HomeMy WebLinkAboutReport 10 -
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNI i YCrrybF
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ----wr--�Renton .
PLANNING DIVISION
ROUTINE VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PERMIT
DATE:
PROJECT NUMBER:
PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT MANAGER:
OWNER:
U1:jjXL,JTk6
LOCATION:
EVALUATION FORM & DECISION
March 22, 2016
LUA16-000174, RVMP
Soth Tree Removal Routine Vegetation Managment Permit
Angelea Weihs, Assistant Planner
Soth Ear
17848 111th Ave SE
Renton, WA 98055-6539
Saila Ear
17848 111th Ave SE
Renton, WA 98055-6539
17848111TH AVE SE
CONCURRENCE
DATE nZ + 'Ip f
NAIVIt 4
INITIAL/DA E
Jennifer T. Henning
)
Vanessa Dolbee
Sabrina Mirante
Jennifer Cisneros
Angelea Weihs
Z f 2
DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting approval of a Routine Vegetation
Management Permit in order to remove two "landmark" (thirty caliper
inches or greater) Big leaf Maple trees on the property located at
17848111th Ave SE. The lot is within the Residential -8 (R-8) Zone and is
9,379 square feet. There is an existing single family home on site. Tree
number 1, as identified in the arborist report prepared by arborist
Daniel Maple, is located on the northwest corner of the lot. The
arborist notes that the tree appears to be in general good health;
however, ivy has spread to encompass approximately 50% of the tree,
and a hollow with moderate decay exists at the point where the 3
co -dominate trunks attach to the main trunk. In addition, the driveway
covers approximately 40% of the roots of this tree, and the tree is
damaging the driveway. This tree has a moderate risk rating. Daniel
Maple states that removing the ivy and installing a cable system will
help strengthen the union as a short term option; however, as a long
term solution he recommends removing the tree.
Tree number 2 is located on the northeast corner of the lot. The
arborist indicates that this a high risk tree, with decay in the trunk that
exceeds 50% of the trunk area. Partial crown failure and deadwood was
noted, as well as a cavity with fungal growth on the south side of the
root crown. Ivy has spread to approximately 80% of the tree. Daniel
Maple recommends removal of both trees 1 and 2 in the next 3
months, or before the next significant storm. The applicant is proposing
to retain five existing trees on site, including one Pine tree, two Cherry
trees, and two Pear trees. Per RMC 4-4-130C.9.d.i, the lot requires a
minimum of 4 trees to meet tree density requirements.
21(,
Page 1 of 3
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNk i f CITY OF
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Rentor
PLANNING DIVISION
ROUTINE VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PERMIT
EVALUATION FORM & DECISION
DATE: March 22, 2016
PROJECT NUMBER: LUA16-000174, RVMP
PROJECT NAME: 5oth Tree Removal Routine Vegetation Managment Permit
PROJECT MANAGER: Angelea Weihs, Assistant Planner
OWNER: Soth Ear
17848111th Ave SE
Renton, WA 98055-6539
APPLICANT: Saila Ear
17848 111th Ave SE
Renton, WA 98055-6539
LOCATION: 17848 111TH AVE SE
DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting approval of a Routine Vegetation
Management Permit in order to remove two "landmark" (thirty caliper
inches or greater) Big leaf Maple trees on the property located at
17848111th Ave SE. The lot is within the Residential -8 (R-8) Zone and is
9,379 square feet. There is an existing single family home on site. Tree
number 1, as identified in the arborist report prepared by arborist
Daniel Maple, is located on the northwest corner of the lot. The
arborist notes that the tree appears to be in general good health;
however, ivy has spread to encompass approximately 50% of the tree,
and a hollow with moderate decay exists at the point where the 3
co -dominate trunks attach to the main trunk. In addition, the driveway
covers approximately 40% of the roots of this tree, and the tree is
damaging the driveway, This tree has a moderate risk rating. Daniel
Maple states that removing the ivy and installing a cable system will
help strengthen the union as a short term option; however, as a long
term solution he recommends removing the tree.
Tree number 2 is located on the northeast corner of the lot. The
arborist indicates that this a high risk tree, with decay in the trunk that
exceeds 50% of the trunk area. Partial crown failure and deadwood was
noted, as well as a cavity with fungal growth on the south side of the
root crown. Ivy has spread to approximately 80% of the tree. Daniel
Maple recommends removal of both trees 1 and 2 in the next 3
months, or before the next significant storm. The applicant is proposing
to retain five existing trees on site, including one Pine tree, two Cherry
trees, and two Pear trees. Per RMC 4-4-130C.9.d.1, the lot requires a
minimum of 4 trees to meet tree density requirements.
Page 1 of 3
City of Renton Department of Community & k, .mic Development Routine Vegetation Management Permit
Soth Tree Removal Routine Vegetation Managment Permit LUA16.000174, RVMP,
GENERAL. REVIEW CRITERIA 4-4-130HS:
1. 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.
Comments: The subject site is not located within Erosion Hazard Area or
sensitive/protected slopes. It is not anticipated that the removal of the subject Big
leaf Maple trees would contribute to hazards associated with strong ground motion
and soil liquefaction.
2. 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.
Comments: The subject site is not located within an identified Flood Hazard Area or
near a stream or wetland. It is not anticipated that the removal of the subject Big leaf
Maple trees would contribute to flooding, erosion, or increased turbidity siltation.
3. 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,
Comments: Not applicable.
4. 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.
Comments: The applicant is proposing to remove two Big leaf Maple trees on the
northeast and northwest corners of the parcel. The subject site is not located within
Erosion Hazard Area or sensitive/protected slopes. The site complies with tree density
requirements per RMC 4-4-130C.4.d.i, therefore, the applicant is not proposing to
replace these trees with any new trees; however, staff recommends as a condition of
approval that the the applicant either retain the stumps, or immediately replant with
shrubs and/or ground cover, which will ensure that the smallest practical area of soil
will be exposed to erosion for the least possible time.
5. Land clearing and tree removal shall be consistent with subsection D3 of this Section,
Restrictions for Critical Areas — General, and RMC 4-3-050 -- Critical Areas
Regulations.
Comments: No Critical Areas are located on the site. The proposed tree removal is
consistent with RMC 4-4-130D.3 and RMC 4-3-050.
6. 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.
Page 2 of 3
City of Renton Department of Community & L .,mfc Development
Soth Tree Removal Routine Vegetation Managment Permit
Routine Vegetation Management Permit
Comments: Both trees are recommended for removal by a certified arborist. Daniel
Maple categorizes tree number 1 as a moderate risk tree, and categorizes tree
number 2 as a high risk tree. Both trees exhibit signs of decay and are encumbered by
invasive ivy. Removing both trees will further prevent hazardous conditions as a result
of blowdown, pest infestation, and disease.
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: Not applicable. See comments under criterion number 6.
DECISION: The Soth Tree Removal Routine Vegetation Managment Permit Routine Vegetation
Management Permit is Approved with Conditions*.
*CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
The applicant shall either retain the stumps, or immediately replant with shrubs and/or ground cover
in order to ensure that the smallest practical area of soil is exposed to erosion for the least possible
time. Staff encourages the applicant to plant a replacement tree within the front yard, in order to
increase conformity with landscaping regulations.
SIGNATURE & DATE OF DECISION:
Jennifer Henning, Planning Director
March 22, 2016
Date
Appeals of permit issuance must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on April 05, 2016,
together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton,
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.
LUAI6-000174, RVMP,
Page 3 of 3
4
C
f0
d
a)
V1
O
E
cu
o
a ,
v 00
� s
s
+-p m
Ln
9990 A, n; M
Z♦
EXHIBIT 1
Certified Arborist
Prepared for:
5ailar Ear
17848111`h AV. SE.
Renton WA. 98055
Q.B.C. COILSultlll(F Aj-hoists
Daniel Maple
Forestry Management From The Ground Up
EXHIBIT 2
DATE: 02/27/16
Assignment:
Client is concerned about the health and safety of 1 Maple front left of the home and 1 Maple back left of
the home. A level 2 Risk Assessment with decay testing is requested. Time Frame 5 Years from above date.
Purpose:
1) This report is intended to identify trees that pose a risks to the above and neighboring homes, as well as
the owners and their guests. 2) provide reasonable mitigation options to reduce risk to acceptable levels. 3)
To document tree hazards for obtaining A tree cutting permit if one is required. (additional ISA risk
assessment forms are available if needed)
Trees:
There are 2 trees included in this report #1 is on the right side of the front yard, by the drive. Tree #2 is on the left side
of the backyard, behind the shed.
Site:
Typical Residential site. Soils in front are compacted, with concrete drive over 40% of the roots. No other
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 (BMP) 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 dieback and disease. Branches were inspected for cracks and other
defects, as well as needs for remedial pruning.
2. The bole or main stem 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 with V-shaped crotches, multiple 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 arborlsts in response to a client's request for tree risk assessment.
Inspection tools included: binoculars, hypsometer, magnifying glass, mallet, & probe were used.
Level 2 advanced: Where Root/Trunk decay was noted, and it was deemed prudent to investigate further, decay drilling
for root and trunk decay was included.
Daniel@Abcconsultingarborists.com 425-328-0445 ISA -7970A
PO 337 Deer Park WA.99008
-,.B.C. Cousultiuu �' rboirst5
Certified Arborist Daniel Maple Risk Assessor
Forestry Management From The Ground Up
Observation:
Tree ##1 Big leaf Maple `Acer macrophyllum" DBH 49" Height 68' Spread 40'. Tree appears to be in general good health
and moderate vigor. The driveway covers 40% of the roots and the tree is damaging the driveway. ivy has spread to
encompass approx. 50% of the tree. 3 Co -dominate trunks at 6' off the ground and 7 co -dominate trunks at 9' were noted.
A hollow exists at the point where the 3 stalks attach to the main trunk, decay testing shows moderate decay at this trunk
union. The growth habits suggest the tree was cut at 6' in the past, and the tree we see today is stump sprouts. Removing
the ivy and installing a cable system will help strengthen the union and is as short term option. Risk Rating Moderate.
Tree #i2 Big leaf Maple "Acer mucrophyllum" DBH 34.5" Height 60' Spread 30'. Ivy has spread to approx. 80% of the tree.
Partial crown failure and deadwood was noted. A cavity with fungal growth was noted on the south side of the root crown
("Armillaria" decay pathogen is suspected). Decay testing show average outer wall thickness to is 5.5" the rest of the trunk/root
crown is decayed. 1) Tree Trunk Area = 960 2) Decay Area = 490 3) Decay Exceeds 50% Trunk Area. Risk Rating HIGH
i ree Condition Summary
Tree Species Scientific Name I DBH I Heightl Spread I Decay Risk Recommendation
1 Maple 'Acer macrophyllum" 49" 68'1 40' 1 At Attachment Mod. Remove 0-6 months / Cable Short term option
2 Maple 'Acermacrophyllum" 34,5" 1 60' 1 30' 1 Root Crown High Remove 0-3 months
Conclusion:
Tree #1 is Ivy covered, co -dominate, has moderate decay at the trunk union and is damaging the driveway. The tree appears to be
growing out of an old stump. (stump sprout trees are notorious for failure). Removing the ivy and installing a cable system will add
support to the trunk attachments, however this is a short term mitigation option and doesn't address the damage being done to the
driveway. Due to the defects noted, the long term the Best Management Plan would be to remove the tree.
Tree #2 has a history of failure with like limbs and deadwood in the crown. Decay testing shows advanced decay in the root crown
exceeds 50% of the Total Trunk Area. It is probable that tree failure will occur and impact a target, in the weather events common to
this region in the time frame stated, consequences would be severe. Risk Rating Is HIGH.
Recommendations:
Remove trees ##1 and #2 in the next 3 months or before the next significant weather event.
Prepared by
Daniel Maple
ISA Certified Arborist
Tree Risk Qualified
Assumptions & Limiting Conditions
1. Afield examination of the site was made for this report (date referenced in report.) Care has been taken to obtain all information from reliable
sources in a timely fashion. Therefor all data has been verified to the best of my knowledge, the certified/consulting arborist can neither
guarantee or be held responsible for the accuracy of information provided by any outside sources.
2. Any and all information provided in this report covers only the tree's that were examined and reflects the condition of those tree's at the time
of inspection. This inspection is limited to a visual method of the trees in question, excluding any core sampling, probing, dissection, or
excavation. There is no guarantee nor warranty, expressed or implied that any deficiencies or problems of the mentioned trees may not arise in
3. the future.
4. All drawings, sketches, and photographs submitted with this report, are intended as visual aids only, and are not exact to scale. They should not
be construed as engineering or architectural report of surveys unless noted and specified.
5. The certified arborist/consulting arborist is not required to give any testimony or to attend court for any reason considering this report unless
subsequent contractual agreements are made.
6. Any alterations made to this report or loss automatically invalidates this report.
7. 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.
8. The report and values/opinions expressed, represent the opinion of the certified/consulting arborist, and the arborist fees are in no way
contingent upon reporting any specified values, stipulated results, the occurrence of a subsequent event, nor upon finding to be reported.
Daniel@Abcconsultingarborists.com 425-328-0445 ISA -7970A
^ PO 337 Deer Park WA.99008
Certified Arborist
_i-.B.C. Consultiuig Arbolrsts
Daniel Maple
Forestry Management From The Ground Up
Risk Assessor
VIII �O
r
X c,
Lf
Daniel [n7Abcconsultinearborists.com 425-328-0445 15A -7970A
PO 337 Deer Park WA.99008
N
v=3-1
W
u'1
Z
M
N
f—
N
M
r� 29 T23N R5E E 112
Zoning Map Book Black & White
Community & Economic Development
Planning • Technical Services
Pmduced by: Adnanak AGamcuich, GIS Analyst
DO: 121101315
05 T22N R5E E 112
�EVYCA STLE
„•., 1t KING
i COUNTY
RENTON�1+�
NT
Feel
0 100 2{10 400 600 806 1 000
Rallefence Scale: 1'7,200
This documerd is a graphc represenlldion. not yuarenreed 0
%J"yaawacy andis basad an Ine besf infofnwtra, ak-6030&
As d fhe date shown. Thismap .s mrgnded ter City dssdey
pufnMes enl y
14E
11051.
32 T23N R5E E 1/2
R5E W 112 R5E E 112
BIW
B 1 E
B2W
B2E
B3W
B3E
B4W
B4E
B5W
B5E
B6W
B6E
B7W
B7E
138W
1t(�
(CO) Carder Downtown
\, (R-1) Residenllal i dulac
(RMH I Residential Manutactured Homes
(CN) Commeraal Naiphharhood
�_ (R-4) Reeidenlial4dulac
:-
1; ' -cam_ Urban Cenler
PAGE #
(CO) Comrnercia101fice
Residential- 8 DUTAC
138E
4426
4426
4425
4425
5330
5330
542pr4i,§429
5428
5428
5427
5427
5426
5426
5425
26 T24N
R4E W 112
26 T24N
R4E E 12
25 T24N
RAE W 1:2
25 T24N
R4E E 112
30 T23N
R5E W 112
30 T23N
R5E E 112
29 4N
111
���fff
�t� T24N
'ice E 112
28 T24N
R5E W 112
28 T24N 27 T24N
R5 112
27 T24N
R5E E 112
26 T24N
26 T24N
25 T24N
5425
25 T24N
,
099VW
R5E W 112
R5E E V2
R5E W 112
RK E 112
C1 W
CIE
C2W
C2E
C3W
C3 PAW
CSE
C5W
C5E
C6W
C6E
C7W
C7E
1
C 8W
C8E
4435
35 T24N
R4E W I.2
4435 4436 4436
LAKE WASHINGTON
35 T24N 36 T24N 36 T24N
R4E E 12 R4E W 111
5431
31 T24N
5431 543
31 T2 32 T24 i
54`2 5433
32 T24N 33 T24N
5433
33 T24N
5434
34 T2AN
5434
31 T24N
5435
5435
5436
5436
RAE E 12
R5E W 111
R5E 1'2 R5E W t
R5E♦ 112
R5E W 1.2
R5E E
35 T24N
35 T24N
36 T24N
36 T24N
1
�—
112
R5E .112,
RBE E 112
R5E W 112
R5E E 112
R5E W 112
R5E E 112
D1 W
ME
D2W
D2E
D3W
D3E'y�4
NE
D5W= I E
D6W
D6E_
NW
DTE
D8W
D8E
4302
4302
4301
4301
5306
5306 130 I�i)4
5305
5304
5303
53
5302
5302
1
02 T23N
R4E W 112
02 T23N
RAE E 111
01 T23N
RE W 112
01 T23N
R4E E 1 2
06 T23N
M W 112
08 T23N 0A 23M.
R5E E 11?l H $'CREEK
05 123N
R5E E 112
D4 T23N
R5E W 111
04 T23N
R5E E 112
03 T23N
R5E W 12
�
02 T23N
02
5301
01 T23N
5301
01
R5ETO12
R5E W IQ
R5ETE 12
R5E W 12
R5E E23N
�2
E 1 W E 1 E E2W E2E BW -Mt E4W E4E BW EK E6W E6� E7W E7E E8W E8E
..4311 4311 4312 4312V
5307 5308 5308 5309 5309 5310 5310 �-�s3�-1, 5311 5312
O 3N 11 T23N 12 T23N 5312
12 T23N3N 07 T23N 08 T23N 04 3N 09 T23N 09 T23N 10 T23N 10 T23N 11 T23 11 T23N
R4E 112 R4E E 111 R4E W 111 RE E612112 R5E E 112 R5E W 12 112 R5E W 112 R5E E 112 R5E W 12 R5E E 10 R5E W 111'2 R5E E 112 12 T23N 12 T23N
[I I R5E W 112 R5E E 12
f 1 W FIE F2W FZE F3VrKSF F4W ,�4E F5W F5E F6W F6E F7rV#-4r^EI,E,8W
4314 4314 — ---W3 5318 5318 53O' 5317 5316 5316 5315- 5'�----514 --534 - ! F$E
14 T23N 14 TSfN 13 T23N 13 T23N 18 T24N 18 T24N (J�WINQ
17 TZ3N 16 T23N 16 T23N M 15 T23N 14 T 31L 14 T23N 5313 5313
R4E W IQ R4L E Q RaF y� 112 q F F 1 f2 KEW 112 R5E E 112 RR5E E 42 R5E W 112 R5E E 12 i�6E qy 1n 13 T23N 13 T23N
BLACIf RIVER ✓ Of B4Y t R5E E 12 R5E W 1n R5E E 112 R5E W 112 R5E E 112
ACK RIVER—,•--,�
G1W GIE G2W G2E G3W G3E G4W G4E G5W G5E G6W`AJG6&, G7W G G8W G8E
IL
4323 43 �R3ruc�ma E� 113 ` ''5319 5320 5320 5321 5321 X22 �y5322 11-532 5323 5324 5324
23 T23N 24 723 24 T23N 19 T23N 49 T23N m T23N 20 T23N 21 T23N 21 T23N` `
23 T23N
R4E.E 12 R4E W 1 R4E E 112 R5E W 1 R5E E 112 R5E W 112 R5E E 112 R5E W 12 R5E E 112 R5E yy 1JF157 arE W 112 ,�� � 24 T23N 24 T23N
4 � IR5E W 111 R5E E 112
I`HJW HIE H24 HKMW!1HK H4W H4E H5W H5E;)16WH7W HTE H8W H8E4� 4326 432 4325 5330 f330 5329 5329 5328 5328 1, 453275326 5326 5325 53252033l23N 26 T23N 25723 25 T23N ' 3D T23N T23N 29 T23N 29 T23N 28 T23N 28 T23NRI�W 12 R4EE12 R4EW1 R4E E 112 R5E W 111 E E 1+2 R5E W 12 R5E E 12 R5E W f11 'x T23N6 T23N 26 T23N 25 T23N 25 T23NR5E E 112,9�E W 11E W 12 R5E E 112 R5E W 12
R5E E 112
11W HE 12V%.__12F__13&- `3E 14W 14E 15W I9 16W 16E 17W 17E
I8W 18E
4335 4335 4336 4336 5331 !I 5331 5332 5332 5333 5334 5334 5335 5335 5336x336)
35 T23N 35 T23N 36 T23N 36 T23N
31 T23N+ 31 T23N 32 T23N 32 T23N 33 T23N T23N 34 T23N 34 T23N 35 T23N 35 T23N 36 T23N 36 T23N
R4E W lip ME E 112 R4E W 1R RE E 112 R5E W 1 R5E E 12 R5E W 12 R5E E 112 R5E W 112 5E E 12 R5E W 112 KE E 112 R5E W 112 RK9 112 R5E W IQ R5E E 12
A kY VEA E J2W J2E J3 J3E AM AE J5W J5E AW AE J7W RE J8W SHADY
4202 4202 4201 4201 52t-fi20&---5"5J �04 5204 5203 5203 5202 5?n? GS01 5201
uxr rauNss
02 722N 02 T22N 01 T22N 01 T22N 06 06 T22N 05 T22N 05 T22N D4 T220 04 T22N 03 T22N 03 T22N 02 T22N O2 T22N 111 T22N 01 T22N
R4E W 12 R4E E 112 R4E W 112 RAE E 112 R5E 2 R5E E 112 R5E W 1R R5E E 112 it5E W 111 R5E E 112 R5E W 12 R5E E 12 R5E W 112 R5E E 112 R5E W 1)2 R5E E 1+2 Rf'
--
(CV) Gander Village
(R-10) Residential 10dulac
~
Half Sections Extent
(IH) Industrial Heavy>
(R-141 Residential 14dulac
Page
Half Section Designation
(IL) Indueldal Light
l;. (RC) Resource Coneervalion
I n r e X
(CA)CommeraalAderlal
(IM)lnduetrelMedium
(RM-F)ReaWeneal Murd-Family
1t(�
(CO) Carder Downtown
\, (R-1) Residenllal i dulac
(RMH I Residential Manutactured Homes
(CN) Commeraal Naiphharhood
�_ (R-4) Reeidenlial4dulac
:-
1; ' -cam_ Urban Cenler
PAGE #
(CO) Comrnercia101fice
Residential- 8 DUTAC
Brunn township Rangy
(COR) Commeraal101TicslResidertJ
. ... (R -e) Residential Bdufac
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITYCITY of
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTento9
WAIVER OF SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS
Planning Division
1055 South Grady Way -Renton, WA 98057
Phone: 425-430-7200 1 www.rentonwa.gov
LAND USE PERMIT SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS:
WAIVED
BY:
MODIFIED
BY:
COMMENTS:
Arborist Report 4
Biological Assessment 4
Calculations I
Colored Maps for Display 4
Construction Mitigation- Description 2AND4
�.E
Deed of Right -of -Way Dedication I
•Density Worksheet'4,
Drainage Control Plan Z
Drainage Report z
Elevations, Architectural AAND 4
Environmental Checklist 4
Existing Covenants (Recorded Copy) IAND 4
Existing Easements (Recorded Copy) IAND 4
Flood Hazard Data
AO
Floor Plans 3AND A
Geotechnical Report 2 AND 3
Grading Elevations & Plan, Conceptual 2,
Grading Elevations & Plan, Detailed z
Habitat Data Report 4
/y
!� 0,
Improvement Deferral z
Irrigation Plano
PROJECT NAME: loth Tree Removal Routine Vegetation Management Permit
DATE: March g, 2016
H:\CED\Data\Farms-Templates\Self-Help Handouts\Planning\Waiversubmittalregs•docx Rev: 08/2015
-11
V
LAND USE PERMIT SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS:
WAIVED
BY:
MODIFIED
BY:
COMMENTS:
King.County Assessors Map Indicating Site4
Landscape Plan, Conceptual a
Landscape Plan, Detailed4
"
'• + 4 , ' " l "
Legal Description 4
A W
Letter of Understanding of Geolo'&al'Risk a
Map of Existing Site Conditions4
Master Application Forma
Monument Cards (one per monument) 1
Neighborhood, Detail Map a'
Overall Plat Plan 4
Parking, Lot Coverage & Landscaping Analysis 4
„
Plan Reductions (PMTS) 4
Post Office Approval Z <,
Plat Name Reservation 4
Plat Plan
k- Ir 1VA
Preapplication Meeting Summary 4
Works Approval Letters
I,qPublic
4 Er t ,; 1,
Rehabilitation Plan 4
Screening Detail 4
Shoreline Tracking Worksheet 4
Site Plan 2 AND A
T 1 IY
Site
Sita pn n ian a cam int ;wit tree cutting/land.,
gp
Stream or Lake Study, Standard 4
AO
Stream or Lake Study, Supplemental4
+ :3 , • '
Stream or Lake Mitigation Plan 4
Street Profiles z
Title Report or Plat Certificate SAND 4
Topography Map 3
,
Traffic Study 2
Tree Cutting/Land Clearing Plan 4
Urban Design Regulations Analysis4
Utilities Plan, Generalized' 2„i
Wetlands Mitigation Plan, Final 4
Wetlands Mitigation Plan; Preliminary 4
H:\CED\Data\Forms-Templates\5elf-Help Handouts\Planning\Waiversubmittalregs.docx Rev: 08/2015
LAND USE PERMIT SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS:
WAIVED
BY:
MODIFIED
BY:
COMMENTS:
Wetlands Report/Delineation 4
A�
Wireless:
Applicant Agreement Statement 2 AND 3
Inventoryof Existing Sites 2AND 3
Lease Agreement, Draft 2AND3
Map of Existing Site Conditions 2AND3
Map of View Area 2AND 3
Photosimulations 2AND 3
This Requirement may be waived by:
1. Property Services
2 Development Engineering Plan Review
3 Building
4 Planning
H:\CED\Data\Forms-Templates\Self-Help Handouts\Planning\Waiversubmittalregs.docx Rev: 08/2015
Project Narrative
project name - Soth tree Removal.
Size of site - 9296sf
location of site -17848111th ave se
Land use permits required for proposed project - Soth Tree Removal. Removal of two big Leaf
Maple trees.
Zoning designation of site and adjacent properties - R8
Current use of site and any existing improvements - Single Family
Total estimated construction cost and estimated fair market value of the proposed project -
$2800
1
Project Narrative
project name - Soth tree Removal.
Size of site - 9296sf
location of site -17848 111th ave se
Land use permits required for proposed project - Soth Tree Removal. Removal of two big Leaf
Maple trees.
Zoning designation of site and adjacent properties - R8
Current use of site and any existing improvements - Single Family
Total estimated construction cost and estimated fair market value of the proposed project -
$2800
1
Construction Mitigation Description
Proposed construction date will begin as soon as the land use pemrit has been approve. Hoprs
k
and days of operation between lam to late afternoon Weekday or weekend depending qn
company availability.
Ti -U r4f"oUu 1 bQ?rOee,, 7a r►-+ — la n, r n ��� j� f-e�
� � c:a�y
Complete landscape Renovations and Repair, is the company thatwill be doin? all therrhauling,
transportation and removal of trees.
Typical Residential site, soil is compacted so there will be minimal to none, dust , erosion and
mud. For noise the company will be using gas powered chainsaw.
1
1 x.B.C. Consult�n Ax }orist5
Certified Arborist Daniel Maple Risk Assessor
Forestry Management from The Ground Up
DATE: 02/27/16
Prepared for:
5ailar Ear
17648 11111 AV, SE.
Renton WA. 98055
Assignment:
Client is concerned about the health and safety of 1 Maple front left of the home and 1 Maple back left of
the home. A level 2 Risk Assessment with decay testing is requested. Time Frame 5 Years from above date.
Purpose:
1) This report is intended to identify trees that pose a risks to the above and neighboring homes, as well as
the owners and their guests. 2) provide reasonable mitigation options to reduce risk to acceptable levels. 3)
To document tree hazards for obtaining A tree cutting permit if one is required. (additional ISA risk
assessment forms are available if needed)
Trees:
There are 2 trees included in this report #1 is on the right side of the front yard, by the drive. Tree #2 is on the left side
of the backyard, behind the shed.
Site:
Typical Residential site. Soils in front are compacted, with concrete drive over 40% of the roots. No other
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 (BMP) 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 dieback and disease. Branches were inspected for cracks and other
defects, as well as needs for remedial pruning.
2. The bole or main stem 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 with V-shaped crotches, multiple 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 a client's request for tree risk assessment.
Inspection tools included: binoculars, hypsometer, magnifying glass, mallet, & probe were used.
Level 2 advanced: Where Root/Trunk decay was noted, and it was deemed prudent to investigate further, decay drilling
for root and trunk decay was included.
Daniel@Abcconsultinearborists.com 425-328-0445 ISA -7970A
PO 337 Deer Park WA.99008
Certified Arborist
'.B.C. Coiis l iiicrAr Hca. t�
Daniel Maple
Forestry Management From The Ground Up
Risk Assessor
Daniel@Abcconsultinearborists.com 425-328-0445 ISA -7970A
PO 337 Deer Park WA.99008
..B.C. Consulting Arbo., ,is
Certified Arborist Daniel Maple Risk Assessor
Forestry Management From. The Ground Up
DATE: 02/27/16
Prepared for:
Sailar Ear
17848111th AV. SE.
Renton WA. 98055
Assignment:
Client is concerned about the health and safety of 1 Maple front left of the home and 1 Maple back left of
the home. A level 2 Risk Assessment with decay testing is requested. Time Frame 5 Years from above date.
Purpose:
1) This report is intended to identify trees that pose a risks to the above and neighboring homes, as well as
the owners and their guests. 2) provide reasonable mitigation options to reduce risk to acceptable levels. 3)
To document tree hazards for obtaining A tree cutting permit if one is required. (additional ISA risk
assessment forms are available if needed)
Trees:
There are 2 trees included in this report #1 is on the right side of the front yard, by the drive. Tree #2 is on the left side
of the backyard, behind the shed.
Site:
Typical Residential site. Soils in front are compacted, with concrete drive over 40% of the roots. No other
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 (BMP) 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 dieback and disease. Branches were inspected for cracks and other
defects, as well as needs for remedial pruning.
2. The bole or main stem 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 with V-shaped crotches, multiple 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 a client's request for tree risk assessment.
Inspection tools included: binoculars, hypsometer, magnifying glass, mallet, & probe were used.
Level 2 advanced: Where Root/Trunk decay was noted, and it was deemed prudent to investigate further, decay drilling
for root and trunk decay was included.
Daniet@Abcconsultingarborists.com 425-328-0445 ISA -7970A
PO 337 Deer Park WA.99008
_ B.C. Consultlllg Ari o., ,t5
Certified Arborist Daniel Maple Risk Assessor
Forestry Management From The Ground Up
Observation:
Tree #1 Big leaf Maple `Acer macrophyllum" DBH 49" Height 68' Spread 40'. Tree appears to be in general good health
and moderate vigor. The driveway covers 40% of the roots and the tree is damaging the driveway. Ivy has spread to
encompass approx. 50% of the tree. 3 Co -dominate trunks at 6' off the ground and 7 co -dominate trunks at 9' were noted.
A hollow exists at the point where the 3 stalks attach to the main trunk, decay testing shows moderate decay at this trunk
union. The growth habits suggest the tree was cut at 6' in the past, and the tree we see today is stump sprouts. Removing
the ivy and installing a cable system will help strengthen the union and is as short term option. Risk Rating Moderate.
Tree tit Big leaf Maple "Acer macrophyllum" DBH 34.5" Height 60' Spread 30'. ivy has spread to approx. 80% of the tree.
Partial crown failure and deadwood was noted. A cavity with fungal growth was noted on the south side of the root crown
("Armillaria" decay pathogen is suspected). Decay testing show average outer wall thickness to is 5.5" the rest of the trunk/root
crown is decayed. 1) Tree Trunk Area = 960 2) Decay Area = 490 3) Decay Exceeds 50% Trunk Area. Risk Rating HIGH
Tree Condition Summary
Tree Species Scientific Name DBH Height Spread Decay Risk Recommendation
1 Maple 'Acer macrophyllum" 49" 1 68' 1 40' 1 At Attachment Mod. Remove 0-6 months / Cable Short term option
2 Maple "Acer macrophyllum" 34.5" 1 60' 1 30' 1 Root Crown High Remove 0-3 months
Conclusion:
Tree #1 Is ivy covered, co -dominate, has moderate decay at the trunk union and is damaging the driveway. The tree appears to be
growing out of an oid stump. (stump sprout trees are notorious for failure). Removing the ivy and installing a cable system will add
support to the trunk attachments, however this is a short term mitigation option and doesn't address the damage being done to the
driveway. Due to the defects noted, the long term the Best Management plan would be to remove the tree.
Tree #2 has a history of failure with like limbs and deadwood in the crown. Decay testing shows advanced decay in the root crown
exceeds 50% of the Total Trunk Area. It is probable that tree failure will occur and impact a target, in the weather events common to
this region in the time frame stated, consequences would be severe. Rlsk Rating Is HIGH.
Recommendations:
Remove trees #1 and #2 in the next 3 months or before the next significant weather event.
Prepared by
Daniel Maple
ISA Certified Arborist
Tree Risk Qualified
Assumptions & Limiting Conditions
1. A field examination of the site was made for this report (date referenced in report.) Care has been taken to obtain all information from reliable
sources in a timely fashion. Therefor all data has been verified to the best of my knowledge, the certified/consulting arborist can neither
guarantee or be held responsible for the accuracy of information provided by any outside sources.
2. Any and all information provided in this report covers only the tree's that were examined and reflects the condition of those tree's at the time
of inspection. This inspection is limited to a visual method of the trees in question, excluding any core sampling, probing, dissection, or
excavation. There is no guarantee nor warranty, expressed or implied that any deficiencies or problems of the mentioned trees may not arise in
3. the future.
4. All drawings, sketches, and photographs submitted with this report, are intended as visual aids only, and are not exact to scale. They should not
be construed as engineering or architectural report of surveys unless noted and specified.
5. The certified arborist/consulting arborist is not required to give any testimony or to attend court for any reason considering this report unless
subsequent contractual agreements are made.
6. Any alterations made to this report or loss automatically invalidates this report.
7. 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.
8. The report and values/opinions expressed, represent the opinion of the certified/consulting arborist, and the arborist fees are in no way
contingent upon reporting any specified values, stipulated results, the occurrence of a subsequent event, nor upon finding to be reported.
Daniel@Abcconsultinearborists.com 425-328-0445 ISA -7970A
PO 337 Deer Park WA.99008
�.B.C. Consultinu Arbo.- .,Ls
Certified Arborist Daniel Maple Risk Assessor
Forestry Management From The Ground Up
1
r� �Qo
'f�r JL
y
Daniel@Abcconsultinearborists.com 425-328-0445 ISA -7970A
PO 337 Deer Park WA.99008
�j
k
i
�. B.C. Cusultilib Arbo-
Certified Arborist Daniel Maple
Forestry Management From The Ground Up
Daniel@Abcconsuitingarborists.com 425-328-0445
PO 337 Deer Park WA.99008
LIS
Risk Assessor
ISA -7970A
Certified Arborist
Prepared for:
Sailar Ear
17848111th AV. 5E.
Renton WA. 98055
-.B.C. Consulting Ai- o. Ls
Daniel Maple
Forestry Management From The Ground Up
Risk Assessor
DATE: 02/27/15
Assignment:
Client is concerned about the health and safety of 1 Maple front left of the home and 1 Maple back left of
the home. A level 2 Risk Assessment with decay testing is requested. Time Frame 5 Years from above date.
Purpose:
1) This report is intended to identify trees that pose a risks to the above and neighboring homes, as well as
the owners and their guests. 2) provide reasonable mitigation options to reduce risk to acceptable levels. 3)
To document tree hazards for obtaining A tree cutting permit if one is required. (additional ISA risk
assessment forms are available if needed)
Trees:
There are 2 trees included in this report #1 is on the right side of the front yard, by the drive. Tree #2 is on the left side
of the backyard, behind the shed.
Site:
Typical Residential site. Soils in front are compacted, with concrete drive over 40% of the roots. No other
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. Fallowing the protocol established by the International
Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Best Management Practices (BMP) 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 dieback and disease. Branches were inspected for cracks and other
defects, as well as needs for remedial pruning.
2. The bole or main stem 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 with V-shaped crotches, multiple 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 a client's request for tree risk assessment.
Inspection tools included: binoculars, hypsometer, magnifying glass, mallet, & probe were used.
Level 2 advanced: Where Root/Trunk decay was noted, and it was deemed prudent to investigate further, decay drilling
for root and trunk decay was included.
Daniel@Abcconsultinearborists.com 425-328-0445 ISA -7970A
PO 337 Deer Park WA.99008
-.B.C. Co nsultin i Axbo, L5
Certified Arborist Daniel Maple Risk Assessor
Forestry Management From The Ground lip
Observation:
Tree #1 Big leaf Maple "Acer macrophyllum" DBH 49" Height 68' Spread 40'. Tree appears to be in general good health
and moderate vigor. The driveway covers 40% of the roots and the tree is damaging the driveway. Ivy has spread to
encompass approx. 50% of the tree. 3 Co -dominate trunks at 6' off the ground and 7 co -dominate trunks at 9' were noted.
A hollow exists at the point where the 3 stalks attach to the main trunk, decay testing shows moderate decay at this trunk
union. The growth habits suggest the tree was cut at 6' in the past, and the tree we see today is stump sprouts. Removing
the ivy and installing a cable system will help strengthen the union and is as short term option. Risk Rating Moderate.
Tree #2 Big leaf Maple "Acer macrophyllum".DBH 34.5" Height 60' Spread 30'. Ivy has spread to approx. 80% of the tree.
Partial crown failure and deadwood was noted. A cavity with fungal growth was noted on the south side of the root crown
(" Armilleria" decay pathogen is suspected). Decay testing show average outer wall thickness to is 5.5" the rest of the trunk/root
crown is decayed. 1) Tree Trunk Area = 960 2) Decay Area = 490 3) Decay Exceeds 50% Trunk Area. Risk Rating HIGH
I ree Lonamon summary
Tree Species Scientific Name DBH Height Spread Decay Risk Recommendation
1 Maple "Acer macrophyllum" 49" 68' 40' At Attachment Mod. Remove 0-6 months / Cable Short term option
2 Maple "Ater macrophyllum" 34.5" 60' 30' Root Crown High Remove 0-3 months
Conclusion:
Tree #1 Is ivy covered, co -dominate, has moderate decay at the trunk union and is damaging the driveway. The tree appears to be
growing out of an old stump. (stump sprout trees are notorious for failure). Removing the ivy and installing a cable system will add
support to the trunk attachments, however this is a short term mitigation option and doesn't address the damage being done to the
driveway. Due to the defects noted, the long term the Best Management Plan would be to remove the tree.
Tree #2 has a history of failure with like limbs and deadwood in the crown. Decay testing shows advanced decay in the root crown
exceeds 50% of the Total Trunk Area. It is probable that tree failure will occur and impact a target, in the weather events common to
this region in the time frame stated, consequences would be severe. Risk Rating Is HIGH.
Recommendations:
Remove trees #1 and #2 in the next 3 months or before the next significant weather event.
Prepared by
�Daniel
Maple
ISA Certified Arborist
Tree Risk Qualified
Assumptions & Limiting Conditions
1. A field examination of the site was made for this report {date referenced in report.) Care has been taken to obtain all information from reliable
sources in a timely fashion. Therefor all data has been verified to the best of my knowledge, the certified/consulting arborist can neither
guarantee or be held responsible for the accuracy of information provided by any outside sources.
2. Any and all information provided in this report covers only the tree's that were examined and reflects the condition of those tree's at the time
of inspection. This inspection is limited to a visual method of the trees in question, excluding any core sampling, probing, dissection, or
excavation, There is no guarantee nor warranty, expressed or implied that any deficiencies or problems of the mentioned trees may not arise in
3. the future.
4. All drawings, sketches, and photographs submitted with this report, are intended as visual aids only, and are not exact to scale. They should not
be construed as engineering or architectural report of surveys unless noted and specified.
5. The certified arborist/consulting arborist is not required to give any testimony or to attend court for any reason considering this report unless
subsequent contractual agreements are made.
6. Any alterations made to this report or loss automatically invalidates this report.
7. 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.
8. The report and values/opinions expressed, represent the opinion of the certified/consulting arborist, and the arborist fees are in no way
contingent upon reporting any specified values, stipulated results, the occurrence of a subsequent event, nor upon finding to be reported.
Daniel@Abcconsultingarborists.com 425-328-0445 ISA -7970A
PO 337 Deer Park WA.99008
Certified Arborist
FEW
�. B. C~. Consulting Ar oi_ . LS
Daniel Maple
Forestry Management From The Ground Up
Risk Assessor
1�
QanieI0@AbccoOsultin arborists.com 425-328-0445
PO 337 Deer Park WA.99008
o
DEPARTMENT OF COMMU' 'Y CITY of
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT en.ton .�
xIor
Planning Division
LAND USE PERMIT MASTER APPLICATION
PROPERTY OWNER(S)
NAME;�
/'r
ADDRESS,
CITY: ZIP:f,255_
TELEPHONE NUMBER: `�J
APPLICANT (if other than owner)
NAME:
COMPANY (if applicable):
ADDRESS:
CITY: ZIP:
TELEPHONE NUMBER:
CONTACT PERSON
NAME:
COMPANY (if applicable):
ADDRESS: 70M I
CITY: ZIP: � 0
TELEPHONE NUMBER AND EMAIL ADDRESS: ..77
u 0 s - dz115
PROJECT INFORMATION
PROJECTOR DEVELOPMENT NAME:
PROJECT/ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION AND ZIP CODE:
r170- 41'15
A"44-c� U4A- l e066
KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S):
-7& 00 D
EXISTING LAND USE(S):
J / h r �G
PROP ED LAND USE(S):
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION:
.2af
PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNAT ON
(if applicable) /4—
EXISTING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable):
SITE AREA (in square feet):
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PUBLIC ROADWAYS TO BE
DEDICATED: &04
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENTS:
ZA
PROPOSED RESI ENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET
ACRE (if applicable) /
NUMBER OF PROP SED LOTS (if applicable)
111
NUMBER F NEW DWELLING UNITS (if applicable):
H:\CED\Data\Forms-Templates\5eIf-Help Handauts\Planning\Master Application.doc Rev: 08/2015
PROAWT INFOR
NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable):
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL
BUILDINGS (if applicable): //_ t'O
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL
BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable):
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL
BUILDINGS (if applicable): !V
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL
BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): /A,
NET FLOOR AREA ON NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if
applicable):
NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO B� §MPLOYED BY THE NEW
PROJECT (if applicable): 1/V0_ I _
MATION continuL
PROJECT VALUE:
IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF
ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA, PLEASE INCLUDE
SQUARE FOOTAGE (if applicable):
❑ AQUIFIER PROTECTION AREA ONE
❑ AQUIFIER PROTECTION AREA TWO
❑
FLOOD HAZARD AREA
sq. ft.
❑
GEOLOGIC HAZARD
sq. It.
❑
HABITAT CONSERVATION
sq. ft.
❑
SHORELINE STREAMS & LAKES
sq. ft.
❑
WETLANDS
sq. ft.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
Attach legal description on separate sheet with the following information included
SITUATE IN THE QUARTER OF SECTION , TOWNSHIP , RANGE , IN THE CITY
OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP
�-
I, (Print Name/s) 4��}-�'�cl reouncder penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that I am (please check one) [the
current owner of the property involved in this application or ❑ 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.
ajo-k 15i✓ y/z // t-
Signature of Owner/Representative Date Signature of Owner/Representative Date
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) SS
COUNTY OF KING )
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that , 041A eay' signed this instrument and
acknowledge it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purpose mentioned inAhe instrument.
v /7- // 4
Dated
Notary Public
State of Washington
JUAN D MENJiVAR
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES
April 23, 2017
Notary Public in
Notary (Print):
My appointment expires:
2
for the State ington
t�'Z3-o
H:\CED\Data\Forms-Templates\5elf-Help Handouts\Planning\MasterApplication.doc Rev: 08/2015
,,.B.C. Consulting Ax -bo
Certified Arborist Daniel Maple
Forestry Management From The Ground Up
Daniel@Abcconsultingarborists.com 425-328-0445
PO 337 Deer Park WA.99008
Its
Risk Assessor
ISA -7970A
Certified Arborist
�.B. C. Cousultill� �Al-bo- is
Daniel Maple
Forestry Management From The Ground Up
Risk Assessor
Observation:
Tree #1 Big leaf Maple 'Acer macrophyllum"DBH 49" Height 68' Spread 40'. Tree appears to be in general good health
and moderate vigor. The driveway covers 40% of the roots and the tree is damaging the driveway. Ivy has spread to
encompass approx. 50% of the tree. 3 Co -dominate trunks at 6' off the ground and 7 co -dominate trunks at 9' were noted.
A hollow exists at the point where the 3 stalks attach to the main trunk, decay testing shows moderate decay at this trunk
union. The growth habits suggest the tree was cut at 6' in the past, and the tree we see today is stump sprouts. Removing
the ivy and installing a cable system will help strengthen the union and is as short term option. Risk Rating Moderate.
Tree #2 Big leaf Maple "Acer macrophyllum" DBH 34.5" Height 60' Spread 30'. Ivy has spread to approx. 80% of the tree.
Partial crown failure and deadwood was noted. A cavity with fungal growth was noted on the south side of the root crown
("Armiilaria" decay pathogen is suspected). Decay testing show average outer wall thickness to is 5.5" the rest of the trunk/root
crown is decayed. 1) Tree Trunk Area = 960 2) Decay Area = 490 3) Decay Exceeds 50% Trunk Area. Risk Rating HIGH
Tree Lonatt{on Summary
Tree Species Scientific Name DBH Height Spread Decay Risk Recommendation
1 Maple 'Acer macrophyNurn" 49" 68' 40' At Attachment Mod. Remove 0-6 months / Cable Short term option
2 Maple 'Acer macrophyllum" 34.5" 60' 30' 4 Root Crown High Remove 0-3 months
Conclusion:
Tree #1 Is Ivy covered, co-domfnate, has moderate decay at the trunk union and is damaging the driveway. The tree appears to be
growing out of an old stump. (stump sprout trees are notorious for failure). Removing the ivy and installing a cable system will add
support to the trunk attachments, however this is a short term mitigation option and doesn't address the damage being done to the
driveway. Due to the defects noted, the long term the Best Management Plan would be to remove the tree.
Tree #2 has a history of failure with like limbs and deadwood in the crown. Decay testing shows advanced decay in the root crown
exceeds 50% of the Total Trunk Area. It is probable that tree failure will occur and impact a target, in the weather events common to
this region in the time frame stated, consequences would be severe. Risk Rating Is HIGH.
Recommendations:
Remove trees 01 and #2 in the next 3 months or before the next significant weather event.
Prepared by
Daniel Maple
ISA Certified Arborist
Tree Risk Qualified
Assumptions & Limiting Conditions
1. A field examination of the site was made for this report (date referenced in report.) Care has been taken to obtain all information from reliable
sources in a timely fashion. Therefor all data has been verified to the best of my knowledge, the certified/consulting arborist can neither
guarantee or be held responsible for the accuracy of information provided by any outside sources.
2. Any and all information provided in this report covers only the tree's that were examined and reflects the condition of those tree's at the time
of inspection. This inspection is limited to a visual method of the trees in question, excluding any core sampling, probing, dissection, or
excavation. There is no guarantee nor warranty, expressed or implied that any deficiencies or problems of the mentioned trees may not arise in
3. the future.
4. All drawings, sketches, and photographs submitted with this report, are intended as visual aids only, and are not exact to scale. They should not
be construed as engineering or architectural report of surveys unless noted and specified.
5. The certified arborist/consulting arborist is not required to give any testimony or to attend court for any reason considering this report unless
subsequent contractual agreements are made,
6. Any alterations made to this report or loss automatically invalidates this report.
7. 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.
8. The report and values/opinions expressed, represent the opinion of the certified/consulting arborist, and the arborist fees are in no way
contingent upon reporting any specified values, stipulated results, the occurrence of a subsequent event, nor upon finding to be reported.
Daniel@Abcconsultingarborists.com 425-328-0445 ISA -7970A
PO 337 Deer Park WA.99008
- -- - - B.C. Coiisultiilg .A bo. � tS
Certified Arborist
Daniel Maple
Forestry Management From The Ground Up
Risk Assessor
Daniel@AbcconsuItinparborists.com 425-328-0445 ISA -7970A
PO 337 Deer Park WA.99008
CFS