Here is more of the cloudy history from the strange Book of Belmar.  This has come to light due to the attention to detail provided by Kairoi’s excellent attorneys at the Brownstein law firm in their court filing with Jefferson County District Court.

 

Please notice the map above.  The green area represents Belmar Park.  The two red blocks represent the two parcels of land that comprise the Irongate Office Complex.  The red square on the left is 777 S Yarrow Street.  The red rectangle on the right is 777 S Wadsworth Boulevard.

The developer plans to build at least 411 apartments at 777 S Yarrow within the red square on the left.

An additional 650-800 apartments are planned within the rectangle on the right at 777 S Wadsworth.

How will they construct so many units at 777 S Wadsworth?

By building TWO 12-STORY TOWERS.

Two key points to consider.

1)  Kairoi always planned to develop BOTH Irongate parcels.  Namely, 777 S Yarrow Street and 777 S Wadsworth Blvd shown above.

This point is established by numerous statements in the legal brief filed on behalf of the developer including that Kairoi submitted a formal letter of intent to purchase both properties way back on October 9, 2020.

The two parcels are conveniently located directly across the street from each other and are both part of the Irongate office complex as shown on the map above.

Yet incredibly, the developer has succeeded in excluding the S Wadsworth location from consideration by the public or Lakewood’s Planning Department or Lakewood’s Planning Commission or Lakewood’s City Council or the Colorado Department of Transportation!  Wow!

On December 2, 2020, both the seller and Kairoi signed a letter of intent for Kairoi to purchase the TWO properties.

Lakewood was also in the loop even back then. On December 14, 2020, the City of Lakewood provided a formal zoning verification to Kairoi for the two properties.

In addition to the 777 S Yarrow location, as per page 6 of the court filing, Kairoi has always planned to construct multiple 12-story towers on the S Wadsworth site with 650-800 total housing units at that location.  There has been no change to that plan.

And since they are only proposing 411 units at the S Yarrow address, the majority of the units Kairoi plans to build at Irongate are not yet included in their major site plan or TRAFFIC STUDY since 650-800 units so far have been excluded.

Those 650-800 excluded units are over half of the project and Kairoi has succeeded in keeping that fact quiet.  Nobody is talking about that elephant in the room.

So let’s move on to the second key point.

2)  Kairoi has NEVER included the 777 S Wadsworth site in traffic planning.

Kimley-Horn prepared the traffic study which is dated July 2021.

The very first sentence of that traffic study states the project is  “to be located on the northwest corner of the Ohio Avenue and Yarrow Street intersection in Lakewood, Colorado.”

In other words, at the S Yarrow location.  The S Wadsworth location located just across the street was excluded from the Kimley-Horn traffic study even though Kairoi’s own attorney’s have stated to the court that Kairoi has always intended to develop both sites.

Even though 777 S Wadsworth is only a 15 second walk from 777 S Yarrow!

Summary – Kairoi has always planned to develop both Irongate locations but has not included any impacts of the 650-800 housing units planned at S Wadsworth including traffic impacts.  Those 650-800 units are the majority of the project but are currently excluded by Lakewood Planning from any planning considerations!

Corrollary: Lakewood Planning has also known since 2020 that the developer planned to develop both parcels but has allowed the developer to exclude the majority of the planned units including traffic impacts and everything else.

Why would that matter?  Won’t Kairoi eventually have to include the impacts of the 800 units and the two S Wadsworth 12-story towers?  Let’s hope so.

However, by evaluating traffic impacts in two separate phases instead of requiring all known traffic impacts to be evaluated together in Phase 1, the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) may possibly omit some intersection or roadway improvement requirements that might otherwise be specified if full disclosure of traffic impacts were required by Lakewood.

EXAMPLE – Just imagine you are a big rig truck driver and you encounter a weigh station.  Maybe you know you are over the weight limit.  What if you could say to the scale operator, ‘Let’s just weigh half the load and then I will drive around the block and come back so you can weigh the other half.’   That way, you could be over the weight limit but would not trigger a violation at the weigh station because the full load would never be weighed.

That is exactly what is happening with the Kairoi project.  They are not being required to ‘weigh in’ with the full impact of their entire Irongate project.

This is important because if CDOT does not know about the full traffic impacts and therefore does not require an otherwise necessary highway improvement, the developer does not have to pay for it.

And traffic flow, traffic delays, safety, etc. may all be worse as a result.

And if improvements are ever made in the future by CDOT to address any issues that were concealed by never providing to CDOT full disclosure of the entire project scope, the developer may never be required to pay their fair share.

The 20% Rule

CDOT has a 20% rule.

As long as your project does not increase traffic impacts by 20% or more, you do not have to pay for any highway improvements.

Pro-Tip:  When you are allowed to break up a huge project into smaller phases, the smaller phases may not break the CDOT 20% rule even though the full project scope may break the 20% rule.

And if your total project does break the 20% rule but you do not to tell CDOT about the full scope of your project, the taxpayers may end up footing the entire bill for future infrastructure improvements to intersections or roadways.

When you are allowed to break up your project into multiple phases without ever having to disclose the full 100% of traffic impacts, that is potentially an enormous freebie to the developer.  It could even be worth $$ millions of dollars of cost avoidance by a developer.  But we may never know how much money, if any, Kairoi saves since Lakewood is allowing the developer to exclude the majority of the traffic impacts from the Phase 1 traffic study.

As a result, the taxpayers may have to pay for any omitted highway improvements if the developer is allowed to skip out on the tab.

South Wadsworth is a state highway and it will be impacted by building up to 800 units at Irongate that are totally excluded from the Phase 1 traffic study.

The traffic study admits the impact at West Ohio Avenue will break the 20% rule but the study assumes that will not be the case at West Virginia Avenue.

However, considering the full impact with triple the number of housing units will be 300% more than the study assumed, W Virginia Avenue could easily break the 20% rule.

And paying for any upgrades to the larger W Virginia Ave intersection could be expensive.  So there is certainly a financial incentive to avoid that potential cost.

It gets worse.  Developers are no longer required to provide parking!

As of June 30, 2025, Colorado’s new parking law kicks in that frees developers from the requirement to provide parking for multifamily projects!

Add that up. 411 units plus 800 units equals over 1,200 apartments with no need to provide any additional parking!

The average household in Lakewood has 2.0 vehicles.  That could mean 2,400 vehicles from the proposed Irongate/Kairoi apartment buildings with no place to park.

In fact, there could be less parking than there is today since both locations currently have parking lots.  Those existing parking lots would no longer be required.

Under the new law, a developer can no longer be required to provide parking for multifamily projects.

Why was such a law passed?  Because developers asked for it.

Nobody seems to know why Lakewood allows a developer to exclude critical data as far as traffic planning.  But the developer is probably applauding the excellent royal red carpet treatment they receive from city hall.

Unlike lowly citizens who have been threatened with police action for applauding thoughtful public comments at a city council meeting.

And you wonder if Lakewood has a love affair with developers?  Will anyone ever investigate what is going on?

Clearly, Lakewood urgently needs city council candidates who are willing to represent the best interests of voters and of Lakewood’s future. If you know qualified people who could do better than some who are now on council, please encourage them to run for city council.

Consumer Affairs estimates there were 5.8 million unrepaired vehicles facing ‘park outside’ recalls in the US as of December 2023 due to fire risk primarily from brake system defects.  These vehicles may catch fire even when parked and the ignition is turned off.

There have been at least 159 ‘park outside’ or ‘do not drive’ recalls covering 11.5 million vehicles!  Consumer Affairs estimates at least 1 in every 100 vehicles on the road still have an unrepaired ‘park outside’ recall.

They also state:

“It is a fact that the average family car of today, including growing numbers of ‘Sports Utility’ vehicles (SUV’s) and ‘people carriers’, have significant percentages of plastics and other combustibles in their construction. In short, modern cars can burn very quickly producing much larger and hotter fires than was previously considered possible.

However, for many years it was assumed unlikely that a fire could spread from one parked car to another, but this can no longer be relied on to be the case.” end quote

As vehicles become larger and wider, parking spaces have also become smaller and operators are using stacker systems. The result is that separation between vehicles becomes smaller, and fire spread between vehicles is more likely.

Will Belmar Park West management track which vehicles have unrepaired ‘park outside’ recalls?

Why wouldn’t they track that for everyone’s safety and to protect their building?

After all, they will likely be charging an extra $100-200 per month to park one vehicle in the garage.  So they will have a database of who parks in there.  It is trivial to look up if a specific vehicle has outstanding recalls.

Click to check your vehicle now!  So checking which vehicles should be parked outside is easy to do.

Given these considerations, if anyone were harmed due to a garage fire at BPW due to a vehicle that should have been parked outside, the building owner could be liable.  So let’s hope they track who should not be allowed to park in the garage.

Because if they don’t track it and if 1 in every 100 vehicles has an unrepaired ‘park outside’ spontaneous fire recall, there could be several such vehicles parked in the garage every night while people are sleeping!

Don’t forget the parking garage at BPW is not free-standing.  The parking stalls and the residential units are in the same building on each floor and in close proximity to each other which is actually a convenience feature for residents under normal use.  But if one or more vehicles catch on fire, that close proximity could be problematic.

GenRe Insurance observes: “A free-standing garage has the advantage that if a fire occurs, it (and the associated smoke and heat) does not spread so easily to other buildings.

However, in the case of garage systems that are part of larger buildings, fire, smoke, and combustion by-products enter parts of the building above the garage through hollow cavities, elevator shafts, stairwells, and utility areas more easily.

This creates a significant safety hazard and greater potential for damage.”

Considering the significant safety hazard of the Belmar Park West garage design because it is not free-standing, residents need to be extra diligent to verify safe exit routes exist from their apartment or other locations in the building in the event of a fire emergency.

Have you ever seen a car fire?  One day in Boulder, Colorado I pulled up to a stop light near Baseline Road.  There was an empty vehicle in the next lane and a small puff of smoke rising.  By the time the light turned green a few minutes later, the car was totally involved in smoke and flames and the fire department had not yet responded.  This was before cell phones, so I couldn’t call them.  The only option was to get out of there quickly.  By the time I found a payphone, the fire department was responding.  As noted, modern vehicles burn even faster.

How common are car park fires?  Very common.  GenRe Insurance reports 1,858 commercial parking garage fires occurred each year in the United States from 2014-2018.

EV Charging Stations Increase Fire Risk

The parking garage at Belmar Park West will also have several Level II or higher EV charging stations with expansion capability to over 100 charging stations.  Charging facilities in car parks introduce potential ignition sources and risk of overcharging, increasing the probability of having a fire event in a car park.

Electric vehicle fires can also be very tricky to put out:

“You need to have copious amounts of water, 20,000 gallons. Even then, once you put it out, it can rekindle and restart 24, 72 hours or a week later.”

Luckily, the 542 car capacity parking garage at Belmar Park West is designed to include fire suppression sprinklers.

But just how effective are these sprinklers at putting out parking garage car fires?

Garage sprinkler systems are not capable of extinguishing a car fire.  They only help control the spread!

What can cause fire sprinklers to malfunction?  Answer: Frozen pipes, corrosion, inadequate water supply, damaged components, and lack of maintenance!

Considering the graffiti, broken windows, and the recent fire in the Irongate building at the 777 S Yarrow St site of Belmar Park West, vandalism should probably be added to the list.

Vandals might damage sprinkler components, set off false sprinkler activations or start fires.

The Response Time Problem

When the fire suppression sprinklers are activated, the fire department is alerted to respond and fully extinguish the fire.  So we can relax since the fire department will arrive in a few minutes, right?  Not necessarily.

Since sprinklers only limit the spread of the fire, response time from the fire department is key.

“However, new information provided by LAFD and FDNY suggests that response times may continue to climb for both fire calls and medical emergencies.  An LAFD paramedic explains:

“Our staffing levels have decreased over the years. Our call volume has more than doubled. We’re running around 2,000 calls a day from about 1,000 when I first started. Our number of fire stations has not increased.” “It happens every day,” he said. “You guys don’t ever hear about it. We don’t go public with it, but it’s on a constant basis. Our average response time should be anywhere from three to four minutes; 10 minutes, you’re lucky. Fifteen is common, and 20 is going to be the norm.” end quote

How does Lakewood stack up with regard to emergency response?

West Metro Fire Rescue has a total response time (p.8-9) target for moderate risk fire suppression emergencies of 10:24 (10 minutes and 24 seconds).  In 2022 (the most recent year reported), their average total response time was 17:09.

Average fire department response time in Lakewood is over 17 minutes!

That is 17 minutes you could be sleeping while a car is on fire in the enclosed garage area outside your front door!  And if you do wake up in time, the garage could be smoky if you attempt to exit the building.

We hope owners of Belmar Park West will insure that vehicles with unrepaired ‘park outside’ or ‘do not drive’ recalls will park outside.

If the project is built, future residents should raise the issue with the building management and monitor which vehicles are parked near their apartments.

Wherever you live, have a fire exit plan and make certain everyone in the household is aware of the details.  Check your fire extinguishers.  If applicable, park your vehicle(s) outside.  Consider a fire escape ladder.

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!

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!