real-estate Archives - Page 2 of 2

School Property Going to Market-Rate Buyer

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on August 11, 2024.

Lakewood’s offer to buy Emory Elementary School was turned down by Jefferson County. Lakewood City Manager Kathy Hodgson reported offering in-kind services in return for the school property. City Councilors expressed concern in July meetings at the concept of market-rate pricing but there is nothing the city can do. At the June meeting on the Glennon Heights Elementary School disposition meeting, residents were told that the developer, Cardel Homes, was looking at purchasing multiple school sites for residential use.

No word on what kind of residences would be built in an area that doesn’t have a neighborhood school.

Narrative Change Confirms False Front

The comments from multiple Council Members bemoaning the inability of the city to purchase the school property shows a change in narrative. This change confirms the city was, in fact, trying to buy the property, most likely in concert with the Action Center as previously stated by the City Manager. However, when asked about the purchase in the past, the city narrative from the Manager, Mayor and some Councilors, was that the city “had no direct control over school property.”

This was not a denial. It was misdirection that made residents feel ignorant and foolish for asking when it was true.

This is proof of lack of transparency from the City Manager and Mayor.

The city narrative changed from:

“We are working with the Action Center to purchase the property so Lakewood can use existing Action Center property for homeless.” When that got negative public feedback, the story changed to ….
“We have no direct control over the school property” while calling other reports “misinformation”. At the same time, reports were quietly rumored through City Council that….
The City Manager was only interested in purchasing the property to use the soccer fields

No matter what the story, Lakewood has not been transparent since they started working on a plan in 2023.

Win-Win

This may be a win-win for residents. Since Lakewood cannot purchase the property, Lakewood will not make a deal behind closed doors that residents would not have had adequate time to consider before approval.

Likewise the county will not lose money on a private deal for less than market rate.

The sale of school property shows why market forces predominate the housing market. Even when an entity, like the school board, got the land and/or building from the developer for free, no one likes to give away an asset for less than market rate.

Lakewood did not respond to requests for clarification.

Increased Housing Density Coming to Your Neighborhood

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on July 7, 2024.

The City of Lakewood is looking for a consultant to write new zoning codes to:

densify existing neighborhoods,
improve equity, and
remove parking restrictions.

Current efforts to density have caused Lakewood to develop problems with traffic, stormwater drainage, parking and more. Existing developments have not been designed for high-density.

The city has not offered any solutions to these problems. In fact, parking is such a problem that Lakewood is studying requiring parking permits for residents – paid for by residents – rather than mandating increased parking in development plans. This proposal will intensify that problem and increase the amount of resident-funded parking permits throughout Lakewood.

Lakewood appears intent on exacerbating existing problems by allowing more densification to solve another problem… affordable housing.

It must be noted that parking, traffic and stormwater management are key functions of the city government, whereas housing is traditionally regarded as a market-based function.

There are two citizen-led initiatives in Lakewood news demonstrating that current densification is not in line with the city’s existing ordinance to maintain the existing characteristics of existing neighborhoods: a new development near Belmar Park and on Whippoorwill near Youngfield.

City ordinances are a series of laws that rule Lakewood’s development. However, Lakewood staff can interpret these rules through the lens of the city’s Comprehensive Plan.

The existing Comprehensive Plan states (pg 3-12):

“The City will continue to support the diverse image and character of the community by maintaining the existing characteristics of neighborhoods with existing single-family residential zoning; creating appropriate transitions between commercial, multi-family, and mixed-use development and single-family zoned areas; and encouraging contextually appropriate infill and redevelopment projects.”

For the last several years, Lakewood has de-emphasized the existing characteristics of neighborhoods and transition zones in favor of other factors, which has caused conflict with resident groups, such as those mentioned above.

Lakewood is currently developing a new Comprehensive Plan to show the direction of the city for the next fifteen years. The densification proposal coming out before the 2040 Comprehensive Plan is finalized shows that Lakewood anticipates knowing what the results will be, regardless of any input the community provides.

The proposal reads: “The Contractor will identify goals, recommendations, and implementation strategies, to ensure the new code is consistent with the 2040 [Comprehensive] Plan.“

Since this proposal calls strictly for plans to densify, it appears that the Comprehensive Plan may have to be adjusted to match densification, rather than vice versa.

The Planning Commission will serve as the community input for this project.

See the full proposal here:

RFQ 6188 – Amend Zoning Ordinance 2024.06.21 Download

Lakewood Agrees to More Expensive Construction to Make Housing More Affordable

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on June 29, 2024.

Lakewood has approved construction of Additional Dwelling Units (ADUs) that are up to 1400 square feet large, bigger than the original house in some areas, in an effort to “remove barriers” to affordability. ADUs are sometimes known as “mother-in-law” suites, a separate apartment that can be rented out on your primary residence. Councilor Stewart made the original request to research increasing ADU use in Lakewood, over a year before the motion passed on June 10, 2024. The two main barriers are the concept of single-family zoning (R1 vs R2) and infrastructure costs. By passing these revisions, Lakewood has densified single-family zoning into dual-family zoning, for every property that can fit an additional dwelling unit onto the land. According to research conducted by the Planning Commission, most people say they do not build an ADU after they find out they would need to pay more for additional water and sewer infrastructure. There seems to be a common belief that because there is room on the land, there should be extra room in the pipes, which is not true. Rather than acknowledge that water districts set those infrastructure fees, Planning Commissioner and Chair Kolkmeier suggested doubling the size of an allowable ADU, from 700 sq. ft. to 1400 sq. ft., so that the infrastructure cost would be a lesser percentage. So overall costs would go up in the name of affordability.

Custom-built ADUs are already expensive compared to commercial apartment buildings that are mass produced. However, an economic analysis of construction costs or rental profits was not researched. Among the ADU proponents, including Councilor Stewart and Shahrezaei, there seemed to be an understanding that someone who went to the expense of building an ADU would be happy to rent the unit at- or below-market price, to a family member or friend.

Others, including Councilor Nystrom and Olver, questioned whether these units would be available for investors, therefore not guaranteeing it would be “affordable”. Nystrom said she was in favor of creating more ownership situations, not rental situations. Olver quoted the real estate mantra “Location location location” and said that creating more supply will not lower housing prices in a desirable location such as Lakewood. Olver’s point has been proved because Lakewood has excess supply yet housing costs have not come down.

Councilor David Rein proposed an amendment to make owner-occupancy required. The motion failed on a 5-5 vote, with the ayes being Councilors Rein, Olver, Nystrom, LaBure and Mayor Strom. The nays were Councilors: Shahrezaei, Low, Mayott-Guerrero, and Sinks. (Councilor Cruz absent).

Without this amendment, the ADU and property can be used for two, full-time rental properties, making them attractive to investors.

Planning Commission Chair Kolkmeier explained that even though these revisions might not increase ADU construction, our current ordinance strangles growth and our residential development is in a death spiral but did not offer evidence. He argues the changes are one way to bring back families and possibly schools but he did not explain how if he believes the changes would be largely ineffective. No one offered evidence, just beliefs that some kind of change by someone was necessary.

Even though housing may be more expensive with these changes, the goal of “liberalizing” the code was achieved.

Councilor Sinks pointed out that these revisions seem like a work around to getting a property subdivided. The property could not be subdivided for separate ownership. A property with two houses would be much more expensive to sell.

If these changes are successful in increasing ADUs, the Councilors who voted for ADUs will be responsible for increasing property prices.

The other barrier, infrastructure costs, was discussed at some length during Planning Commission and Council meetings. The infrastructure fees are set by water districts individually and are not under city control. Rather than acknowledging this fact, Planning Commission Chair Kolkmeier and Councilor Roger Low enlisted the help of State Representative Chris DeGruy-Kennedy to change state law, asking to restrict a district’s ability to set infrastructure costs. This would make existing customers responsible for paying for necessary capacity increases to accommodate new building. That proposed legislation, HB24-1463, was largely defeated. No one at the state or city level explained, or even seemed to know, what the infrastructure fee would pay for, despite explanations available from resident water districts (see below).

GMWSD Statement re ADUs_signed Download

Councilor Jacob LaBure picked up the gauntlet of problematic costs by suggesting the creation of a housing fund that the city can use to pay for people’s infrastructure costs. This suggestion was heard before during meetings on Strategic Housing. Lakewood has already subsidized tap fees before through the Community Grant Program.

The State of Colorado also passed new legislation regarding ADUs this year. That bill, HB24-1152, will require that Lakewood remove owner-occupancy provisions. However, as a home-rule city, Lakewood always has the option to challenge state law for the right to local government. As Lakewood attorney Lauren Stanec said, “if the city decided they wanted to comply with the state ADU bill….”, presumably meaning that as a home-rule city, Lakewood always has the option to fight for its right to local government. The city could remove the owner-occupancy provision now. Lakewood did not, and passed all changes as originally proposed by the Planning commission.

Scorecard: Expanding Additional Dwelling Unit Possibilities in all R1 zones

Strom: Aye

Olver: Nay

Mayott-Guerrero: Aye

Stewart: Aye

Rein: Aye

Shahrezaei: Aye

Labure: Aye

Nystrom: Nay

Low: Aye

Cruz: absent

Sinks: Aye

Lakewood Named Among the Least Likely Cities People Would Move to for Romance (poll)

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on May 21, 2024.

From DatingAdvice.com, Written by: Amber Brooks, Edited by: Lillian Castro

Ranking of the most and least appealing cities if moving for love.

Thornton rated as the most attractive city in Colorado to move to for a new relationship. Lakewood the least appealing.
Infographic included.

You’re head-over-heels in love, and the thrill of a long-distance romance has been both sweet and exhilarating. But as time goes by, the prospect of uniting with your beloved in the same zip code becomes not just a dream, but a necessity. However, does the allure of your significant other’s city sway your decision to make the leap? What if love calls from the sun-kissed beaches of Miami or the bustling streets of New York City? Would the affection be as strong to draw you to McDowell County, West Virginia, a place fighting valiantly against economic setbacks, or to Gary, Indiana, a city trying to rise again from its industrial past?

Through a comprehensive survey of 3,000 people in long distance relationships, DatingAdvice.com sought to find out whether the city in which their partner resides is a factor when deciding whether to move.

They therefore created a ranking of cities considered the most and least appealing if moving for love, with some very interesting results…

The top five cities people would move to for love are:

#1 San Francisco, California.
San Francisco was voted as the most appealing city, with its tech-forward streets and cultural mix pulling at the heartstrings of lovers nationwide. It’s where innovation meets inclusivity, offering new transplants the promise of progressive values and a community that’s as varied as it is vibrant. The Golden Gate City promises a treasure trove of parks, coastal views, and artistic pursuits, perfect for those in pursuit of a life painted with shared experiences.

#2 New York City, New York.
In second place came the magnetic allure of New York City — every district beating with its own rhythm, offering a variety of experiences that range from gastronomic quests in Queens to the artistic soul of Brooklyn. It’s a city where the world connects, and diversity is the cornerstone of every block, making it a haven for lovebirds looking to build a nest in the world’s capital.

#3 Buffalo, New York.
Buffalo’s warmth and welcoming community spirit make it an inviting destination for those relocating for love. For someone new to Buffalo, the sense of belonging and ease of making connections stand out, making it easier to transition into a new life. The city’s affordability and proximity to natural wonders like Niagara Falls also mean that couples can enjoy a high quality of life and shared adventures without breaking the bank.

#4 Fresno, California.
Fresno is a gem for those seeking a blend of urban culture and outdoor living. Newcomers are drawn to its laid-back atmosphere, diverse community, and the beauty of its surrounding landscapes. Fresno also serves as a gateway to some of the nation’s most treasured national parks, offering couples an escape into nature at a moment’s notice. For partners looking to lay down roots and explore California’s natural and cultural offerings, Fresno is an attractive and affordable choice.

#5 Jackson, Mississippi.
For those moving to Jackson, the city offers a deep dive into the heart and soul of the South. Its rich musical heritage and culinary scene provide a sensory feast for newcomers, with blues clubs, galleries, and restaurants waiting to be explored together. Jackson’s community-focused vibe means that newcomers quickly feel at home, supported by a network of friendly locals and fellow transplants.

When it came to Colorado cities specifically, 2 were identified as appealing for those willing to relocate to live with their partner. The top pick was Thornton, in #69 nationally:

#69 Thornton

Thornton, part of the Denver metropolitan area, provides residents with a balance of suburban living and access to the great outdoors, including the Rocky Mountains. An appealing choice for young lovers looking to forge their future together.

Another top ranked Colorado city was:

#146 Denver.

However, 5 Colorado cities were cited as locations that people would not be prepared to move to for love. The least appealing was Lakewood, in #245 place nationally:

#245 Lakewood

Lakewood offers scenic beauty and outdoor recreational opportunities near the Rocky Mountains. However, moving here might involve addressing concerns about wildfires and seasonal weather extremes, as Colorado experiences droughts and snowstorms. While Lakewood boasts access to hiking trails and ski resorts, some may find the high cost of living and traffic congestion a consideration.

Other Colorado cities considered to be unappealing were:

#176 Arvada #221 Fort Collins #238 Aurora #240 Colorado Springs.

Infographic showing which cities people are most willing to relocate to for love.

The survey queried respondents who had moved to be with their partners, probing into the significant concessions they made. A striking 57% identified parting with family as the most substantial sacrifice, while 18% pointed to a shift in lifestyle as a primary concern, which encompasses forging new friendships, seeking out new gyms to join, and discovering new favorite drinking hangouts. An additional 15% felt that leaving behind friends was the hardest part, with 10% citing the job hunt as a formidable challenge.

About 23% of couples who closed the gap from long-distance to cohabitation conceded that there were heated arguments over who should relocate. Nonetheless, most couples reported that the move fortified their bond, though 16% admitted it introduced new hurdles. Eleven percent observed that their relationships terminated post-relocation.

Finally, in recognizing that long-distance relationships cannot be sustained indefinitely and must eventually transition to being close-distance to survive, respondents were quizzed about the duration they believe a long-distance relationship can endure before the couple must choose to cohabitate or conclude the relationship. The collective average from the responses indicated that the maximum sustainable period for a long-distance relationship is 1 year and 11 months.

Lakewood Residents Petition to Save Their Parks

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on April 28, 2024.

Guest Post from Save Open Space Lakewood

Lakewood residents petition to save their parks and open space which the City likes to give away to developers. On April 27th they were at Lakewood’s Belmar Park with petitions.

Background

Local environment advocates will circulate a petition at Lakewood’s Earth Day, on Saturday, April 27, that would force the City from its arrogant behind-the-scenes approval of out-of-control developments to provide significant environmental stewardship for Lakewood.

Once certified with 6,000 required signatures, the petition becomes an initiative which Lakewood is required to vote for. If it doesn’t, it will be placed on a citywide ballot. Over one thousand signatures have already been collected in less than a month.

When: Saturday, April 27
Time: 11 AM -7 PM
Where: Heritage Lakewood Belmar Park, 801 S. Yarrow St., Lakewood 80226

“It’s become clear that nothing short of this petition is going to change complacent City staff, the City Council and the Planning Commission to be responsive to citizen concerns and also supportive of preserving our parks and open space,” said Cathy Kentner, who co-created the petition with fellow longtime community activist Rhonda Peters. Both founded Save Open Space Lakewood which is organizing this all-volunteer petition effort.

The petition, titled the Lakewood Green Initiative, was inspired after the public learned Lakewood staff had worked for several years to preliminarily approve and advance the plans of Kairoi Residential, a Texas developer, for a 412-unit, 83 unit per floor, 6 story luxury apartment building with a footprint the size of two football fields which would share the eastern boundary of Belmar Park.

Belmar Park is a 132 acre beloved park in the middle of Lakewood’s growing concrete jungle. It is a peaceful haven for over 230 bird species (many protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act), abundant wildlife and innumerable human visitors.

In preliminarily approving the Kairoi plan, the City ignored its own ordinances on protecting parkland and wildlife, improving tree canopy, fighting climate change and providing affordable housing. Instead it supported the gigantic 800,000 square foot design with no buffer with the park, the elimination of 69 mature trees, and lack of serious analysis of the development’s effects on the environment and on the safety of nearby residents who can only exit on a narrow street.

The public was notified very late as if it was an afterthought. Now the City claims many elements of the project are a done deal and they lack the power to correct this.

Since this deal was initially revealed, the City has placed numerous obstacles in the way of citizen attempts to have input on the development’s
outcome. Likewise, Lakewood staff has been actively attempting to thwart approval of the petition. The latest effort was an unprecedented five-day delay. Interestingly, a few hours after a local TV reporter submitted questions to the City, the petition was promptly approved and released to Kentner.

The Initiative Summary as Set by Lakewood City Clerk

Shall the City of Lakewood Municipal Code Chapter 14.16. PARK AND OPEN SPACE DEDICATION be repealed and replaced to eliminate the option for developers to pay a fee in lieu of parkland dedication and to require the City to accept open space and land dedications for current and future developments.

Longer version: See soslakewood.org

Several years ago Kentner, who ran as an independent candidate for Mayor and has served on the Lakewood Planning Commission, successfully authored and helped pass a petition to limit population growth in Lakewood; it was subsequently approved in a citywide election.

By not following its own standards, Lakewood has effectively sold what should have been more than a dozen acres of parkland in the last decade. According to information provided by the city, Lakewood has not required land from developers since the Solterra development in 2007 and 2013.

Kentner said there appears to be a gentleman’s agreement between Lakewood and all of its developments so they are allowed to pay the City instead of providing open space.

Although citizens have long felt powerless as Lakewood approved large apartment buildings in charming neighborhoods and at the perimeter of parks, the Kairoi monolith at Belmar Park inspired several groups to work to either limit the size of the building or eliminate it entirely.

SaveBelmarPark.com is a comprehensive website that includes a petition to declare eminent domain on the land between the building and the park in order to create a buffer zone.

Save Belmar Park, Inc. has been organizing, educating and fundraising to pursue legal channels to protect the park.

Save Open Space Lakewood (SOS Lakewood) created a petition to bring these groups together to work toward a common goal of protecting Lakewood’s natural environment.

Lakewood Residents Petition to Save Their Parks

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on April 28, 2024.

Guest Post from Save Open Space Lakewood

Lakewood residents petition to save their parks and open space which the City likes to give away to developers. On April 27th they were at Lakewood’s Belmar Park with petitions.