Littleton planning commission recommends code changes to raise tree-canopy minimums, increase in-lieu fee

On Oct. 13, 2025, the Littleton Planning Commission voted 3–2 to recommend that City Council adopt amendments to Title 10 of the Unified Land Use Code that raise minimum tree‑canopy requirements in several zone districts and change the tree‑canopy in‑lieu fee structure.

The proposed text changes would increase minimum canopy coverage in multiple zone districts and replace a flat $500 fee with a per‑caliper‑inch fee of $250 per inch per replacement tree, staff said. Andrea Vaughn, senior planner in the city’s Community Development department, and Mary Dancer, Urban and Community Program Specialist (formerly Littleton’s city forester), presented the technical background and the draft ordinance language to commissioners.

Staff and the consultant framed the changes as part of the city’s 2023 Forestry Management Plan, which set a long‑term goal of increasing citywide canopy toward 50 percent by 2090. Mary Dancer told the commission that Littleton’s urban tree canopy fell in a recent assessment: “We saw from a 2013 study compared to a 2022 study that Littleton had a 5% canopy loss at the time.” She emphasized public‑health reasons for action: “Heat related illness causes more death than any other natural disaster each year.”

Why this matters

City staff said the amendments aim to slow canopy loss tied to disease (notably emerald ash borer), aging tree stock along the Highline Canal and Platte River corridors, and development pressure. Vaughn summed staff’s position: “Littleton cannot afford not to protect their current canopy given, kind of where we’re heading in canopy loss predictions as well as these hotter summer temperatures coming up.” The package includes language harmonizing Title 8 (trees) and Title 10 (Unified Land Use Code) and a new Tree Manual as a best‑management reference.

What staff proposed and case studies

- Fee: staff proposed replacing the flat $500 mitigation fee with $250 per caliper inch of replacement tree (example used in presentation). Staff said the per‑inch approach is designed to incentivize tree retention by making removal comparatively more expensive for larger trees. - Canopy minimums: staff recommended increasing canopy minimums by at least 5 percentage points in several zone districts and noted the multifamily residential (MFR) district would see a larger (10‑point) proposed increase. Presenters said many applicants already meet or exceed current minima in practice: a South Metro Housing Options infill example reached 22% canopy (staff noted downtown rules combine canopy and open space to meet a 25% target), and Littleton Brewing exceeded its 15% requirement to nearly 20% by adding 13 new trees; staff confirmed those 13 trees were newly planted.

Discussion and dissent

Commissioners debated equity and practicality. Commissioner Roethlisberger said, “It’s not that I, I don’t think multifamily residential can put in trees. I think they should,” while also arguing multifamily sites should be considered alongside other residential districts. Commissioner Santana criticized the approach as placing a disproportionate burden on new development: “This puts a heavy onus for the mitigation of tree canopy loss on new developments.” Several commissioners urged that incentives (for example, fee reductions or grants) be considered alongside penalties.

An amendment and votes

Commissioner Roethlisberger moved an amendment to remove the proposed increase for the multifamily residential canopy requirement; Commissioner Santana seconded. That amendment failed 2–3 (Roethlisberger and Santana voting in favor; Commissioners Neely, Reynolds and Coronado voting against). The main motion — to recommend approval of PC Resolution 10‑20‑25, the Title 10 amendments on greenscape and the canopy fee — then passed 3–2, with Commissioners Reynolds, Neely and Coronado voting in favor and Commissioners Santana and Roethlisberger voting against.

What happens next

The Planning Commission’s action is a recommendation to City Council; staff told commissioners the Tree Manual and Title 8 refinements remain under development and that more coordination with other city divisions and stakeholders is expected before final adoption at council. Vaughn and Dancer urged continued public outreach and implementation planning, including where enforcement and forestry responsibilities should be housed.

Ending

The commission’s recommendation sends the proposed Title 10 amendments and the new fee structure to City Council for decision; staff said additional code cleanup and the finalized Tree Manual are forthcoming.