Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit L09-027 - KOSTAS CURTIS / THE JUNCTION ANNEX - TREE CLEARING PERMITTHEJUNCTION ANNEX Curtis Kostas Tree Clearmg 5412 S l49thLane L09-027. J vJILA x,1,4 4,i syZ fir., , J v 2 Department of Community Development Jack Pace, Director 1908 • City of Tukwila • Jim Haggerton, Mayor June 29, 2009 NOTICE OF DECISION TO: Curtis Kostas, Applicant/Owner Washington State Department of Ecology This letter serves as a notice of decision and is issued pursuant to TMC 18.104.170 on the following project and permit approval. I. PROJECT INFORMATION Project File Number: L09 -027 Applicant: Curtis Kostas Type of Permit Applied for: Tree Clearing Permit Project Description: Clear 2 hazardous trees within a critical area sensitive area (Type 4 stream buffer). Location: 5412 S 149th Lane, Tukwila, WA 98188 Associated Files: N/A Comprehensive Plan Designation/Zoning District: Low Density Residential (LDR) District II. DECISION SEPA Determination: The City SEPA Responsible Official has previously determined that this application does not require a SEPA threshold determination because it is categorically exempt. Decision on Substantive Permit: The City Community Development Director has determined that the application for a Tree Clearing Permit complies with applicable City and state code requirements and has approved that application, subject to the following conditions: Applicants shall mitigate for the removal of the cottonwood tree that is a potential hazard to their home by enhancing the stream buffer. Stream buffer enhancement will include: 1. Blackberry, ivy, and other invasive plant control (such as hand removal, sheet mulching with cardboard covered with wood chips). CT Page 1 of 3 06/29/2009 W: \Users \Courtney \L Files \L09- 027\20090629_NOD.doc 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone 206 -431 -3670 • Fax: 206 -431 -3665 • • 2. Planting of a variety of trees and shrubs native to the Puget Sound Region (per the list provided to the applicant during a site visit by Sandra Whiting on May 14, 2009). A mix of at least four evergreen and deciduous native trees shall be planted within the stream buffer after invasive plants have been controlled. Additionally, at least eight native shrubs shall be planted in the stream buffer. One or two - gallon sized plants are acceptable. 3. It is recommended that invasive plant control be carried out during the summer of 2009 and that trees and shrubs be planted in the fall. However plants may be installed earlier if they are watered sufficiently. 4. Plants shall be installed no later than the middle of November, 2009. Applicant shall contact the City's Urban Environmentalist (206- 431 -3663) for an inspection after plants are installed and if additional assistance with plant selection or care is needed. 5. Plants shall be mulched after planting with compost, wood chips or bark and shall be watered for the first three dry seasons until they are established. 6. It is recommended that part of the trunk and limbs of the removed tree be placed in the stream buffer as a wildlife habitat amenity. III. YOUR APPEAL RIGHTS The Decision on this Permit Application is a Type 1 decision pursuant to Tukwila Municipal Code §18.104.010. Other land use applications related to this project may still be pending. One administrative appeal to the City Hearing Examiner of the Decision on the Permit itself is permitted. A party who is not satisfied with the outcome of the Hearing Examiner appeal process may file an appeal in King County Superior Court from the Hearing Examiner's decision. IV. PROCEDURES AND TIME FOR APPEALING In order to appeal the Community Development Director decision on the Permit Application, a written notice of appeal must be filed with the Department of Community Development within 14 days of the issuance of this Decision; that is by July 14, 2009. The requirements for such appeals are set forth in Tukwila Municipal Code ch. 18.116. All appeal materials shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development. Appeal materials MUST include: 1. The name of the appealing party. 2. The address and phone number of the appealing party; and if the appealing party is a corporation, association or other group, the address and phone number of a contact person authorized to receive notices on the appealing party's behalf. 3. A statement identifying the decision being appealed and the alleged errors in the decision. 4. The Notice of Appeal shall identify (a) the specific errors of fact or errors in application of the law in the decision being appealed; (b) the harm suffered or anticipated by the appellant, and (c) the relief sought. The scope of an appeal shall be limited to matters or issues raised in the Notice of Appeal. 5. Appeal fee of $225. CT Page 2 of 3 06/29/2009 W: \Users \Courtney \L Files \L09- 02'7\20090629_NOD.doc • • V. APPEAL HEARINGS PROCESS Any administrative appeal regarding the Permit shall be conducted as a closed record hearing before the Hearing Examiner based on the information presented to the Community Development Director, who made the original decision. No new evidence or testimony will be permitted during the appeal hearing. Parties will be allowed to present oral argument based on the information presented to the Community Development Director before their decision was issued. The Hearing Examiner's decision on the appeal is the City's final decision. Any party wishing to challenge the Hearing Examiner's decision on this application must file an appeal pursuant to the procedures and time limitations set forth in RCW ch. 36.70C. If no appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision is properly filed in Superior Court within such time limit, the Decision on this permit will be final. VI. INSPECTION OF INFORMATION ON THE APPLICATION Project materials including the application, any staff reports, and other studies related to the permits are available for inspection at the Tukwila Department of Community Development, 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100, Tukwila, Washington 98188 from Monday through Friday between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. The project planner is Courtney Thomson, who may be contacted at 206 - 431 -2164 for further information. Property owners affected by this decision may request a change in valuation for their property tax purposes. Contact the King County Assessor's Office for further information regarding property tax valuation changes. Department of Community Development City of Tukwila CT Page 3 of 3 06/29/2009 W: \Users \Courtney \L Files \L09- 027\20090629_NOD.doc • 1 MEMORANDUM DATE: June 29, 2009 TO: Jack Pace, Director, Department of Community Development FROM: Courtney Thomson, Planning Intern RE: L09 -027 Tree Clearing Permit for Kostas Residence, 5412 S 149th Lane BACKGROUND: Mr. Kostas has applied for a tree clearing permit in order to remove two trees, 8 -12 inches in diameter, that pose a threat to his residence. Arborist reports that were submitted with the application identified the two trees as hazards and in need of immediate action. The two trees are located in a Type 4 stream buffer. Applicant has agreed to mitigate for the removal of the cottonwood trees by enhancing the stream buffer and planting at least four replacement trees. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the tree clearing permit for the site with the following conditions: Applicants shall mitigate for the removal of the cottonwood tree that is a potential hazard to their home by enhancing the stream buffer. Stream buffer enhancement will include: 1. Blackberry, ivy, and other invasive plant control (such as hand removal, sheet mulching with cardboard covered with wood chips). 2. Planting of a variety of trees and shrubs native to the Puget Sound Region (per the list provided to the applicant during a site visit by Sandra Whiting on May 14, 2009). A mix of at least four evergreen and deciduous native trees shall be planted within the stream buffer after invasive plants have been controlled. Additionally, at least eight native shrubs shall be planted in the stream buffer. One or two - gallon sized plants are acceptable. 3. It is recommended that invasive plant control be carried out during the summer of 2009 and that trees and shrubs be planted in the fall. However plants may be installed earlier if they are watered sufficiently. 4. Plants shall be installed no later than the middle of November, 2009. Applicant shall contact the City's Urban Environmentalist (206 -431 -3663) for an inspection after plants are installed and if additional assistance with plant selection or care is needed. 5. Plants shall be mulched after planting with compost, wood chips or bark and shall be watered for the first three dry seasons until they are established. 6. It is recommended that part of the trunk and limbs of the removed tree be placed in the stream buffer as a wildlife habitat amenity. CT Page 1 of 1 06/29/2009 W: \Users \Courtney \L Files \L09- 027\20090629_memo.doc Page 1 of 1 35 ft CityGIS Copyright © 2006 All Rights Reserved. The inforrnation contained herein is the prorrietary property of the contributor supplied under license and may not be approved except as licensed by Digital Map Products. http : / /maps.digitalmapcentral.com/ production /CityGIS /v07 01 059 /index.html 06/24/2009 • CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665 E- mail :: tukplan(iuc1.tukwila.wa.us • TREE CLEARING PERMIT APPLICATION FOR STAFF USE ONLY Permits Plus Type: P -TREE Planner: Obl,(A —✓ 11-ornsp ') File Number: L091- O 2:1 Application Complete (Date: (0/251101) Project File Number: NJ Application Incomplete (Date: ) Other File Numbers: PI NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: TAE DOc --»ti KUVEX 7 LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block and subdivision, access street, and nearest intersection. S4I2, S I►�q +k UJ ✓ LIST ALL TAX LOT NUMBERS (this information may be found on your tax statement). LoT 3 kcsouut LhAR R, %- (I - a2.10-* DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR : The individual who: • has decision making authority on behalf of the owner /applicant in meetings with City staff, • has full responsibility for identifying and satisfying all relevant and sometimes overlapping development standards, and • is the primary contact with the City to whom all notices and reports will be sent. Name: C.ul4 t s / lib' VOcittS ,Address: Su 1 L S q 4 Lk) Phone: 01,2 - S 2..9 FAX: 'y E-mail: CU14 )6S+GSQkt1rn011 < COW\ „Signature: Date: S l 2.,(,) 109 CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665 E -mail: tukplan(�t)ci.lukwila.��Ya.us AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP AND HOLD HARMLESS PERMISSION TO ENTER PROPERTY STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING The undersigned being duly swom and upon oath states as follows: I. I am the current owner of the property which is the subject of this application. 2. All statements contained in the applications have been prepared by me or my agents and are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. 3. The application is being submitted with my knowledge and consent. 4. Owner grants the City, its employees, agents, engineers, contrac�tojs or otheergrrepresentatives the right to enter upon Owner's real property, located at S' . S ( k Lk) 1 U )L LA � P 1710?) for the purpose of application review, for the limited time necessary to complete that purpose. 5. Owner agrees to hold the City harm less for any los s or damage to persons or property occurring on the private property during the City's entry upon the property, unless the loss or damage is the result of the sole negligence of the City. 6. Non - responsiveness to a City information request fo r ninety (90) or more day s, shall be cause to cancel the application(s) without refund of fees. \ j� EXECUTED at -rout IA (city), YV P (state), on 1.6 t nit't ,20 69 Curd S %>s} IS Print Name Address Phone Number Signature ss SA41. S (A) 4,3 -CO On this day per sonally appear ed befor e me r 5 Vfn Kos hA. S to m e known to be the individual who executed the for egoing instrument and acknowledged that he /she signed the sam e as his/her voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes mentioned therein. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME ON THIS —/ DAY OF %\‘‘‘‘"" 111111 A. Yip ti t 3& 080C) _e_ y�i,S _ \O ,cr /1 ��u4g129�x�� % %% /1111111WAS ��`�� `% t ,200G} acoLk kw,,, A (,c%ite NOT Y UBLIC in and for the State of Washington esiding at -4./(f .) . ley Commission expires on 05-2-9 ~ I 0 Site /Address: Map /Location: • TREE HAZARD EVALUATION FORM sectio s • f this form must be fully completed by a certified arborist. Owner: .p bl' DateL.. O A ••ri Arborist ' gnature: priv to • own TREE CHARACTERISTICS -Ant vRit other ISA #: 3 HAZARD RATING: l Ii 0 Failure + Size + Tar et = azard Pote I of part Rating Rating - Immediate action needed Needs further inspection Dead tree Tree p: Species • F-^it3Utt. DBH: 0 of trunks: 4 Height: .r Ale' 'Spread: r) e. r.. Form: 0 generally symmetric0 minor asymmetry ❑ major asymmetry 0 stump sprout ❑ stag- headed Crown Class: �°► dominant ❑ co-dominant ❑'intermediate ❑ suppressed Live crown ratio: Age Class: 0 young ❑ semi-mature 0 mature 0 over- mature /senescent Pruning History: ❑ crown cleaned ❑ excessively thinned ❑ topped 0 crown raised 0 pollarded ❑ crown reduced ❑ flush cuts ❑ cabled /braced Anne ❑ multiple pruning events Approx. dates: Special Value: ❑ specimen ❑ heritage /historicywildlife 0 unusual ❑ street tree 0 screen 0 shade 0 indigenous 0 protected by gov. agency TREE HEALTH Foliage Cover:Al1n��ormal ❑chronic 0 necrotic Epicormics? Y N Growth obstructions: Foliage Density: y�normal ❑ sparse Leaf size: normal 0 small ❑ stakes 0 wire /ties ❑ signs Ocables Annual shoot growth: 0 excellent 0 average 0 poor Twig Dieback? Y N 0 curb /pavement 0 guards Woundwood development: ❑ excellent ❑ average ❑ poor 0 none ❑ other Vigor class: 0 excellent ❑ average ❑ fair ❑ poor Major pests /diseases: SITE CONDITIONS Site Character: irigusidence ❑ commercial ❑ industrial 0 park ❑ open space 0 natural 0 woodland /forest Landscape type: ❑ parkway ❑ raised bed 0 container 0 mound 0 lawn 0 shrub border wind break Irrigation: 0 none �radequate ❑ Inadequate ❑ excessive ❑ trunk wettted Recent site disturbance? ON construction 0 soil.disturbance ❑ grade change ❑ line clearing site clearing '/. dripline paved: 10 -25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% Pavement Ilfte? Y N •/. dripline w /fill soil: 10 -25% 25 -50% 50 -75% 75-100% •/. dripline grade lowered: j7°/ 10 -25% 25 -50% 50-75% 75-100% Soil problems: drainage ❑ shallow 0 compacted 0 droughty ❑ saline ❑ alkaline ❑ acidic 0 small volume 0 disease center 0 history of fail 0 clay ❑ expansive 0 slope ? aspect: Obstructions: 0 lights 0 signage 0 line-d -site ❑ view ❑ overhead lines ❑ underground utilities ❑ traffic ❑ adjacent veg. ❑ Exposure to wind: ❑ single tree, ❑ below canopy ❑ above canopy recently exposed Avindward, canopy edge `area prone to windthrow Prevailing wind direction: .S i) Occurrence of snow /ice storms 0 never litiseldem 0 regularly TARGET Use Linder Tree: 0 building ❑ parking 0 traffic 0 pedestrian 0 recreation Alandscape ❑ hardscape ❑ small features ❑ utility lines Can target be moved? Y N 1 Can use be restricted? YtJ V Occupancy: ❑ occasional use ' ntermittent use ❑ frequent use ❑ constant use TREE DEFECTS ROOT DEFECTS: Suspect root rot: N Mushroom /conk /bracket present: Y N ID: Exposed roots: ❑ severe 0 moderate 0 low Undermined: ❑ severe 0 moderate ❑ low Root pruned: Root area affected: °h Buttress wounded: Y N When: Restricted root area: ❑ severe 0 moderate ❑ low Potential for root failure: 0 severe -t�rnoderate ❑ low . LEAN: deg. From vertical Natural 0 unnatural 0 self -corrected Soli heaving: YP 3 Decay In plane of lean: Y N ♦ Roots broken: Y 0 Soil cracking: Y .0 Compounding factors: Lean severity: O severe 1a moderate ❑ low CROWN DEFECTS: Indicate presence of individual defects and rate their severity (s= severe, m= moderate, 1 =low) DEFECT ROOT CROWN TRUNK SCAFFOLDS BRANCHES Poor taper Bow, sweep Codomlnants/f orks Multiple attachments Included bark Excessive end weight ur Cracks /splits Hangers Girdling Wounds /seam Decay Cavity Conks /mushrooms /bracket Bleeding /sap flow Loose /cracked bark Nesting hold /bee hive __ Deadwood /stubs e'r'l 141 Borers/termites/ants Cankers /galls /burls Previous failure HAZARD RATING Tree part most likely to fall: Inspection period:_, annual biannual other__ Failure Potential + Size o Part + Targ Rating = Hazard Rating Ct HAZARD ABATEMENT Failure potential: 1 -low; 2- medium; 3 -high; 4- severe • Size of part: 1.- <6" (15 cm); 2 •6 -18" (15 -45 cm); 3 - 18 -30" (45-75 cm); 4 -> 30" (75 cm) Target rating: 1 - occasional use; 2 - intermittent use; 3 - frequent use; 4 - constant use Prune: 0 remove defective part ❑ reduce end weight ❑ crown clean ❑ thin ❑ raise canopy ❑ crown reduce ❑ restructure 0 shape Cable /Brace: Inspect further: ❑ root crown 0 decay ❑ aerial ❑ monitor Remove tree: ON Replace? NO N Move Target: Y N Ottler: Effect on adjacent trees: ❑ none ❑ evaluate Notification: Xowner ❑ manager ❑ goveming agency Date: COMMENTS 0,1 Site /Address: Map /location: Owner:.pur is pri =te V unk wn other Date: 4r.. . :: SA #: :S Arborist's ig ature: • a):se`c" re (A^ "e) C60-71 TREE HAZARD EVALUATION FORM (o_tt)iv'A) All sectio s o this form must be full com • leted by a certified arborist. 7444 (0°°;&C) TREE CHARACTERISTICS HAZARD RATING: Failure + Size + Target = Hazard Po n of part Rating Rating Immediate action needed Needs further inspection Dead tree Tree 0: Species: DBH: 0 of trunks: Form: 13/wit- fmt,o-e,,x1 Height: Spread: ❑ generally symmetric❑ minor asymmetry `major asymmetry ❑ stump sprout ❑ stag - headed Crown Class: 0 dominant kco- dominant ❑'intermediate ❑ suppressed Live crown ratio: Y. Age Class: ❑ young ❑ semi - mature mature. ❑ over - mature /senescent Pruning History: ❑ crown cleaned ❑ excessively thinned ❑ topped ❑ crown raised ❑ pollarded ❑ crown reduced ❑ flush cuts ❑ cabled /braced Knone ❑ multiple pruning events Approx. dates: Special Value: ❑ specimen ❑ heritage/historietkildltfes ❑ unusual ❑ street tree ❑ screen ❑ shade ❑ indigenous ❑ protected by gov. agency TREE HEALTH Foliage Cover: normal ❑chronic ❑ necrotic Epicormics? Y N Growth obstructions: Foliage Density: ormal ❑ sparse Leaf size: yl iormal ❑ small pp�� ❑ stakes ❑ wire /ties ❑ signs ❑cables Annual shoot growth: ❑ excellent /�'av_erage ❑ poo'rddddr�Twig Dieback? C) N 0 curb/pavement 0 guards Woundwood development: ❑ excellent ❑ average oor ❑ none ❑ other Vigor class: �Kexcellent ❑ ve e ❑ fail ❑ poor11 Major pests / diseases: t t'Y t 'A":. ,,t ;' SITE CONDITIONS Site Character: to residence ❑ commercial ❑ industrial ❑ park ❑ open space ❑ natural ❑ woodland /forest Landscape type:Y❑0 parkway ❑ raised bed ❑ container ❑ mound ❑ lawn ❑ shrub border A,yind break Irrigation: ❑ none Kdequate ❑ inadequate ❑ excessive ❑ trunk wattled Recent site disturbance? 01,4 Itikonstruction ❑ soil disturbance ❑ grade change ❑ line clearing kite clearing % dripline paved: °/ 10 -25% 25 -50% 50 -75% 75-100% Pavement lifted? Y % dripline w /fill soil: r 10 -25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% •/. dripline grade lowered: .Y!` 10 -25% 25-50% 50 -75% 75-100% Soil problems: akerainage ❑ shallow ❑ compacted ❑ droughty ❑ saline ❑ alkaline 0 acidic ❑ small volume ❑ disease center ❑ history of fail 0 clay ❑ expansive ❑ slope ? aspect: Obstructions: ❑ lights ❑ signage '❑ line -d -site ❑,view' ❑ overhead lines ❑ underground utilities ❑ traffic ❑ adjacent veg. ❑ Exposure to wind: ❑ single tre b low canopy ❑ above canopy jikecently exposed Aindward, canopy edge Area prone to windthrow Prevailing wind direction: • Occurrence of snow /ice storms ❑ nevereldom ❑ regularly TARGET Use Under Tree: uilding parking ❑ traffic ❑ pedestrian ❑ recreation landscape ❑ hardscape ❑ small features ❑ utility lines Can target be moved? Y k Can use be restricted? Yt�6) Occupancy: ❑ occasional use ❑ intermittent use ❑ frequent use g constant use • TREE DEFECTS ROOT DEFECTS: Suspect root rot: ON Mushroom /conk /bracket present: Y N , ID: Exposed roots: ❑ severe ❑ moderate )(low • Undermined: ❑ severe 0 moderate ❑ low Root pruned: Root area affected: % Buttress wounded: Y N When: Restricted root area: ❑ severe ❑ moderate ❑ low Potential for root failure: ❑ severe krnoderate 0 low . LEAN:l4® deg. Frdm vertical ❑ natural ❑ unnatural ❑ self - corrected Soil heaving: Y N Decay in plane of lean: Y N Compounding factors: Lean severity: ❑ severe moderate ❑ low CROWN DEFECTS: Indicate presence of Individual defects and rate their severity (s =severe, m= moderate, 1 =low) Roots broken: Y N Solt cracking: Y . N DEFECT ROOT CROWN • TRUNK SCAFFOLDS BRANCHES Poor taper Bow, sweep Codominants /corks 5 Multiple attachments 7Y1 . Included bark Excessive end weight ' Cracks /splits Hangers Girdling Wounds /seam Decay o�y� I ` r Cavity Conks /mushrooms /bracket Bleeding /sap flow Loose /cracked bark Nesting hold /bee hive Deadwood /stubs ""fir • Borers /termites /ants Cankers /galls /burls Previous failure :. 6..e"" HAZARD RATING Tree pad most likely to fall: Inspection period: _ annual _, biannul' _ other,- . -, -,__ Failure Potential + Size of Part + Target Rating = Hazard Rating + L/ + ' _ HAZARD ABATEMENT Failure potential: 1 -low; 2- medium; 3 -high; 4- severe Sizs of part: 1 .- <6" (15 cm); 2 -6 -18" (15-45 cm); 3 — 18.30" (45 -75 cm); 4 -> 30" (75 cm) Target rating: 1 — occasional use; 2 — intermittent use; 3 — frequent use; 4 — constant use Prune: ❑ remove defective part ❑ reduce and weight ❑ crown clean ❑ thin ❑ raise canopy ❑ crown reduce ❑ restructure ❑ shape Cable /Brace: Remove tree: ® N Replace? N Move Target; Y 6) Effect on adjacent trees: ❑ none ❑ evaluate Notification: pwner ❑ manager ❑ governing agency Date: COMMENTS Inspect further: ❑ root crown ❑ decay ❑ aerial ❑ monitor Other.