As background, it might be worthwhile to consider that the 777 S Yarrow proposal appears to include a re-plat in connection with the lot line adjustment and that the party proposing the re-plat is therefore the developer of 777 S Yarrow Street who may have to comply with various Colorado state statues.

(9) “Subdivider” or “developer” means any person, firm, partnership, joint venture, association, or corporation participating as owner, promoter, developer, or sales agent in the planning, platting, development, promotion, sale, or lease of a subdivision. CO Rev Stat § 30-28-101 (2023)

Therefore, Kairoi Properties LLC and Belmar Owner LLC are the subdivider because they are undertaking a lot line adjustment which requires a re-plat of 777 S Yarrow Street.

It is a Colorado requirement that the subdivider submit proof to the Planning Commission that subdivision utility easements have been approved by the respective utility providers as noted below per CO Rev Stat § 31-23-214 (2023:

(3) Subdivision regulations adopted under provisions of this section shall require that a subdivider, as defined in section 30-28-101 (9), C.R.S., submit to the (planning) commission evidence that provision has been made for facility sites, easements, and rights of access for electrical and natural gas utility service sufficient to ensure reliable and adequate electric or, if applicable, natural gas service for any proposed subdivision. Submission of a letter of agreement between the subdivider and utility serving the site shall be deemed sufficient to establish that adequate provision for electric or, if applicable, natural gas service to a proposed subdivision has been made.

The Belmar Park West (BPW) project is the 411 unit multifamily project proposed at 777 S Yarrow Street in Lakewood, CO adjacent to Belmar Park.

The goal of our petition at Change.org is to achieve a wildlife buffer area between Belmar Park and the proposed huge apartment complex.

Now the City of Lakewood has moved in our direction thanks to YOUR support.

The city council and the planning department are aware that thousands of you have signed this petition and keep signing it.  The updated list of signatures has been provided to Lakewood City Council multiple times now because the petition size continues to grow as we approach 6,000 supporters.  And we have received thanks from some on city council.

Lakewood has professional planners that review any major site plan (MSP).  Professional planners look for deficiencies such as areas where a huge building does not have a reasonable transition zone to an adjacent park.

As a result, we have reached an inflection point where the developer’s proposal is simply ‘not approvable’ without that transition zone.   The city now requires the developer’s project design team to revisit options to provide an appropriate park transition area!

The city even says if the transition zone is not possible, the developer should be prepared to explain to the Planning Commission why the building footprint and site layout were not modified to address staff’s comments.

Folks, please congratulate yourselves.  We have gotten this far without expensive attorneys or asking people to donate thousands of dollars.

One local group even asked people for a quarter of a million dollars!

Frankly, we don’t think people need to be giving a lot of money to anyone because they say it is to benefit Belmar Park unless there are specific details explaining how much and exactly how the money will be used to benefit the park.

Please be careful whenever donating money to any charity for any cause.  Not every charity uses your money efficiently.

With your support and just one person volunteering for free here sponsoring this petition and providing the website for this cause, together we have gotten this far and without asking for donations.

The Planning Department is awaiting that revised proposal from the developer.  Please stay ready to respond when that proposal is revealed.

Westword magazine reported on January 24, 2024 that Irongate Offices LLC contacted Lakewood and offered the property for sale to the city.  But Lakewood did not purchase the property. It was eventually purchased by a Texas developer to build hundreds of luxury rental apartments.

Former Mayor Adam Paul expressed to Westword his opposition to the city purchasing the property based on his view of ‘equity’.

However, ‘equity’, while it may be a politically popular term, is not a criteria Lakewood has designated in the Municipal Code for parkland selection.

So what?  Isn’t ‘equity’ always a good thing?  Well, consider this.

Since Lakewood did not purchase 777 S Yarrow, the city may end up with more inventory of expensive market priced luxury rental housing instead.

Our prediction is that if the project is built, most people who need housing will not be able to afford the rent.  How’s that for ‘equity’?

NOTE: For some reason, Westword ‘clarified’ their original reporting and substituted a phrase in one sentence to mention instead a discussion between Mayor Paul and city staffers.

However, Westword has not published a retraction or errata notice for the original reporting that Mayor Paul stated Irongate checked with the city.

With or without the ‘clarification’, Mayor Paul was a solid opponent to purchasing 777 S Yarrow according to Westword.

Quoting from the ‘clarified’ January 24, 2024 article by Westword:

When Adam Paul was mayor of Lakewood, he discussed with city staffers the possibility of buying the property should it become available, recalls Paul, who joined Denver Mayor Mike Johnston’s administration last fall after he was term-limited out of office.

“Realizing that there’s a lot of other parts of our city that don’t have a lot of parkland, especially in some of our lower-income areas, it was really an equity thing for me,” he says. “Is that a highest and best use, for us to purchase that — or to go and really look at pursuing more park and open space land in other parts of the city that may not have a huge park already?” end of quote

As you probably know, a developer wants to build two massive multifamily projects at 777 S Yarrow St and 777 S Wadsworth.  At least one of these buildings could even be a twelve story tower.

Some have raised concerns whether these buildings will provide adequate parking.

The parking concerns folks have expressed are well founded.  Why?  Because parking near multifamily projects in Lakewood is a known recurring problem.

Why would this be a recurring problem as opposed to a one-time anomaly?  Why would multifamily projects repeatedly have parking issues in Lakewood?  The logical explanation is that Lakewood plans them that way.  The city obviously could require enough parking to prevent the issues but doing so would aggravate developers.  So everybody has to live with the permanent results of not enough parking.

So how do we know parking near multifamily projects is a recurring problem in Lakewood?  Aren’t we just nimbyizing a fake problem?  You wish.  We wish.  Unfortunately, Lakewood has confirmed the problem so there is no debate. This problem is so well established that even the nattering nabobs of Nextdoor negativism cannot deny it.

“High parking demand on streets surrounding multi-family development is a complaint often received by City staff” according to the parking study.

Also mentioned: “Parking difficulty by multi-family and concerns about future development.”

It gets worse.  Belmar was specifically called out:

“Difficult to find parking near the Belmar shopping area.”

More Findings from the October 2023 Lakewood Parking Study:

These examples illustrate that Lakewood often allows development to occur despite insufficient parking allocation.

• “High on-street parking demand due to multiple multifamily residential buildings near the RTD light rail station.”  Page 6
• “Multifamily buildings may not have sufficient off-street parking supply to accommodate resident demand.” Page 6
• “Streets adjacent to multifamily buildings on 13th Ave. show high 5AM and Noon demand, likely from residents of the multifamily buildings.”  Page 6
• “High parking demand on the streets near Oak Street Station Apartments” P7
• “This building supplies at least the 1.0 minimum parking space per unit as required by its zoning designation.” P7
• “High parking demand on 15th Pl. due to Avenida apartments, with increased demand anticipated from future development.” P7
• “Very high parking demand for the limited on-street space in the West Line Village townhomes area.” p7
• “Many cars were observed parked illegally on sidewalks and in no parking zones in West Line Village area.” p7
• “Near Abuisci’s – High on-street parking demand and unsafe driving behavior from restaurant patrons in residential areas.” p7
• “The parking occupancy data and observations from the drone video illustrate that there is a higher parking demand from restaurant patrons than the spaces available in the existing restaurant lot.” p8
• Parking occupancy data showed residential streets near West Lake Care Community have high daytime demand, likely from employees and visitors. p12
• Survey respondents reported it is difficult to find parking in the commercial area along S Union Boulevard. p12
• Survey respondents reported it is difficult to find parking in the Belmar shopping area. p12
• Colorado Mills Mall – Survey respondents reported it is difficult to find parking near the mall as well as concerns about traffic operations.
• Some members of the public have reported a high demand for parking in the lot near Green Mountain Beer Company and other restaurants.
• Survey respondents reported not enough parking capacity to access William Frederick Hayden Park and Belmar Park.  p13
• Colorado Christian University Area – Survey respondents reported high parking demand from students on residential streets near the university. p13
• Various Locations – Respondents expressed concerns about illegal parking and driving behavior in the city at 21 specific locations. p13

Are these examples predictive of what is likely to happen at 777 S Yarrow St?  Especially considering that S Yarrow St does not have much on-street parking capacity and much of it is already in-use at night.  These examples suggest the city is overly reactive and not sufficiently proactive with regard to parking planning and mitigation. How many of these problem areas could have been avoided by requiring a few more parking spaces during the planning process?

If you live, shop or work anywhere near Belmar or Irongate, you now have an Irongate ironclad guarantee that parking will get much, much worse if these two projects go forward and if the new residents who will live there have the Lakewood average of 2.0 vehicles per household!

By the way, Lakewood residents are already very car-efficient compared to Colorado.  Lakewood actually has far fewer cars per household than the Colorado state average of 2.5 cars!

We are talking about thousands of people living in those two buildings.  And it stands to reason they will have to park at least 2,000 to 3,000 vehicles if they own the average number of vehicles per household. (411 units + 822 units x 2 vehicles per unit = 2,466 vehicles.)  The average household in Lakewood has 2.0 cars.  The building at 777 S Yarrow St is only providing 1.3 parking spaces per unit!  (542 spaces for 411 units.)  And that includes guest parking!   We are estimating the second building will have at least twice as many units.

It gets worse.  Renters will have to pay extra if they want to park in the buildings.  Some new, upscale multifamily projects charge $100-200 or more per month per space for parking. So renters are incentivized to NOT park in the buildings in order to avoid the parking fees.  (NAA’s Survey of Income & Operating Expenses, showed an average fee of $93 per unit with mid- and high-rise properties charging significantly more than garden-style properties.)

But remember these are upscale units that will charge market rate rent.  These are not low-income units.  Therefore, they are even more likely to have multiple vehicles per household.

If these apartment households only have the Lakewood average of two vehicles, there won’t be enough parking spaces in the buildings at only 1.3 spaces per apartment.

That’s why this is a looming crisis.  Based on Lakewood’s average of 2 cars per household, 1,233 new apartments and only 1.3 spaces available per unit, there is a deficit of 0.7 spaces per unit x 1233 = 862 parking spaces short!

There could easily be 800 vehicles looking for on-street parking on S Yarrow St. every day!

The future of Belmar Park area parking congestion.

But wait!  Don’t developers tell us apartment renters own fewer cars and that people will walk everywhere or ride the bus or Uber?

It may be true developers say that, typically when discussing low-income or subsidized housing.  At 0-30% of AMI in Denver, one survey found one vehicle per 18 residents. But that type of statistic should not be conflated to upscale units that are priced based on market rate rent such as 777 S Yarrow.  Data actually indicates vehicle use overall is increasing among renter-occupied households.

The data shows vehicle access is increasing among renter-occupied households!

From 2006 through 2016 the trend among renter-occupied households has been decreasing zero and one-car households and increasing two, three and four car households!

As everyone knows, 777 S Yarrow is surrounded on 3 sides by Belmar Park.  Despite that reality, some, including Mayor Wendi Strom, make the strange claim that 777 S Yarrow St is ‘Downtown Lakewood’.

It is easy to test that claim because the city does not require retail or commercial space in the building.  If this were a true downtown shopping district, the city would require some retail or commercial space.

The developer also knows it is not downtown and that it would not make sense to pretend otherwise and include commercial or retail space.  Therefore, the developer is not going to include any retail or commercial space.

So everyone knows it is NOT downtown Lakewood.

Not being a downtown area plus not having access to any form of rapid transit or light rail further increases car-dependency.

But isn’t there a big risk of building too many parking spaces? 

Building too many parking spaces is not a problem identified by the parking study near multifamily development. The consistent problem is not having enough parking.

Maybe the question to ask is whether it is more feasible to add parking spaces after the buildings are completed or is it more feasible to convert some parking spaces to other uses at a later date?   We suggest it would be difficult or impossible to add garage spaces but feasible to convert some garage spaces to storage areas or additional apartment units at a later date if necessary.

Or if Lakewood keeps claiming this is ‘Downtown Lakewood’, then there should be very high demand for parking from folks who are not building residents so considerable non-resident paid parking could also be allocated.  There is certainly a busy event calendar at Belmar Park so paid parking at the 777 S Yarrow parking garage might be a good option if there are too many parking spaces at some point in the future.

If your strategy is to predict the future and attempt a guess at precisely how many parking spaces will be needed and that is the end of the process, isn’t it likely there will always be some degree of error resulting in too few or too many parking spaces?  Why is that an acceptable planning process to always be wrong with no contingency plan?

Provide for contingencies now and include any necessary supportive building features. Los Angeles design firm Gensler believes self-driving cars will eliminate the need for parking structures as we know them today.  Therefore, Gensler is already advising its clients to build parking that can easily be converted in the future. It comes at a cost, however, which is typically 15-20 percent higher. Design alterations include flat floor plates and higher floor-to-floor-heights, both of which lend themselves to conversions to several other use types

It is quite possible that most people are not aware of this looming parking shortage or what is going to happen in their neighborhoods even on the east side of Wadsworth or the north, south and west sides of Belmar Park.

Why would neighborhoods adjacent to the park have to worry?  Consider this.  When on-street parking spots near 777 S Yarrow St are all taken, likely most of those 800 vehicles will need to park in other areas or neighborhoods.  Neighborhoods adjacent to the park will be appealing because drivers might park there and then walk home through Belmar Park.  We are not saying that is convenient.  But excess vehicles will have to be parked SOMEWHERE.

Even if some of these areas are subject to towing, don’t forget Colorado recently revised towing laws so it is often much more complicated to get vehicles towed even on private property such as an HOA or apartment complex.  So please don’t assume you have nothing to worry about because you live on the other side of the park.

We assume most citizens do not know about this scenario of 800 vehicles that have nowhere to park.

• People need to wake up and get involved before construction starts. 
• It is in the future residents best interests to have adequate parking.
• Attend city council meetings and offer public comment. 
• Ask for 2 parking spaces per apartment to be required.
• Contact your city council reps. 
• You also need to get your community organization or HOA involved. 
• Your HOA should consider reviewing the situation with an attorney.

If you wait until the buildings are built and overflow parking occurs in your neighborhood, it may be difficult to address the problem at that point in time.

Just ask the folks who live near Abrusci’s or near CCU or near existing multifamily housing in Lakewood if they should have been more involved earlier in the planning process.

This is not just about the wildlife at Belmar Park.

These huge apartment buildings have ramifications on multiple levels that will impact many people who are currently not realizing the freight train heading in their direction.

The parking survey also mentions these other problems:

“Cars regularly parked blocking sidewalks and bike lanes, requiring pedestrians and cyclists to use the street. Unsafe driving conditions due to illegal parking.”

And we haven’t even mentioned the increased traffic.  This post is just about the parking issue.  Will the bear wake up?

POKE THE BEAR!  NOW!

Lakewood residents have frequently cited these concerns to city management. If the legislature gives developers total control to reduce or eliminate parking spaces, the existing problems will get much worse.