold their city accountable to its progressive environmental ordinances.

The only item in the hearing was a petition, created by Save Open Space – Lakewood (SOS – L) and signed by more than 6000 voters, which, if approved, would eliminate the option given developers to pay a fee to the city and instead require them to provide the full, current standard of 10.5 acres of parkland for every 1,000 occupants.

For over ten years, the predominantly pro-development Lakewood City Council has allowed all developers to pay the city a fee in lieu of donating land for parks and open spaces. This has led to monstrous, soul-less apartment buildings with no green space that remind observers of Russia, not Lakewood.

More than half of those who spoke extolled the benefits of open space and their concerns about the impending mammoth luxury apartment building adjacent to Belmar Park.

By law, the council either had to vote for the petition at the meeting, or send it to a special election.

Following three hours of resident testimony and council deliberation, eight out of 11 councilors declared the initiative to be in conflict with state statutes. By voting to approve it, they said they could expedite a legal challenge. They added that if they were to defer to a special election, it would be expensive and voters would become distrustful of them if litigation would eliminate their vote following the election.

Jim Kinney, a Lakewood native, former policy analyst at the Bureau of Reclamation, and former member of the Lakewood Commission for an inclusive Community, believes that “It may not be true that the initiative is illegal due to wording. The issue of whether the state can tell a home rule municipality what to do in the area of land use remains untested in court. It may be that it isn’t the initiative the council just passed that is illegal, but the requirements in state law that are illegal!”

Councilor Paula Nystrom noted at the meeting, “We’re in an untenable situation, but there’s a reason we got here. Citizens shouldn’t have to protest, gather signatures, hire lawyers, or jump through hoops just to have their voices heard. This should be a situation where citizens are notified when something is being planned, and then they have an opportunity to speak out and make suggestions.”

Nystrom added that “we need to be consulting with environmental planners and environmental engineers…we cannot keep cutting down mature trees and expect our air quality to get better and expect citizens to be mentally healthy.”

During the hearing it came to light that, behind its frequently closed doors, the city plans to allow Kairoi Residential, the developer of the huge building at Belmar Park, to also build 850 high density, luxury apartment units at Quail and Colfax while tearing down a grocery store and creating a food desert.

Last year, Cathy Kentner, a Lakewood music teacher, former city planning commissioner and longtime community activist, founded SOS – L which created the petition. According to their web site, “Save Open Space – Lakewood is a grass-roots initiative created and promoted by Lakewood residents who seek change in the status quo of rubber stamping development projects without consideration of the future impacts to residents and our natural environment.”

Kentner says, “The reason grass-roots initiatives exist is because elected officials have been unresponsive to the reasonable requests of their constituency. It is a last resort that involves countless hours just to have a small chance of being heard. The fact that this council continues to be unresponsive is, therefore, not surprising.

“What is surprising is that their ignorance has led them to the assumption that they can act as judge, jury and executioner by claiming that a citizen initiative is ‘illegal’ before ever going through due process. I am confident that, should this ordinance be challenged in court, it will hold up given a proper defense. But the question remains: Will there be a proper defense when the fox is guarding the henhouse?

“Opposition to this initiative has come mainly from out-of-state, big money developers who don’t care about the quality of life in Lakewood.”

Save Belmar Park, formed in September 2023, is one of many neighborhood groups that have had similar experiences with Lakewood and developers. The objective of the SOS – L initiative is to bring all of these groups together to work toward their common goal of protecting Lakewood’s natural environment.

Kentner’s presentation to city council was based on debunking the illegality claim and other F.E.A.R. (False Evidence Appearing Real) -based statements that were presented as facts during the meeting.

Vivian Elementary, the Graham House, and the Isolation of a Neighborhood in Ward 1

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on September 26, 2024.

Guest Post from Laura Majors

We all rely on our elected officials, both paid and volunteer to do the right thing, work together, and make the best decisions possible for the city, county, and school system. When they aren’t talking, community amenities are put at risk. Our neighborhood, in the north end of Ward 1, is in a position to lose many amenities that can isolate a neighborhood. We are being handed “plans”, then input is received and largely ignored, with a concession here and there. Here are the example of what we are experiencing:

Graham Park & Graham House:

The Graham House and Park were donated to the city for a park with house for meetings and education. Last Autumn, a small group of neighbors and HOAs (in a largely non-HOA neighborhood) were notified of “improvements” to this park. The plan included the demolition of the Graham House. The reason for the demolition plan was the cost of fixing up the building as event rentals had decreased, largely for the reason that the building had not been maintained. According to counts of the responses on at the initial community meeting and on https://www.lakewoodtogether.org/grahamparkimprovements , community members want to keep the building, yet this request was ignored. The new plan after community involvement, is to demolish the building. An open records request response said that there is no record of a legal review by the City Attorney whether or not demolishing the building in respect to our city charter is legal, section 14.3, page 40. Today, I requested of all our city council members a legal review of the plan to demolish the Graham House within Graham Park. If there is an objective lawyer out there reading this who would like to give a pro bono opinion to the community, please do.

Graham Park Public Mee�ng Comment Cards Summary
11/08/2023
COMMENTS GRAHAM HOUSE
• Keep the main building, kitchen and bedroom so it’s available for use for small public
needs/mee�ngs. Certainly more benches, sea�ng.
• Leave the property as close as possible to the original.
• Preserve and upgrade the building for community use.
• Exis�ng home should be updated for use as a community mee�ng loca�on.
• I would hate to see the house torn down. If it was fixed up maybe it would be rented more.
• Leave it alone! Gave land to Lakewood for people to enjoy and appreciate nature.
• Try to save the house, it is an architectural gem.
• No reason to demo house. Publicize the rental beter and lower the cost.
• Make use of the allocated “pot” money to preserve this historical gem. Don’t tear it down –
please!
• Maintain/Rehab, but do not change the house.
• Please restore the house (i.e., wiring, plumbing, air condi�oning, hea�ng, ADA accessible).
Preserve open space and leave it natural.
• Graham House can be saved. House should be turned over to the Applewood Sustainable
Neighborhood.

Vivian Elementary School:

JJeffCo School District decided to close Vivian Elementary School. The school exists on a parcel of land donated in 1953 by the Larsen family, who farmed the land. The family of the Larsens have indicated they would like the property to remain public. Since the school closed in the Fall of 2023, neighbors say we are not receiving the priority #2 snow plowing around the school, making it more difficult to get out of the neighborhood onto priority #1 streets.

In April 2024, JeffCo Schools held a community meeting at the local library. They were overwhelmed by the number of people from our community who were interested, so many that monitors were set up outside of the room for overflow. Representatives from the school district told the community that the City of Lakewood had turned down the opportunity to purchase the land and building. This municipal process was posted on the JeffCo Schools Disposition web site for how the process was supposed to go. The first step of the process is to meet with city officials, yet no record of this meeting exists.

At the library meeting, the community gave clear feedback that a park was the best use of this land and indicated that the school district should go back to the city and ask again. Instead, Jeffco Schools went ahead with their next steps in the process to sell the land, which could result in up to 70 homes being built on the property. Community members came forward in force with requests of the city to purchase this land for a park and possibly using the building for a recreation or learning center of some kind.

On September 13th at 12:00 noon, the City Council of Lakewood and the Jeffco School Board and Superintendent held a meeting. The only topic discussed was the school disposition process and more specifically, Emory and Vivian Elementary Schools. While the Jeffco School Disposition process has a community notification system in place for anyone interested in one or all of the schools, a notification did not go out about this meeting. The meeting was mostly about how the process didn’t work and Jeffco Schools admittedly said that the municipal process needed to be more “formal”, and that the city would be given more time in the future to respond on whether or not a property was desired for purchase. The additional time would allow the city to discuss plans with the community before giving a formal response on a property.

So, there are now direct negotiations for the city to purchase 3 acres from Jeffco Schools and Jeffco has asked developers to include that in their final plans.

A community group met with one of the developers at their request to look at their plan and give feedback. The development plan was for the ballfields, basketball court, playground, picnic areas, parking lot, and school building to be demolished. The plan showed 37 houses leaving 3 acres of park space. Unfortunately, this is the 3 acres on the easement under which a very large Denver Water pipe lies. Likely, homes could not be built on most of this space anyway. We lose our amenities, we gain an easement.

We would like to have a discussion with the city before all the amenities are gone.

10850 20th Street/Quail Street Park:

City Council approved the purchase of this land from Denver Water in the Autumn of 2023. The city website says they have purchased it and will ask for community involvement after the purchase is complete. The portion on which Quail Street Park with a playground sits is a lease held by the city through 2028.

The Assessor’s office shows the owner is still Denver Water. I asked the city for clarification and was told negotiations are ongoing. City Council members have described this land as “passive park space”, which denotes no ball field or space for organized sports.

Removal of 20th and Oak Pedestrian Light:

In addition to these properties, a pedestrian traffic light at 20th and Oak was being reviewed for decommissioning. Kids used it to get to Vivian Elementary School. Neighbors responded to the request for input, saying this light connects the neighborhood blocks, slows traffic on 20th, and was good for the community. The light was removed.

A neighborhood at risk of isolation:

A micro look at each of these decisions and the manner in which they were executed, taken individually, is certainly not palatable. And when looked at from a macro level, they indicate government entities not working together and in doing so, isolating a community from amenities which have been at the center of this community’s mental and physical health.

The City of Lakewood’s own research identified Ward 1 as the ward with the least amount of city park and green space per population. How is more infill acceptable?

We’ve lost a school, the center of community connection. We’ve lost a pedestrian light that assured the safety of community members walking our part of the city. We are losing a second community building through what seems to be intentional neglect with intention to demolish. Now we’re at risk for losing ball fields, picnic areas, and a playground with no assurances to replace these amenities.

With all the focus on mental and physical health, why remove those amenities that keep us mentally and physically strong, placing those budgets and efforts instead on fixing those things later at a higher cost?

BACK TO THE 50s! LAKEWOOD COMMISSIONERS DECIDE THAT PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT MAKES IT TOO HARD ON DEVELOPERS.

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on September 9, 2024.

Press Release

A Resolution drafted by the Lakewood Planning Commission sought to address inadequacies in the process for Major Site Plans. The request for a Resolution came from Rebekah Stewart on City Council and was in direct response to the 6-story apartment complex planned directly adjacent to Belmar Park, its lakes, and established natural habitats. The Resolution notably promoted a paragraph recommending there be “an evaluation of the potential effects of a park adjacent development on habitats with the park, including any demonstrable effects on park flora and fauna”. In the Sep 4 discussion of the Resolution, Commissioner Kolkmeier mentioned that this was not a new concept and that Ft. Collins has an ordinance exactly on this topic, so that there were models available to draw from. However, Commissioner Buckley stated that he did not know what Ft. Collins experienced from this ordinance, and therefore recommended striking the paragraph from the Resolution. After a half-hearted round robin where other commissioners stated “perhaps we could recommend that City Council review the Ft. Collins ordinance” and “it’s unfortunate not to address the ecology at all”, the commission voted 4 to 1 to remove the paragraph and not consider protecting the environment in a review of Major Site Plans, even when they might be located adjacent to a park.

There is well documented peer-reviewed research of the adverse impacts of adjacent development on wildlife from increased noise, light pollution, pets – especially cats, bird strikes on window glass, and general human-caused disturbance. An industry as vilified as Oil and Gas is required to perform environmental assessments before beginning projects. However , the Lakewood Planning Commission has decided that in our human-centric world, protecting the environment should not be a factor that developers need to bother with. From developers to Lakewood: “Thanks!”.

Aerial view of Belmar Park and 777 S Yarrow St

History. Belmar Park was voted into existence in 1973, after a long-contested struggle of what the original Bonfils Stanton estate should become: a development that would provide a tax base for the newly incorporated City of Lakewood or a large, centrally located park. The outcome, Belmar Park, is described on the city website as one of the “true jewels of the city park system, a peaceful enclave in the center of town” that comprises 132 acres of natural area. It is valued for its wildlife (avidly photographed) and also for the serenity and tranquility it provides to park visitors.

Threats to the Park. In the 50 years since the inception of Belmar Park, the city of Lakewood has inevitably seen much growth. One recent proposed development at 777 S. Yarrow St., which currently contains the two-story Irongate office building, threatens the integrity of the park by adding 412 luxury apartment units in a six-story complex on 5 acres immediately adjacent to the eastern boundary of the park. Sixty-five mature trees would be removed. The project is legally zoned for this density after a zoning change in 2012. Done as a city-wide “legislative rezoning”, the change did not require neighborhood notification that most rezoning involves. The 2015 Comprehensive Plan further exacerbated the problem by designating Belmar Park and the adjacent land as a “growth area”, which allows for dense multi-storied structures. Also, with the designation of a Major Site Plan, the project to date has been reviewed only by city staff, with no input from City Council or the public. Residents of Belmar Commons townhomes, located within 300 ft of the project, were notified in 2023, 2 years after the project plans had been submitted to Lakewood.

Impacts to the Park. How would Belmar Park be affected by such development on its periphery? Over 240 species of birds have been catalogued at Belmar Park, according to Cornell Lab of Ornithology’s eBird.org, including resident, breeding, and migratory birds. There is written authority on the detrimental effects of noise and night lighting on bird mating, nesting, and reproductive success. There is wide documentation of the threats to birds from collision with buildings and glass, a danger that the nearby multi-story building would present as birds fly eastward across the lake with afternoon sun reflected on the windows. The mature trees on the project site provide nesting and foraging sites for songbirds and raptors. As far as more people experiencing nature, there have been articles about our public spaces being loved to death. As a frequent visitor to Belmar Park, I have watched people fishing near the No Fishing signs, and social media has reported turtles being taken from the lake. With the addition of 412 apartment units encroaching on the park, degradation is inevitable.

Public outcry and City of Lakewood Position. When the public became aware of the project in August 2023, people filled City Council chambers to protest in each meeting from September into January 2024. Most City Council members and Mayors Adam Paul and Wendi Strom contended there was nothing that could be done to change the proposal due to the “right to build”. This raises the question, why does development supersede the wishes of the community and Lakewood’s own ordinances and plans, such as The Existing Tree Preservation ordinance, which requires protection of mature trees and design plans that minimize disturbance to such trees; the Lakewood Sustainability Plan, with a goal to achieve a 30 percent tree canopy by 2025; and The Lakewood Comprehensive Plan, which reads that new developments should be compatible and seamlessly integrate with existing neighborhoods (in this case the park and 1and 2-story townhouses.)

Additionally, according to the Lakewood Municipal Code, the calculation of land dedication requirements for park and open space, the developer owed the City 3.3 acres of parkland, which would have created a buffer with the park. However, the City opted to accept an “in lieu of” cash offer from the developer with no land donation, and intends to use the funds for a parking lot south of the library, effectively removing more trees and green space.

Where we are now. It is clear that the deteriorating Irongate office building should be demolished. The City declined to bid on the property when it became available in 2019, as reported by Westword. Development that is more appropriate in scale for the site, that adheres to the Lakewood ordinances, would be considered acceptable to much of the community. Any recent negotiations between the City Planning Staff and the developer are unknown at this time. However, for the first time in 12 years, the Planning Director has recommended a Major Site Plan to the Planning Commission for review. Years ago City Council ceded their authority to review such projects because of the time involved, and since then, Major Site Plans have been reviewed by staff with no public interaction with the developer. The review date is to be determined, but the meeting will be an opportunity for those concerned to once again voice their opinions. A decision by the Planning Commission that favors the developer over the needs of the park and the community will be challenged in court.

Lakewood Park Land Dedication Issues

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on February 10, 2024.

Recent park land dedication discussions show that the policy is used for more than just adding parks for new residents. The policy could be used to extract fees from developers for other park services. The policy could also be used as a tool for preferential development. Or the policy can determine whether the city increases the number of parks or level of services. The review for this policy is overdue, but thanks to a motion from Council Member David Rein, it may be discussed soon.

The new development at 777 S Yarrow St did not require any land dedicated for parks for the new residents. The land dedication would have been of particular public interest since it is near Belmar Park. Instead of land, the city accepted a fee that will be used for undisclosed park services. The fee was set in 2018 so it may seem low in todays market. This so-called “fee-in-lieu” of park land dedication is the policy under discussion.

See more at savebelmarpark.com, including how this property does not pay taxes on full acreage

Paying a fee in lieu of dedicating land was made possible in a time of slow growth for Lakewood, when Lakewood officials decided there was enough park land. That is no longer the case but developers are accustomed to being able to pay a fee in order to maximize their land development. This pushes new residents into existing parks, putting strain on those resources. Ironically, fees collected today are supposedly going to buy parkland.

During periods of slow-growth, cities try to incentivize growth by setting fees that are more palatable to developers who want to maximize the small, in-fill projects that occur after the initial urban sprawl. The next phase, the one that Lakewood is currently in, is where the city returns to high-growth, except this time the growth is high-density. Dense growth still requires the same amount of park land, including parks close to home. This is especially true of dog parks for apartment residents.

Does the city repeal fee-in-lieu of land that was meant for slow-growth times of incentivizing development? Not usually, as shown in this article of park policy over time.

Discussions have not evolved to making land dedication easier for high-density developments. The fear is that returning to land dedication would slow development. However, land dedication may be the only way to serve neighborhoods. As Council Member Mayott-Guerrero points out, the city has had problems purchasing land in high-density areas.

Neighborhood Parks versus Other Parks

The problem is partially of public perception. Providing open-space for a new development has historically included a neighborhood park within the development. That way of thinking also aligns with the modern-day vision of a 15-minute city, with everything in walking distance. Clearly neighborhood parks are still highly desired but that is no longer being considered for high-density growth, as the public would define park space.

High-density growth packs more people into less space, meaning there is less space for parks as well. “Open space” does mean green space or park space. In fact, “open space” requirements can be fulfilled by garbage dumpster areas, or in a pinch, access to the roof.

And when was the last time parking was expanded for regional parks like Hayden Park on Green Mountain?

Per Municipal Code 14.16.020, Lakewood's park standards shall be a minimum of 10.5 acres of park per 1,000 people. — Lakewood Municipal Code

Taking

Park land dedication is intended to provide park services to the new residents of the development. Courts have upheld passing these costs through developers to new residents. This is different than if a city would demand land or fees to pay for unrelated costs or services, which would constitute a “taking”.

A taking is “is when the government seizes private property for public use.” For example, when former Mayor Paul stated that he wanted to use the fee in lieu of land for equity, to look at parks in other neighborhoods, there is no longer a direct link to services for the new residents and could constitute a taking. (see more about the Westword article at savebelmarpark.com)

“Realizing that there’s a lot of other parts of our city that don’t have a lot of parkland, especially in some of our lower-income areas, it was really an equity thing for me,” Paul says.
Excerpt from the Westword

However, it gets tricky. It is only taking if the city admits they are using the fee for other residents or the developer can prove intent. It is not taking if the city says the policy is to use fees to increase parks in some other space for new residents to drive to. Lakewood’s official policy is that dedications “shall be reasonably related to the needs of the residents of the proposed development.”

Development Tool

Council Member Jacob LeBure pointed out that past park dedication policies involved leveraging the policy to control or incentivize development.

For example, if Lakewood enforced the policy of neighborhood parks, the Yarrow Street project would have required 3 acres of land dedicated to parks. Enforcing land dedication might cause this development to stop.

Councilor Mayott-Guerrero says these fees are “barriers and leverages for how to better encourage affordable housing.” For that reason, she encourages the park discussion to be part of the Strategic Housing Plan.

Is the Government Providing Parks or Controlling Housing?

The question is, is this policy about providing parks for new residents or affordable housing.

History shows that when government officials try to leverage their power for outside purposes, they may be outclassed. As pointed out by parks expert Dr. John L Crompton, “Developers frequently are represented by specialist lawyers and consultants whose expertise typically far exceeds that of local city planners, so taxpayers are disadvantaged.”

As LeBure says, evaluating different developments is a cumbersome process and you don’t always get the outcome you want.

If City Council’s priority is to enable housing development, they would necessarily have to sacrifice some neighborhood open space and endure the fall out of the new residents asking for more parks.

Council Member Rein explains his motion is actually simpler than all this. He would like to listen to staff suggestions, not discuss or make Council decisions, which will come later.

Tag: parks