The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutD_2625 NE 23rd St Tree Removal_FinalDEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT D_2625 NE 23rd St Tree Removal_v1 PLANNING DIVISION ROUTINE VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PERMIT EVALUATION FORM & DECISION DATE OF DECISION: October 15, 2024 PROJECT NUMBER: LUA24-000311, RVMP PROJECT NAME: 2625 NE 23rd St Tree Removal PROJECT MANAGER: Ashley Wragge, Assistant Planner APPLICANT/CONTACT: Mitch Flannery, ISA Certified Arborist 2625 NE 23rd St., Renton, WA, 98056 OWNER: Jason Mgebroff 2625 NE 23rd St., Renton, WA, 98056 PROJECT LOCATION: 2625 NE 23rd St., Renton, WA, 98056 (APN 0423059158) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant, Mitch Flannery, is requesting a Routine Vegetation Management Permit (RVMP) to remove one (1) Norway spruce (Picea abies) located at 2625 NE 23rd St (APN 0423059158) within the Residential-8 (R-8) zone and the Highlands Community Planning Area. The subject property is approximately 12,950 square feet (0.30 acres). An Arborist Report, prepared by Jason Mgebroff, dated August 9, 2024 (Attachment A) was submitted with the application. In the report, the arborist proposes the removal of one (1) landmark tree, a Norway spruce (Picea abies) that is twenty-nine inches (29”) in diameter at breast height (dbh) and approximately sixty-five feet (65’) in height, due to its hazardous condition. The report describes the tree in decline through observations of a mature tree with an uneven live canopy as well as a phototropic lean toward the house. The arborist recommends removal of the tree due to the significant amount of potential damage to the applicant’s and neighbor’s dwellings in the event of tree failure. CRITICAL AREA: Well 5A Wellhead Protection Area Zone 2 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, compliance with tree credit requirements necessitates a minimum of 30 tree credits per net acre. The subject property, which is approximately 12,950 square feet (0.30 acres) is located at 2625 NE 23rd St (APN 0423059158). Based on the property size, four (4) trees are required to meet the minimum tree density requirement (30 tree credits/acre × 0.3 acres = 9 credits). Docusign Envelope ID: AE78DE0F-1FC9-4546-B8FE-20AB18B0B967 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Routine Vegetation Management Permit 2625 NE 23rd St Tree Removal LUA24-000311, RVMP Permit Date: October 15, 2024 Page 2 of 4 D_2625 NE 23rd St Tree Removal_v1 The Tree Retention and Credit Worksheet (Attachment C) indicates that one (1) hazardous tree of landmark size is proposed for removal. Landmark trees are classified as trees with a caliper of twenty-four inches (24”) or greater, except for big leaf maples, black cottonwoods, and red alder trees, which qualify as landmark trees with a caliper of thirty inches (30”) or greater. Currently, there are sixty-three (63) tree credits on this property and the removal of this tree would reduce the tree credits by eleven (11). The retention of the other six (6) trees on the property, maintain a total of fifty-four (54) tree credits. The retention of six (6) trees and fifty-four (54) tree credits would maintain the minimum tree density for the subject property following the removal of the hazardous tree. YES 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: As seen on the City of Renton (COR) maps, this property is within the Well 5A Wellhead Protection Area Zone 2, a part of the aquifer protection area (APA) designated to safeguard groundwater resources. The Renton Municipal Code (RMC) in section 4-11-010 defines an APA as the portion of an aquifer within the zone of capture and recharge area for a well or well field owned or operated by the city. While developments and land clearing activities within APA zones are subject to certain restrictions to protect groundwater from contamination, the proposed tree removal does not involve activities; therefore, the proposed action is consistent with restrictions for 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. Staff Comments: According to RMC 4-4-130.F.2.c.i, a landmark tree may be removed if it is determined to be high risk. In RMC 4-11-200, a high-risk tree is classified as such if it has a probable or imminent likelihood of failure; and a medium or high likelihood of impact; and the consequences of failure for the tree are significant or severe. The Norway spruce (Picea abies) proposed for removal is a declining tree with probable failure and, according to the arborist, would have severe consequences in the event of failure due to a high likelihood of impact to the applicant’s home and the adjacent parcel’s home. The tree is a mature tree in decline that has uneven canopy coverage due to reduced sun exposure from the nearby Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and is experiencing dieback as seen in the arborist’s photos (Attachment A). In addition, the subject tree also leans toward the house, a phototropic induced lean, and is experiencing root plate lifting in high winds. Due to the location and size of the tree in relation to the dwelling on 2625 NE 23rd St. and the nearby property (2617 NE 23rd St.), in the probable event of failure, both structures would be impacted since the tree has a heavier canopy and a phototropic lean toward the residences (Attachments A and B). Since the tree is in decline with uprooting being likely, and the severe consequences of impact, staff concurs the tree should be removed due to criteria i in RMC 4-4-130.F.2.c being satisfied. 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 subject tree is not a street frontage tree nor a parking Docusign Envelope ID: AE78DE0F-1FC9-4546-B8FE-20AB18B0B967 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Routine Vegetation Management Permit 2625 NE 23rd St Tree Removal LUA24-000311, RVMP Permit Date: October 15, 2024 Page 3 of 4 D_2625 NE 23rd St Tree Removal_v1 lot tree. Neither street frontage nor parking landscape is proposed to be removed. 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 removal would not be removing landscaping or protected trees required as part of a land development permit. 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 removal would not impact visual screening nor be removing landscaping. The zoning intensity of all surrounding properties are also single-family residential in the Residential-8 (R-8) zone so there is no disruption between use 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: The removal of the hazardous tree, as recommended by the arborist, would not create a hazardous condition. Instead, it would mitigate the risk of tree collapse and potential damage to property. YES 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 2625 NE 23rd St Tree Removal, LUA24-000311, RVMP is Approved. SIGNATURE & DATE OF DECISION: ________________________________________ ____________________________________ Matthew Herrera, 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. APPEALS: Appeals of permit issuance must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on October 29, 2024. 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 Docusign Envelope ID: AE78DE0F-1FC9-4546-B8FE-20AB18B0B967 10/15/2024 | 3:29 PM PDT City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Routine Vegetation Management Permit 2625 NE 23rd St Tree Removal LUA24-000311, RVMP Permit Date: October 15, 2024 Page 4 of 4 D_2625 NE 23rd St Tree Removal_v1 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 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. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Arborist Report, prepared by Jason Mgebroff, dated August 9, 2024 Attachment B: ISA Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form, dated August 9, 2024 Attachment C: Tree Retention and Credit Worksheet Docusign Envelope ID: AE78DE0F-1FC9-4546-B8FE-20AB18B0B967 Arborist Report --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Customer: Jason Mgebroff Site Address: 2625 NE 23rd St Renton WA 98056 Parcel: 0423059158 Arborist: Mitch Flannery - ISA Certified Arborist PN-9076A Site Inspection Date: 08/09/24 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMARRY 7 Trees on the referenced parcel were inventoried and assessed, 4 of which meet the landmark tree criteria based on Renton Municipal Code (RMC). The customer’s parcel is .297 acres (12,950 square feet) with a total of 63 tree credits currently. After the removal of a hazardous Norway spruce tree, which is the focus of this report, there will be 54 tree credits remaining. ASSIGNMENT I was tasked with assessing the trees on the client’s property for health/safety, and providing recommendations based on my findings. OBSERVATIONS The customer’s parcel is .297 acres, equivalent to 12,950 square feet. They have many, very large, established trees on their property, along with 2 large, shared hedges on either side TREE Trees on site consist of an un-identified variety of Cherry tree. By definition, there are 2 Cherry trees with a total of 6 stems that bifurcate close to ground level. The diameters of the trees were found by using industry standard calculations. The customer also has 3 well established Douglas Fir Psudotsuga menziessi as well as a White Pine Pinus strobus. All of the trees on site are in good health with the exception of one Norway Spruce Picea abes. The Spruce is planted closest to the house and is showing signs of decline throughout the canopy. It forms a continuous canopy with the Douglas Fir behind it, which means limbs have died out on that side, leaving all of the living foliage and weight on the house side. A phototropic lean toward the house has also developed over time. In high winds, the root plate has been reported to be lifting. TARGETS The Spruce tree described above is estimated at approximately 60-70’ tall. The neighbor’s porch was measured at 15’ from the drip-line edge and 26’ from the base of the tree. The customer’s house was measured at 33’ from the drip-line edge and 42’ from the trunk. Therefore, in the event of likely tree failure, there is a significant amount of damage potential. RECOMMENDATIONS I recommend removal of the Norway Spruce described above due to: • Phototropic lean toward house • Signs of decline • Living branches and weight all on house side • 2 targets – Cannot be restricted or re-located practically Attachment A RECEIVED 09/30/2024 AWragge PLANNING DIVISION Docusign Envelope ID: AE78DE0F-1FC9-4546-B8FE-20AB18B0B967 TREE INVENTORY / RETENTION AND REMOVAL PLAN Docusign Envelope ID: AE78DE0F-1FC9-4546-B8FE-20AB18B0B967 Forested side of tree Docusign Envelope ID: AE78DE0F-1FC9-4546-B8FE-20AB18B0B967 Signs of decline in the canopy Docusign Envelope ID: AE78DE0F-1FC9-4546-B8FE-20AB18B0B967 Targets Docusign Envelope ID: AE78DE0F-1FC9-4546-B8FE-20AB18B0B967 — 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 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 Main concern(s) Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  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 Main concern(s) Load on defect N/A  Minor Moderate  Significant  Client _______________________________________________________________ Date___________________ Time_________________ Address/Tree location _________________________________________________________ Tree no.____________ Sheet _____ of _____ Tree species _________________________________________ dbh_____________ Height ___________ Crown spread dia. ____________ Assessor(s) __________________________________________ Time frame_____________ Tools used______________________________ Target Assessment Ta r g e t nu m b e r Target description P r a c t i c a l t o m o v e t a r g e t ? R e s t r i c t i o n p r a c t i c a l ? 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_____________________________________________________ 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 planned change in load factors _________________________________________________________________________________________ Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure Occupancy rate1–rare 2 – occasional 3 – frequent 4 – constant Likelihood of failureLikelihood of failure Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form Page 1 of 2 Site Factors Target zone T a r g e t w i t h i n dr i p l i n e T a r g e t wi t h i n 1 x H t . T a r g e t w i t h i n 1. 5 x H t . Main concern(s) Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Improbable Possible  Probable  Imminent Improbable Possible  Probable  Imminent Attachment B RECEIVED 09/30/2024 AWragge PLANNING DIVISION Jason Mgebroff 8/9/24 9:36AM 2625 NE 23rd St., Renton, WA 98056, USA 1 2 Western Hemlock Picea abies 29"65'22' Brad Case PN 7332A Visual inspection Declining 20 NW Weather Foot traffic - common area no no n 4 4 n n Customers House n 4 Neighbor's House 4 Neighbor's Porch 4 Common species shedding n n 4 n n n n n 80 n n n no no 20 80 n 2" none no no n Declining foliage n Combined with un-balanced, declining crown-Uprooting likely Root plate lifting in high winds n n Docusign Envelope ID: AE78DE0F-1FC9-4546-B8FE-20AB18B0B967 1 2 3 4 Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix. Likelihood of Failure Likelihood of Impacting Target 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 Co n d i t i o n n u m b e r Pa r t s i z e Fa l l d i s t a n c e Target protection Conditions of concern Failure Impact Failure & Impact (from Matrix 1) Likelihood Im p r o b a b l e Im m i n e n t Po s s i b l e Ve r y l o w Un l i k e l y Ne g l i g i b l e Me d i u m Li k e l y Si g n i f i c a n t Pr o b a b l e Lo w So m e w h a t Mi n o r Hi g h Ve r y l i k e l y Se v e r e Consequences Risk rating of part (from Matrix 2)Tree part 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 Mitigation options _____________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________ Overall tree risk rating Low  Moderate  High  Extreme  Work priority 1  2  3  4  Overall residual risk Low  Moderate  High  Extreme  Recommended inspection interval __________________ This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) and is intended for use by Tree Risk Assessment Qualified (TRAQ) arborists – 2013 North Page 2 of 2 Matrix 2. Risk rating matrix. Risk Categorization Ta r g e t nu m b e r ExtremeCrown 65'3 29"3 none65'Abnormal dieback Root plate lifting in high winds 29"none Extreme This Norway Spruce is showing abnormal dieback in the crown. The root plate is lifting in high winds. This tree uprooting is likely. None n n n n n Docusign Envelope ID: AE78DE0F-1FC9-4546-B8FE-20AB18B0B967 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 Attachment C RECEIVED 09/30/2024 AWragge PLANNING DIVISION 7 1 0 0 6 1.7999999999999998 6 -4.2 12950 0 0 0 12950 0.30 9 Docusign Envelope ID: AE78DE0F-1FC9-4546-B8FE-20AB18B0B967 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: 54 REMAINING CREDITS AFTER REMOVAL 63 CREDITS CURRENTLY THIS PAGE WILL NOT ALLOW ME TO INPUT NUMBERS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Docusign Envelope ID: AE78DE0F-1FC9-4546-B8FE-20AB18B0B967 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: AE78DE0F-1FC9-4546-B8FE-20AB18B0B967