Residents press concerns about traffic on proposed Gables project and city capacity to manage projects

During the Planning Commission’s public comment period on Aug. 25, residents raised traffic-safety and notice concerns about a proposed development dubbed the Gables project and urged commissioners to address broader city workload and planning priorities.

Andy Barber (District 1) told the commission he was seeking a forum to raise concerns about the Gables development’s traffic impacts on Bow Mar South and East Bowles. Barber said the developers expect about 92 car trips per day to cut through local streets that currently handle roughly 65 vehicles, and that Bow Mar South serves “25 children under the ages of 14” and has no sidewalks. The commission stopped Barber from continuing, noting the Gables matter is a preliminary plat that will be heard as a quasi-judicial public hearing; the commission cannot take public comment on quasi-judicial items in advance of their scheduled hearings.

Staff confirmed the Gables preliminary plat remains under internal review and has not yet been scheduled for a public hearing. Community Development Director Matt Knight told the commission public notice for preliminary plats is posted citywide and that state and local rules require minimum advance notice (staff referenced 10 days as a minimum for public notice postings).

Pam Chadbourne, a nearby resident, used her public-comment time to offer broader criticism of city project priorities. “The city has bitten off more than it can chew,” she told commissioners, saying Littleton is tackling multiple major projects at once — including a unified land-use-code update, a transportation master plan, a downtown project, a north gateway project and other capital work — and lacks staff capacity to complete them all promptly. Chadbourne urged the commission to prioritize a comprehensive plan update and a historic-preservation plan and to integrate the unified land-use code with the transportation plan.

Chadbourne returned during the public hearing on the notice amendment (PC Resolution 11-20-25) to press for broader notice beyond the 700-foot radius used in current code, to insist renters be included in mailed-notice lists, and to question whether $10,000–$12,000 is a meaningful cost for the city to ensure broader notice.

No formal action was taken on these public comments at the Aug. 25 meeting. The commission reminded residents that preliminary plats and other quasi-judicial matters receive a full public hearing with an opportunity for testimony once they are formally noticed on the agenda.