If the tree near the street in front of your house gets sick, should it be the city’s responsibility to remove and replace it? If you want to remove a tree from your yard, should you have to get a permit or be required to replace it with another tree?
Those were among the questions discussed Monday as the Leawood City Council became the latest Johnson County community to take a fresh look at its tree ordinances during a work session.
Councilmembers compared their existing regulations with their counterparts in Prairie Village, Roeland Park, Mission and Fairway — four cities with differing ways of handling tree issues. In particular, councilmembers and staff have been studying whether they should expand their existing ordinance to be similar to Prairie Village’s.
Leawood currently regulates trees for safety issues, like hanging limbs and disease. Last year, the city updated its code for residential areas to provide protection for right-of-way trees threatened by construction. (Requirements for commercial developments are different and were not part of the discussion.)
What is a street tree?
A tree is considered a street tree if any part of its trunk touches the street right-of-way.
But Leawood’s ordinance doesn’t protect trees on the street if there’s no construction, and it doesn’t cover “private” trees not in the right-of-way. By contrast, Prairie Village regulates the removal and replacement of street trees with or without construction and will remove and replace a diseased street tree at the city’s expense. Prairie Village also requires private trees to be protected during construction via a permit.
Rules differed in the other cities included in the study. Here’s what Leawood staff found in other cities, according to city documents:
- Fairway extends its code to cover street and private trees regardless of whether construction is involved. In addition, the property owner must replace the tree with another that will become a similar size or pay into a fund.
- Roeland Park and Mission officials are working on drafts of their tree ordinances.
- Roeland Park is looking at protections for street and private trees, and its draft is undergoing legal review. Here’s what’s in the city code now.
- Mission officials’ discussion in July centered on dangerous trees and protection during development projects. Here’s what’s on the books now.
Bringing Leawood’s ordinances in sync with Prairie Village would require major changes and unknown expenses if city tree replacement is included. City staff estimated that the additional staff time could require the addition of at least one new full-time employee.
Leawood has an estimated 38,000 street trees of which 25% are ash, said Dustin Branick, superintendent of parks. Another 18% are red maple, and the remaining 16% are pin oaks, he said. The pin oaks are mostly north of Interstate 435, with maple and ash farther south.
Branick said it would be better to replant with other tree species to create a diverse forest. As an example, he referenced the elm trees that died years ago of the Dutch elm disease and were mostly replaced by ash trees. Now, the ash trees are threatened with disease from the emerald ash borer, he said.
No action was taken
Councilmembers asked questions but took no action at the study session. Mayor Marc Elkins suggested councilmembers and staff consider having a city-wide tree plan. “Trees are part of what makes Leawood Leawood,” he said.
However, Elkins said he was uncomfortable with the idea of imposing tree regulations on the private trees of individual property owners.
Councilmember Debra Filla said it’s unacceptable to not have trees replaced in residential areas as the city requires for commercial areas.
“If it was a developer, if it was commercial, we would require that. It’s an asset, just like I would want the lights in the street to be replaced,” she said. “It’s an asset for all of us, and it affects property values, so I think it’s a good thing.”
Some other councilmembers balked at the idea of extending the ordinance to private trees but noted there might be concerns about how teardowns and related new construction would affect the tree count.
“It seems like the issue du jour is north Leawood — large trees, teardowns and what developers or homeowners might do,” said Councilmember Chuck Sipple. “I don’t like telling people what they can do from the street easement back in their yard. I think that’s an individual thing between that family and the builder.
“But as far as the street trees we can have a city-wide issue,” that can be enforced a little more than now, he added.
Keep reading: ‘A hot-button issue’ — Another JoCo city tackles tree preservation ordinance
