The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutD_Barten_12733_SE_163rd_St_RVMP_231128_FINALDEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT D_Barten_12733_SE_163rd_St_RVMP_231128_FIN PLANNING DIVISION ROUTINE VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PERMIT EVALUATION FORM & DECISION DATE OF DECISION: November 29, 2023 PROJECT NUMBER: LUA23-000386, RVMP PROJECT NAME: Barten 12733 SE 163rd St RVMP PROJECT MANAGER: Mariah Kerrihard, Assistant Planner APPLICANT: Christopher Barten 12733 SE 163rd Street Renton, WA 98058 OWNER: Same as Applicant CONTACT: Same as Applicant PROJECT LOCATION: 12733 SE 163rd St (APN 1432900090) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is seeking approval for a Routine Vegetation Management Permit (RVMP) to remove a single landmark tree, a 40-inch (40”) DBH Douglas Fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), on the property located at 12733 SE 163rd St, Renton, WA. Presently, the property features two (2) landmark trees, one (1)Beach Tree (Fagus Sylvatica) and one (1) Douglas Fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii). A Routine Vegetation Management Permit is mandatory for the removal of any landmark tree, which is not a part of a land development permit. The applicant, supported by an arborist report from ISA Certified Arborist Terrence Flatley, conducted a comprehensive tree survey describing the obvious physical damage to the property’s driveway the tree’s root system is causing and the potential risks to nearby structures, individuals, and a driveway associated with the subject tree should alternatives to tree removal be implemented. The lot size of the property is .20 net acres (8,800 square feet), necessitating the applicant to maintain a minimum of six (6) tree credits. Following the removal of the single landmark tree, the applicant would maintain a total of 10 tree retention credits. CRITICAL AREA: None EXPIRATION DATE: One (1) year from issuance DocuSign Envelope ID: 33FAB914-2499-4D73-A94E-55298A362AEB City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Routine Vegetation Management Permit Barten_12733 SE 163rd St_RVMP LUA23-000386, RVMP Permit Date: November 29, 2023 Page 2 of 4 D_Barten_12733_SE_163rd_St_RVMP_231128_FIN GENERAL REVIEW CRITERIA 4-9-195D4: YES 1. The lot shall comply with minimum tree density requirements pursuant to RMC 4-4-130, Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations. Staff Comments: In accordance with RMC 4-4-130.H, tree credit requirements must meet a minimum rate of 30 credits per net acre. The applicant provided a tree credit calculation within the arborist report (see Attachment 1), indicating that the site initially held a total of 23 tree credits. Following the removal of one (1) tree, resulting in a loss of 13 credits, the site would then possess a total of 10 tree credits. Considering the site's total area, approximately .20 net acres, and applying the rate of 30 credits per acre (30 credits x .20 acres = 6 credits), the site would comply with the tree credit requirement. This is contingent on the removal of the one (1) Douglas Fir tree (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and the retention of the preserved tree with a 25-28” caliper. N/A 2.The land clearing and tree removal shall be consistent with restrictions for critical areas, pursuant to RMC 4-4-130, Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations, and RMC 4-3- 050, Critical Areas Regulations. Staff Comments: Not applicable. The subject lot is not mapped with applicable critical areas. YES 3.Removal of a landmark tree shall meet the review criteria for removal off landmark tree, pursuant to RMC 4-4-130, Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations. I.The tree is determined to be a high-risk tree; or II.The tree is causing obvious physical damage to buildings (over 200 square feet), driveways, parking lots, or utilities, and it can be demonstrated to the Administrator’s satisfaction that no reasonable alternative to tree removal exist, including tree root pruning, tree root barriers, tree cabling, or preventative maintenance, such as cleaning leaf debris, deadwood removal, or directional/clearance pruning; or III.Removal of tree(s) to provide solar access to buildings incorporating active solar devices. Windows are solar devices only when they are south facing and include special storage elements to distribute heat energy; or IV.The Administrator determines the removal is necessary to achieve a specific and articulable purpose or goal of this Title. Staff Comments: Criterion ii. has been met. The applicant is requesting to remove one (1) landmark tree—a 40-inch (40”) Douglas Fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii). A certified arborist's written report (see Attachment 1) identified this Douglas Fir as causing obvious physical damage, meeting the criteria for tree removal. Staff visited the site on November 15, 2023, and visually inspected the damage to the driveway. In consultation with the applicant’s arborist and staff from the Urban and Community Forestry during this site visit, it was determined that pruning the tree’s roots beneath the driveway or reconstructing a new driveway over the existing roots were not reasonable alternatives. Therefore, Staff concurs with the determination of obvious physical damage and recommends approval for the removal of the landmark tree. N/A 4.Street frontage and parking lot trees and landscaping shall be preserved unless otherwise approved by the Administrator. Staff Comments: Not Applicable. The tree is not a part of street frontage, parking lot or DocuSign Envelope ID: 33FAB914-2499-4D73-A94E-55298A362AEB City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Routine Vegetation Management Permit Barten_12733 SE 163rd St_RVMP LUA23-000386, RVMP Permit Date: November 29, 2023 Page 3 of 4 D_Barten_12733_SE_163rd_St_RVMP_231128_FIN landscaping trees. N/A 5.The land clearing and tree removal shall not remove any landscaping or protected trees required as part of a land development permit. Staff Comments: Not Applicable. The tree was not required as part of a land development permit for landscaping or tree requirements. Neither street frontage nor parking landscaping is proposed to be removed. YES 6.The land clearing and tree removal shall maintain visual screening and buffering between land uses of differing intensity, consistent with applicable landscaping and setback provisions. Staff Comments: The tree is adjacent to a lot with a detached dwelling and is a use of equal intensity. Removal of the tree would not remove required visual screening and buffering between land uses of differing intensity. YES 7.The land clearing and tree removal shall not create or contribute to a hazardous condition, such as increased potential for blowdown, pest infestation, disease, or other problems that may result from selectively removing trees and other vegetation from a lot. Staff Comments: Provided documentation did not indicate that the removal of the tree would create or contribute to a hazardous condition. N/A 8.The land clearing and tree removal shall be consistent with the requirement of the Shoreline Master Program, pursuant to RMC 4-3-090F1, Vegetation Conservation and RMC 4-4-130, Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations. Staff Comments: Not applicable. The property is not located within shoreline jurisdiction. DECISION: The Barten 12733 SE 163rd St RVMP, LUA23-000386, RVMP is Approved . *CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: None SIGNATURE & DATE OF DECISION: ________________________________________ ____________________________________ Matthew Herrera, Acting Planning Director Date RECONSIDERATION: Within 14 days of the decision date, any party may request that the decision be reopened by the approval body. The approval body may modify his decision if material evidence not readily discoverable prior the original decision is found or if he finds there was misrepresentation of fact. After review of the reconsideration request, if the approval body finds sufficient evidence to amend the original decision, there will be no further extension of the appeal period. Any person wishing to take further action must file a formal appeal within the 14-day appeal time frame. DocuSign Envelope ID: 33FAB914-2499-4D73-A94E-55298A362AEB 11/29/2023 | 3:00 PM PST City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Routine Vegetation Management Permit Barten_12733 SE 163rd St_RVMP LUA23-000386, RVMP Permit Date: November 29, 2023 Page 4 of 4 D_Barten_12733_SE_163rd_St_RVMP_231128_FIN APPEALS: Appeals of permit issuance must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on December 13, 2023. An appeal of the decision must be filed within the 14-day appeal period (RCW 43.21.C.075(3); WAC 197-11-680). Appeals must be submitted electronically to the City Clerk at cityclerk@rentonwa.gov or delivered to City Hall 1st floor Lobby Hub Monday through Friday. The appeal fee, normally due at the time an appeal is submitted, will be collected at a future date if your appeal is submitted electronically. The appeal submitted in person may be paid on the first floor in our Finance Department. Appeals to the Hearing Examiner are governed by RMC 4 -8-110 and additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk’s Office, cityclerk@rentonwa.gov. EXPIRATION: The Routine Vegetation Management Permit shall be valid for one year from the date of issuance. An extension may be granted by the Planning Division for a period of one (1) year upon application by the property owner or manager. Application for such an extension must be made at least thirty (30) days in advance of the expiration of the original permit and shall include a statement of justification for the extension. Attachment: Attachment 1- Arborist Report Prepared by Terrence J. Flatley, Forester dated October 13, 2023 cc: Christopher Barten, Attn: RE: TRAQ Updates – 12733 SE 163rd St DocuSign Envelope ID: 33FAB914-2499-4D73-A94E-55298A362AEB DocuSign Envelope ID: 33FAB914-2499-4D73-A94E-55298A362AEB DocuSign Envelope ID: 33FAB914-2499-4D73-A94E-55298A362AEB DocuSign Envelope ID: 33FAB914-2499-4D73-A94E-55298A362AEB DocuSign Envelope ID: 33FAB914-2499-4D73-A94E-55298A362AEB DocuSign Envelope ID: 33FAB914-2499-4D73-A94E-55298A362AEB DocuSign Envelope ID: 33FAB914-2499-4D73-A94E-55298A362AEB DocuSign Envelope ID: 33FAB914-2499-4D73-A94E-55298A362AEB DocuSign Envelope ID: 33FAB914-2499-4D73-A94E-55298A362AEB DocuSign Envelope ID: 33FAB914-2499-4D73-A94E-55298A362AEB rentonwa.gov/permitcenter | planningcustomerservice@rentonwa.gov | 425-430-7294 10/6/2022 Page 1 of 3 CITY OF RENTON Ι PERMIT CENTER TREE RETENTION AND CREDIT WORKSHEET TREE RETENTION REQUIREMENTS A minimum retention of thirty percent (30%) of all significant trees (as defined in RMC 4-11-200) is required on site. Please complete the form below to verify compliance with minimum tree retention requirements. • Identify total number of trees 6-inch caliper or greater (or alder or cottonwood trees 8-inch caliper or greater) on site: Trees Trees Trees Trees Trees Trees Required Trees Proposed •Deductions – Certain trees are excluded from the retention calculation: o Trees that are high-risk, as defined in RMC 4-11-200: o Trees within existing and proposed public right-of-way: o Trees within wetlands, streams, very high landslide hazards, protected slopes, and associated buffers: •Total remaining trees after deductions: •Required tree retention (30%): •Identify number of trees proposed for retention: •Identify number of trees requested for replacement in lieu of retention (skip page 3 if no tree replacement is requested):Trees TREE CREDIT REQUIREMENTS Tree credit requirements apply at a minimum rate of thirty (30) credits per net acre. Complete the form below to determine minimum tree credit requirements. •Gross area of property in square feet: Square Feet •Deductions: Certain areas are excluded from tree credit calculation: o Existing and proposed public right-of-way: Square Feet o Wetlands, streams, very high landslide hazards, protected slopes, and associated buffers: Square Feet •Total excluded area:Square Feet •Net land area (after deductions) in square feet:Square Feet •Net land area (after deductions) in acres:Acres •Required tree credits:Tree Credits Required 2 2 0.6 0.6 8800 0 8800 0.20 6 DocuSign Envelope ID: 33FAB914-2499-4D73-A94E-55298A362AEB rentonwa.gov/permitcenter | planningcustomerservice@rentonwa.gov | 425-430-7294 10/6/2022 Page 2 of 3 TREE RETENTION AND CREDIT WORKSHEET PROPOSED TREE CREDITS Please complete the table below to calculate the total tree credits proposed for your project. Identify the quantity of trees for each tree category, after deducting trees within excluded areas, as shown in the previous section. TREE SIZE TREE CREDITS TREE QUANTITY TOTAL TREE CREDITS RETAINED TREES Preserved tree 6 – 9” caliper 4 Preserved tree 10 – 12” caliper 5 Preserved tree 12 – 15” caliper 6 Preserved tree 16 – 18” caliper 7 Preserved tree 19 – 21” caliper 8 Preserved tree 22 – 24” caliper 9 Preserved tree 25 – 28” caliper 10 Preserved tree 29 – 32” caliper 11 Preserved tree 33 – 36” caliper 12 Preserved tree 37” caliper and greater 13 NEW TREES New small species tree (30' or less at maturity) 0.25 New medium species tree (30' to 50' at maturity) 1 New large species tree (50' or more at maturity) 2 TREE CREDITS PROPOSED: 1 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 DocuSign Envelope ID: 33FAB914-2499-4D73-A94E-55298A362AEB rentonwa.gov/permitcenter | planningcustomerservice@rentonwa.gov | 425-430-7294 10/6/2022 Page 3 of 3 TREE RETENTION AND CREDIT WORKSHEET TREE REPLACEMENT JUSTIFICATION Replacement may be authorized as an alternative to 30% retention provided the removal is the minimum necessary to accomplish the desired purpose and provided the proposal meets one of the following options: a. There are special circumstances related to the size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings of the subject property; or b. The strict application of the code would prevent reasonable use of property; or c. The strict application of the code would prevent compliance with minimum density requirements of the zone; or d. The project is a short plat with four (4) or fewer lots. Please attach a written justification demonstrating compliance with the requirements and criteria as descripted above. TREE REPLACEMENT QUANTITY Tree replacement quantity is determined based on the credit value of the trees proposed for removal. Larger, higher priority trees shall be used for calculation of tree replacement. Identify the quantity of each tree requested to be removed in lieu of 30% retention, based on tree size. List the identification number of each tree, as indicated in the arborist report. TREE SIZE TREE CREDITS TREE QUANTITY TREE INDENTIFICATION # TOTAL TREE CREDITS Tree 37” caliper + 13 Tree 33 – 36” caliper 12 Tree 29 – 32” caliper 11 Tree 25 – 28” caliper 10 Tree 22 – 24” caliper 9 Tree 19 – 21” caliper 8 Tree 16 – 18” caliper 7 Tree 12 – 15” caliper 6 Tree 10 – 12” caliper 5 Tree 6 – 9” caliper 4 REPLACEMENT CREDITS REQUIRED: TREE REPLACEMENT PLANTING Identify the quantity of proposed new replacement trees (minimum size of 2-inch caliper). The total replacement credits proposed should be equal to or greater than the replacement credits required, as shown in the previous section. TREE SIZE TREE CREDITS TREE QUANTITY TOTAL TREE CREDITS New small species tree (30' or less at maturity) 0.25 New medium species tree (30' to 50' at maturity) 1 New large species tree (50' or more at maturity) 2 REPLACEMENT CREDITS PROPOSED: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DocuSign Envelope ID: 33FAB914-2499-4D73-A94E-55298A362AEB — Trunk — — Crown and Branches — — Roots and Root Collar — Unbalanced crown  LCR ______% Dead twigs/branches  ______% overall Max. dia. ________ Broken/Hangers Number __________ Max. dia. ________ Over-extended branches  Pruning history Crown cleaned  Reduced  Flush cuts  Thinned  Topped  Other Raised  Lion-tailed  Cracks  ________________________________ Lightning damage  Codominant ______________________________ Included bark  Weak attachments _________________ Cavity/Nest hole ____% circ. Previous branch failures _____________ Similar branches present  Dead/Missing bark  Cankers/Galls/Burls  Sapwood damage/decay  Conks  Heartwood decay  ______________________ Response growth Client _______________________________________________________________ Date___________________ Time_________________ Address/Tree location _________________________________________________________ Tree no.____________ Sheet _____ of _____ Tree species _________________________________________ dbh_____________ Height ___________ Crown spread dia. ____________ Assessor(s) __________________________________________ Tools used______________________________ Time frame _____________ Target Assessment Target numberTarget description Target protection Practical to move target? Restriction practical?Target within drip line Target within 1x Ht.Target within 1.5x Ht.1 2 3 4 History of failures _____________________________________________________________ Topography Flat Slope _________% Aspect _____ Site changes None  Grade change  Site clearing  Changed soil hydrology  Root cuts  Describe _____________________________________ Soil conditions Limited volume  Saturated  Shallow  Compacted  Pavement over roots  ______% Describe __________________________ Prevailing wind direction ______ Common weather Strong winds  Ice  Snow  Heavy rain  Describe______________________________ Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor Low  Normal  High  Foliage None (seasonal) None (dead) Normal _____% Chlorotic _____% Necrotic _____% Pests/Biotic _________________________________________________ Abiotic _______________________________________________________ Species failure profile Branches  Trunk  Roots  Describe ____________________________________________________________________ Load Factors Wind exposure Protected  Partial  Full  Wind funneling  ________________________ Relative crown size Small  Medium  Large  Crown density Sparse  Normal  Dense  Interior branches Few  Normal  Dense  Vines/Mistletoe/Moss  _____________________ Recent or expected change in load factors ________________________________________________________________________________________ Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure Occupancy rate 1–rare 2 – occasional 3 – frequent 4 – constant Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form Page 1 of 2 Site Factors Target zone Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Dead/Missing bark  Abnormal bark texture/color  Codominant stems  Included bark  Cracks  Sapwood damage/decay  Cankers/Galls/Burls  Sap ooze  Lightning damage  Heartwood decay  Conks/Mushrooms  Cavity/Nest hole _____ % circ. Depth _______ Poor taper  Lean _____° Corrected? __________________________________ Response growth Condition(s) of concern Part Size Fall Distance Collar buried/Not visible  Depth________ Stem girdling  Dead  Decay  Conks/Mushrooms  Ooze  Cavity  _____% circ. Cracks  Cut/Damaged roots  Distance from trunk _______ Root plate lifting  Soil weakness  Response growth Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Part Size Fall Distance Chris Barten 11/16/23 2:17 12733 SE 163 Street, Renton, WA 98058 1 1 2 Douglas ﬁr 40”160’30 Terry Flatley Diameter tape, camera 1 year Driveway ✔✔✔4 No Sidewalk ✔✔4 No Driveway approach ✔✔4 No Turf areas ✔✔✔4 No Some small branches falling into yard and driveway ■10 North ■ ■■■45 Asphalt driveway West ■■9 months out of 12 months ■■100 None Mechanical damage to structural roots in driveway ■■End loaded branches fail when overloaded with cone crop, heavy rain or snow, strong winds and icey conditions ■■■ ■■■Vine Root cutting to replace heaved driveway, sidewalk and drive approach will increase risk to stability. 40”25 feet ■ ■ ■10 feet ■ Heaving driveway, sidewalk, approach, turf areas 12” plus N/A ■ ■ DocuSign Envelope ID: 33FAB914-2499-4D73-A94E-55298A362AEB Target (Target number or description) Tree part Condition(s) of concern Risk rating (from Matrix 2) Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix. Likelihood of Failure Likelihood of Impact Very low Low Medium High Imminent Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Very likely Probable Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Possible Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Improbable Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Failure Impact Failure & Impact (from Matrix 1) Likelihood ImprobableImminentPossibleVery lowUnlikelyNegligibleMediumLikelySignificantProbableLowSomewhatMinorHighVery likelySevereConsequences Likelihood of Failure & Impact Consequences of Failure N e g l i g i b l e Minor Significant Severe Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme Likely Low Moderate High High Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate Unlikely Low Low Low Low Data Final  Preliminary Advanced assessment needed No Yes-Type/Reason ________________________________________________ Inspection limitations None Visibility Access Vines Root collar buried Describe ___________________________________________ Notes, explanations, descriptions 1.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________ 2.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________ 3.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________ 4.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________ Overall tree risk rating Low  Moderate  High  Extreme  Overall residual risk None  Low  Moderate  High  Extreme  Recommended inspection interval __________________ This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) — 2017 North Page 2 of 2 Matrix 2. Risk rating matrix. Risk Categorization Mitigation options This assessment is based on the assumed condition of having to sever multiple structural roots on the East side of the tree to effectuate driveway repairs using the owner’s preferred construction techniques to replace like with like.” Driveway Structural roots Roots are heaving asphalt driveway ●●●●Extreme Sidewalk Structural roots Roots heaving sidewalk ●●●●Extreme Driveway approach Structural roots Roots heaving approach and creating tripping hazard ●●●●Extreme Turf areas Structural roots Roots heaving turf creating trip hazard and reducing lawn maintenance ●●●●Extreme Tree roots have surfaced onto driveway and grown large severely damaging the asphalt surfacing creating trip hazards and making access difﬁcult if not impossible. Tree roots have heaved the public sidewalk and created tripping hazards in three locations. Tree roots have heaved the driveway approach tilting it towards the street and creating a 1-inch lift, a tripping hazard. Tree roots have heaved turf areas and surfaced in several locations creating tripping hazards and make lawn maintenance impossible in several locations. Remove roots and tree 0 ■ ■ ■■ ■ DocuSign Envelope ID: 33FAB914-2499-4D73-A94E-55298A362AEB