Planning Commission holds first public hearing on major zoning-code rewrite; Milestone/Alameda rezoning draws neighborhood opposition

Lakewood planners opened the first public hearing on a major rewrite of the city’s zoning ordinance on April 23, presenting draft changes and taking several hours of public comment on topics ranging from animal keeping and house-size limits to parking, transit access and the proposed remapping of specific parcels.

Staff presentation and key proposals

Travis Parker, Chief of Sustainability, Community Development and Planning, told the commission staff does not intend to remove permissions for horses and large animals and that an apparent omission in the draft (that would have left some new residential zone language without animal allowances) will be corrected. Parker said the draft zoning creates three new residential “low-form” districts (rural, suburban, urban) with different maximum new-building sizes and noted staff’s intention to carry forward existing livestock rights in the new code.

Staff also reviewed a set of properties identified for remapping because existing zoning is inconsistent with current market and physical conditions; examples discussed include parcels at Second and Union; several corridors along Colfax; small parcels boxed in by multifamily zoning at Ninth and Tenth and Carr; Pierce and Jewell; and the large, long-disputed Alameda/Kipling property owned by Milestone Apartment Group. For the Milestone site staff described the existing mix of ME (mixed employment) and R2 zoning and said the current draft maps that R2 portion as MRU (mixed-residential urban), but that a lower-density residential designation (for example a residential mid-form or RM) could be substituted in a revised draft.

House-size limits, nonconforming structures and numbers

Staff explained that new maximum building sizes for new single-family structures in the proposed zones were chosen to reduce the potential for very large new houses under new state law. Staff presented the proposed caps and an estimate of how many existing single-family homes would become legally nonconforming under the caps: rural max 3,250 sq ft (about 40 nonconforming homes in that district), suburban max 3,000 sq ft (about 1,219 homes, ~6% of suburban homes) and urban max 2,500 sq ft (about 627 homes, <5% of urban homes). Staff and code counsel said nonconforming provisions in the draft code allow limited additions (historic practice described as a 20% allowance in some circumstances) and reconstruction after loss; staff said precise procedures are in the nonconforming chapter.

Poultry, livestock and setbacks

Staff said the draft will restore livestock permissions that had unintentionally been omitted from one of the new residential zone tables and that staff will consider more explicit poultry/chicken provisions keyed to lot size (for example allowing more birds on larger lots while limiting numbers on smaller lots). The draft included a proposed minimum 300-sq-ft containment area per large animal and a proposed standard that a containment area be located at least 15 feet from side or rear lot lines; commissioners and many commenters asked for changes or clarifications to avoid creating new nonconformities where neighbors currently share fences and livestock facilities.

Parking, parking minimums and transit exemptions

Staff and public speakers discussed parking minimums at length. The draft retains a lower, square-foot-based parking requirement for residential areas and an explicit exemption for residential units within a quarter-mile of transit (per state statute). Several speakers urged wider elimination of minimums; staff noted the market and lenders often drive parking provision as much as municipal rules. Commissioners asked staff to analyze and consider whether removing or reducing parking minimums more broadly would better support walkability and reduce development costs.

Public comment highlights

The hearing drew many neighborhood residents. A large group of speakers living near the Alameda & Kipling/Milestone parcel said the proposed MRU designation could allow buildings much taller and denser than existing single-family neighborhood scale, with traffic and safety impacts at unsignalized intersections; speakers asked that the parcel be mapped to a lower residential form (e.g., residential mid-form or RM) with lower height limits and without additive height incentives. Several residents said neighborhood outreach had been inadequate for this parcel and questioned the use of legislative remapping rather than a property-by-property rezoning application and neighborhood meeting.

Horse-keeping advocates and long-term lot owners pushed for clearer guarantees that equestrian uses and large-lot agriculture would continue to be allowed; they opposed proposed setbacks that could force the relocation of existing corrals and sought larger poultry allowances on larger lots. Public commenters also urged glossary language and plan cross-references so the zoning and the recently adopted Envision Lakewood 2040 comprehensive plan align.

Other topics and follow-up

Staff presented proposed changes to mixed-use districts, removal of the older ME zone and conversions of LIRD (light industrial redevelopment) areas to new mixed-use types. Staff noted incentives in the draft mixed-use rules that can add height for projects meeting sustainability, affordability or green-building standards; commissioners asked staff to confirm how incentives stack and how they apply to specific parcels.

Commissioners and staff closed the hearing’s public-comment period with no regulatory votes; staff will prepare a revised draft for the commission’s next hearing on May 21. Staff said they plan to correct the livestock omission in the urban low-form zoning, reconsider how A D U and parking language aligns with state law, add requested pedestrian-access language from RTD where relevant, and work through the glossary definition of limited animal keeping.

Ending

No legislative vote on the zoning package occurred on April 23. The commission scheduled continued review and directed staff to return with a revised draft on May 7 (materials posted) and the next public hearing on May 21, when the commission will continue considering code changes and any resulting mapping adjustments.