top of page

a Colorado non-profit 501(c)(3) corporation

blue save belmar park logo containing a flying great blue heron

*Donations are tax-deductible

NEWS

Media Coverage

Search

We want to give everyone a clear update on where things currently stand in the Save Belmar Park case because there’s been a lot happening behind the scenes legally.


First, we are still actively in the Rule 106 appeal process.


What does that mean in plain English?


A Rule 106(a) appeal case is basically the only legal process we had left to challenge whether the city of Lakewood and Kairoi followed Lakewood’s own zoning codes and comprehensive plan when they approved this massive building. In our case, Save Belmar Park, Inc. is challenging Lakewood’s approval of the 777 S. Yarrow St. (Kairoi) development project.  While we are all still deeply saddened and disturbed that the trees are gone and wildlife was harmed (Kairoi rushed to remove them almost immediately while litigation was still ongoing and unresolved), try to imagine what the park would be like if Kairoi begins construction:  years of heavy equipment noise and ultimately a 6-story apartment building at the park edge that would forever alter the character of the park and its wildlife habitat.  That is what SBP is fighting to prevent.


This case is NOT over, and the Rule 106 case is still under review by the judge and has not yet been decided. There is still active litigation happening behind the scenes, and we will continue updating the community as the process moves forward. The court is reviewing whether the approval process was legally valid and properly handled.



Second, Kairoi’s fee-in-lieu problem


Kairoi has a separate suit against the City of Lakewood to determine the ultimate fee-in- lieu that should be paid for the parkland dedication compensation.  This relates to something many residents have noticed themselves:  The site has largely sat dormant for a year after the trees and wildlife was destroyed.  Until the fee-in-lieu is paid to the city, a building permit cannot be issued.   


Something important came out in recent court filings that we can share:Kairoi recently asked the Colorado Court of Appeals to pause the fee-in-lieu appeal, where Kairoi is still trying to argue it should pay a lower fee than what the City assessed for the project.

They did this because they acknowledged that if Save Belmar Park wins the Rule 106 case, the current development approval could be overturned, which would make that fee dispute irrelevant.


In plain terms: Kairoi’s own attorneys acknowledged that a victory for Save Belmar Park Inc. could have major implications. 


Their filing states:


“If the district court sides with Save Belmar, Belmar Owner’s application will no longer be approved…”


That is not our interpretation. It is Kairoi’s own statement to the court.



Third, Kairoi seeking compensation


Kairoi is currently seeking to obtain the $15,000 bond that Save Belmar Park, Inc. posted during the temporary restraining order last year, which is still being held by the court. That order was requested when we sought to save the seven remaining trees by preventing their destruction.


Kairoi is claiming more than $100,000 in alleged damages and attorney’s fees from the approximately two-week tree protection order. Yet more than a year later, construction has still not begun and Kairoi has not produced evidence proving the damages it claims.


Fourth, Kairoi contradictions:


Kairoi has repeatedly argued in the 106 case that the Save Belmar Park case is “frivolous” and should be dismissed. However, as noted above, in a separate appeal in their case against the city, Kairoi argued that the proceedings should be put on hold until the Save Belmar Park case is decided because the outcome could directly affect the validity of the development approval.


Kairoi cannot simultaneously argue that the Save Belmar Park case is so weak and meritless that it should be dismissed and that Save Belmar Park should pay Kairoi's attorney fees, while also arguing that the outcome of the case could determine whether the development approval remains valid. The case cannot be both insignificant and potentially consequential at the same time.


Finally, This is the part people should not lose sight of:


The Rule 106 challenge is still alive, still active, and still important because if we do win it would change what could happen at that site. But, there will almost certainly be more legal battles ahead and more appeals no matter who wins or loses this.

We know people are frustrated. We are too.


But the legal process is continuing, and we are still fighting and we will fight and appeal until we’ve exhausted all options possible. 

Please continue to make a donation today and contribute whatever you are able. And share this information with friends, neighbors and family. For those of you who continue to donate, you lift our hearts with your support.


Thanks,

Save Belmar Park, Inc., Directors

 
 
 

We officially submitted our opening brief in the lawsuit in January after months of settling what the record should include for review. Save Belmar Park, Inc. - a grassroots nonprofit 501(c)(3) is going up against billionaire developer, Kairoi, out of Texas.


That’s a big milestone! It means the case is now fully in front of the judge, in writing, with the facts laid out clearly and on the record.In plain terms, this lawsuit is about holding the city accountable for how this decision was made. We’re challenging a process that ignored key facts, glossed over real impacts, and pushed through a decision that never should have been given the okay from the City.


To view the Opening Brief for the Lawsuit, click this link:


Why we’re confident in the case we’ve put forward—and why the record supports it:

In our opening brief, we point to clear, documented ways the city failed to do what the law requires. The zoning code says land-use decisions must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, yet the record contains no meaningful analysis of compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood or the park next door. Commissioners themselves raised these concerns during the hearing and never got straight answers. Instead of exercising independent judgment, the Planning Commission relied heavily on staff-prepared findings, and then voted 5-0 to approve it.


On top of that, the city’s explanations contradict each other throughout the record, which undermines their credibility. The city had multiple chances to fix these mistakes, but time and again they failed—showing poor decision-making and ignoring the rules they’re legally bound to follow.


Our case is not anti-housing. It’s about fairness, transparency, and following the law—especially when decisions permanently alter neighborhoods, parks, traffic, environmental impacts, and overall quality of life. When governments ignore significant public pushback and fail to follow their own rules, the only way to fight back is in the courts. That’s exactly what this lawsuit is doing.


What happens next: the other side responds, we reply, and the judge decides whether the city’s decision stands or gets sent back. There’s no public trial—just the record, the law, and whether the city actually applied it. We believe the record clearly shows the city misapplied its own ordinances and ignored critical requirements like the Comprehensive Plan.


Thank you to everyone who has donated, shared, and spoken up. Your support is the reason this case is even possible. Legal accountability isn’t cheap—but it matters. If you believe cities should be required to play by their own rules, especially when residents raise legitimate concerns, please keep supporting and spreading the word. Legal costs are mounting, and the fight against this billionaire developer and their three high-priced lawyers ramped up on Friday, January 23, 2026.


We’re not backing down—and we’ll go as far as we need to.Please SHARE this and make a donation today.


Update on activities at 777 S. Yarrow St

As of this writing, mid February, the building permit has not been issued.  Permits that have been issued are for: demolition of the original structure; Grading/erosion control related to the demolition only; temporary construction fence; various right of way permits to Xcel and others to remove or relocate existing utilities in the right of way.  There have been two permits (grading/erosion control and right of way) issued to the adjacent site of 605 S Yarrow St. to install storm water pipe required for the project.


At this time, City staff has not received any communication from Kairoi regarding their planned construction schedule. Before permits for on-site development can be issued, the applicant is required to complete the following:

  • Install erosion control BMP’s

  • Request & pass the erosion control inspection

  • Submit required collateral funds

  • Pay all outstanding fees collected at the time of building permit.  (Kairoi has appealed the court’s decision on the amount of fee in lieu that is owed to the city.)


Thank you,

Celia, Gail, and ReginaDirectors, Save Belmar Park, Inc.,

a CO non-profit 501(c)(3) corporation

 
 
 

Subscribe to Our Newsletter!

Thanks for caring about Belmar Park!

blue save belmar park logo containing a flying great blue heron

Directors: Celia Greenman, Regina Hopkins

© 2023 by Save Belmar Park, Inc.

a Colorado non-profit 501(c)(3) corporation

 Info@SaveBelmar.org

Save Belmar Park, Inc.

P.O. Box 40123 Denver, CO 80204

  • Instagram
  • Facebook
bottom of page