Lakewood Residents Seek a Public Vote on Zoning Changes

Lakewood residents who organized a referendum on the city’s new zoning code say they want one thing above all: for voters, not just City Council, to decide whether sweeping land-use changes should take effect. In response to the new code, residents filed four referendum petitions; city staff verified enough signatures on all four of them, and those petitions are now undergoing a formal protest and review process that will determine whether they can advance to the ballot.

In October 2025, Lakewood City Council adopted a major overhaul of its zoning code and map, replacing long-standing single-family districts with new “low-form” residential zones that allow a wider range of housing types. City materials describe the update as a way to modernize the code, broaden housing choices, and align with recent state housing laws.

Residents who oppose the changes say they support affordable housing, but question how the new code will support affordability and compatibility in existing neighborhoods — and whether they had a fair chance to understand and influence the changes before they passed.

What the New Zoning Code Changes

The new code consolidates many former single-family districts into “Low-form Residential – A, B and C” (RLA, RLB, RLC). These districts:

• Regulate “residential dwellings” rather than a strictly defined “single-family” unit type,

• Allow multiple “house-scale” dwellings on some lots, and

• Set maximum floor-area limits for most new detached houses in low-form areas.

Based on the adopted dimensional standards, residents who reviewed the ordinance say that in some low-form districts a half-acre lot could, in theory, support several primary homes plus an accessory dwelling unit if all other rules are met. They see that as a significant shift from the one-house-per-lot pattern many assumed would continue.

One petition supporter, Karin Schantz, said she had followed zoning discussions for years and attended West Colfax Community Association meetings with council members, but believed the changes would be relatively minimal and would not affect her horse-zoned property.

How the Petitions Started

After the council approved the zoning changes, residents filed four referendum petitions — one for each ordinance that made up the roughly 350-page zoning package. Because council split the overhaul into four separate votes, each petition needed its own signatures to qualify.

Under Lakewood’s charter, a referendum petition must be signed by at least 3% of the city’s registered electors—3,517 signatures based on the Clerk’s 2025 calculation—and filed within a set time after publication of the ordinance. Residents involved in the effort say that after their first submission was rejected for technical issues, petition representatives had roughly three and a half weeks on the approved forms to gather the required signatures.

“Thousands of residents made an effort to sign the petitions,” said Joy Anderson, a Lakewood resident who helped collect signatures. People involved in the effort estimate that there were more than 11,000 signatures in total from roughly 6,000 individual residents. If that estimate is accurate, those signers would represent about 13–14% of the approximately 44,000–45,000 ballots cast in the 2023 Lakewood mayor’s race — a level of participation that petition supporters view as significant given the short time frame.

Several residents acknowledged they wished they had engaged earlier in the zoning process. Anderson said that while participation came later, residents felt limited in how their concerns were heard. Christine Heath, another resident involved in the effort, said accessing information after the code was passed required multiple follow-ups. “It took many emails to get a link to information about what had already been approved,” she said.

Complaint, Verification, and Protests

As the petition drive progressed, attorney and former Lakewood Planning Commission member Kip Kolkmeier filed a campaign-finance complaint alleging that petition representatives had not established an issues committee as required under applicable campaign-finance rules. The city appointed an outside hearing officer under its procedures; that hearing officer ultimately dismissed the complaint.

According to petition representatives, they had already asked the City how to register such a committee and were told there was no applicable process at the time. Anderson said the complaint highlighted how legal and procedural requirements can feel daunting for residents trying to use the referendum process. She described the petition drive as a grassroots, volunteer-led effort.

Ultimately, city records show that the City Clerk’s Office has issued “Initial Determination of Sufficiency” memoranda for each of the four referendum petitions relating to Ordinances O-2025-27, O-2025-28, O-2025-29, and O-2025-30. For example, in a November 17, 2025 memorandum regarding the referendum on Ordinance O-2025-28, the Clerk reported accepting 50 petition sections with a total of 4,040 signatures, of which 3,674 were accepted as valid—above the required 3,517 signatures. In a separate December 25, 2025 memorandum regarding the referendum on Ordinance O-2025-30, the Clerk reported accepting 54 petition sections with 4,368 signatures, of which 3,929 were accepted as valid, again exceeding the 3,517-signature threshold.

According to petition representatives, two Lakewood residents filed formal protests challenging portions of the signature counts. The protests were delivered to the petitioners on December 8 and are being heard in an administrative process before a hearing officer under the Lakewood Municipal Code, with any appeal to be filed in district court. These protests follow the City Clerk’s initial determinations of sufficiency and could affect whether the petitions ultimately remain valid.

Petition supporters described the challenge of responding to formal legal proceedings as volunteers: “They have everything. They have the messaging. They have the funding. They have the media. They have the attorneys, they have the city staff,” Anderson said. “What do we have? We got $1.25 colored poster boards from the dollar store.”

Residents’ Views on Affordability and Process

City officials have said the zoning overhaul is meant to expand housing options and support affordability, in part by making it easier to build “missing middle” housing such as duplexes and small multiplexes.

Petition supporters say they share affordability goals but doubt the code will produce lower-cost homes without specific affordability requirements. “They get away with a lot because they call it affordability but don’t ever give numbers,” Anderson said. “And if you disagree, then they say, ‘Oh, you don’t want affordability.’ That’s not what we’re saying.” Schantz echoed that concern: “I’m for affordable housing, but they’ve done nothing to prove to us that that’s what’s going to result after they’ve completely changed the character of our neighborhood.”

Residents also pointed to the city’s outreach methods as a barrier for some neighbors. City materials state that information about the zoning updates was provided through multiple channels, including front-page articles in Looking@Lakewood — the city’s printed newsletter mailed to all addresses — as well as online tools such as LakewoodTogether.org and LakewoodSpeaks.org. Petition supporters said that, in practice, many residents — particularly older neighbors — were still unaware of key hearings and decisions because they do not regularly use web-based platforms or follow online announcements. “You post on [Lakewood Speaks] because you think you’re giving input for what’s being voted on. And then they don’t read it,” Schantz said. “Nobody’s listening. Our ward reps had their minds made up.” “There are a lot of elderly people in this ward,” said Greg Heath. “It’s not a conversation.” Some petition supporters said they would have preferred more targeted direct mail about the zoning map and its potential impacts, beyond general citywide communications.

Some of the process concerns were also echoed on council. Council Member Jacob LaBure, who voted no on the zoning rewrite, wrote in an Oct. 14 public statement that “the process has not been fully explored by either the City Council or the broader community,” noting that “the zoning map — a key piece of this effort — had only been publicly available since July, giving residents and policymakers limited time to meaningfully review, discuss, and respond to its potential impacts.” He added that he “firmly believe[s] that with more time, transparency, and engagement from elected officials and residents, we could have crafted a more balanced and effective proposal.”

In public comments since her 2023 election, Mayor Wendi Strom has described housing as Lakewood’s biggest near-term challenge and said the conversation has become “very polarizing,” with long-time residents worried about growth and change. She has also said she believes the city can meet housing needs while “still mak[ing] sure that we’re preserving the Lakewood that we love” and has argued that growth and neighborhood character do not have to be a “zero-sum game.” Petition supporters say their referendum effort is one way for residents to take part in that debate by deciding at the ballot box whether the new zoning code should remain in place.

State Laws and Local Choices

The zoning debate is unfolding alongside new state housing laws that, among other things, prohibit occupancy limits based on relationships, require many jurisdictions to allow accessory dwelling units on qualifying lots, and restrict some minimum parking requirements while encouraging more housing near major transit corridors.

Those state laws do not mandate Lakewood’s specific zoning map, but they do require metro-area communities to make room for more housing capacity in key areas. Several Front Range cities, including Arvada, have joined lawsuits arguing that parts of these laws infringe on home-rule control over land use. Lakewood has not joined those suits and moved ahead with its own zoning update, which staff and supporters say is consistent with state requirements.

Residents backing the referendum say that, whatever the balance between state mandates and local discretion, changes of this magnitude should go to a public vote.

“We just want a seat at the table,” Greg Heath said. “We want this to be on the ballot so people would have a voice and can decide for themselves.”

What Happens If the Petitions Stand

If, after the protest process and any appeals, one or more petitions are ultimately found sufficient, Lakewood’s charter requires City Council either to repeal the challenged zoning ordinances or refer them to voters at an election.

If the petitions are found insufficient, the new zoning code and map will remain in place, subject to any future policy changes or litigation over state housing laws.

Either way, Lakewood’s rezoning has become part of a broader regional debate over how to balance housing supply, neighborhood character, and residents’ desire for a direct say in how their city grows.

Disclosure: Karen DeAguero, an Arvada Voices founder/board member and current candidate for Adams County Commissioner, assisted with early interviews but was not involved in the final writing or editing of this story.