Loading...
RECON CUT-05-127.DOC CITY OF EDMONDS 121 - 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 PLANNING DIVISION FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECONSIDERATION DECISION To: Jennifer Mantooth From : Meg Gruwell, AICP Senior Planner Date: July 19, 2006 File: CU-05-127 Applicant: Jennifer Mantooth FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS 1)Jennifer Mantooth filed a request for reconsideration on June 29, 2006, for the partial denial of an application to cut trees on her property issued under conditional use permit, file CU-05- 127. The decision was mailed on June 16, 2005. The request for reconsideration was filed on June 29, 2006, which was a timely submittal (see Exhibit A). The reconsideration fee of $150 was filed with the request. In this letter she notes that in a request list in a letter dated December 9, 2005, she removed trees 1 and 3 from the request, and that tree 17 is rooted on the adjacent property and is no longer under consideration for removal. 2)Subsequently Ms. Mantooth faxed a letter dated July 2, 2006, asking for cutting trees 1 and 3 to be considered as part of the reconsideration. This letter came after the deadline, but since the clock has been stopped for the reconsideration and a decision had not yet been issued, it is considered timely. 3)The request for reconsideration asks for four modifications to the decision (see Attachment A). a)Ms. Mantooth states that tree #4 and #5 are clearly identified for removal per Earth Solutions LLC letter dated February 23, 2006. Ms. Mantooth correctly notes that this letter was omitted from the staff report. b)The applicant requests that condition #2 under the Decision C. be omitted as the trees are clearly labeled and for other reasons. c)The third point was to state that the restoration requested by condition #3 has already occurred and the attached site plan shows the location and type of vegetation replanted (see Attachment B). d)The fourth request is to reconsider trees 1 and 3 as stated in Attachment D. RECON CUT-05-127.DOC / July 14, 2017 / Staff Report Jennifer Mantooth Tree Cutting File No. CU-05-127 Page 2 of 4 4)The Earth Solutions NW letter dated February 23, 2006, was faxed to the office on February 23, 2006, and should have been included in the record. This letter is included as part of the record in Attachment B of this reconsideration decision. Staff apologizes for the omission. 5)The initial letter from Earth Consultants Inc. dated January 21, 2004, stated that the firm was in agreement with the arborist report. In their opinion the trees identified as being in poor condition pose a potential hazard. They also note that the overburden from the existing large trees may also contribute to slope movements, and removing the overburden while maintaining the stump and root systems will not decrease the existing stability of the slope and may effectively improve the overall stability. They also note that surface erosion should be addressed as recommended in the Restoration Plan recommended by the arborist. 6)The arborist report, dated December 3, 2003, gives some overall statements about trees on the slope, but in the specific recommendations, they recommend keeping trees numbered 1, 3, 4, and 5 in addition to a couple of others not requested to be removed with this application. The arborist report specifically recommends that trees 11 and 12 be removed, and tree 17 be removed or snagged. 7)The Earth Solutions letter dated February 23, 2006, only specifically addresses tree numbered 4, which is the relatively large hemlock. They agree that this tree should be added to the selective tree removal program, but the tree stump and root system should be preserved, in accordance with the recommendations of the arborist. The Earth Solutions letter state the tree cut list includes trees 4, 5, 11, 12, and 17, though it is not clear if they have reviewed any trees but tree #4 with this letter. 8)The arborist report recommends retaining trees 1 and 3. These trees are described as small to medium and 11 inches, respectively. 9)The geotechnical report never addresses trees 1 and 3. They primarily are concerned about large trees, which these two trees would not be considered. 10)In a telephone conversation on July 18, 2006, with David “Kim” Reich, the arborist, he stated emphatically that all cedars (tree 3) are to be kept. The small-to-medium maple (tree 1) he wanted to be kept. He had reviewed the hemlock near where the alder had fallen again, as part of his work with the Lorian Woods Homeowner’s Association, and was now of the opinion that the hemlock (tree 4) had less roots than the alder had, and because of its weight and location it should be cut. The 17-inch maple (tree 5) he believed he had recommended that it be cut and the stump be allowed to regrow as part of the new plan. 11)Staff has not received the revised plan for tree-cutting on the slope that has been done for the Lorian Woods Homeowners’ Association. 12)Ms. Mantooth has submitted a site plan (Attachment C) that shows the location of four shore pines and twelve vine maples that she has planted. 13)Although Shore Pine is a native tree, it is not listed among the conifers in the list of replacement trees in the Restoration Plan. In a telephone conversation with David Reich, arborist, he stated that in sunny locations, shore pine would be an acceptable coniferous tree to use on this site. 14)The Restoration Plan given in Mr. Reich’s report includes many elements, including tree removal; covering exposed soil with an erosion prevention blanket; replanting trees, understory and ground cover plants; and notes that if desirable understory is present no other understory plants are needed and the importance of maintenance. RECON CUT-05-127.DOC / July 14, 2017 / Staff Report Jennifer Mantooth Tree Cutting File No. CU-05-127 Page 3 of 4 15)With the removal of the two maple trees (#11 and #12) additional light and room should be available to help establish new plants. Though the maple tree roots will survive for some time, eventually new vegetation will need to take their place in stabilizing the slope. 16)Ms. Mantooth has pointed out that the location of the plants on Attachment D was to avoid disturbance to the new plants when the trees were being removed. 17)Regarding replacement trees, the Restoration Plan states that vegetation is to be cleared around each resulting stump or snag to provide a 4x4 or 2x2 foot area. Therefore, the area around each of the cut trees needs to be addressed. 18)The Restoration Plan also calls for mixed species of trees. 19)The size of trees required in the Restoration Plan is 3-4 feet in height for conifers and 5-6 feet for the deciduous trees. 20)The replanting as shown on Attachment C is advisable to help stabilize the slope. However, it cannot be considered to meet the requirements of the Restoration Plan. 21)The size of the vine maples and shore pines is not given in Attachment C. In a telephone conversation with David “Kim” Reich he suggested that if the vine maples were a two-gallon size, or approximately 3 feet tall, that 16 trees would be required per tree cut, instead of the suggested four trees at 5-6 feet tall. Any smaller than that and 20-25 trees would be more appropriate to try to replace the canopy. 22)If planted at the required 5-6 feet height for vine maples and 3 feet height for shore pines, two of the vine maples and two of the shore pines already planted can be considered to be part of the eight trees required to be planted. The remaining trees must be mixed species, half coniferous, and should be chosen for their rooting abilities, and placed near where the trees are removed. 23)The Restoration Plan proposed in the arborist’s report still needs to be followed. 24)A replanting plan is needed to confirm the height and location of proposed trees and to confirm that a mix of species is being included, which include an equal number of deciduous and coniferous trees. 25)Understory and ground cover shall be included in the replanting plan where damage is caused by the tree-cutting and in areas that don’t have established, desirable understory. RECONSIDERATION DECISION Staff has reviewed the request given in Exhibit A and C and reviewed the geotechnical opinion given in Attachment B, as well as submittals C and D, and has spoken with the arborist, and after consideration, revises the decision in CU-05-127 dated June 15, 2006, as follows: 1)The letter from Earth Solutions NW LLC dated February 23, 2006, is added to the record (see Attachment B). 2)Trees 4 and 5 may be cut, but their stump and roots shall be left in place and the maple shall be allowed to regrow. 3)Condition #2 is kept, since the trees have numerous markings on them from various studies that have been done, as noted in Ms. Mantooth’s letter (Attachment D). However, Ms. RECON CUT-05-127.DOC / July 14, 2017 / Staff Report Jennifer Mantooth Tree Cutting File No. CU-05-127 Page 4 of 4 Gruwell or other staff member will try to accommodate a meeting with the tree-cutting contractor with shorter notice if at all possible. 4)Condition #3 is still required. The applicant can include the vine maples and shore pine that have already been planted as part of the replanting plan, but they will not suffice for the work required under the Restoration Plan. 5)Trees 1 and 3 are still NOT approved for removal with this permit, since the arborist report recommends retaining them, and the geotechnical reports never addressed them. th Entered this 19 day of July, 2006, pursuant to the authority granted to staff under Chapter 20.95.050.B.2. _________________________ Meg Gruwell Senior Planner APPEALS The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing appeals. Any person wishing to file an appeal should contact the Planning Department for further procedural information. Section 20.095.050.B.3 describes how appeals of a Staff decision shall be made. The appeal shall be made in writing, and shall include the decision being appealed along with the name of the project and the date of the decision, the name of the individual or group appealing the decision, their interest in the matter, and reasons why the appellant believes the decision to be wrong. The appeal must be filed with the Community Development Director within fourteen (14) calendar days after the date of the decision being appealed. An appeal fee is also required. RECONSIDERATION EXHIBITS: The following reconsideration exhibits were offered and entered into the record. A.Request for reconsideration from Jennifer Mantooth dated June 28, 2006 B.Letter from Earth Solutions NW LLC dated February 23, 2006 C.Site Plan showing Replanting of Shore Pine and Vine Maple, received June 29, 2006 D.Letter from Jennifer Mantooth dated July 2, 2006 PARTIES OF RECORD FOR CU-05-127: Ms. Jennifer Mantooth Planning Division P.O. Box 462 Edmonds, WA 98020 Building Division Ms. Amy Ross Engineering Division rd 16119 – 73 Pl. W. Edmonds, WA 98026 Public Works Department RECON CUT-05-127.DOC / July 14, 2017 / Staff Report