zoning Archives - Lakewood Informer

Jedi Mind Tricks – The New Zoning Code WILL BE Good

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on January 18, 2025.

The widespread zoning changes Lakewood made in 2013 resulted in a resident-initiated movement known as “strategic growth.” Residents were unhappy with the increased, high-density residential units being built that unbalanced the economic growth of the city. Ten years later, city leaders are still not listening to residents. On December 9, 2024, Lakewood City Council passed a resolution stating the city will have a “zoning rewrite that is bold, imaginative, embraces innovation, and the diversity of needs for the full City of Lakewood.“

This resolution is not normal procedure. Normally, there is a proposal presented to the public that will show specific plans on promoting homes for the unhoused, increased density, and decreased greenhouse gas emissions. This is not that.

Rather, it is a declaration that the city already has its mind made up to implement these changes. And because they seek to be “bold”, the Council will approve whatever the contractor recommends, whether or not the public likes it.

It’s like Lakewood is playing a Jedi mind trick. Lakewood leaders want a zoning code to accomplish a bold new agenda and they are saying: you can’t see the code but it will be good for you. You will like it.

Residents are waking up to the fact that the “anti-growth” narrative was just a way to belittle those who disagreed with the establishment. Look at how residents react to the proposed developments at Whippoorwill and Belmar for proof that no one is asking to stop all development. They just want it done reasonably and in line with existing neighborhoods.

Residents are also waking up to the fact that the “affordable housing” narrative is false because Lakewood doesn’t have a housing shortage. These two narratives are how Lakewood justifies the need for this zoning code change. Lakewood needs to pass this resolution and zoning code before more residents wake up. Going through proper public discussion took years for a short-term rental policy and the zoning code is much more significant.

Being “bold” seems to be a new political buzzword meaning leaders are crossing a line. Bold is fast-moving, which could be dangerous in government designed to work slowly through public discussion.

In this case, as you can see below, the new zoning code will potentially destabilize neighborhoods by extensively changing the rules to densify development in every code. The zoning code was established to keep neighborhoods stable, so residents know the type of neighborhood they are moving into. With these proposed changes, the zoning code can even be used to expedite spending for the homeless, which is a budgetary process normally outside the scope of zoning.

The resolution cites the new comprehensive plan as proof that residents approve of this zoning code change. This is disingenuous at best because:

The comprehensive plan doesn’t mention specific action, just “feel-good” goals. Think in terms of everyone agreeing on world peace except that for one person peace means the peace that comes after world war.
Lakewood hired a consultant to rewrite the zoning code BEFORE the results of the comprehensive plan were finalized, substantiating that the game was rigged.

Read the resolution below and see how wonderful it sounds. For each bulleted objective from the resolution, there is an example (in white italics) that shows how it could be twisted into something that residents would not like, most of which have been mentioned by city and state leadership.

The revised Zoning Code will:

Be a zoning rewrite that is bold, imaginative, embraces innovation, and the diversity of needs for the full City of Lakewood, including:
- Strategies that target the full range of housing needs compatible in scale and form with existing neighborhoods;
- Increase flexibility in all zoning districts where appropriate to provide needed additional density;
  - (A pertinent example of this in the Belmar Park development fiasco where a new mega-apartment complex will be built that does not match the existing neighborhood. And that’s within existing zoning! Imagine an apartment building in place of your next-door neighbor’s house or the gas station on the corner.)
- Lead to an increased supply of housing that is more affordable and attainable for individuals below 100% AMI, including for seniors, teachers, first responders, frontline workers, artists, and younger families.
  - (Since there is no way to guarantee new housing goes to seniors, new housing will likely go to investors just like it goes to investors now. This point is just emotional blackmail.)
Eliminate minimum lot sizes while maintaining reasonable setback and other dimensional standards;
- (Buildings are now being built within a few feet of the sidewalk, as opposed to having ten feet of grass and a parking lot in front. This change increases wildfire hazard. It could also mean eliminating the original house to put four tiny houses on one lot – as discussed during a planning commission meeting. Or putting 15 units per acre, as per state suggestions.)
Improve connected lighting, sidewalks and bike paths;
- (More bike lanes and less car lanes. Think of the separated lanes on Garrison or narrow lanes in Belmar.)
Improve mixed-use development;
- (the 2013 rezoning already “improved” mixed use, resulting in replacement of promised commercial units with purely residential. This will eliminate even more business space.)
Codify a 90-day deadline to approve affordable housing projects;
- (residents fought the Whippoorwill affordable housing project for 18 months. This change will allow council to silence and ignore resident concerns.)
Adopt a meaningful inclusionary zoning policy, either as part of, or as an accompaniment to, a zoning rewrite, which creates below market sale and rental units.
- (inclusionary zoning is a market manipulation. It is modern day rent control, demanding all other units have high prices to subsidize around 10-20% of units being below market rate.)
Promote strategies and policies that will meaningfully and measurably reduce Lakewood greenhouse gas emissions, conserve water, and incentivize sustainability, each with timely goals and implementation;
- (This includes eliminating parking requirements, even less gas stations or bringing back the fee-in-lieu option for parkland.)
Lead to Lakewood* meets the requirements of Proposition 123 (as modified by HB 23-1304) regarding Affordable Housing Programs;
- (assuming this means fully adopting the state agenda and giving up the fight on local zoning rights that other cities are picking up.) *-”Lead to Lakewood” is in the original resolution. No idea what this means
Put fewer constraints on homeowners and renters, give Lakewood residents more choice, raise property values over time, and promote naturally occurring affordable and attainable housing;
- (For example, there have been several suggestions to remove occupancy limits which could lead to overcrowding, health and fire hazards. Group homes in the middle of R1 neighborhoods have already caused problems in Lakewood. There are also suggestions to eliminate emergency staircase standards.)
Expedite the site selection and procurement of temporary sleeping units and shelters, and promoting and prioritizing permanent supportive housing;
- (Give less notice that a homeless shelter is moving into your neighborhood – there are too many things wrong with this to list. And procurement has no place in a zoning code.)

Require that the construction, maintenance, and improvements of buildings owned or leased by the city will, where reasonably appropriate, minimize emissions, maximize sustainable design principles, and be built, maintained, and improved with a view towards also serving as a community asset beyond their utilitarian function.
- (Some City Councilors are concerned that the city is not getting LEED certified or have net zero emissions, both of which are EXTREMELY expensive.)

The Lakewood resolution was written at the direction of the City Manager, thus by-passing public input. This allowed City Council to “signal” residents that this bold change was coming. That way there is nothing for residents to oppose until it’s too late to make changes.

The reality is Lakewood does not have a shortage of housing. Changing the zoning code in the name of affordable housing is misleading. Read “The Totally 100% Fake Housing Shortage”.

Lakewood’s Gross Misinterpretation

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on January 5, 2025.

From Cathy Kentner

This week it came to light that the city of Lakewood is disseminating purposeful and gross misinterpretations of the new parkland dedication ordinance. City officials have made the decision to require land dedication for the replacement of a single family home while blaming it on the recently passed Save Open Space Green Initiative. And, what is even more ridiculous, they have told a landowner they must create an easement, a part of their yard, that would be open to the general public. This is clearly not what the new ordinance states.

1. The parkland dedication ordinance does not require land dedication when an individual is replacing a single family home with another single family home. For decades the parkland dedication ordinance, and resulting formula, has been based on the number of anticipated residents added to the city. Therefore, when replacing a single family home with another single family home, no land dedication is required because there are no residents being added.

2. The parkland dedication ordinance does not require an easement for public access on private property. Even if the city were to erroneously require land dedication, the ordinance clearly states “The land area that may remain in private ownership must be added to the project’s open space requirement…” The open space requirement on a home does not require an easement open to the public.

It would seem that the City is deliberately putting up an unnecessary barrier for a single family home replacement and blaming it on the newly passed ordinance. Yet at the same time, the city is going out of their way to mitigate if not eliminate any barriers that would inhibit large developments of market rate and luxury apartments. Instead of encouraging families to stay, we cater to big money developers and corporations. In the process we displace longtime residents who can’t afford to live here anymore and cause urban sprawl as they go further from Lakewood for a single family home.

The Save Open Space Initiative was not created on false pretenses. There is no covert agenda to stop growth as some have suggested. The reality is we have a finite amount of land. If it is being absorbed by large expensive developments with no required provisions for open space, parkland dedication, trees, or affordable units, we will be creating an unaffordable, unhealthy environment for future generations. This initiative aims to restore the balance of open space and parkland with the creation of the kind of housing that is wanted and needed. Much was lost over the past 12 years when developers all chose to pay a fee in lieu of land dedication.

The Save Open Space Lakewood Green Initiative was passed by the city council who can, and arguably should, direct their staff to follow it appropriately. If necessary, council could very easily amend the ordinance to clarify that adding one unit does not meet the threshold for parkland dedication.

Perhaps if the city supported its residents with the same vehemence shown to developers, we could diminish the divisiveness that dominates our discourse.

Original News Story

Lakewood family looking to rebuild home told they must give up part of property under new ordinance, Danielle Kreutter, Denver 7

A Poisoned Pill Passed: The Strategic Housing Plan

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on February 19, 2024.

City Council Member Rich Olver was the only nay vote for the Strategic Housing Plan, which passed on February 12, 2024. He claimed it was a poisoned pill because it contained provisions that did not have public support, such as using abandoned school buildings for homeless services. Neighborhood associations came to voice their concern that stakeholders were not included. The associations were more concerned about the development strategies than the unhoused strategies. The associations’ comments show that although the plan was billed as affordable housing, there were two distinct pieces: more high-density development and plans for the homeless. Councilor Sophia Mayott-Guerrero said the Housing Plan will work “hand-in-hand” with the Navigation Center. These items are all interconnected to give Lakewood the same framework that cities like Denver use to deal with the unhoused.

The message from February 12 was that a majority of Council want the plan passed; however, there was no clear consensus as to what the plan means.

Councilor Sinks said it would be good to have a roadmap to follow. Others spoke of discussions still to come. Councilor Low promoted strategies for eviction protection, Additional Dwelling Unit expansion and directly funding housing.

Mayor Pro Tem Shahrezaei said, “The action at this point is to adopt this framework. Nobody is agreeing tonight to all these strategies. We are agreeing that there is a need for affordable housing.”

Agreeing to a need for affordable housing does not require even one page. The Strategic Housing Plan is 156 pages of strategies. Which strategies Council did not agree to was not discussed. Instead of approving all strategies in one motion, each strategy could be adopted by separate motion after further discussion. In fact, many strategies will need to be adopted by modifying ordinance to implement.

Olver said this plan is not making more affordable housing, it is not stopping corporate land speculation, or increasing home ownership possibilities. He asked for more time to study, but no other Councilor agreed. Other Council Members had agreed to pass the plan at a previous study session.

Shahrezaei pointed out that the Strategic Housing Plan was funded by the Colorado Department of Local Affairs (DOLA), the same department that funded the navigation center, and that Lakewood could not even change the name of the product DOLA had paid for.

How much of Lakewood’s policy does DOLA fund?

Is accepting all this “free money” from DOLA leading Lakewood to take the steps the state wants, rather than the steps the local residents are asking for?

Olver went on to explain that housing migrants in the schools would not happen because that requires a public process to rezone an abandoned school into a residential area. Just like operating a shelter requires a special use permit that requires a public process, unless there is a very good reason. In the case of the navigation center, the city planned for it to be used as an emergency shelter but didn’t get a permit because it was an “emergency”. Now the city has accepted a grant requiring the land to be used as a shelter so there is an argument that there the city cannot NOT approve a shelter permit, regardless of how many people show up during public process. Experiences like these may have been in the minds of the people laughing at the words “public process” during the meeting.

Scorecard: Approve Lakewood Strategic Housing Plan

Strom: Aye

Shahrezaei: Aye

Sinks: Aye

Mayott-Guerrero: Aye

Cruz: Aye

Stewart: Aye

Low: Aye

Olver: Nay

Rein: Aye

LaBure: Aye

Nystrom: Aye

Read previous articles about the Strategic Housing Plan:

Lakewood Strategic Housing Plan Update

Residents Will Pay for Development

Migrants and Housing

Not Affordable: More Market-Rate Housing Coming to Lakewood

Correction: Services, not shelter, to Move to Jeffco School

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: zoning