Lakewood council weighs changes to parkland-dedication rules after citizen initiative and litigation

Lakewood City Council on Feb. 3 reviewed a staff‑draft ordinance to revise parkland and open‑space dedication rules after a citizen‑led ballot initiative became city law late last year and prompted litigation and permit delays.

Mayor Wendy Strom opened the workshop by summarizing why the council held the session: a citizen‑initiated ordinance adopted on Nov. 4 took effect Dec. 7, and "no residential building permits have been issued since December 7, the date that that ordinance went into place," she said, adding that the city is "also now currently under active litigation." The council scheduled a second reading with a public hearing for Feb. 10 and said it plans a third reading on Feb. 24.

The workshop focused on the staff draft of amendments to Lakewood Municipal Code 14.16, a proposal the council agreed to use as the basis for revisions. The staff draft incorporates recommendations from a 2023 consultant study (the Norris report) and makes three notable changes discussed at length by councilors: (1) clearer definitions that allow some privately maintained but publicly accessible spaces to count toward dedication, (2) updated fee‑in‑lieu valuation and review processes, and (3) explicit pathways and possible exemptions for developments that include affordable housing.

Why it matters: councilors said they want to preserve residents' interest in adding green space while removing legal and administrative obstacles that the November ordinance introduced. Councilors described urgent operational problems for developers and homeowners, and staff described permit and redesign burdens that have followed the ordinance's effective date.

Key discussion points

Private but publicly accessible open space: The draft allows portions of required dedication to remain in private ownership if they are "open to the public" and are three acres or less. Councilors praised the idea of on‑site plazas, community gardens and play areas as ways to deliver green space inside dense development. Councilor Lowe called that a "core beating heart" of the draft because it creates more flexible public uses inside private developments.

How fee‑in‑lieu funds are used: Ross Williams, a city planning/parks staff member, described the current practice: "The parkland dedication fee is collected and then kept in the area where it is collected." He said the city aims to spend fee‑in‑lieu revenue first in the planning area where it was collected and uses other city funds (including TABOR‑authorized funds) to assemble larger acquisitions when necessary. Williams and councilors discussed making the ordinance clearer that fee‑in‑lieu revenue is intended for acquisition, development or improvement of park and open‑space land, not ongoing maintenance.

Acquisition vs. improvement vs. maintenance: Several councilors pushed to prioritize acquisition of new parkland in high‑need areas, or at least set a target percentage of fee revenue reserved for acquisitions. Ross Williams and others noted practical timing issues (revenues accumulate over time) but agreed the city should clarify the intended uses in the code. Williams said past uses have included acquisition and trail improvements such as Dry Gulch Trail and investments at Morris Park and Carmody Splash Park.

Valuation and annual review: Councilors asked for clearer rules on how the fee‑in‑lieu is calculated and for an annual, transparent review. Councilor Ryan suggested tying adjustments to an objective index; he and others asked staff to propose concrete options for how frequently and by what metric the city would update fair‑market calculations.

Staff discretion and thresholds: Councilors debated where to draw thresholds for staff decision‑making versus matters that should go to council. Mayor Pro Tem Sharzai proposed a starting framework for staff discretion on multifamily projects: land dedication would be the default for very large projects; staff would have discretion for medium projects (for example, 101–250 units), and city council review would be required for the very largest projects (250+ units). Several councilors expressed concern that thresholds based strictly on unit counts could unintentionally block desirable, dense transit‑oriented development; they asked staff to return with options that use either population (residents added) or a hybrid measure (units and acreage), and to explore carve‑outs for Transit Oriented Communities under state law.

Affordable housing carve‑outs and incentives: The draft includes a path for waiving or reducing dedication requirements for projects that include affordable units. The staff draft referenced 80% area median income (AMI) as a working definition; some councilors urged steeper affordability targets (for example, 60% AMI) or a blended metric that would allow different mixes of AMI levels and unit percentages to qualify. Travis (city staff) suggested a 10% minimum affordable‑unit threshold could be a feasible standard; legal staff said council could set specific thresholds but staff would return with options and legal analysis.

Trees, storm infrastructure and other eligible land: Councilors asked for language that protects mature trees and clarifies when drainage areas or detention facilities may be accepted as park/open‑space credit. Travis explained the existing tree replacement rules: "If you remove 12 inches worth of trunk, you have to replace 12 inches worth of trunk," and said the city accepts cash in lieu only when replacement on site is not physically possible. Ross Williams said the city already tracks tree‑canopy projects and has a canopy line item (staff noted about $100,000 annually in recent budgets) and that staff will provide a breakdown of how tree fees and park fees have been spent by planning area.

Geography and districts: The existing code divides the city into planning areas (seven areas based on Concept Lakewood). Councilors debated whether to continue keeping fee revenue in the area where it was collected, to redraw the areas (for example to align with council wards), or to allow greater flexibility to move money to high‑need parts of the city. Legal staff advised caution: exactions law requires a nexus (a connection) between a fee and the impacts of the development, so shifting funds away from the area where they were generated raises legal questions. Staff agreed to present options, including consolidation of districts or clearer rules tying transfers to demonstrated nexus.

Process and schedule: Mayor Wendy Strom reiterated the schedule for ordinance consideration: a second reading and public hearing will be held Monday, Feb. 10, and the council is planning a third reading and final vote on Monday, Feb. 24 (the mayor corrected an earlier reference to the 23rd). Staff said they will deliver written follow‑up to council members later in the week addressing many of the legal and policy questions raised.

Litigation and permitting impacts: Council members and staff repeatedly noted that the November adoption has generated both litigation — a preliminary injunction was mentioned in the discussion — and real‑world permitting impacts. Mayor Strom told viewers the city adopted the citizen initiative as ordinance but that council retains authority to amend an initiative it has adopted to protect the public health, safety and welfare.

What comes next: staff will return with draft language that implements council direction (guardrails for staff discretion, clearer fee valuation language, options for acquisition‑set asides, and alternative approaches for affordable‑housing exemptions). Staff agreed to provide a public accounting of fee‑in‑lieu collections and expenditures by planning area (staff said that record exists and can be published regularly) and to supply more precise maintenance‑cost comparisons for smaller pocket parks versus larger parks.

Ending: The council closed the roughly three‑hour workshop with staff instructions to prepare amendment options for the Feb. 10 public hearing and for an expected final vote on Feb. 24. Mayor Wendy Strom encouraged public comment via LakewoodSpeaks.org and attendance at the Feb. 10 hearing.

Quotes (selected)

"No residential building permits have been issued since December 7, the date that that ordinance went into place," Mayor Wendy Strom said, describing the immediate effects of the November adoption.

"The parkland dedication fee is collected and then kept in the area where it is collected," said Ross Williams, a city parks/planning staff member.

"If you remove 12 inches worth of trunk, you have to replace 12 inches worth of trunk," said Travis (city planning staff) on the city's tree‑replacement rule.

Ending note: Councilors said they hoped to produce code language that balances the citizen petition's call for more open space with the legal and administrative need for clear, implementable standards so projects can proceed and new housing and parks can move forward in tandem.