Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors oppose Gables subdivision plan over traffic and safety; city says project is in preliminary plan review
Summary
Speakers from Beaumont South urged Littleton to require stronger traffic mitigations, sidewalks and a signal for a proposed 17‑home subdivision they say will add cut‑through traffic; city staff said the site is zoned large‑lot residential and the proposal is in the planning‑commission/site‑plan review stage, not a council decision.
Neighbors of Beaumont South told the Aug. 19 Littleton City Council meeting they oppose a proposed 17‑home development they say will send an additional 92 vehicle trips per day through local streets and create safety risks for children on streets without sidewalks.
"According to the developer's own traffic analysis, Laurel and Snowberry alone will see an increase of 92 vehicles per day if this project moves forward. That's an increase of a 150% in traffic volume," resident Brittany Burrell said. Burrell asked the city to require an independent, updated traffic study, permanent traffic calming and signalization where appropriate, and a street preservation agreement so taxpayers are not left to repair local streets damaged by construction traffic.
Resident Andy Barba also urged the city to require the developer to explore an intersection signal or other design modifications to prevent cut‑through traffic and to ensure future residents can access eastbound Bowles without forcing trips through existing neighborhood streets.
City Manager Jim Becklenberg and the city attorney explained the current planning process: the parcel is zoned large‑lot residential and the next step is preliminary plan review before the Planning Commission; it will not come to city council for formal zoning action at this stage. The city attorney said staff is still reviewing site plan details, including whether sidewalks and traffic control options are feasible given existing nearby signal spacing.
What was not decided: Council did not vote on the Gables development. Staff said they will review the site plan and consider traffic‑management measures as part of the planning process; residents were encouraged to engage with planning staff and the developer during review.
Ending: Residents asked for stronger mitigation and said they will continue to request sidewalks, a construction access plan and traffic calming during the plan review and permitting process.
