Draper Tree Committee moves to add city planting specs to guide, debates numeric removal rule for sidewalk-lifting trees

The Draper City Tree Committee on Feb. 3 moved to incorporate the city's planting specifications into the committee's street tree guide and spent much of the meeting debating a proposed removal guideline that would trigger tree removal when trunk size and park-strip width meet a numeric threshold.

The committee agreed it would be faster to amend the tree guide and pass a council resolution than to wait for a full code update. Staff reported planting standards and landscaping details are posted on the city's planning and engineering web pages and can be referenced in the guide; a staff member said the guide could include explicit planting specs for city projects so contractors and developers follow the same standard.

Why it matters: Adopting the city's planting specifications into the guide would standardize requirements for street-tree planting and allow inspectors to verify installations before contractors finalize plantings, reducing failures caused by planting in road base, committee members said.

Committee members emphasized scope limits: the planting spec is intended for the public right-of-way and city-managed park strips, not private residential landscaping. One staff member noted that state law limits some local enforcement options for private properties and that the guide should clearly distinguish public-right-of-way requirements from private-property expectations.

On removal criteria, members questioned a proposed "inch-to-feet" numeric formula that would remove trees when their trunk measurements exceed a proportion of park-strip width. A member said the rule could lead to unnecessary removals of mature sycamores, noting, "If you go into Fred's neighborhood ... the first three trees were all 20 inches" in a 10-foot park strip.

The committee leaned toward a process that combines engineering judgment, arboricultural expertise and resident input rather than a rigid formula. Several speakers recommended the city use a consulting (third-party) arborist to verify removal recommendations so decisions are not based solely on contractor or engineering measures. A committee member summarized the preferred approach: have an arborist assess tree health and, when required, use an indemnity form for homeowners who choose to keep a tree the arborist says is risky.

What happens next: Members asked staff to draft a resolution that would add the planting specs to the tree guide and to prepare language for a process addressing trees that lift sidewalks. Engineering staff agreed to provide the street-planting specification for the committee to reference, and the committee will prepare a subcommittee proposal for handling sidewalk-lifting trees for staff and council consideration.

At least one formal motion was recorded early in the meeting to approve prior minutes; the minutes approval was seconded and accepted before the policy discussion proceeded.

The committee did not adopt a numeric removal rule during the meeting and tasked staff and the committee to craft a recommended process combining arborist review, engineering input and clearer homeowner notifications.