Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment Transparency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident urges Littleton Historic Preservation Commission to review downtown project and fix meeting packet errors
Summary
A Littleton resident told the Historic Preservation Commission she was “shocked and appalled” that a downtown project was approved without any public interface with the commission and reported blank pages in the meeting packet PDF that she downloaded before the meeting.
Pam Chadbourne, a Littleton resident, told the Historic Preservation Commission at its meeting that she was “shocked and appalled” to learn a downtown project had been approved by City Council without public discussion or input involving the Historic Preservation Commission.
Chadbourne said she believes the commission has quasi‑judicial expertise on historic matters that City Council and the Planning Commission may lack and asked to see the commission’s evaluation of the project’s effect on the Main Street historic district. “I want to know what your assessment is,” she told the panel.
Chadbourne also said a meeting packet PDF she downloaded before the meeting contained nine pages with two separate blank sections. She said the absence of those pages disadvantaged both the public and the applicant by leaving out material she expected to be available under the city’s public‑meeting rules. “State law requires that the packet be downloaded for public accessibility, 24 hours before the meeting,” she said, and asked staff to fix the posting process.
Commission staff and the chair read the commission’s public‑comment procedures at the start of the meeting; the chair also reminded the audience that under the Colorado Open Meetings Law the commission is not authorized to discuss or take action at the meeting on issues that are not part of the posted agenda.
Chadbourne suggested a simple technical check when packets are posted so clerk staff or the document originator confirm files display correctly. “The poster or the originator of a document is responsible for checking,” she said, calling the change “very easy” and preventable.
The commission did not take action on the substance of Chadbourne’s concerns during the meeting; her comments were recorded as part of the general public‑comment period and the meeting proceeded to scheduled public hearings.
Chadbourne closed by wishing the commission happy holidays and reiterating her request that the city ensure meeting materials are complete and viewable.
