Leawood may become a little more flexible on its tree replacement policy for developers, if an ordinance recently approved by the city’s planning commission gets final council approval.
In a 5-2 vote the Tuesday before Thanksgiving, commissioners put their support behind a new proposal that would allow developers of commercial property a way around rules that require them to replace trees over a certain size that they plan to tear out.
Under the proposed changes, the developers could either partner with nearby property owners to plant trees on their land or pay the city for the value of the trees to be destroyed.
What is Leawood’s current tree replacement policy?
Leawood currently has a tree replacement ordinance approved in 2019 that is intended to encourage developers to preserve mature trees or replace them if they were in the way of the construction, according to a staff memo.
But changes discussed last week were proposed to address “the rare circumstances when a developer is unable to meet the tree replacement requirement.”
According to Leawood’s existing ordinance, developers planning to remove trees must first provide an inventory of all the trees that are at least six inches in diameter (or caliper) at breast height. Trees at least 12 inches caliper at breast height must be replaced with a similar-sized tree.
If the number of caliper inches per acre to be replaced exceeds 132, and the city arborist agrees that there isn’t enough space to plant the required number of trees, then the developer may replace only 50%, according to the existing rules.
Problems can arise when there isn’t enough land available on the development property to replace even half of the trees.
Developers could work with city, other property owners
The new proposed ordinance had been discussed at four previous planning commission work sessions.
If the developer and city officials agree that the space would be too crowded to foster healthy tree growth, then the developer could partner with another property owner within a half mile of a development.
In such an agreement, the developer would plant the trees on the other property and they would be maintained for at least two years.
Alternatively, the developer and city parks superintendent could set a price on the trees and two years of their maintenance. That final price then could be paid to the city.
All of that would have to be in a formal agreement approved by the city council.
The ordinance is specific to commercial developers, although it doesn’t rule out partnerships with residential property owners whose sites may have room for the excess trees.
Current project impacted by tree policy
One person spoke at the public hearing on the ordinance last Tuesday.
Development lawyer Greg Musil told commissioners that the ordinance wouldn’t provide much relief from the significant cost of replacing a heavily forested area.
Musil referenced the Reserve at Ironhorse townhome development that had also been on the Tuesday planning commission agenda but was continued to January because of the tree ordinance discussion.
That development at the southeast corner of 151st Street and Mission Road has a heavily wooded portion that would require the developer to plant 192 trees under the current ordinance’s 50% rule, Musil said.
The new ordinance would give the developer the choice of finding a property owner within a half mile to take and maintain the trees or pay the city an estimated $100,000, Musil said.
“These are not options that create the flexibility or the creativity I heard the staff suggest,” he said. The costs are so significant that “it could easily kill that project and eliminate the value of that site.”
‘Needs to pay for the trees one way or the other’
The majority of the commission disagreed.
Commissioner Matt Block said the current ordinance requires developers to plant the trees, but the new rule would give developers more of an option.
“What we’re trying to do is give him an alternative. If it’s going to cost some money, it’s going to cost some (money). He needs to pay for the trees one way or the other,” Block said.
Commissioners Michael Fishman and Steve McGurren voted against the ordinance, saying they disliked a provision that required city park and arborist approval.
