Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit PL16-0042 - JACKSON RESIDENCE - TREE REMOVAL / NON-SHORELINEJACKSON RESIDENCE TREE REMOVAL SITE APN: 2384200005 APPROVED PARENT PROJECT NO: PL16-0042 PROJECT NO: L16-0051 r TO: City of Tukwila Department of Community Development - Jack Pace, Director October 6, 2o1.6 NOTICE OF DECISION Anthony and Evelyn Jackson, Owners King County Department of Assessments Allan Ekberg, Mayor This letter serves as a notice of decision and is issued pursuant to TMC 18.104.170 on the following project and permit approval. Project File Number: Applicant: Type of Permit: Project Description: Location: Associated Files: Comprehensive Plan Designation/Zoning District: 1. PROJECT INFORMATION L16-oo51 Anthony Jackson Tree Removal Permit Request to remove one tree within a steep slope area on the west side of the existing home and plant six replacement trees on -the property. 3803 5.128th St. (parcel # 2384200005) PL16-oo23 Low Density Residential (LDR) 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 Planning Supervisor has determined that the application for a Tree Permit does comply with applicable City and State Code requirements and has approved the application with the following condition: • The type of replacement trees desired by the property owner will not be available at area nurseries until the Spring. The applicant shall notify Tukwila staff once replacement trees have been installed in Spring of 2017 and submit annual photos of all six (6) trees to the city's Urban Environmentalist to ensure proper maintenance and a s00% survival rate for three years following initial landscaping inspection. Tukwila City Hall • 6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, WA 98188 • 206-433-1800 • Website: TukwilaWA.gov Jackson Residence Tree RemovalPermit October 5, 2016 Page 2 III. FINDINGS This tree clearing permit application is a request to remove one 22-inch diameter at breast height (DBH) Cottonwood tree within an eight -foot berm on the west side of an existing home. The tree to be removed is the largest within a cluster of four Cottonwood trees identified within the Tree Risk Assessment prepared for the property owners by Kathleen Day, an ISA Certified Arborist. The four trees range in size from 8-22 inches DBH. All four of the Cottonwoods are described as being "still young and vigorous with dense canopies." The Cottonwoods are at the top of the berm and are leaning 35-45 degrees to the east towards the house. All four Cottonwoods are recommended to be removed by the Tree Risk Assessment. The largest Cottonwood is recommended to be removed "first and as soon as possible" due to its large size, close proximity to the house, and recently shed limbs. Staff visited the site on August 25, 2016 at the property owners' request after reviewing the Tree Risk Assessment but prior to submittal of the tree removal permit. Staff confirmed the location of the four Cottonwood trees located on the berm and identified the largest one clearly leaning over the residence. Staff also observed other vegetation along the berm, including a Madrona, Maples, Oregon Grape, and a large amount of English Ivy. Staff discussed the importance of cutting the English ivy in order to promote tree health of trees remaining on the berm, and the need to continually cut off new growth on the Cottonwood stumps to prevent any Cottonwoods removed from growing back in the same place. Removal of a 22-inch DBH tree requires planting of six replacement trees. The property owners are proposing to plant six fruit trees on site to replace the one cottonwood to be removed as part of this permit. The remaining three cottonwood trees are not proposed to be removed at this time, but will likely be removed in the future. All other trees within the berm area on the west side of the house will be retained. IV. YOUR APPEAL RIGHTS The Decision on this Permit Application is a Type i decision pursuant to Tukwila Municipal Code §1.8.3.134.oio. 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. V. PROCEDURES AND TIME FOR APPEALING In order to appeal the Planning Supervisor's 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. The requirements for such appeals are set forth in Tukwila Municipal Code Ch.18.ii6. All appeal materials shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development. Appeal materials MUST include: s. The name of the appealing party. Phone: 206-433-1800 • Email: Mayor@TukwilaWA.gov • Website: TukwilaWA.gov ! / Jackson Residence Tree Removal Permit � October 5, 2016 Page 3 "-. 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, including any specific challenge to an MDNS. 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 per the current fee schedule, additional hourly charges may apply. In addition, all hearing examiner costs will be passed through to the appellant. VI. 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 Planning Supervisor 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 Planning Supervisor 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. 36.7oC. 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. VI1. 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, 630o Southcenter Blvd., Suite soo, Tukwila, Washington g8i88 from Monday through Friday between 8:3o a.m. and 5:0o p.m. The project planner is Jaimie Reavis, who may be contacted at 2o6-431-3659 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 Phone: 206-433-1800 • Email: Mayor@TukwilaWA.gov • Website: TukwitaWA.gov T ._i City of Tukwila f 1 Allan Ekberg, Mayor Department of Community Development - Jack Pace, Director NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION September27, 2016 Mr. Anthony Jackson 3803 S. 128th St. Tukwila, WA 98168 Subject: L16-0051: Jackson Residence Tree Removal Permit, 3803 S. 128th St. (parcel #238420-0005) Dear Mr. Jackson: Your application for a Tree Removal Permit to remove one cottonwood tree from the steep slope area on the west side of your property and replace it with multiple trees was considered complete on September 17, 2016 for the purposes of meeting state -mandated time requirements. This determination of complete application does not preclude the ability of the City to require that you submit additional plans or information, if in our estimation such information is necessary to ensure the project meets the substantive requirements of the City or to complete the review process. This notice of complete application applies only to the permits identified above. It is your responsibility to apply for and obtain all necessary permits issued by other agencies. Please feel free to contact me with any questions at (206) 431-3659. Sincerely, Jaimie Reavis Senior Planner Tukwila City Hall • 6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, WA 98188 • 206-433-1800 • Website: TukwilaWA.gov CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431-3670 TREE REMOVAL AND LANDSCAPE MODIFICATION PERMIT APPLICATION FOR STAFF USE ONLY Planner: File Number: / / Le s'iOS /� Application Complete Date: Project File Number: �4/-� �/ Vc..2 Application Incomplete Date: Other File Numbers: NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: C PTIO OF PROJECT: ja74 C��vp,) 1(4, 5(9A d/ �.6Q ieg,h4 0 tQJiBRIEF LO AT ONO ROW/DEVELOP4EN4e .5�7GiGre r i vacant, indicate lot(s), block and subdi ision, access street, and nearest intersection. 3i02 5 j a 2-1 S T, j ,10,u I lA 1 (v . 1 LIST ALL TAX LOT NUMBERS (this information may be found on your tax statement). i 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: ,qn,kfW"/ll e., SACVS-10X) Address: 3 V D - S . 12, 1 &( ILA Phone: D-0 J 24- w 71 (P2- E-mail:"b ii1 L 1 r O 1 ThO - I Orr) D Signature: OtAj C - Date: FAX: lJ,a, ,a/bg SEP 16 2016 Community Development 7/1,5fico W:\Applications-Handouts. Land Use\CURRENT LAND USE APPLICATIONS\Tree Removal and Landscape Mod Permit -March 2016.docx f \ CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431-3670 AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP AND HOLD HARMLESS PERMISSION TO ENTER PROPERTY STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING The undersigned being duly sworn and upon oath states as follows: 1. 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, enginee s, contr ctor or other representative the right to enter upon Owner's real property, located at 3g' 0 S 1 ?Z h S+ `11 ki,011- k1 LOA, c74-6 for the purpose of application review, for the limited time necessary to complete that purpose. 5. Owner agrees to hold the City harmless for any loss 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 for ninety (90) or more days, shall be cause to cancel the application(s) without refund of fees. EXECUTED at J uiCw1 (0‘, On this day personally appeared before me executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that purposes mentioned therein. (city), ))1 • (state), on S' 1pstr I W' ,201(P__ on C. UT4oya P�Ome, ' )Z St_ /1;ic.iA)►I RAI a(6Vress)/1.3,s --702 to me known to be the individual who Sh&signed the same as hislkeer voluntary act and deed for the uses and SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME ON THIS I ( DAY j SE? 16 2016 F � "Ast C. ,20\� \ Lab NOTARY PUBLIy.... and for the tate of Washington residing at /F�( vi eko-J My Commission expires on ('^ ,rth, D i i~✓p ncnt W:\Applications-Handouts. Land Use\CURRENT LAND USE APPLICATIONS\Tree Removal and Landscape Mod Permit -March 2016.docx r A , • SEP 16 2016 Community Development to ckZief horticulturist • ISA certified arborist • landscape architect. LEED` AP Kathleen Day landscape consultant August 1, 2016 TO: Anthony Jackson 3803 S. 128th Street Tukwila, WA 98168 FROM: Kathleen C. Day, Consulting Certified Arborist, ISA-PNW-0185, TRAQ Certified Landscape Architect SITE: same as above RE: Tree Risk Assessment for 4 Black Cottonwoods - Populus trichocarpa This report is a summary of the site assessment and evaluation of trees completed on July 20, 2016. The intent of the evaluation was to determine the health, condition and hazard potential for a grouping of native cottonwoods growing along an eight foot berm to the east of the residence at the address noted above. The largest of the trees located directly behind the house has shed several large 6-8 inch diameter limbs in the past few months raising safety concerns for the homeowner. Four trees growing in close proximity and within a cluster meet the criteria for removal. The tree risk assessment evaluation included: 1) basic visual inspection of the tress' crowns, branches, and trunks 2) identifying potential targets and their occupancy rates 3) determining the potential risk category 4) providing abatement recommendations These issues are addressed in this summary report. Terms used in this report are defined at the end of the document. 1) Basic Visual Inspection The four trees of concern range in size from 8"- 22" in diameter (dbh). The diameter measurement is taken at 4.5 ' from the base of the tree - the standard location to determine tree size. The trees are still young and vigorous with dense canopies. The live -crown ratio for the trees ranges between 65-75%, resulting in a large wind -sail factor. kathleen.day©comcast.net • katedaylandscapes.com • 206-522-2075 • i8i6 NE Ravenna Blvd. Seattle, WA 98105 ISA certified arborist • landscape architect, LEED• AP horticulturist Kathleen Day landscape consultant Since the trees are growing on top of a berm or small hill, the height of the trees extends 8-10 feet above the grade of the house. There were no visual signs of decay within the tree trunks or branches. However, the trees grow in a dense linear cluster from east to west with the canopies exposed to southerly storm winds. In addition, due to the competition for light within the tree cluster, the tree canopies are leaning 35-45 degrees to the west toward the house, increasing the chance of failure in that direction. Excessive English ivy growth at the base of the trees, and along the trunks, prevented a detailed inspection of the root collar where decay could be present. Looking east - Cluster of cottonwoods over house Looking south - Cluster of trees behind house 2) Potential Targets and Occupancy Rates The largest tree of the four clustered trees is 22 inches in diameter and is located 20 feet from the back of the house and roof which is the primary target area. Other targets are cars and personal property in the vicinity. The height of the trees' range from 70-80 feet. Many branches are within striking distance of the house and property. The toe of the slope is 10 feet from the house foundation. The occupancy rate of the house ranges between frequent and constant depending on the time of day. kathleen.day@corncast.net • katedaylandscapes.com • 2°6-522-2075 • 1816 NE Ravenna Blvd. Seattle, WA 981.o5 2 i • horticulturist • ISA certified arborist • landscape architect, LEED• AP Kathleen Day landscape consultant 3) Potential risk category Risk is categorized by the: 1) the likelihood of failure, 2) the likelihood of impact and 3) the resulting consequences if a failure should occur. Since the likelihood of limb failure over the residence is imminent and the lImpact of that failure is high. The risk category for these trees is significant to severe with the overall risk rating high. There are no mitigation options that would protect the target or minimize the chance of failure. Abatement Recommendations The four trees in the cluster behind the house should be removed to ground level to minimize suckering from the roots or re -sprouting from the trunk. Stump grinding is not an option due to the lack of access on the steep embankment. If tree removal requires phasing due to cost, the largest tree, that has recently shed limbs, should be removed first and as soon as possible. Annual routine maintenance should include the removal of English ivy from the base of the trees to prevent it from attaching to the tree trunks. Ivy becomes woody as it grows and will girdle the trees restricting water uptake and increasing tree failure potential. Remaining trees should be monitored and evaluate every 3-5 years for any increase in possible hazard. DEFINITION OF TERMS dbh - diameter -at -breast -height, standard location for tree size measurement where the tree taper diminishes to provide a more accurate tree size assessment Live -crown ratio - the amount of live, photosynthetic (food producing) tissue in relationship to the size of the tree - optimal condition for native conifers is 50% or greater 'monitor' - further evaluation should occur to identify any changes in the tree growth or site conditions suckering - young sprouts that develop from stored food along the trunk and roots wind -sail - Tree limb and canopy density creating resistance to wind movement through the canopy kathleen.day®comcast.net • katedaylandscapes.com • 206-522-2075 • 1816 NE Ravenna Blvd. Seattle, WA 98105 3 • horticulturist • ISA certified arborist • landscape architect. LEED' AP rrii Kathleen Day landscape consultant wind -throw - loss of weak branches with poor architectural attachments from winds Disclaimer Statement Arborists are tree specialists who use their education, knowledge, training, experience, and research to examine trees and woodlands. Arborists recommend measures to enhance the beauty and health of trees and forests, while attempting to reduce the risk of living near them. Clients may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations of the arborist. Or seek additional advice. Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure of a tree. Trees are living organisms subject to attack by disease, insects, fungi and other forces of nature. There are some inherent risks with trees that cannot be predicted with any degree of certainty, even by a skilled and experienced arborist. Arborists cannot predict acts of nature including, without limitation, storms of sufficient strength, which can cause even a healthy tree to fail. To live near trees is to accept some degree of risk. 1 certify that the information in this report reflects the current conditions and the analysis from a basic tree risk assessment completed for these trees at the date of this report. kathleen.day®a comcast.net • katedaylandscapes.com • 206-522-2075 • 1816 NE Ravenna Blvd. Seattle, WA 983.o5 4