18228 OLYMPIC VIEW DR.PDF18228 OLYMPIC
VIEW DR
Oti Q
�O
C-Mb `
\,
� J 2 5E7
X\0i 1
V
L EGA L< D E C IRTIOAl
LOT /3, BLOCK 2, SEANURST, ACCORD/IUG TO7A16 P4.4T I-IvEReoF
RECORDED IV VOL UME 9 OF P[,gTS, PAGE 90, ,,96CORDS OF
S,c/oNOM/SN COUlt/TY, AIWS,w/AvGTO".
It = SET" 1,eet/ P/N G✓/TN PLAsT/C c4P I/O'D 9B,? 1
(P) =PLAT D/ME.VS101-1
pl '
1 �M� t i'lE4SUREp D/ME�/S/D.V
IyO USE I �� 1
rb
Lys 10
�a J(0 / ►
51� �
r
ry
�db
Z OARS
-----"`�� ' PERMIT 'GAUNTER
PLAT OF SURVEY
FOR
JOHN McDONALD.
rrrr
IN NE %4 ,SECTION 13,T.27N.,R.3E.,W.M.
CITY OF EDMONDS
SNOHOMISH COUNTY, ' WASHINGTON
1. ADDEp F�ROPOSEp .gDDlrlOt! � 4 -i9- 88 � Ti
L Lovell-Sauerland & Associates, Inc.
S ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS
23106 100TH AVE. VV. EDMONDS WA. 98020 PHONE 775.1591
DRAWN CHECKED DATE F.8 SCALE FILE NO
"�' �177 7 - 2 -£ i 2 7;
Uj
-j
LL-
ST
STREET FILE
19'zZ8 ()&y Vlel4l lQe,'
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5ch Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020
Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.ci.edmonds.wa.us
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION
•nC. l gyms
July 25, 2014
Nancy McDonald
18228 Olympic View Drive
Edmonds, WA 98020
Subject: Hazard Tree Removal
Dear Ms. McDonald,
You have contacted the City of Edmonds regarding the removal of a hazard tree located on your
property at 18228 Olympic View Drive. The tree you identified is located on top of an area that
has slopes in excess of 40%. These slopes are considered critical areas pursuant to Edmonds
Community Development Code (ECDC) 23.40 and ECDC 23.80 where slopes in excess of 40%
are considered potential landslide hazards.
Generally the removal of trees, or any vegetation, within a critical area or critical area buffer is
not an allowed activity, unless, pursuant to ECDC 23.40.220.C.7, it involves the removal of
invasive species or hazard trees.
A tree hazard evaluation form from a certified arborist has been submitted documenting the tree
with a hazard risk score of 10 which classifies the tree as a high risk. ECDC 23.40.220.C.7.b.iv
requires that hazard trees be replaced with new trees at a ratio of two to one. Your request has,
not identified the replacement species or location of replacement tree, only noting the
requirement that two trees be planted to `replace the hazard tree being removed.
An exemption for the tree cutting is granted with the following conditions:
1. Only the tree identified in the tree hazard evaluation form and your submitted photos may
be cut.
2. The tree being removed must be replaced at a ratio of 2:1 consistent with ECDC
23.40.220.C.7.b.iv within one year of tree the tree cutting activity. The replacement trees
must be native and indigenous to the site and a minimum of one inch in diameter at breast
height (dbh) for deciduous trees and a minimum of six feet in height for evergreen trees
as measured from the top of the root ball. Replacement trees.should be planted in the
generally vicinity of the trees which are removed.
3. A plan for the replacement trees must be submitted to the City of Edmonds within two
weeks of the tree removal.
4. Stump of the trees removed must be left in place to provide slope stability.
Feel free to contact me if you have any questions, 425-771-0220.
Si erely,
b
men Lien
Senior Planner
Nancy McDonald
18228 Olympic View Drive
Edmonds, WA 98020
July 17, 2014
To: Kernen Lien, City 'of Edmonds
Re:: Dangerous tree removal
Hi Kernen,
The enclosed 3 photos show the area around the dangerous tree that
needs to be removed next week. I know I need to plant two trees to
replace the one to be removed but I'm not sure at this time just
where the new trees can be planted.' I am requesting approval to
remove the dangerous tree next week and then determine the best
place to plant the new ones.
Th,qnk you for your consideration.
Na cDonald " `-
425- 1-5689
nanmcdonaldl2@yahoo.com
FRAl"I'l-
D's 2
A Photographic Guide to the Evaluation of Hazard Trees in Urban Areas
�. TREE HAZARD EVALUATION FORM 2nd Edition
Site/Address: j HAZARD RATING:
Ma /Location: dC
p �� Fa re + Size + Target = Hazard
Owner: public private unknown other Potential of part Rating Rating
Date: Inspector, Immediate action needed
Date of 1st ins ion:
Needs further inspection
Dead tree
TREE CHARACTERIS ICS
Tree # Species: '#
DBH: # of trunks: �_ Height S15'— Spread:
Form: ❑ generally symmetric ninor asymmetry ❑ major asymmetry ❑ stump sprout ❑ stag -headed
Crown class: Aff dominant ❑ co -dominant ❑ intermediate ❑ suppressed
Live crown ratio: 612_ % Age class: ❑ young ❑ semi -mature mature ❑ over-mature/senescent
Pruning history- ❑ crown cleanedErla/excessively thinned 21`15pped Ocrowgaised ❑ ollarded ❑ crown reduced ❑ flush cuts ❑ cabled/braced
❑ none ❑ multiple pruning events Approx. dates:
Special Value: ❑ specimen ❑ heritage/historic ❑ wildlife ❑ unusual ❑ stree tree ❑ screen ❑ shade ❑ indigenous ❑ protected by gov. agency
TREE HEALTH
Foliage color: normal
❑ chlorotic
❑ necrotic Epicormics? Y Q
Growth obstructions:
Foliage density: 4!fn'ormal
❑ sparse
Leaf size: ❑ normal all
❑ stakes ❑ wire/ties ❑ signs ❑ cables
Annual shoot growth: ❑ excellent ❑ average 16poor Twig Dieback? YOP
❑ curb/pavement ❑ guards
Woundwood development:
❑ excellent
❑ average ❑ poor 435&e
❑ other
Vigor class: ❑ excellent
❑ average
❑ fair �oor
Major pests/diseases:
SITE CONDITIONS
Site Character. Err;� idence ❑ commercial ❑ industrial ❑ park ❑ open space ❑ natural 0 woodlandWorest
Landscape type: ❑ parkway ❑ raised bed ❑ container ❑ mound ❑ lawn ❑ shrub border .ATWind break
Irrigation: none ❑ adequate ❑ inadequate ❑ excessive ❑ trunk wettied
Recent site disturbance? YI'V ❑ copiruction ❑ soil disturbance ❑ grade change ❑ line clearing ❑ site clearing
% dripline paved: n-25%
�5-
5-50% 50-75% 75-100% Pavement lifted? Y N
% dripline w/ fill soil: TA 50% 50-75% 75-100%
% dripline grade lowered: 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100%
Soil problems: ❑ drainage ❑ shallow ❑ compacted ❑ droughty ❑ saline ❑ alkaline ❑ acidic ❑ small volume ❑ disease center ❑ history of fail
❑ clay ❑ expansive ❑ slope aspect:
Obstructions: ❑ lights ❑ signage ❑ line -of -sight ❑ view ❑ overhead lines ❑ underground utilities ❑ traffic ❑ adjacent veg. ❑
Exposure to wind: single tree ❑ below canopy ❑ above canopy ❑ recently exposed pmn--dward, canopy edge _area prone to windthrow
Prevailing wind direction: Occurrence of snow/ice storms ❑ never ❑ seldom Qwe�ularly
TARGET
Use Under Tree: Z�building ❑ parking ❑ traffic ❑ pedestrian ❑ recreation andscape f ardscape ❑small features ❑utility lines
Can target be moved? Y/—N) Can use be restricted?
Occupancy: ❑ occasional use ❑ intermittent use ❑ frequent use constant use
The International Society of Arboriculture assumes no responsibility for co clusions or recommendations derived from use of this form.
u
TREE DEFECTS
ROOT DEFECTS:
Suspect root rot Y L Mushroom/conk/bracket present Y ,EID:
Exposed rootsvere ❑ moderate low Undermined: ❑ severe
Root pruned: distance from trunk Root area affected: %
Restricted root area: ❑ severe ❑ moderate 41"low Potential for root failure
LEAN: deg. from vertical natural ❑ unnatural ❑ self -corrected
Decay in plane of lean: ../' Roots broken Y<Z) Soil cracking: i N
❑ moderate
Buttress wounded: IQ When:.
❑ severe ❑ moderate IQ40w-
Soil heaving: Y N
Compounding factors: Lean severity: ❑ severe ❑ moderate ❑ low
CROWN DEFECTS: Indicate presence of individual defects and rate their severity (s = severe, m = moderate, I = low)
DEFECT
ROOT CROWN
TRUNK
SCAFFOLDS
BRANCHES
Poor taper
Bow, sweep
Codominants/forks
Multiple attachments
Included bark
Excessive end weight
Cracks/splits
Hangers
Girdling
Woundstseam
Decay
Cavity
Conks/mushrooms/bracket
Bleeding/sap flow
Loose/cracked bark
Nestinq hole/bee hive
Deadwood/stubs
Borers/termites/ants
Cankers/galls/buds
Previous failure
HAZARD RATING
Tree part most likely to fail: kxuas" Failure potential: 1 - low, 2 - mediurrl;:�)iigh; 4 - severe
Inspection period: annual biannual other Size of part: 1 - <6" (15 cm); 2 - 6-18" (15-45 cm);
Failure Potential + Size of Part + Target Rating = Hazard Rating �3�-18-30" (45-75 cm); 4 - >30" (75 cm)
+ + _ Target rating: 1 -occasional use; 2 intermittent use;
}— 3 - frequent us 4 constant use
HAZARD ABATEMENT
Prune: ❑ remove defective part ❑ reduce end weight ❑ crown clean ❑ thin ❑ raise canopy ❑ crown reduce ❑ restructure ❑ shape
Cable/Brace: Inspect furtl►er: ❑ root crown ❑ decay ❑ aerial ❑ monitor
Remove tree: Y N Replace? Y N Move target Y N Other:
Effect on adjacent trees: ❑ none ❑ evaluate
Notification: ❑ owner ❑ manager ❑ governing agency Date:
COMMENTS
ot
At-0 Yk2
STREET FILE
R E G L I V E D
MAY G 1988
FINDINGS AND DECISION
OF THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE PI_ANVIM DEPT.
CITY OF EDMONDS
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FILE: V-11-88
OF JOHN MCDONALD FOR APPROVAL
OF A VARIANCE
DECISION: The variance is granted subject to
the conditions listed.
INTRODUCTION
John McDonald, 5917 Central Drive, Everett, Washington, 98204,
(hereinafter referred to as Applicant).has requested a variance
to reduce the required 25-foot street setback off Olympic View
Drive to zero feet, and to reduce the required 10-foot south side
yard setback to 5 feet. The variances are requested in order for
a remodel and addition to the residence at 18228 Olympic View
Drive, Edmonds, Washington.
A hearing on the request was held before the Hearing Examiner of
the City of Edmonds, Washington, on April 21, 1988.
At the hearing the following presented testimony and evidence:
Duane Bowman
Planning Dept.
City of Edmonds
Edmonds, WA 98020
John McDonald
5917 Central Drive
Everett, WA 98204
At the hearing the following exhibits were submitted and admitted
as part of the official record of this proceeding:
1 - Staff Report
2 - Application/Declarations
3 - Survey
4 - Floor Plan
5 - Photographs
6 - Plat Survey Showing Addition Superimposed
May 4, 1988
Page 1
HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION
RE: V-11-88
After due consideration of the evidence presented by the Appli-
cant, and evidence elicited during the public hearing the fol-
lowing Findings of Fact and Conclusions constitute the basis of
the decision of the Hearing Examiner.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The Applicant has requested approval of a variance for a
reduction of the required street setback off Olympic View
Drive from 25 feet to zero feet, and a reduction of the
required 10-foot south side yard setback to 5 feet in order
for a remodel and addition to the residence at 18228 Olympic
View Drive, Edmonds, Washington. (Bowman testimony.)
2. The subject property is located on the west side of Olympic
View Drive. It is n9ar the intersection of High Street and
Olympic View Drive and the lot contains 13,411 square feet.
Most of the lot slopes steeply. The eastern third of the
subject property slopes.moderately and is developed with a
residence. (Staff report.)
3. There is an older residence located on the subject property
that consists of a house and a garage. It has been deter-
mined that the existing garage of the residence encroaches
into the right-of-way of Olympic View Drive by 1.4 feet.
(Staff report.)
4. The subject property is zoned RS-12. (Staff report.)
5. It is the intent of the Applicant to remodel and build an
addition to the existing residence. The Applicant intends
to build an addition on the south side of the house which
will be used as a bedroom, and to expand the existing garage' -
to provide for a two -car garage. In order to add .the addi-
tional bedroom, the Applicant will encroach in the required
10-foot side yard setback. The Applicant seeks a variance
from this standard.. Also, in order to develop the garage,
the Applicant seeks a variance from the 25-foot street
setback to have a setback of zero feet from the right-of-
way. (Bowman testimony.)
6. In order for a variance to be granted within the City of
Edmonds the criteria as set forth in ECDC 20.85.010 must
be satisfied. These criteria include:
A. Because of special circumstances relating to the pro-
perty, the strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance
would deprive the owner of use rights and privileges
permitted to other properties in the vicinity with the
same zoning.
B. The approval of the variance would not be a grant of
special privilege to the property in comparison with the
May 4, 1988
Page 2
HEARING EXAMINER'S D.._ISION
RE: V-11-88
limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with
the same zoning.
C. The approval of the variance will be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan of the City of Edmonds.
D. The approval of the variance will be consistent with the
purposes of the zoning ordinance and the zone district
in which the property is located.
E. The variance as approved or conditionally approved will
not be significantly detrimental to the public health,
safety and welfare or injurious to the property or
improvements in the vicinity and same zone.
F. The requested variance is the minimum necessary to allow
the owner the rights enjoyed by other properties in the
vicinity with the same zoning.
(ECDC.)
7. The topography of the site restricts the Applicant from
expanding the house in a westerly direction. The only area
available for further expansion of the residence is on the
moderately sloped area immediately south of the existing
structure. This topography of the lot creates a special
circumstance for the granting of a variance. (McDonald and
Bowman testimony.)
8. The requested variance will not be the grant of a special
privilege. Other properties in the area are developed in a _
manner similar to the subject property. (Bowman testimony.)
9. The Comprehensive Policy Plan map designates the subject
property as Low Density Residential. (Staff report.)
10. The requested variance will not pose any significant impact
to the public, nor to nearby private property or improve-
ments. (Staff report.)
11. The City's representative submitted that given the very
restricted topography of the lot, the requested variances
are the minimum necessary to allow reasonable improvements
to be made to the property. (Bowman testimony.)
12. The Planning Department of the City of Edmonds recommended
approval of the variance subject to the following
conditions:
May 4, 1988
Page 3
HEARING EXAMINER'S L 2ISION
RE: V-11-88
1. A building permit is required for all improvements.
2. The encroachment into the right-of-way of Olympic View
Drive shall be removed.
(Staff report and Bowman testimony.)
13. The Applicant submitted that it is his intent to develop the
garage so that he does not have to park his cars on Olympic
View Drive. By doing so he claimed that it removed a
potential safety hazard in the area. (McDonald testimony.)
14. No adverse testimony was received in this matter.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The application is for the approval of a variance for a
reduction of the street setback from 25 feet to zero feet,
and a reduction of the south side yard setback from 10 feet
to 5 feet for property located at 18228 Olympic View Drive,
Edmonds, Washington.
2. ECDC 16.20.030 establishes minimum street setbacks of 25
feet, and minimum side yard setbacks of 10 feet for RS-12
zoned property. The Applicant seeks a variance from these
standards.
3. In order for a variance to be granted within the City of
Edmonds the criteria of ECDC 20.85.010 must be satisfied.
With conditions this application satisfies these criteria.
4. Special circumstances exist for the granting of a variance.
The topography of the site places restrictions on its
development and as a result the Applicant must obtain a
variance in order to improve the property.
5. The granting of a variance will not be the grant of a
special privilege to the Applicant.
6. The requested variance is consistent with the policies as
set forth in ECDC Chapter 15. In particular, it satisfies
the policies of the Low Density Residential designation by
providing a single-family residence in a manner consistent
with other properties in the area.
7. The requested variance is consistent with the purposes of
the RS-12.zone as set forth in ECDC 16.20.000. The property
will be an area primarily for a single-family dwelling. The
garage will provide a non-residential use which will comple-
ment and be compatible with the single-family dwelling use.
8. The requested variance is not detrimental to other proper-
ties in the area.
May 4, 1988
Page 4
• HEARING EXAMINER'S -ISION
RE: V-11-88
9. The requested variance is the minimum necessary for the
Applicant to develop his property.
nVOTCTAM
Based upon the preceding Findings of Fact and Conclusions, and
the testimony and evidence submitted at the public hearing, it is
hereby ordered that the requested variance for the property
located at 18228 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds, Washington, is
granted subject to the following conditions:
1. The street setback for the subject property shall be reduced
from 25 feet to zero feet.
2. The side yard setback for the subject property shall be
reduced from 10 feet to 5 feet.
3. A building permit sha.11 be required for all improvements.
4. The encroachment of the existing garage into the Olympic View
Drive right-of-way must be removed and corrected. This
existing garage must also satisfy a zero street setback.
Entered this 4th day of May, 1988, pursuant to the authority
granted the Hearing Examiner under Chapter 20.100 of the Com-
munity Development Code of the City of Edmonds.
V
el
OAMESJ�M. DRISCOL
Hear ng Examiner
ICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Written appeals alleging specific error of fact or other grounds
for appeal may be filed with the Planning Department, City of
Edmonds, Civic Center, Edmonds, Washington, 98020, within
fourteen days of the date of the Hearing Examiner's final action.
In this matter any appeal must be received by the Department
prior to 5:00 p.m. on May 18, 1988.
May 4, 1988
Page 5
—CITY of'--E D M 010 S,*SIDE - SEWER. -1`14111 T
.
For Inspectio n Call'771-320 1 2 PERMIT NO. �*
STREETTILE,�
Address of Construction: Lfim
Property Legal Description (Incl.ude'all,e,a'sements):
Owner and/or Builder.- To\n 0,60"C.J
Contractor & License No:
ItDMONDS
TREATMENT PLANT
Singl:e Family.Residence
Multi -Family (No. of Units
Commercial (No. of fixture Units
Invasion into City Right -of -Way: No Yes .(If Yes, Right -of -Way
Construction Permit required. Call One -Call -Center (1-800424-5�,85) b-erf6re any
excavation.)
Cross other Private Property: 'No X Yes (if Y-es,!'easement required,
attach legal description and county easement number,.)
PLEASE READ THE ITEMS LISTED ON THE BACK
X#X
I —certify that I-haVe read and ' shall comply
with the items listed on the back.
.R F-C L i v* .. ..
MAY 311989
PUBLIC Mkr,:,-
Permit Fee: I'ssued By:
Trunk'Charge: Date Issued:' 5-31•
Assessment Fee: Receipt No.: to5;)LL4
/ I lei
Date f
Partial Inspection:
Comments Date Initial
Final Inspection Approved:
Date Initial
co
Rejected: [VV5�tt'/Yoo M4_ vvcoi�ir r4, Wv� (-iw
CD
11 Reason to nitial
PERMIT MUST BE POSTED ON JOB SITE
White Copy -File Green Copy -�In p
ector Buff Copy Applicant
IE
IA
c
O
W
y.
O
Z.
V
s
I -
El
a
O
U
H
0
V
0
z
U
O
a
PP
In
Im
FILE
0
0
d
4
0
z