Lakewood Repeals Controversial Citizen Open Space Initiative With New Law

Lakewood City Council has repealed the Save Open Space ordinance, a citizen initiative pushed last fall by residents who wanted to ensure that developers would have to dedicate parkland in their projects rather than paying a fee toward general city park improvements.

During a February 24 meeting, the council replaced the controversial ordinance with a new version of the city’s parkland dedication law that aims for more transparency and more open space than existed before the petition, but was designed to mitigate the ordinance's unintended consequences.

The ordinance banned fees in lieu of parkland dedication, but the result was a freeze on development in Lakewood; in some cases, it affected people looking to remodel their single-family homes. According to Mayor Wendi Strom,102 projects were put in a “holding pattern” by that ordinance. And certain elements of the law caused Lakewood to be sued by a real estate developer, which councilmembers had predicted.

Lakewood collected nearly 150 written comments and heard hours of verbal testimony about the move to repeal and replace the city’s parkland dedication ordinance. Many spoke to their desire to ensure development was still possible in the city, particularly of affordable housing. However, several Save Open Space proponents remained steadfast in their belief that the city should not allow fees in lieu.

“The ordinance under consideration tonight does nothing to solve the underlying problems of developments that are environmentally unfriendly and unsustainable,” Cathay Kentner, who helped organize the Save Open Space proposal, wrote in public comment. “Oversight is not a ‘barrier’ to development. It is a ‘guardrail’ to big money corporations buying out of our land use requirements.”

Save Open Space Lakewood pushed its petition last year after members of the group vocally opposed a project by out-of-state developer Kairoi Properties, which is expected to add 400 housing units next to Belmar Park. When Kairoi was directed by the city to pay a fee rather than dedicating land for open space, some citizens were concerned the project would disturb the nature of the park and their peace, so they began objecting to Lakewood's fee-in-lieu policy.

In September 2024, Lakewood residents successfully petitioned to eliminate the fee-in-lieu option, so councilmembers got creative.

In Lakewood, citizen petition rules dictate that a proposal with enough valid signatures must either be passed into law by city council or referred to voters for a special election without being amended — but the council is allowed to change the law once it is passed, which is what happened on February 24.

Though most councilmembers said they believed the new rule would be illegal and prevent development, they passed the ordinance into law in November, with the expectation that the city would soon be sued.

Kairoi did just that last December, asking Jefferson County District Court to declare the law void. The real estate company argued that its properties in Lakewood are so small that the ordinance made development impossible.

Additionally, Kairoi cited a section of the citizen petition that targeted current projects that don’t yet have all of their building permits approved rather than simply applying the new rule to all future developments; the suit claimed that the action was intended specifically to prevent the proposed Belmar Park development.

Lastly, Kairoi’s lawyers argued the petition conflicts with a law passed in 2024 that requires cities to offer a developer fee-in-lieu option for housing in certain areas. Kairor's lawyer did not reply to a question about the fate of the lawsuit given the changes Lakewood enacted on February 24.

Throughout the process, citizens argued they never would have had to create an initiative if their representatives had listened to their desires in the first place. So, with the replacement law, Lakewood councilors focused on making sure it is clear that parkland is preferred and that citizens can have more of a role in the process.

The new law nearly halved the requirement for 10.5 acres of parkland per 1,000 anticipated residents from the citizen petition, setting a 5.5-acre requirement.

To fix the issue with single-family homes running into trouble with remodels or rebuilds, the new law clarifies that if an area's boundaries and uses aren't legally redefined, or replatted, before construction, that area will be considered to have met parkland dedication standards.

When large projects have to submit development and site plans, those actions also trigger the parkland dedication requirement, but single-family homes don’t have to take those actions.

The council also added provisions to ensure parks are prioritized over fees in areas identified to be lacking open space. Additionally, councilmembers added specific language directing the city to prefer ecological preservation when deciding between a developer fee or dedicated land.

Several changes to the bill occurred in a marathon of a council meeting on February 24, including an exemption from the fee and parkland dedication for any building that is 100 percent affordable housing. However, the biggest change was an amendment by Councilman David Rein, who added a public appeal process for neighbors near large developments.

“We should have more transparency,” Rein said after speaking with residents. “That there should be some more community notice, and that we should have a preference for Parkland. The goal of the amendment is to try and achieve those in some degree.”

Rein’s amendment instructs the city's Director of Community Resources to document the basis for any determination that dedicating parkland, open space or improvements isn’t reasonably practical. In only those cases should a fee be allowed instead of dedication.

Neighbors within 500 feet of any project that is anticipated to add 50 or more new residents are allowed to petition the Lakewood Board of Adjustment if they read the Director’s justification of charging a fee over taking parkland and find it to be lacking. In that case, the Board of Adjustment must schedule a quasi-judicial hearing for a review and can ask the Director to provide more evidence or alter the decision.

“The Director may decide that parkland should be dedicated, or she may decide on some hybrid or any other version,” Rein said. “It's near-impossible for us to come up with the criteria to apply to every case by case, but this does provide transparency, which does not exist right now.”

Councilwoman Sophia Mayott-Guerrero later amended Rein’s amendment to clarify that only projects that fulfill 100 percent of their parkland dedication requirements through paying a fee are subject to appeal to incentivize developers dedicating a portion of their land, even if they can’t meet the full dedication requirements and need to pay a fee for a portion of the amount.

“This is an administrative incentive to negotiate as much land as possible on both parties' — both the city and the developers — front,” Mayott-Guerrero said.

Once the amendments were finalized, the new law passed unanimously. Lakewood officials plan to look back at the ordinance’s effectiveness a year from now to see if further adjustments are needed.