Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutREPORT 01DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNIT'f AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT -------Renton® PLANNING DIVISION ROUTINE VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PERMIT DATE: PROJECT NUMBER: PROJECT NAME: PROJECT MANAGER: APPLICANT: LOCATION: DESCRIPTION: EVALUATION FORM & DECISION March 03, 2017 LUA17-000086, RVMP 684 Newport RVMP Angelea Weihs, Assistant Planner Van Vo INITIAL/DATE Jennifer T. Henning cfr'~ ",/2-/ 1{)( r i 684 Newport Ct NE Renton, WA 98056 Vanessa Dolbee cAf<--,{,-I Ir Gillian Syverson Jennifer Cisneros 684 NEWPORT CT NE The applicant is requesting a Routine Vegetation Management Permit (RVMP) to remove one Douglas Fir, approximately 34-inch diameter at breast height. The subject tree is located at the property 684 Newport Ct NE (PID# 8011100102) and is within the Residential-8 (R-8) zone designation. The site is approximately 6,013 square feet in size and has an existing single family residence. The site is surrounded by single family residential homes with R-8 zoning. The subject tree proposed for removal is located near the north property line, within the side yard along a street. Pursuant to Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-11-200 'Definition of Tree', a tree 30 caliper inches or greater is considered a 'landmark Tree'. A Landmark Tree requires RVMP approval per RMC 4-4-130F.2.d 'Removal of Landmark Tree.' Per RMC 4-4-130F.2.d, removal of a landmark tree may be granted for situations where: the tree is determined to be a dangerous tree; or the tree is causing obvious physical damage to structures including but not limited to building foundations, driveways or parking lots, and for which no reasonable alternative to tree removal exists; or removal of tree(s) to provide solar access to buildings incorporating active solar devices; or the Administrator determines the removal is necessary to achieve a specific and articulable purpose or goal of this Title. The applicant proposes to remove the tree due to potential hazards the tree may pose to property and life safety. An Arborist Report prepared by arborist Daniel Maple, dated March 08, 2016 (Exhibit 3), was submitted with the Land Use application. Daniel Maple states that the tree appears to be in good health and vigor and is a low to moderate risk rating. The arborist report recommends Page 1 of 3 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ---------Ren ton PLANNING DIVISION ROUTINE VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PERMIT DATE: PROJECT NUMBER: PROJECT NAME: PROJECT MANAGER: APPLICANT: LOCATION: DESCRIPTION: EVALUATION FORM & DECISION March 03, 2017 LUA17-000086, RVMP 684 Newport RVMP Angelea Weihs, Assistant Planner Van Vo 684 Newport Ct NE Renton, WA 98056 684 NEWPORT CT NE The applicant is requesting a Routine Vegetation Management Permit (RVMP) to remove one Douglas Fir, approximately 34-inch diameter at breast height. The subject tree is located at the property 684 Newport Ct NE (PID# 8011100102) and is within the Residential-8 (R-8) zone designation (Exhibit 1). The site is approximately 6,013 square feet in size and has an existing single family residence. The site is surrounded by single family residential homes with R-8 zoning. The subject tree proposed for removal is located near the north property line, within th1 side yard along a street. Pursuant to Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-11-200 'Definition of Tree', a tree 30 caliper inches or greater is considered a 'Landmark Tree'. A Landmark Tree requires RVMP approval per RMC 4-4-BOF.2.d 'Removal of Landmark Tree.' Per RMC 4-4-130F.2.d, removal of a landmark tree may be granted for situations where: the tree is determined to be a dangerous tree; or the tree is causing obvious physical damage to structures including but not limited to building foundations, driveways or parking lots, and for which no reasonable alternative to tree removal exists; or removal of tree(s) to provide solar access to buildings incorporating active solar devices; or the Administrator determines the removal is necessary to achieve a specific and articulable purpose or goal of this Title. The applicant proposes to remove the tree due to potential hazards the tre1 may pose to property and life safety (Exhibit 2). An Arborist Report, prepared by A.B.C. Consulting Arborists (dated March 08, 2016; Exhibit 3), was submitted with the Land Use application. Daniel Maple states that the subject tree appears to be in good health and vigor and is a low to moderate risk rating. The arborist report recommends minimizing risk by stabilizing the bark fork with a cable system and cleaning/pruning the tree crown. Daniel Maple raised Page 1 of 3 City of Renton Deportment of Commu & Economic Development outine Vegetation Management Ptrmit LUA17·000086, RVMP, 684 Newport RVMP concerns for the depth of fill over the root crown and its long term impacts on the tree, and suggested restoring the original grade if possible. City arborist, Terry Flatley, and Contract Arborist Inspector, Anne Thayer, both inspected the 34-inch caliper Douglas Fir tree. Both Terry Flatley and Anne Thayer concluded that the subject tree was in fair condition and did not need to be removed, which is consistent with the arborist report submitted by the applicant (Exhibit 4). Terry Flatley recommended that the tree be monitored for decline over the next five (5) years. The tree proposed for removal is the only remaining tree on-site. Minimum tree density for the residentially zoned site is required to be two (2) trees for the 6,013 square foot lot. The proposec removal would not comply with tree density requirements or the criteria for removal of a landmark tree; therefore, staff recommends denial ofthe Routine Vegetation Management Permit. EXPIRATION DATE : NA GENERAL REVIEW CRITERIA 4-4-130H.5: YES 1. YES 2. YES 3. YES 4. YES 5. YES 6. NO 7. The land clearing and tree removal will not create or contribute to landslides, accelerated soil creep, settlement and subsidence or hazards associated with strong ground motion and soil liquefaction. The land clearing and tree removal will not create or contribute to flooding, erosion, or increased turbidity, siltation or other form of pollution in a watercourse. land clearing and tree removal will be conducted to maintain or provide visual screening and buffering between land uses of differing intensity and consistent with applicable landscaping and setback provisions of the Renton Municipal Code. Land clearing and tree removal shall be conducted in a way so as to expose the smallest practical area of soil to erosion for the least possible time, consistent with an approved build-out schedule and including any necessary erosion control measures. Land clearing and tree removal shall be consistent with subsection 02 of this Section, Restrictions for Critical Areas -General, and RMC 4-3-050-Critical Areas Regulations. Retained trees will not create or contribute to hazardous conditions as the result of blowdown, insect or pest infestation, disease, or other problems that may be created as a result of selectively removing trees and other vegetation from the lot. Land clearing and tree removal shall be conducted to maximize the preservation of any tree(s) in good health that is an outstanding specimen because of its size, form, shape, age, color, rarity, or other distinction as a community landmark. Comments: The proposed tree removal is not consistent with the criteria for removal of a Landmark Tree, per RMC 4-4-130F.2.d. Page 2 of 3 Cfty of Renton Department of Commum., & Economic Development 684 Newport RVMP .. outine Vegetation Management Permit LUAll-000086, RVMP, DECISION: The 684 Newport RVMP Routine Vegetation Management Permit is Denied. SIGNATURE & DATE OF DECISION: March 03, 2017 Date Appeals of permit issuance must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on March 17, 2017, together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renter WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by RMC 4-8-110 and more information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, 425-430-6510. 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 to 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. 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. Page 3 of 3 EXHIBIT 1 684 Newport RVMP e Location: 684 Newport CT NE Van Vo 684 Newport Ct NE -frv)U1" Lo0,--1-·,1;r1 Renton, WA 98056 January 27th, 2017 City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98056 Project Narrative -Tree Removal 1 liw fDr+ RV ;11 P EXHIBIT 2 Dear Sir/ Madam: feq_,:,.u51: .A'ff 1·1c.0/J-f ~<viµ."'-r R'\J/VJP +o r-emove. I I have been living here for more than 16 years. Recently, the developer Kyle Miller and builder Scott Donogh bought six properties in my neighborhood and built 24 new houses. They cut all fir and cedar trees which caused my tree stand alone. They planted some new young trees to meet city requirement, but half of them died because of lack of care. Another builder has recently cut trees on a property which is across my house on 7th Street NE (north of my property). Developers and builders cut a lot of trees around my neighborhood cause my tree in danger as pine trees need to live in group support (attached pictures). I hired an arborist to evaluate my tree condition. I did research at libraries and obtained information online about my tree shape and condition. My Y-shaped split tree is dangerous if it has strong wind impact. I submit the request to obtain the permit of tree removal. Please consider my request, I appreciate it. If you have any question, please call me at 206-372-7132. Sincerely, (fivi~- van Vo Enclosed Basic Tree Risk Assessment form A.B.C. consulting Arborists Pictures Certified Arborist Prepared for: Van Vo 684 Newport Ct. Renton WA 98056 Assignment: A.B.C. Consulting ~·\.rborist,; Daniel Maple Forestry Management From The Ground Up Risk Assessor DATE: 03/08/:i.6 EXHIBIT 3 Provide A level 2 risk Assessment with decay testing on 1 large fir tree on the left side of the home, inside of the fence. A ISA risk assessment form is to be included. Client needs the report per city requirements, and the client wants the report to be used as part of their permit application. Client is informed the assessment/report supplied is based solely on the condition of the tree at the time of the assessment, and in no way guarantees that a specific condition will be found or that a permit will be issued. Site: Typical Residential home site. Soils are relatively shallow and well drained. No negative site conditions were noted. Methodology: To evaluate the trees for risk and prepare this report I drew upon my 25+ years of experience in the field of arboriculture and my formal education. Following the protocol established by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Best Management Practices {BlvlP) for Risk Assessment ANSI A300 part 9. The site was assessed for any noted condition that may have a negative impact on the local forest including but not limited to: 1) history of tree failure (wind throw) 2) Change in Wind Patterns 3) soil depth 4) Soil Hydrology 5) grade changes 6) fungal fruiting bodies/decay pathogens. I performed a level 1 risk assessment and as needed a level 2 risk assessment on the subject trees and: 1. The crown of the trees were examined for current vigor. Inspecting the crown (foliage, buds and branches} for color, density, form, and annual shoot growth, limb ciieback and disease. Branches were inspected for cracks and other defects, as well as needs for remedial pruning. 2. The bole or main st~m of the tree was inspected for decay, which includes cavities, wounds, fruiting bodies of decay (conks or mushrooms), seams, insects, bleeding, callus development, broken or dead tops, structural defects and unnatural leans. Structural defects include crooks, forks wil:h V-shaped crotches, rnu!tip!e attachments, and excessive sweep. 3. The root collar and roots were inspected for the prEsence of decay, insects and/or damage, as well as if they have been injured, undermined or exposed, or original grade has been changed. A level 2 Basic is the standard assessment that is performed by arborists in response to J client's request for tree risk assessment. Inspection tools included: binoculars, hypsometcr, mallet, t.owel & probe were used. Leve! 2 advanced: Decay drilling for root and trunk decay was included. Observations: On 03/08/16 I visited the site and on the Nocth sfde of the home inside the fence I noted: 1 Douglas fir "Pseuc/otsugo menziesh'f DBH 34" Height 104' Spread 32'. Tree has an included bark trunk at 5' off the ground (not co-d0minat~,) Tree is a ('Stand Alone Tree" and subject to full wind force, as its not in a stand of trees and protected, it has a higher failure potenti;:;! then trees in a stand or group. Root cro1,vn ls buried in exc.=ss of 8" {duJ '.3'' ;.ind ;;o root f!c:12 r>or"'d). f\Jo soil disturbance from trunk n;o 11em2nt was noted. iV]irior lirnb failure was noted. i'io decay 1Nas detected from testing. Risk f,-:ating Lov,.1 to ~Jlodercn::::. 1 1 Dani 2,i (JJ;..\bcconsu lti n qa rbo i"ists.cor:1 !SA-797/JA i i I ' t-~--------·--------1 Certified Arborist Conclusion: i\...B.C. Consulting i\rborist;.; Daniel Maple Forestry Management From The Ground Up Risk Assessor Tree is a "Stand Alone Tree" and subject to full wind force, as its not in a stand of trees and protected, it has a higher failure potential then trees in a stand or group. My main concern is the depth of fill over the root crown and its long term impact on the tree. Trees are very adaptive and this tree appears to be in good health and vigor at this time, however I cannot give as complete of an assessment as I would like without more information on the depth and extend of fill over the roots/root crown, the impacts of the fill and if it is viable to restore the original grade. The included bark fork could be stabilized with a cabie system installed and the crown cleaned. At this time with the information available the Risk Rating is Low to Moderate. Assumptions & Limiting Conditions Prepared by Daniel Maple ~ Tree Risk Qualified 1. A field examination of the site was mcde for this report (date referenced in report.) Care has been taken to obtain al! information from re!iable sources in ;:i timely fashion. Therefor all data has been verified to the best of my knowledge, the certified/consulting arborist c.:rn neither guarantee or be held responsible for the accuracy of information provided by any outside sources. 2. Any and all information provide cl in this report covers only the tree's that w12r2 examined and reflects the ccndition of those tree's at the time of inspection. This inspection is limited to a visual m~;thocl cf the trees in question, excluding any core sampling, probing, dissection, or e:(cavation. There is no guarantee nor •.varr-c:11t·1, expres:.ed or impli:2d that any deficiencic::s or problems of the mentioned trees may not arise in the future. 3. All dra·.'1ing5, sketches, and photographs subrnitted with this report, are int2nded as visuJi aids cnly, and are not exact to scale. They should not be construed as e:1,gineering or architectural report of sur•1eys uni es.:; nO[ed and specified. 4. The ct:f'tified Jrbori.st/consul:ing zirborist is no~ required to give anv te::;timonv o: to attend court for .any reason comide,ing this report unl2ss subsequent contractual agre-ements are m2d~. S. ,Cny ;Jlt2rations macle to this report or less auton;at1c;J/ly in,;aiidat2s th1·s reooc:. Danie!@ Abc_co ns 1.1 !tin.~ ::1 rbo tis ts. com 4.25-323-04<!5 !SA-7970_·.:i. I I I I I Certified Arborist A.B.C. Consulting i\.rborist<; Daniel Maple Forestry Management From The Ground Up Risk Assessor 6. Unless required by law otherwise, possession of this report or a copy of this report does not imply right of publication or use for any purpose by anyone other than the person for whom it was created for, without prior expressed written permission and verbal consent of the certified/consulting arborist. 7. The report and values/opinions expressed, represent the opinion of the certified/consulting arborist, and the arborist fees are ln no way contingent upon reporting any specified values, stipulated results, the occurrence of a subsequent event, nor upon finding to be reported. i_-~------------ JSA-79 70.1. City of Renton -Community Services Department -Parks Planning & Natural Resources Tree Work Request Form Date of Call 2-8-17 W/0 # (y.m.d) ie 11.1.1 Received By ACT via Angelea W/0 Status Closed/Open Name of Caller Ban Do Inspected By Phone Number cell-(206) 372-7132 Inspection Date Address/Park 684 Newport Ct NE Completed By Reason For Call Request to remove landmark sized tree in front yard. Completion Date Private Open Referral Tree 10 Tree Space ROW Species DBH Condition Location Problems Treatment Priority YIN 1 ,/ Doug fir 36 70 70 18,22 9 Problem Codes Treabnent Codes ~trij?rS1holtl ------L """~:i~ ACT -- 2-8-17 Notes Buried 8'"' soil, taper not Owner said she added soil to protect it from upheaving Codom at 5 ft, included bark Arborist report gave low to moderate rank Recommended cable codom leader and pruning deadwood - . Comments 1 Broken branches 15 Insects 1 Add mulch 11 Pruning -roots Arborist report for tree 2 Clearance -street'sldewalk 16 Leaning tree 2 Chemical treatment 12 Pruning -sprouts 3 Clearance -structures 17 Limited planting space 3 Grate widening 13 Pruning -structural 4 Damage by equipment 18 Overhead wires 4 Grind stumped roots 14 Remove stakes/wires 5 Damage by grate 19 Vacant planting space 5 Inspect/monitor 15 Repair damage m 6 Damage by storm 20 Street light blocked 6 Repair tree grate/frame 16 Stake tree >< 7 Damage by vandals 21 Sidewalk/curb heaved-roots 7 Plant tree 17 Tree removal 8 Damage by vehicle 22 Structural problems B Pruning -clearance 18 Water tree :::c 1-1 9 Pruning -m 9 Deadwood -branches 23 Stump dead/broken/hanging 19 Widen planting space 1-1 10 Dead tree 24 Sprouts 10 Pruning -thinning ,oCable codo~ -I 11 Decay/hollows 25 Traffic sign/signal blocked Priority Cede .l::i,, 12 Dieback 26 Topped 1 Immediately 13 Disease 27 Tree staking 2 Within 5 days 14 Girdling roots 2B 3 When in area I City of Renton -Community Services Department -Parks Planning & Natural Resources Tree Work Request Form ----1PilfJ1br»illl ' Date of Call January 27, 2016 W/0 # (y.m.d) ie 11.1.1 Received By TF via Angelea W/0 Status Closed/Open Name of Caller Lu, Hung Inspected By TF - Phone Number 206-372-7132 Inspection Date February 5, 2016 Address/Park 684 Newport Court NE Completed By Reason For Call Wants to remove trees Completion Date Private Open Referral Tree ID Tree Space ROW Species DBH Condition Location Problems Treatment Priority Y/N Notes 1 ,/ Douglas fir 24 70 4 Root flare filled 2 ,/ Douglas fir 35 60 4,22 Root flare filled, second stem at 6 feet Problem Codes Treatment Codes Comments 1 Broken branches 15 Insects 1 Add mulch 11 Pruning -roots Both trees are in fair condition and do not need to be removed 2 Clearance -streeVsidewalk 16 Leaning tree 2 Chemical treatment 12 Pruning -sprouts 3 Clearance -structures 17 Limited planting space 3 Grate widening 13 Pruning -structural But should be monitored for decline over the next five years. 4 Damage by equipment 18 Overhead wires 4 Grind stumped roots 14 Remove stakes/wires 5 Damage by grate 19 Vacant planting space 5 lnspecUmonitor 15. Repair damage Angelea will call her back to discuss her request for removal. 6 Damage by storm 20 Street light blocked 6 Repair tree grate/frame 16 Stake tree 7 Damage by vandals 21 Sidewalk/curb heaved-roots 7 Planttree 17 Tree removal 8 Damage by vehicle 22 Structural problems 8 Pruning -clearance 18 Water tree 9 Pn.ming - 9 Deadwood -branches 23 Stump dead/broken/hanging 19 Widen planting space 10 Dead tree 24 Sprouts 1 O Pruning -thinning 20 11 Decay/hollows 25 Traffic sign/signal blocked Priority Code 12 Oieback 26 Topped 1 Immediately 13 Disease 27 Tree staking 2 Within 5 days 14 Girdling roots 28 3 Whan in area I - DEPARTMENT OF COMMU AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT -----------Kenton ® Planning Division LAND USE PERMIT MASTER APPLICATION PROPERTY OWNER(S) NAME: ~ Llrl c1 ~l\ k Van (,0 ADDRESS G ~ 4 N&JFR-t CT /\.) F CITY: (<J_,n~ ZIP: 1 'JV 'S:1:, TELEPHONE NUMBER: APPLICANT (if other than owner) NAME: COMPANY (if applicable): 1 ADDRESS: CITY: ZIP: TELEPHONE NUMBER: CONTACT PERSON NAME: V. / ·Jn~O COMPANY (if applicable): r . --ADDRESS: - TELEPHONE NUMBER AND EMAIL ADDRESS: 2-0(i-372--·1132_ V 0.Y\ . \/ o t ( 3 2 @ g l"Yl?t,, L Uvv\ . ./ ---~------~--------__J I 1 PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: -1- PROJECT/ADDR SS(S)/LOCATION AND ZIP CODE: b'Dlf /Ju-Jpori ~ tr /VC- fcerv-foVl Vi)fr 1<3 o 50 KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): go l J ( co 102. PROPOSED LAND USE(S): Ju; EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: n-ri a. I rflt:cl; c;,,n 2/J 1 PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNA ION (if applicable) EXISTING ZONING: SITE AREA (in square feet): o· SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PUBLIC ROADWAYS TO BE DEDI~: SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENTS: ?J PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET ACRE (if applicable) :1} NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable) I/+ NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): I !VA H: \CEO\Data \Forms-Templates \Self-Help Ha ndouts\Pla n ni ng\Maste r Ap pJicatia n. doc Rev:08/2015 • PROJECT INFORMATION (continued) ~-~----~L_ __________ _ NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): PROJECT VALUE: I SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): jV/} IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA, PLEASE INCLUDE SQUARE FOOTAGE (if applicable): SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): 2.0C/0 SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): /yf) NET FLOOR AREA ON NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE NEW PROJECT (if applicable): - 0 AQUIFIER PROTECTION AREA ONE 0 AQUIFIER PROTECTION AREA TWO D FLOOD HAZARD AREA D GEOLOGIC HAZARD D HABITAT CONSERVATION D SHORELINE STREAMS & LAKES D WETLANDS LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY __ sq.ft. __ sq.ft. __ sq.ft. __ sq.ft. __ sq.ft. (Attach legal description on separate sheet with the followinCI information included) SITUATE IN THE QUARTER OF SECTION __ ,TOWNSHIP __ , RANGE __ , IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP I, (Print Name/M ~re under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that I am (please check one) r£l' the current owner of the property involved in this application or D the authorized representative to act for a corporation (please attach proof of authorization) and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Signature of Owner/Representative Date STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that ...,7-:- 1 "--j--'{,,(..'-n----,rl--_l/i,---1_"e._f __ LJ.,{__-::---,-,---::---:-signed this instrument and acknowledge it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the u and purpose mentioned in the instrument. Dated I p-;rho1r , :-.otary Publl< Stat< of Washln1ton BRENDA THUVAN LE MY COMMISSION EXPIRES ee,t,!mll!!t 20, egeg Notary Public i~ for the State ~as~'.'.:?on '-<CL--" ~#lfJ.A f flwV{h Notary (Print): My appointment expires: 2 H: \CE D\Data \Forms-Templates \Self-Help Han douts\P la n n i ng\Maste r Application .doc Rev:08/2015 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT --------Kenton® WAIVER OF SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way-Renton, WA 98057 Phone: 425-430-7200 I www.rentonwa.gov LAND USE PERMIT SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: WAIVED MODIFIED BY: BY: Arbo rist Report 4 Biological Assessment 4 AW Calculations 1 Colored Maps for Display 4 Construction Mitigation Description 2 aNo4 Deed of Right-of-Way Dedication 1 Density Worksheet 4 Drainage Control Plan 2 Drainage Report 2 Elevations, Architectural 3AND4 Environmental Checklist 4 Existing Covenants (Recorded Copy) iaNo• Existing Easements (Recorded Copy) 1aNo, Flood Hazard Data 4 AW Floor Plans 3AND4 Geotechnical Report, AND, Grading Elevations & Plan, Conceptual 2 Grading Elevations & Plan, Detailed 2 Habitat Data Report 4 AW Improvement Deferral, Irrigation Plan 4 COMMENTS: PROJECT NAME: 684 Newport Routine Vegetation Management Permit DATE: March 7, 2016 1 H:\CED\Data\Forms-Templates\Self-Help Handouts\Planning\Waiversubmittalreqs.docx Rev:08/201 • WAIVED MODIFIED COMMENTS: LAND USE PERMIT SUBMITIAL REQUIREMENTS: BY: BY: King County Assessor's Map Indicating Site• Landscape Plan, Conceptual• Landscape Plan, Detailed 4 Legal Description 4 AW Letter of Understanding of Geological Risk• Map of Existing Site Conditions 4 Master Application Form 4 Monument Cards (one per monument) 1 Neighborhood Detail Map 4 Overall Plat Plan , Parking, Lot Coverage & Landscaping Analysis 4 Plan Reductions (PMTs) 4 Post Office Approval 2 Plat Name Reservation 4 Plat Plan 4 Preapplication Meeting Summary• Ahl Public Works Approval Letter z Rehabilitation Plan , Screening Detail 4 Shoreline Tracking Worksheet 4 Site Plan ZAND• AW Site Plan can be combined with Tree Retention/ Land ClearinP Plan Stream or Lake Study, Standard 4 Ahl Stream or Lake Study, Supplemental 4 Stream or Lake Mitigation Plan• Street Profiles 2 Title Report or Plat Certificate 1 AND, Topography Map, Traffic Study, Tree Cutting/Land Clearing Plan 4 Urban Design Regulations Analysis 4 Utilities Plan, Generalized 2 Wetlands Mitigation Plan, Final 4 Wetlands Mitigation Plan, Preliminary 4 2 H :\CED\Data\Forms-T em plates\Self-Hel p Handouts\Pla nni ng\ Waiversubm ittalreqs.docx Rev:08/2015 • LAND USE PERMIT SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: Wetlands Report/Delineation• Wireless: Applicant Agreement Statement 2AND, Inventory of Existing Sites 2 AND, Lease Agreement, Draft , AND, Map of Existing Site Conditions , AND, Map of View Area 2AND3 Photosimulations 2 AND, This Requirement may be waived by: l. Property Services 2 Development Engineering Plan Review 3 Building 4 Planning WAIVED MODIFIED BY: BY: AW 3 H:\CED\Data\Forms-Templates\Self-Help Handouts\Planning\Waiversubmittalreqs.docx COMMENTS: Rev: 08/2015 Van Vo 684 Newport Ct NE Renton, WA 98056 January 27'h, 2017 City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98056 Project Narrative -Tree Removal Dear Sir/ Madam: I have been living here for more than 16 years. Recently, the developer Kyle Miller and builder Scott Donogh bought six properties in my neighborhood and built 24 new houses. They cut all fir and cedar trees which caused my tree stand alone. They planted some new young trees to meet city requirement, but half of them died because of lack of care. Another builder has recently cut trees on a property which is across my house on 7th Street NE (north of my property). Developers and builders cut a lot of trees around my neighborhood cause my tree in danger as pine trees need to live in group support (attached pictures). I hired an arborist to evaluate my tree condition. I did research at libraries and obtained information online about my tree shape and condition. My Y-shaped split tree is dangerous if it has strong wind impact. I submit the request to obtain the permit of tree removal. Please consider my request, I appreciate it. If you have any question, please call me at 206-372-7132. Sincerely, Van Vo Enclosed Basic Tree Risk Assessment form A.B.C. consulting Arborists Pictures Van Vo 684 Newport CT NE Renton, WA 98056 January 18'h, 2017 City of Renton 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Construction Mitigation Description -Tree Removal Project name: Tree Removal Name of proposed project: P & D Tree Services Location of site: 684 Newport CT NE, Renton, WA 98056 Number of tree: 01 (One) tree which is 35-inch diameter. It locates at 13 feet away in the north of the property. Cost of tree removal: $2,250 Materials of removal: Crane. Type of tree: Douglas fir. Proposed construction date: One day (Approximate one day of February 2017) Hours and days of operation: 3-4 hours. Please email me at van.vo7132@gmail.com or call me at 206-372-7132 if you need more information. appreciate it. Sincerely, ~~L Van Vo ISA ... a sic Tree Risk Assess, •• ent Form _________ Date _____ ~. : · __ __: _ _L__ Tirne ......... /~ __ . ___ _ J3.f_,_J_i_~_i_?_0.:_·_:_6'_( ,/rile rrq Tree no. ; ___ Sheet~ of ht:e specie:, ___ '_:_1 ·-·· dbh__ -:; _ '/ ______ Height / C !l_ ______ Crown spread d1a. ~---__ _ ;.,:,sessor(s) _____ ·•_._1 __ ,1 _ _.:. _'..._ Time frJme __ Target Assessment Target description Target zone C l' C £ <l,J :c t )< ·i l' ·3 ;§ ~- 0-~ ,:; C . ,;; i M' !!?...; "~ {! I' Otrupancy ratp s . C "' o• ,a ro ·13 3 c-·c 0 ·.s ~ > ~ C • ro 0 " ~ E ~ ~ : ,t' t/ h' i '/ ?( (1 ' /V , \ v-< , "), · -~ l-( _._ .. :_' _,__··_·'-'t.cc'-'~c:''-----------------i-.:_:_-t---+-+_:,L_---+_0L-f_'.;:_-j Site Factors History of failures_ _____ Topography flu,\i".J 51oreD Aspect Soil conditions !.1:r ;:,,,j '1:JI urne D :,.,1 c11 .~teei C Shulicv·, ;::J Co,11pzicterJ 0-P.womer1t ovi•r I oots D ____ '!\ Describe ~:,, -~'-ec_, ___ ·_LJL "i 1 . ct. -~ ~-L-- Prevailing wind direction _l.:_:)_,_'.::-Common weather St~'.Y1g wiriddZl Ice D Snow D Hravy rain Cl Describe 7-l....L~ _______ .. _______ _ _ --~ee He~l~h-~_nd Speci~s~o_file _ _ .. ______ .. Vigor [r")'A D r~,;r,-nJI ~ H,1f, 0 Pests Foliage None ('>lw,or1dl'. D None /de,id) D NormJ! _5' _'L 0 { Abiotic Chlcrnnc % Necrotic Species failure profile Gra,ich,,,,[lj fru,1~D F;::,,:;t,;O [),-,;,;1,i\~' __ '-:__1 _"if' \,_]_._ l Load Factors Wind exposure f'r,.11.,:i. tt.:c1 D hj: r:,~I D ;·u, N-\\'ind f u;11w1;,1P, D Relative crown size Small D Med1umJ?J Laree D Crown density '.);.,~,v-_,r: [J r-Jur i-1c1I a UL,n'-,,, 0 Interior branches ! cs\· [J r-Jor:,~a;b Den"t' 0 Vines/Mistletoe/Moss D Recent or planned change in load factor., __ ------------__ Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure (/ Unbcaldncc'ci r•.w,n D LCO t;.c_·. -Crownc:,:~s ~ranches - l 1ghtr11rig dJrTcJgo D Included bark D UrJd t1A-:gs/br,mc!1es f2l 7. ·,-;, 0v0r;""J!I Rrukcn/rl~mp,er; !\/· 1rnbcr Pruning history Crown cleaned D RedL11·ed D .'lu:,h cut::, D Th-nned D Topped D Other· rvlax. did.~~;S Ii MJx did R.a1sr:d D L101~ t,11ied D l\·".1i11concPrn(s) ~'3 \,i, '" L,1-.1 .... , .... ;. -~c.L.J..2-=~-'--~ ---------· Codorn;nant D P1Pv1ou~ branch f,1ilurt>s.:f] De,id/Missing bark D Cmkers/Galls/8urls D CJvity/N<'st hole _____ % circ. Sirnilar branches present El Sapwood ciMnage/decay D Corib D Heartwood deccJy D __________ _ Responst:> growth Load on defect N//\ 0 M nur D likelihood offatlure lmprnhabit.' D Pos:,;OIP _c:;J Mocierc1te 0 S1grificant O --------- P.·obdblc D lrnmir,ent 0 -Trunl<- Dead/Mi~:,·ng ba1 k O, \ AbnormJf bc1r"k texturP/coior D Codon1inant stem:, Ji:.1 ~~~"\ .:.1. iriciuded bvrk 0 Crvcks O Sapwood d0m,1gc/dt~ray D Cmi<ers/GJlls/Rur I;, D Sap ooze o Lightning damage D Heartwood decc1v D Conks/Mushrooms D Cavity/Nest hole ___ ~-'o circ. Depth f--'oor raper o L0an ___ ' Corrected::, Rc~ponse growth ___ _ Main rnncern(;'1 ~' !/::t:t~ .. 1.:>4----____ _ ---"'""--"'~·i·_r:,0~__1___:~~.L.:!.......... Loa~ on defect N/A D M'nor o Moderate i~~g~~;Jnt CJ Uke/1hood of failure -Roots and Root Collar - CollJr bur,ed/Not vis1blcR.. Depth___ Stem t:ird/ing O Dead D Decay 0 Conks/Mushroom:, 0 Ooze D Cavity 0 % Cl(C Cracb D Cut/Damuged roots D Di:.tance from trunk Root plate lifting D Sod weakness D Response growth =""'-------------- Main conccrn(s) c·1:._,_,-~:11, ·1 ____:_____!::/_c.'~-''-'·..c·:r·rC..L.'.._-1.I~,_....,./ ~b~· ~C~Lc,c,,c·,_, ~~~,.__c<,·.sc.J,~~,c· Cli'-.IJdL.c< .J• .. ~c<.c· ':__Li jt,':..''''._ . ----- load on defect N/A O Minor D Moderotc 0 Likelihood of fdilure --·- SignrficJnt 23 Improbable .Probable D 1,nrninent D Page I of 2 ---------------~ " .Q E , C C 0 ·,; " C 8 Tree part 1 Conditions of concern Risk Categorization ,--~--.------- ii Failure w -" u E C , • " 1l! C ~ • E N • ·;;; 'ii ~ ~ :a • "' Target e ·~ • C ~ "' ~ E ~ ~ ~ e ~ ~ protection E 0 E a. "-~ ~ • S!. C: ;J; L.--'' ,'/ :,..-'·,, z ~J/ l -J ' f( ; ;_ Likelihood Impact E , -a 3 ~ • M 3 :!' 'i' x' -I - Failure & Impact Consequences 11:101 rv,1rr,, 1,, ~ > . E > ~ ~ :a B °' • > :~ 5 " ~ " • E °' C: " C ·a ~ c ~ • • :'i M 0 • :, "' ::, > z o; "' J ,, ,_rr ,( - Risk rating of part I fr,yi, M,1t11x2l f.Y· cl L-{·', '-h--.l ,Z ) " j"VJ t (I 2 • I 't' J (<J .. ·) f--'Jc'..• --+~ '-' ,'-'-+-· !'-+--i'"'-'_''--1--+-"-+-+-1--+-+--+-'--+-f--+-+--J-+-f-"-+-r--'-'-- ,'-_ ! ./ x L •. '-- 3 4 Matrix i. Likelihood matrix. likelihood likelihood of Impacting Target of Failure Very low low Medium High Imminent Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Very likely Probable Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat l1keiy Likely Possible Unlikely Unlikely Unlikf'ly Soniewhat likely Improbable Un!1kely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Matrix 2. Risk rating matrix. Likelihood of Consequences of Failure Failure & Impact Negligible Minor Significant Severe Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme likely Low Moderate High High Somewhat likely low Low Moderate Moderate Unlike Iv Low Low Low Low Notes, exp la nations, d esc ri ption s ~Q=•-LP.L•---'(~1_' _' ~-:;'-''-,_ '-' ''-'~"~' ~-'~,~·~ ,:',~~·L...,,i -(0 l,j.:'.....:,'dtJ.. '-q1. Q... ,hi/ '·. ". -+ ,k h:1 ., ..... r rt. ,-~~ b-,'!ct (C1,( /,,<;,,',~ (., , lfi<', IF ""i (, 1' •~· ,.I "' l Mitigation options ::t 1j 1' l't < ,.i~t ·.,._ ,{ ---''~:,c,,->:>'>>cc.,~___:'.>:,·_,-=b"-------------------------Residual risk f'nr J ____ ----------------------------------------Residual risk ___ _ Residual risk ____ _ ------------------------------------------------Residual risk ____ _ Overall tree risk rating Overall residual risk Low O Moderate 0' High D Extreme D ~ow O Moderate' &j High D Extreme D Work priority 1 D 2 D 3 D 4 D Recommended inspection interval _______ _ Data D Final ~reliminary Advanced assessment needed ONo (V'Yes-Type/Reason _ __iScc-'"-'-,---'-'.L<.~.o·.L' -~'-'-'-''"''-"-"'"''-'''-'. _c,,c1 __________ _ Inspection limitations ON one DV1s1bility DAcccss OVines 0Root collar buried Describe "I\!· :-,.-, Page 2 of2 The Y-shaped fir tree stands alone without support of other trees. The trunk of other side is weaker and the top does not grow wel l. My tree is standing alone after the trees surrounding it were cut A lot of pine and fir trees across our property were cut down for new development. They were supposed to protect other trees around our neighborhood. A branch was fallen in front of a new house (built by Scott Donogh) after strong wind impact. If this branch falls on the roof1 there will be more significant damage. It is the result of lack of maintenance of tree density to meet city regulation requirement after new development approved. A lot of pine and fir tre es across our property were cut down for new development. They were s upposed to protect other trees around our neighborhood.