Colorado town gets new ordinance Lakewood City Council approved, but doesn't want
As Lakewood residents gathered for the joys of the season in the lighting of the town's tree Thursday night, only a short distance away was a piece of land ripe for development at the edge of treasured Belmar Park.
"The majority of elected officials in Lakewood are not standing up for their constituents," said Cathy Kentner, of the group Save Open Space Lakewood and a former mayoral candidate.
And that's where the collision of ideas and policies has occurred. The group opposes a large development in the works for property at 777 South Yarrow Street, on the east side of the park. Currently, a vacant and boarded-up office complex sits on the property, while the developer Kairoi Residential has proposed hundreds of units in a development that is likely to be six stories close to the east side of the park, where the views over ponds and park are enticing.
While plans are far from finalized and no plan has yet been confirmed, the size of early plans for the development has Kentner and others upset with the city's past agreements with developers to increase densities to add more housing units.
"That is why the project can be so massive in part because they're being allowed to buy out of the parks and open space requirement."
That requirement means portions of new developments must remain in an open area. However, cities like Lakewood can and have often permitted such intrusion into those spaces on development property by charging the developer.
"An administrator behind closed doors could decide that a developer could buy out of a requirement to dedicate land for parks and open space," said Kentner.
So her group undertook a petition drive to put a question on the ballot to prohibit such practices. City officials say there are benefits to such arrangements.
"Frankly I really like the improvements that the fees in lieu have carried over into the parks," said Lakewood City Council member Glenda Sinks. Pushing as much as 40% open space into the design as is favored by petition backers makes projects less profitable and potentially less likely said council member Roger Low. "No developer in their right mind is going to do that."
The petition drive though netted over 6,000 signatures and the council was faced with a dilemma; either put it on the ballot in a special election in January or approve it. The city believes the language calling for the restriction on such deals is in violation of state law. House Bill 24-1313 may prohibit such restrictions.
"I do at the core of my being feel that it would be disingenuous for our voters to send something to them that we know has several potential legal implications," said Mayor Wendi Strom during the meeting.
So the council approved the petitioner's language. They did it by a vote of 8-3.
It puts the city's attorney in a difficult position.
"I cannot discuss this publicly because if it passes, it will be my job to defend it," city attorney Alison McKenney Brown.
Discussion about parkland and open space became less the topic of conversation and more the legalities, but council member Paula Nystrom brought up the issue of what had led to the mess.
"I don't think that anyone here tonight is listening," said Nystrom. "What is being proposed are apartments. Tall apartment building. Being built right up to the sidewalk… we need to listen. We need to make changes. We have been living through 13 years of an administrative decision to take fees instead of parkland."
The city expects legal challenges shortly after the law goes into effect Saturday.
"I am all for sending it to court sooner so that we can move on," said Sinks.
