Lakewood commission debates MFTE extension and RTA expansion; recusals, lack of quorum prevent vote

The Lakewood Planning Commission debated updates to the city’s Multifamily Tax Exemption (MFTE) program and possible expansion of Residential Target Areas (RTAs) on April 2, 2025, but took no formal action after commissioners recused themselves and the meeting lost quorum.

Staff said there are two code amendments under consideration: an administrative clarification to the MFTE application process and a proposal to allow MFTE projects within the Central Business District (CBD) that lie outside the city’s tax‑increment area to qualify for a 12‑year property‑tax exemption. Planning staff member Ms. Newton told commissioners the changes are intended to help the city meet growth targets and to make the application process clearer; staff also presented maps of four candidate residential target areas (CBD, Springbrook, Oak Brook and Tilikum) and noted that property owners and nearby parcels were notified of hearings in February.

Public commenters raised objections to parts of the RTA proposal and warned about local impacts. Christina Kloss, a Lakewood resident and small business owner, told the commission that expanding incentives without a mixed‑use overlay risks encouraging “big‑box apartment complexes” without new ground‑floor businesses. Kim Lopez, a resident, urged planners not to displace established small businesses near Gravelly Lake Drive, citing safety and traffic concerns at busy intersections. Jeff, speaking for property owner Terry Emmert, said a dispute over Bridgeport Mall and condemnation has not been resolved and indicated the owner may pursue additional litigation; council liaison Paul Bokey later told the commission county records show the city owns the parcel in question and urged commenters to check the assessor‑treasurer site.

Commissioners focused much of the debate on the proposal to allow a 12‑year MFTE extension in the CBD. Several commissioners said an additional 12‑year extension beyond the initial abatement could create what one described as a de facto 24‑year tax preference, which raises questions about returns to the city and long‑term impacts on affordability and tenant displacement. Commissioners and staff explored options for tying any extension to public benefits, such as higher percentages of permanently affordable units or public‑space improvements, and discussed the idea of a phased reduction if an extension were allowed.

“"If we extended for 2 years and then phased it out at 20% per year after that, that gives seven years of the 12 years and that could be something that a builder or property owner would be able to adjust their budgets over time,"” Commissioner Larson proposed during debate, offering one procedural approach to limit sudden tax liabilities for property owners while reducing long‑term city revenue loss.

Other commissioners urged caution. Some said the downtown transportation plan and a pending traffic impact fee ordinance should be in place before expanding RTAs in areas where residents have expressed concern about density and traffic. Commissioners also discussed requiring higher affordability thresholds in any extension as part of a trade‑off.

Procedure and recusal issues ended the debate without a vote. The city attorney reminded commissioners that members with personal interests should recuse themselves from votes; after three commissioners indicated a conflict or proximity to the area in question and one commissioner (Estrada) was absent, the commission lacked the four votes needed for a quorum and the pending motion to approve draft resolution 2025‑01 effectively died for lack of a valid second. Staff said they will draft findings of fact that capture the commission’s expressed interest in exploring phase‑down approaches and in return‑for‑benefit options and will return the item for consideration when a quorum is present.

The planning commission took no final action on the MFTE amendments or the RTA map at the April 2 meeting. Staff indicated it will prepare revised materials and possible language options (including phased reduction and increased affordability requirements) for the commission to consider at a future meeting when recusals and quorum issues can be resolved.