Staff memo to ADB re PLN-2009-0047 with exhibits.pdfARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD
STAFF MEMO
June 15, 2011 Meeting
TO: The Architectural Design Board
FROM:
Mike Clugston, A&P
Associate Planner
DATE: June 8, 2011
FILE: Updated landscaping plan for 7616/7618 and 7620/7622 202nd Place SW
(PLN -2009-0047)
A. Property Owner Applicant
Richard Kirshner same
7503 Braemar Drive
Edmonds, WA 98026
B. Site Location
7616/7618 and 7620/7622 202nd Place SW (Residential Multifamily, RM — 3.0)
C. Introduction
On September 22, 2009, the applicant applied for a Type II permit (staff decision with notice) to
update an existing landscaping plan in order to remove three mature Douglas fir trees on the
northern portions of the subject site (Exhibit 1, Attachment 1). The applicant proposed to replace
the three trees with an evergreen hedge along the southern property line (Exhibit 1, Attachments 8
and 9). As indicated later in this report, that replacement proposal was not code -compliant and so
could not be approved by staff.
During review of the project, it was also noted that the current landscaping at the site (Exhibits 2
and 3) bears little resemblance to that which was originally approved in 1977 (Exhibit 1,
Attachments 2 and 3). Clearly, many changes had been made over time, including the removal of
some two dozen firs in the rear yards of the subject parcels. Knowing this, and understanding
that the replacement proposal could not be approved at the staff level, staff did approve the
removal of the three Douglas firs on January 7, 2010, but subject to conditions (Exhibit 1, page
4). Condition #1 of the decision required the applicant to either reinstall the landscaping as it had
been approved in 1977 or submit an updated landscaping plan to the Architectural Design Board
for review and approval. On May 2, 2011, the applicant submitted materials for the ADB's
review and approval of an updated landscaping plan for the subject site.
Exhibit 4 is the proposed landscaping plan for the site showing the three trees to be removed as
well as a proposed Thuja hedge along the south and west property lines. The hedge only is
offered as replacement for the three mature Douglas firs to be removed from the north yards
adjacent to 202nd Place.
Page 1 of 3
Updated landscaping plan
PLN -2009-0047
D. Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Compliance
Tree removal on private parcels is regulated in ECDC 18.45 (Land Clearing and Tree Cutting
Code). In some instances, a permit is not required to do work on trees (single family parcels, no
critical areas present, routine maintenance and gardening, etc.); however, tree removal or
landscaping projects in the multifamily residential and business and commercial zones require a
permit. These requests are commonly reviewed by updating an existing landscaping plan to meet
the requirements of ECDC 18.45 as well as ECDC 20.13 — Landscaping.
1. ECDC 18.45 — Land Clearing and Tree Cutting Code
While the code indicates that "[tjrees shall be retained to the maximum extent feasible."
(ECDC 18.45.050.13), it is also recognized that sometimes mature trees need to be removed
from a developed site. In those instances, ECDC 18.45.050.17 states that "[t/he city may
require and/or allow the applicant to relocate or replace trees...." When large evergreens
are removed, the City typically asks for 2:1 or 3:1 replacement of the same or similar species
somewhere on the site at a two-inch caliper. As noted above, rather than replacing like -for -
like, the applicant has requested to replace the three mature Douglas firs with a Thuja
(arborvitae) hedge along the south and west property lines (Exhibit 4).
2. ECDC 20.13 — Landscaping
Updating a landscaping plan is a form of design review and the requirements for such plans
are found in Chapter 20.13 ECDC. Depending on the location of the site and its
surroundings, there are different landscaping types that may be appropriate as described in
ECDC 20.13.030. The two subject parcels are zoned RM — 3.0 but they abut single family -
zoned parcels on the west and a portion of the south. Type II landscaping would be
appropriate for such a location as it "is intended to create a visual separation between similar
uses." (ECDC 20.13.030.13) Specific requirements for Type II landscaping include:
® Evergreen and deciduous trees, with no more than 30 percent being deciduous, a
minimum of six feet in height, and planted at intervals no greater than 20 feet on
center, and
• Shrubs, a minimum of three and one-half feet in height and other plant materials,
planted so that the ground will be covered within three years.
As mentioned above, the applicant wishes to vary from these requirements and install a Thuja
hedge on the south and west property lines to go along with the other existing landscaping on
the site (Exhibit 4). It makes sense that the existing landscaping should be retained (rather
than going back to that which was approved in 1977). However, there are specific options for
replacement of the three Douglas firs in question: 1) like -for -like replacement per ECDC
18.45.050, and/or 2) installation of new landscaping in accordance with the landscaping code
in ECDC 20.13.030. The initial proposed replacements (Exhibit 1, Attachments 8 and 9;
Exhibit 4) did not meet code requirements and therefore staff could not approve that
vegetation. That said, the landscaping chapter allows the ADB some flexibility in
interpreting the requirements of the landscaping code. ECDC 20.13.000 (Scope) states:
The landscape requirements found in this chapter are intended for use by city staff,
the architectural design board (ADB) and the hearing examiner in reviewing
projects, as set forth in ECDC 20.11.010. The ADB and hearing examiner shall be
allowed to interpret and modem the requirements contained herein; provided such
modification is consistent with the purposes found in ECDC 20.10.000.
The purposes of ECDC 20.10.000 include:
Page 2 of 3
Updated landscaping plan
PLN -2009-0047
A. To encourage the realization and conservation of a desirable and aesthetic
environment in the city of Edmonds;
B. To encourage and promote development which features amenities and excellence
in the form of variations of siting, types of structures and adaptation to and
conservation of topography and other natural features;
C. To encourage creative approaches to the use of land and related physical
developments;
D. To encourage the enhancement and preservation of land or building of unique or
outstanding scenic or historical significance;
E. To minimize incompatible and unsightly surroundings and visual blight which
prevent orderly community development and reduce community property values.
F. Conclusions
If the ADB feels that the replacement hedge meets the requirements of ECDC 20.10.000, then
they may vary the requirements of ECDC 20.13 and not require Type II landscaping on the
southern and western bounds as shown in Exhibit 4. At the same time, 2:1 or 3:1 tree
replacement would also be appropriate for the removal of the three fir trees on the northern side
of the parcels along with the inclusion of additional Type 11 landscaping along the south and west
property lines or, in its place, the proposed hedge. Staff will work with the applicant to ensure
the Board's approved changes are installed and that the remainder of the conditions of the
original staff report (Exhibit 1, page 4) are complied with.
G. Exhibits
1. PLN -2009-0047 staff report and attachments
2. Keyed landscape plan showing existing
3. Keyed photos showing existing
4. Landscaping plan showing proposed
Page 3 of 3
CITY OF EDMONDS
1,11 5"' Avenue North - Edmonds, WA 98020
Phone: 425.771.0220 Fax: 425.771.0221 Web: www.ci.ednionds.wa.tis
DEVELOPMENT SERVicFs DEPARTMENT: PLANNING Divism
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND DECISION
TO: Richard Kirschner
J
FROM: �Z
Mike Clugston, AICD
DATE: January 7, 2010
PLN -2009-0047: The applicant is proposing to remove three Douglas fir trees, one at 7616/7618
and two at 7620/7622 202"' Place SW. Both duplex parcels are zoned
Residential Multifamily (RM -3.0). Amending an existing landscaping plan is a
Type 11 permit. Replacement vegetation is required.
A. rEoert�C)vvnep Alp
Richard Kirschner Same as Property Owner
7503 Braemar Drive
Edmonds, WA 98026
B. Introduction
Through a
modification to an
existing landscaping
plan, the applicant
proposes (Attachment
1) to remove three
Douglas fir trees, one
at 7616/7618 and two
at 7620/7622 202nd
Place SW (see adjacent
inset and inset on page
2). The parcels are
zoned RM -3.0. While
trees on individual lots
are regulated through
ECDC 18.45, changes
to landscape plans are
subject to design
review. The subject
application does not
trigger SEPA review;
Proposed fir for removal at 7616/7618 202"`1 Place SW
File No. PLN -2009-0047
Kirschner 7616/7620 202"' PI.
Landscape Plan Modification
therefore, the proposal may be approved by staff as an Administrative Staff Decision, subject to the
requirements ofECDC 20.01.003.
C. Findino and Conclusions
The existing
landscaping
plans were
approved by tt
Architectural
Design Board
through permit
ADB -98-76
(Attaclunent 2'
and )k.DB-95-7
(Attachment 3'
and
implemented
with the
associated
building permi
BLD -1977-02,
and BLD -1 M
0104.
Significant
unperinitted
landscape
alteration has
taken place at the site Proposed firs for removal at 7620/7622 202"" Place SW
since the original
landscaping plans were approved in 1977 and 1978. At that time, there was a variety of natural
and installed landscaping around both duplexes. The updated landscaping plans submitted by the
applicant (Attachments 4 and 5) show what exists today. Of note, at least two dozen firs have
been removed from the rear yards south of both parcels. Based on aerial photos of the site, the
trees were removed between 2004 and 2007. During that period, there was also redevelopment of
the parcel immediately to the south which involved removal of all trees and vegetation from that
lot.
3. The current request is to remove three evergreens on the northern side of the duplexes. One
specific tree (Tree #2) was identified by the applicant's insurance company for maintenance
Page 2 of 5
File No. PLN -2009-0047
Kirschner 7616/7620 202"a Pl.
Landscape Plan Modification
because it sheds needles and debris on the roof and walkway in front of 7620/7622 202"d Place
(Attachment 6).
4. According to the arborist's tree hazard assessments (Attachment 7), Trees #1 and #2 are
described as being of normal and average health. There is some pavement lifting around Tree #2.
Tree #3 is described as being in slightly poorer health. The recommended course of action for
each of the trees is removal as opposed to maintenance.
5. The applicant submitted an amended landscaping plan for each site showing replacement
vegetation (Attachments 8 and 9) as well as a letter from the arborist suggesting other replanting
options (Attachment 10). The replacement vegetation proposed is insufficient to compensate for
the loss of the three evergreens, let alone the additional unpermitted loss of vegetation on the
southern portion of the parcels.
6. Two public comments were received regarding this application, one from Mahria Jordan
(Attachment 11) and the other from Claire Beach (Attachment 12). Both questioned the need for
removal of the trees since they appear to be in good health and given the environmental benefits
healthy trees provide.
7. The Comprehensive Plan offers a number of goal and policy recommendations with regard to
trees. Not all of the recommendations apply to every project, but taken together they indicate the
intent of the Council regarding trees:
a. The City's development policies encourage high quality site and building design to
promote coordinated development and to preserve the trees, topography and other
natural features of the site. (p 54)
b. Grading, filling, and tree cutting shall be restricted to building pads, driveways,
access ways and other impervious surfaces. (p 63)
c. The removal of trees should be minimized particularly when they are located on steep
slopes or hazardous soils. Subdivision layouts, buildings and roads should be
designed so that existing trees are preserved. (p 66)
d. Trees that are diseased, damaged, or unstable should be removed. (p 66)
e. Grading should be restricted to building pads and roads only. Vegetation outside
these areas should be preserved. (p 66)
f. Retain significant landscape features and unique landforms such as rock outcroppings
and significant trees. (p 77)
8. According to ECDC 18.45.050.B, "[t]rees should be retained to the maximum extent feasible."
9. Landscaping on multifamily parcels must be designed in accordance with the standards and
requirements found in Chapter 20.13 ECDC — Landscaping Requirements.
10. After visiting the site and examining the record, it appears that the landscaping and grounds
surrounding the structures have been minimally maintained over the past 30 years. The three
remaining evergreen trees have not been well maintained which has lead to their current health
and impact to the site regarding needle dropping and pavement heave. While it is uncertain, it is
quite likely that the illegally removed trees on the southern side of the parcels were also not well
maintained and the owner found it easier to simply remove the trees than to properly maintain
them.
Trees, like structures and other site improvements, need ongoing maintenance to ensure they
remain healthy and vigorous. Without maintenance, they more rapidly deteriorate and cause
greater impacts than they would otherwise if properly tended to over time.
Page 3 of 5
File No. PLN -2009-0047
Kirschner 7616/7620 202"d PI
Landscape Plan Modification
D. Decision
Based on the findings, conclusions, and attachments to this report, staff finds that the removal of the
three subject trees identified on Attachments 4 and 5 in file number ADB -2009-0047 is APPROVED
with the following conditions:
The approved landscaping design of the site was substantially altered by the relatively recent
unapproved removal of numerous evergreens on the southern portion of the property. The
additional removal of the three subject trees will finally result in a drastic departure from what
was originally approved for the two parcels. As a result, the originally approved landscaping for
the parcels (as identified in Attachments 2 and 3) must be re-established. All replacement
plantings must meet the size requirements found in ECDC 20.13.015.
Alternatively, the applicant may apply to the Architectural Design Board to create a new
landscaping plan for the parcels produced in accordance with ECDC 20.13. If this course is
chosen, the three subject trees may not be removed until the ADB has approved a new
landscaping plan.
2. Per ECDC 20.13.040, the applicant must submit an itemized cost estimate covering the value of
the plantings and labor necessary to re-establish the existing approved landscaping or any new
ADB -approved landscaping plan. This estimate will be used to establish a landscaping
performance bond. The performance bond is required prior to removal of any trees at the site.
Once the landscaping has been installed, a 15 percent maintenance bond is required for release of
the performance bond. Any plants that die within two years of installation must be replaced
before the maintenance bond can be released. Upon inspection and approval, the maintenance
bond may be released after two years.
3. The applicant shall schedule a maintenance inspection with the Planning Division two (2) years
after the date of installation.
4. The applicant shall obtain a right-of-way construction permit from the Engineering Division prior
to removal if work in the right-of-way is anticipated.
E. Attachments
1. Land use application
2. Original landscaping plan for 7620/7622 202nd Place (ADB -98-76)
3. Original landscaping plans for 7616/7618 202❑d Place (ADB -95-77)
4. Updated landscaping plan 7620/7622 202nd Place
5. Updated landscaping plan 7616/7618 202nd Place
6. Applicant's narrative and supporting documentation
7. Arborist reports for three trees
8. Amended landscaping plan 7620/7622 202nd Place
9. Amended landscaping plan 7616/7618 202nd Place
10. Arborist's replanting plan
11. Comment letter from Mahria Jordan
12. Comment letter from Claire Beach
13. Public notice materials
Page 4 of 5
File No. PLN -2009-0047
Kirschner 7616/7620 202nd Pl.
Landscape Plan Modification
F. Appeal
A party of record may submit a written appeal of a Type II decision within 14 days of the date of
issuance of the decision. The appeal will be heard at an open record public hearing before the
Hearing Examiner according to the requirements of ECDC Chapter 20.06 and Section 20.07.004.
G. Parties of Record
Richard Kirschner
7503 Braemar Drive
Edmonds, WA 98026
Mahria Jordan
7616202 d Place SW
Edmonds, WA 98026
Planning Division
Engineering Division
Claire Beach
7622202 d Place SW
Edmonds, WA 98026
Page 5 of 5
city of edmond�,
land use application
SEP 2 2 2009
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
0 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW
0 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT FILE # p`14 za) I �L ZONE
0 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ��
0 HOME OCCUPATION 'DATE S117 0 REC'D BY l S�Jf\
0 FORMAL SUBDIVISION FEE. ZO�- 0 0 RECEIPT # CA 1
0 SHORT SUBDIVISION
0 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT HEARING DATE
0 PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 0 HE 0 PB 0 ADB 0 CC
0 OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT
0 STREET VH CATION
0 REZONE
0 SHORELINE PERMIT
0 VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION _
0 OTHER: Rtit��Dpit=N � TzsT�� L-1- _D ��PiN� �
7P
PROPERTY ADDRESS OR LOCATION zwu 20INJ PI- • S rV�. EDF(ON j� � r wh Moa®
PROJECT NAME (IF (APPLICABLE) ! u
PROP ERTYOWNER RIGH�h vJel;<, PHONE# �f25"ppPIIi1'7'�W
ADDRESS �EDMO li I Li �rrO� 26 2
E-MAIL ADDRESS FAX#
TAX ACCOUNT # 0051 M 0000 11 00 SEC. TWP, RNG.
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR PROPOSED USE
APPLICANT& F{PCi� (� .1RSC.H'Ji9— PHONE# SA Mt
ADDRESS 5 M F
E-MAIL ADDRESS St'rM FAX # 5^
CONTACT PERSON/AGENT PHONE # 5/'SME
ADDRESS SAM
E-MAIL ADDRESS 5111 I G FAX # SSM E
The undersigned applicant, and his/her/its heirs, and assigns, in consideration on the processing of the application
agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages,: including
reasonable attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or part upon false, misleading,
inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/her/its agents or employees.
By my signature, I certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and that I am authorized to file this application on t e behalf of the owner as listed below.
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/AGENT 4_ DATE cti D
Property Owner's Authorization
By my.signature, I certify that I have authorized the above Applicant/Agent to apply for the subject land use
application, and grant my permission for the public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject
property for the purposes of inspectio and posting endant to thi application, y�
SIGNATURE OF OWNER DATE Z �%
This application form was revised on 1/27/00. To verify whether it is still current, call (425) 771-0220.
L:V.IBRARY PLANNING\Forms & HandoutsTublic Handouts\and Use Application.doe
,`Attachment
PLN -2009-0047
,V: jC,CAL
to
• I=P•X 2�-12�D1 -5��-
2. ---.D
Com•`"_"/ �t.lv .�k_x{ � 1 �k�J
J-_. 2
CrrrY art �+. .:�� / 3i' � i.c � •'t , U •T.,
soap
�6Zc)1Zz Zo2-""P/,,�
Attachment 2
PLN -2009-0047
Attachment 3
PLN -2009-0047
11
L'
J-
_ *0`39 n 'doh
RECEIVED'76(1,6
DEC 112009
DEVELOPMENT SERVICE
COUNTER
September 21, 2009
Mr. Michael Clugston, City Planner
City of Edmonds
5th ave N
Edmonds, WA 98020
RE: Tree Cutting, Your letter of March 25, 2009.
Dear Mr. Clugston:
We hereby submit our application for tree removal of trees in poor to moderate vigor,
located in the front yards from about 8-9 feet up to 12-13 feet from the roof overhangs.
These trees were there in 1977 when the residences were developed, however they have
out grown the planting area, and have many limbs reaching over the residence, street,
parking and utilities. Our insurance company requires us to remove overhanging limbs on
the south side resulting in asymmetry and thus increasing potential hazard for loss of
lives, our residence, as well as for the neighboring residences, personal property, street
and utilities. This situation is causing a liability for us, and potentially, if not compliance,
discontinued service from State Farm.
Attached with this letter and application are:
1. Arborist report
2. State Farm request
3. State Farm representative letter/ inspection and comments, including pictures
illustrating the potential damage and injury claims
4. Existing landscaping plans including subject trees for removal
5. Pictures of existing front yard landscaping
6. Landscaping replacement proposal
7. Alternative landscaping replanting (for back yards)
Attachment 6
PLN -2009-0047
In Item 7 we are proposing a row of evergreen trees to screen along the whole southern
property boundary line, as an alternative due to the congestions of old growth
landscaping since 1977 in the front yard. Stumps from the removed trees will be kept in
order not to disturb the existing landscaping. Refer to Item 5: Pictures. Species used
should be any evergreen such as Leyland cypress and/or Emerald green Arboravitae.
Project scheduled to commence immediately after issuance of the City permit for weather
considerations and to be able to replant as recommended in October through early
November.
Thank you in advance for your prompt and kind cooperation.
Best regards,
UZ
June 04, 2009
DuPont Operations Center
P.O. Box 5000
DuPont, Washington 98327-5000
KIRSCHNER, RICHARD M & GVARA
7503 BRAEMAR DR
EDMONDS WA 98026-5137
RE: Policy No: F 98-68-5092-1
Policy Type: Apartment Policy
Location(s): Multiple Locationa
Dear Policyholder:
Recently a State Farm representative visited your property to obtain
additional underwriting information. We believe there are some positive
measures that can be taken which could reduce the potential for loss. We
would appreciate your assistance in making the following improvements:
1) Cut back overhanging tree branches from the building and walkway in
front of Unit 7622.
Your cooperation in completing these requirements by August 03, 2009 would
be appreciated. You are a valued.policyholder, and we hope that by giving
notice of the condition(s) you need to correct, we can continue to serve
your needs. Your agent, or in some cases an underwriting representative,
may contact you to review these improvements with you.
Please note, our underwriting requirements and recommendations do not
necessarily include all potential sources of loss. Nor are we
guaranteeing that if you comply with them your property will necessarily
be considered safe or healthful, or in compliance with any law, rule or
regulation. Also, our underwriting survey shouldn't be construed as a
comprehensive safety program or as a voluntary safety inspection.
HOME OFFICES: BLOOMINGTON, ILLINOIS 61710-0001
KIRSCHNER, RICHARD M & GVARA
98-68-5092-1
June 04, 2009
Page 2 of 2
If you have any questions, please contact your agent.
Sincerely,
Mindy Lane
Commercial Underwriting Department
State Farm Fire and Casualty Company
ML/sa
cc: Agent 2904-98/F497
Policyholder, please complete and return this letterusing the enclosed
self-addressed envelope:
Yes, I have -complied -with the -above recommendations.
No, I have not complied with the above recommendations
because. . .
Policyholder's Signature Date
F 98-68-5092-1
EARL SCHUSTER
Auto -Life -Health -Home and Business
2816 100TH AVE W "NEXT TO QFC-WESTGATE" STAFF: LISA, KATHY & KELLY
EDMONDS, WA 98020 PHONE (425) 775-4664 FAX (425) 775-9010
July 24, 2009
RICHARD M & GVARA R KIRSCHNER
7503 BRAEMAR DR
EDMONDS, WA 98026--5137
Dear Richard,
Thanks for meeting with me at 7612--7622 202ND PL SW Edmonds, for the
purpose of discussing State Farm's request that you 1) Cut back
overhanging tree branches from the building and walkway in front of two of
the buildings. The concern is the potential damage to the buildings and
the accumulation of tree debris both on the buildings and the walkways.
Tree debris accumulating on the roof can cause deterioration as well as
clog gutters resulting in potential water damage. Wet and slippery
walkways are potential causes of slip and trip or bodily injury claims.
Although it was not noted in State Farm's letters, I have also taken
pictures of what I consider to be serious concerns regarding the uneveness
of the walkways. It appears the tree roots are lifting the walkways in
places causing them to separate and become uneven. It is important that
you consider leveling the sidewalks in order to lessen this liability
concern. Pictures of the trees and walkways are enclosed.
You are a valued policyholder, and we hope that by giving you notice of
the condition(s) you need to correct, we can continue to serve your needs.
Please note, our underwriting-reuirements and recommendations do not
necessarily include all potential sources of loss. Nor are we
guaranteeing that if you comply with them your property will necessarily
be considered safe or healthful, or in compliance with any law, rule or
regulation. Also, our underwriting survey shouldn't be construed as a
comprehensive safety program or as a voluntary safety inspection.
If I can be of service please give me a call. Thank you.
Sincerely,
&hpj QWO —616D
Earl Schuster
U
ssAre fARM EARL SCHUSTER, Agent
22816100th Ave W
� a Edmonds, WA 98020
a w s u RAM e e Off: (425) 775-4664
Fax: (425) 775-9016
» % Dig SCHUSTER, Age
^ }^ § 2 1 1 00th &re A
/mod WA902
\ «!j g% @) s*8e4
.% y /25)77s 19
\ >EARLSCHU a R� 9G
}222 yel0omeq
\ ) )Edrnonds, VIA 9!02 O
Saa m:I0e (425) 77336k
-- ---z 2 /) 6S !e
T �-,:j V�f
Edrnci-ldl n,
Washiengto'n Tree Experts
9792 Ens Way #123
Edmonds, WA 98020
206-362-3380
staff@washixiP-to-nf-rpppXpartS.COM. ®EC 112000
OEVVELOPIWEPiT SERVICES
COUp1TER
Client name: Richard Kirschner
Street: 7622202nd Pl. SW
City, Zip: Edmonds, WA 98026
Re: Doug Fir tree (Pseudotsuga menziesii)
Location: Front of residence
Size: Diameter at 4 %' = 31" Height = —75'
Target if tree fails: Residence, -neighboring residences, street, and utilities
Observations:
-tree is of moderate vigor
-tree has been wind topped in the past
-most likely part to fail is the newly grown and poorly attached limbs which are
over the residence or could fall towards the street
-the roots are interfering with walkways making them uneven and difficult to
navigate. This is causing a liability for the property owner.
-tree has out grown the planting area. More than half of the root zone is paved
which could be a contributing factor to its potential failure.
-there has been a recent sight disturbance in the form of neighboring lot clearance.
This has a potential to affect the integrity of the tree in newly exposed wind situations.
Management
-the property owner's homeowner's insurance is requiring tree be cut back from
building for safety. To be effective all the limbs on the south side of the tree would need
to be removed causing major asymmetry increasing .the potential hazard
-thinning for windsail reduction would be viable to decrease hazard of wind throw
but this manner of trimming would not resolve the issue of debris on the roof and fire
hazard.
-removal is the preferred mitigation by the property owner.
-replacement as required by city code.
Attachment 7
PLN -2009-0047
TREE HAZARD EVALUATION FORM
Site/Address:
Map/Location:
Owner: public _ private -- unknown other
Date: 17- I l 0'1Arb3?dstJ M171 ri)r LW* 11 S {SA#.PN 2-(fl4
Arborisft Signature:
,J
TREE CHARACTERISTICS
HAZARD RATING:
L - + '-i + -
Failure + Size +Target= Hazard
Potential of part Rating Rating
Immediate action needed
Needs further inspection
Dead tree
Tree M ( Species. 1�5C V -d 1 1'� � `�i 1 ' S11 0Cb ko Fw>
DBH of trunks: ' Height �� / Spread:
Form: ❑ generally symmetric3Kminor asymmetry 13 major asymmetry 0 stump sprout O stag -headed
Crown Class:dominant 13 co -dominant ❑ intermediate ❑ suppressed
Live crown ratio% Age Class: ❑ youngxsemi-mature I❑ mature ❑ aver-maturefsenescent
Pruning History: ❑ crown cleaned ❑ excessively thinned ❑ topped )i crown raised ❑ pollarded ❑ crown reduced ❑ flush cuts ❑ cabled/braced
❑ none ❑ multiple pruning events AAprox dates: tj A -
Special Value: ❑specimen II heritage/historic ❑ wildlife ❑ unusual ❑ streettree ❑screen ❑ shade)4 indlgenous ❑ protected by gov, agency
TREE HEALTH
Foliage Cover: � normal ❑ chronic ❑ necrotic Epicornecs? YN� Growth obstructions:
Foliage Density: X normal ❑ sparse Leaf size: ❑ normal Vsmau ❑ stakes ❑ wirerdes ❑ signs ❑cables
Annual shoot growth: ❑ excellent ❑ average ❑ poor Twig Dieback? Y N ❑ curb/pavement ❑ guards
Woundwood development ❑ excellent average ❑ poor ❑ none ❑ other
Vigor class: ❑ excellent average D fair ❑ poor
Major pests/diseases:
SITE CONDITIONS
Site Character: )qresidence ❑ commercial ❑ industrial ❑ park ❑ open space ❑ natural ❑ woodiand/rorest
Landscape type: ❑ parkway ❑ raised bed ❑ container ❑ mound ❑ lawn ❑ shrub border ❑ wind break
Irrigation: none ❑ adequate ❑ inadequate ❑ excessive ❑ trunkwettled
Recent site disturbance? O N ❑ construction ❑ soil disturbance ❑ grade change ❑ line clearing Ysite clearing
dripline paved: 0% 10- 25-50% 50-75% 75400% Pavement lifted? Y N
% dripiine wifill soil: 0% t0 -N%/ 25-50% 50.75% 75-100%
% dripline grade lowered: 9'01 10.25% 25-50% 50-75% 75--100%
Soil problems: ❑ drainage ❑ shallow compacted ❑ droughty ❑ saline ❑ alkarme ❑ acidic ❑ small volume ❑ disease center ❑ historyof fail
❑ clay ❑ expansive ❑ slope ? aspect
Obstructions: ❑ lights ❑ signage O rne-d-srle ❑ view ❑ overhead livres Xunderground utilities ❑ traffic ❑ adjacent veg. ❑
Exposureto wind: ❑ sin le tree ❑ below canopy ❑above canopy )(recently exposed ❑windward, canopy edge ❑area prone to windthrow
Prevailing wind direction: S Occurrence of snowfree storms ❑ never Xsefdom ❑ regularly
TARGET
Use Under Tree: )dbuifdfng ❑ paridng traffic Kpedest6an ❑ recreation Oandscape ❑ hardscape ❑ small features ❑ utility lines
Can target be moved? Y G) Can use be restricted? Y l )
Occupancy. ❑ occasional use 0 intermittent use 0 frequent use constant use
TREE DEFECTS
ROOT DEFECTS: _
Suspect root rot: Y LN Mushroomtconk/bracket present: Y (N11 D.
Exposed roots: D severe X moderate ❑ lour Undermined: 0 severe ,moderate u torr
Root pruned: Root area affected: % Buttress wounded: Y : N When:
Restrlctad root area: ❑ severe X moderate ❑ lcvr Potential for root failure: D savere D moderate D iaw
LEAN; deg. From vertical ❑ natural D unnatural 0 self -corrected Soil heaving: Y! iv ,
Decay in plane of lean: Y (NJt Roots broken: Y�IJ} Soil cracking: Y {ii
Compounding factors: Lean severity: Q severe D moderate 4.Iow
CROWN DEFECTS: indicate presence of individual defects and rate their severity (r- severe, m=moderate, i fcw)
DEFECT ROOT CROWN TRUNK SCAFFOLDS BRANCHES
Poor taper
Bow,sweep
Codominants/forks
Multiple attachments
Included bark
Excessive end weight
Cracks/splits
Hangers
Girdling
Wounds/seam
Decay
Cavity
Conks/mushrooms/bracket
Bleeding/sap flow
Loose/cracked bark
Nesting holdibee hive
Deadwood/stubs \
Borers/te rm ites/ants
Cankers/galls/burls
Previousfailure
HAZARD RATING
Tree part most likely to fall:, 1 L/� / C CL�� ?� y Failure potential: 14osv; 2 -medium; 3 -high: 4•severe
Inspection period:_ annual biannual other®Sizeafpart: 1 - <6' (15 cm); 2 -6-18" (15-45 cm);
Failure Potential + Size of Part r Target Rating = H rd Rating 3 - 18-30' (45-75 cm); 4 -> 30" (75 cm)
Target rating: 1 - occasional use; 2 - intermittent use;
3 -frequent use: 4 -constant use
HAZARD ABATEMENT
Prune: D remove defective part Q reduce end weight Q crown clean Q thin O raise canopy 0 c own reduce ❑ restructure O shape
Cable/Brace:
---Inspect further. D root crovrn D decay ❑aerial ❑monitor
Remove tree: Yi N Replace? Y) N Move Target Y N Other.
Effect on adjacent trees: Anne 13 evaluate
Notification: D owner ❑ manager ,(governing agency pater
COMMENTS
U
Washington Tree Experts
9792 Edmonds Way #123
Edmonds, WA 98020
Client name: Richard Kirschner
Street: 7622 202nd Pl. SW
City, Zip: Edmonds, WA 98026
Re: Doug Fir tree (Pseudotsuga rnenziesii)
Location: Front of residence
Size: Diameter at 4 %' = 19" Height = --55'
Target if tree fails: Residence, neighboring residences, street, and utilities
Observations:
-tree is of moderate vigor
-tree has had the top removed in the past and has since grown multiple new tops
that are extremely prone to wind throw
-most likely part to fail is the newly grown and poorly attached leaders which are
directly over -the residence
-the roots are interfering with walkways making them uneven and difficult to
navigate. This is causing a liability for the property owner.
-tree -has out grown the planting area. More than half of the root zone is paved
which could be a contributing factor to its potential failure.
-there has been a recent sight disturbance in the form of neighboring lot clearance.
This has a potential to affect the integrity of the tree in newly exposed wind situations.
Management
-because the tree has been previously topped and its proximity to the potential
targets trimming would not mitigate the hajard.
-removal is the recommmdcd mitigation.
-replacement as required by city code.
Prepared by
Jennifer Yaxbrough
Certified Arborist
#PN 6209A
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
COUNTED
TREE
HAZARD EVALUATION FORM
Site/Address:
Map/Location:
Owner: public private i unknown other
Date: A oris(
Ke (IS kSA# 4 it Z C 19 ��
ArborisVs Signature. -
TREE CHARACTERISTICS
HAZARD RATING:
Failure + Size + Target = Hazard
Potential of part Rating Rating
Immediate action needed
Needs further inspection
Dead tree
Tree #: .. _ ., Species:
DBH: I 'I /t iii of trunks: Heigh 'F! i Spread:
Form: ❑ generally symmetric)dminor asymmetry ❑ major asymmetry D stump sprout ❑ stag -headed
Crown Class: dominant ❑ co -dominant ❑ intermediate ❑ suppressed
Live crown ratio:Tti Age Class: Ayoung 0 semi -mature ❑ mature ❑ over-mature/senescent
Pruning History: ❑ crown cleaned ❑ excessively thinned ❑ topped A crown raised ❑ pollarded ❑ crown reduced ❑ flush cuts ❑ cabled/braced
❑ none ❑ multiple pruning events Approx. dates:/l
Special Value: ❑ specimen ❑ heritagelhistoric ❑ wildffe ❑ unusual ❑ street tree ❑ screen ❑ shade K indigenous ❑ protected by gov. agency
TREE HEALTH
Foliage Cover. `normal ❑ chronic ❑ necrotic Epicornics? Y �� Growth obstructions:
Foliage Density: Anonnal ❑ sparse Leaf size: )I normal ❑ small ,t1] states 0 wirelties ❑ signs ❑cables
Annual shoot growth: 13 excellent average ❑ poor Twig OkbacIOY N p curb/pavement ❑ guards
Woundwood development: ❑ excellent X1 average ❑ poor ❑ none /❑ other
Vigor class: ❑ excellent average ❑fair O poor
Major pestsldiseases•
SITE CONDITIONS
Site Character:Aresidence ❑ commercial [3 Industrial D park ❑ open space ❑ natural ❑ woodland/forest
Landscape type: ❑ parkway ❑ raised bed ❑ container)4mound ❑ lawn ❑ shrub border ❑wind break
Irrigation: Xnone ❑ adequate ❑ inadequate D excessive ❑ trunkwettled
Recent site disturbance? (Y)N )(construction ❑ soil disturbance ❑ grade orange ❑ fine clearing sitec—learing ��'l t Cj j� Levt'�'},
% dripline paved.- 0% 10-25% 25-50% 5%, 75-100% Pavement iifted?t /YY N J
% dripline wlfill soil: 0% C -t 2594' 25-50% 50-75% 75-100%
% dripline grade lowered: 10-25% 2550% 50-75% 75-100%
Soil problems: Q drainage ❑ shallow ,(compared ❑ droughty ❑ saline ❑ alkarme ❑ acidic ❑ small volume ❑ disease center ❑ history of fail
❑ clay ❑ expansive ❑ slope ? aspect
Obstructions: ❑ lights ❑ signage ❑ line -d -site Dview ❑ overhead limes O underground utiffies ❑ traffic ❑ adjacent veg, ❑
Exposure to wind: ❑ single tree ;6I below canopy ❑abovecanopy B recently exposed ❑ windward, canopy edge ❑ area prone to windthrov
Prevailing wind direction: Occurrence ofsnawflce storms ❑ never Aseldom ❑ regularly
TARGET
Use Under Tree: I?building ❑ parking ❑ traffic Xpedestrian ❑ recreation ❑landscape ❑ hardscape ❑ small features ❑ utilitylines
Can target be moved? Y LN) Can use be restricted? Y CN�
Occupancy: ❑ occasional use ❑ intermittent use El frequent use 9constant use
DEVELOPMENT SER'ACES
COUNTER
TREE DEFECTS
ROOT DEFECTS; -
Suspect root Cot: Y i N Mushroomfconk/bracket present: Y
exposed roots: ❑ severe O moderate A tvv Ondemnned; 11 severe 0 moderate F r4r
Root pruned: Root area affected: A Buttress wounded: Y,,'N When:
Restricted root area: Elsevere i moderate 0 law Potential for root failure: Elsevere moderate ❑ low
LEAN: deg. From !!lve��`rtical ❑ natural O unnatural 0 self -corrected Soil heaving: Y ; i' r
Decay in plane of lean: Y N Roots broken: 'Y Sal tracking: Y(7b,)
Compounding factors: Lean severity: 17 severe ❑ moderate Q lav
CROWN DEFECTS: Indicate presence of individual defects and rate their severity (s=severe, m=moderate, Maw)
DEFECT ROOT CROWN TRUNK SCAFFOLDS BRANCHES
Poortaper -
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
Nesting hold/bee hive
Deadwoodfsfubs _
Borers/termites/ants
Cankers/gails/buris
Previous failure
HAZARD RATING
Tree part most likely to fall: 1 0 t- Failure potential; 1 -low; 2 -medium; 3 -high: 4 -severe
inspection period:_ annual biannual other_ Size of part: 1 - <6' (15 em); 2 -6-18` (15-45 cm);
FatlurePtential + Size of Part + Target treating = Hazard RathV 3 — 18-30' (45-75 cm); 4 -> 30" (75 cm)
Target rating: 1 — occasional use; 2 — intermittent use;
3 —frequent use; 4 —constant use
HAZARD ABATEMENT
Prune: ❑ remove defective part Q reduce end weight El crown dean Othin Et raise canopy O crown reduce O restructure ❑ shape
Cable)Brace: inspect further. Q root.crown O decay ❑ aerial ❑ monitor
Remove tree: 6)N Replace?0 N Move Target Y .N Other.
Effect on adjacent trees: none 0 evaluate Y ► f
Notification: Clowner 13manager LR governing agency Date: 1�- I � ( l _�
COMMENTS
Washington
e Experts
9792 Edmonds Way #123
Edmonds.. • ` 98020
''
Client name:
Richard Kirschner
Street:
City, Zip:
7622 202nd Pl. SW
Edmonds, WA 98026
Re:
Doug Fir tree (Pseudotsuga menziesii)
Location:
Front of residence
Size:
Diameter at 4'/a' = 32" Height= -703
Target if tree fails: Residence, neighboring residences, street, and utilities
Observations:
-tree is in poor vigor and has limited new growth which is a sign of distress
-there is an excessive amount of cones which is a sign of distress
-tree is in decline
-the roots are interfering with walkways matting them uneven and difficult to
navigate. This is causing a liability for the property owner.
-tree has out grown the planting area. More than half of the root zone is paved
which could be a contributing factor to its decline.
-there has been a recent sight disturbance in the form of neighboring lot clearance.
This has a potential to affect the integrity of the tree in newly exposed wind situations.
Management
-because the tree has displayed signs of decline and its proximity to the potential
targets removal is the recommended mitigation-
-replacement as required by city code_
Prepared by
Jennifer Yarbrough R E C E IVSD—)
Certified. Arborist DEC 11.2068
#PN 6209A
OEVEL.®0ME 9 SE; RVIC :�
Site/Address:
Map/Location: �7
Owner public private unknown other nn
Date: C1 Arborist��� IVI ISA*a1 -z A
Arborist?s Signature: A
TREE CHARACTERISTItg
rAr
HAZARD RATING:
Failure + Size + Target = Hazard
Potential of part Rating Rating
Immediate action -needed
_ . Needs further inspection
Dead tree
Tree #: ` Species:`
DBH: L #oftrunks: 1 eight = l.t Spread:�,� t_
Form: ❑ generally symmetri-Xminor asymmetry ❑ major asymmetry D stump sprout ❑ stag -headed
Crown Class: *dominant ❑ co -dominant ❑ intermediate D suppressed
Live crown ratio:% Age Class: ❑ young 0(semi-mature ❑ mature ❑ over-maturelsenescent
Pruning History: ❑ crown cleaned ❑ excessively thinned ❑ topped * crown raised Q pollarded ❑ crown reduced ❑ flush cuts ❑ Gabledibraced
Q none Q multiple pruning events Approx. dates: ' /-
Special Value: ❑ specimen ❑ heritagelhistorfe ❑ vnldiife ❑ unusual ❑ sheet tree ❑screen ❑ shadein ftenous ❑ protected by gov. agency
TREE HEALTH
Foliage Cover. ❑ normal ❑ chronicnecrotic Epicorldcs? QIl N
Foliage Density: ❑ normal 14 sparse Leaf size: ❑ normal small
Annual shoot growth: ❑ excellent ❑ aver�
age poor g Dieback? N
Woundwooddevetopment: D excellent b(
average Q poor ❑ none
Vigor class- ❑ excellent ❑ average fair O poor
Major pests/diseases:
SrrE CONDITIONS
Growth obstructions:
D stakes ❑ wirelties ❑ signs ❑cables
❑ curb/pavement ❑ guards
❑ other
Site Character: residence ❑ commercial ❑ industrial ❑ park D open space ❑ natural ❑ woodiand/forest
Landscape type: ❑ parkkray Q raised bed D containermound Q lawn ❑ shrub border ❑wind beak
Irrigation: X -one ❑ adequate ❑ inadequate ❑ excessive ❑ trunk wettled 4
Recent site disturbance? Y N D construction D soil disturbance ❑ grade change ❑ line clearingsite clearing
% dripline paved: 0% 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% Pavement lifted? Y N
% dripline w/fill soil: 0%. 10-25% 2550% 50-75% 75-100%
% dripline grade lowered: 0% 10.25% 2550% 50-75% 75-100%
Soil problem: ❑ drainage Q shallow, A\compacted ❑ droughty ❑ safine ❑ alkarme Q addic ❑ small volume ❑ disease center ❑ history of fail
❑ clay ❑ expansive D slope ? aspect
Obstructions: ❑ lights ❑ signage D tined-srle D view D overhead lines D underground utilities ❑ traffic Q adjacent veg. D
Exposure to wind: single flee Q below canopy ❑above canopy ❑ recently exposed Q windward, canopy edge D area prone to windthrow
Prevailing wind direction:–_ --L-2 Occurrence orsnowdce storms D never seldom ❑ regularly
TARGET
Use Under Tree: building rtdng .traffic ❑ pedesftian ❑ recreation {landscape ❑ hardscape Q small features ❑ utilitylines
Can target be moved? Y Q) Can use be restricted? Y M -
Occupancy: ❑ occasional use D intermittent use ❑frequent use constant use
DEC 112009
DEVELOPMENT SEPMCES
COWTEP
TREE DEFECTS
ROOT DEFECTS: 0
Mushroomfconk/bracket present: Y N {!?
Suspect root rot: Y QL,
Exposed roots: 0 *evert �� moderate Q low Undermined: II severe rpt mcderate 6 cwt
Root pruned: Root area affected: ;o / Buttress wounded: Y (i .) When:
i
Restricted root awz: ❑severeW moderate II fwv Po�t�tl
nt for raotfaiturs: severe moderate 13 lav
l
� a r:
LEAN -- deg. From vertical O natural O unnatural 0seff-corrected Soil heaving: Y /f,41
L-'
Decay in plane of lean: Y N Roots broken: Y �17 Soil cracking: Y h
Compounding factors: Lean severity: O severe D moderate D low
CROWN DEFECTS: indicate oresence of individual defects and rate their severity (5=severe, m=moderate, f=low)
DEFECT ROOT CROWN TRUNK SCAFFOLDS BRANCHES
Poor taper
Bow, sweep
Codominants/forks
Multiple attachments
Included bark
Excessive end weigh'
Cracks/splits
Hangers
Girdling
Wounds/seam
Decay
cavity
Conks/mushrooms/bracket
Bleeding/sap now
Loose/cracked bark
Nesting hold/bee hive
Deadwood/sfubs
BoreWtermites/anis
Cankers/gaiis/buris
Previous failure
HAZARD RATING
Tree part most likely to fall: C, 'ID Failure potential: Vow: 2-medium;3-high:4-severe
Inspection period:_ annual biannual other Size of part: 1 - <o (15 cm); 2 -6-18" (15.45 cm);
Failure Potential + Size or Part + Target Rating = Hazard Rating 3 — 1&W (45-75 cm); 4 -> 30" (75 cm)
�j Target rating: 1 — occasional use; 2 — intermittent use;
3 —frequent use; 4 — constant use
HAZARD ABATEMENT
Prune: O remove defective part D reduce end weight O aawn c$ean Othin O raise canopy O crown reduce O restructure D shape
Cable/Brace: inspect further. O root crmvn O decay O aerial O monitor
Remove tree: L N Replace? Y N Move Target: Y N Other:
Effect on adjacent trees: �none. Q evaluate f j
Notification: Cl owner Q manager governing agency Date:
—T�
COMMENTS
I\I -
qd44icA-
. f2oD0 O t�
� T4Pt
aD� ni
Rn��Dtsinl F/� .
Ram
L,
.A .
Attachment
s _
PLN -2009-004 i
-- ,nS9 _3►n acres
I
Em
Washington
` =..,s''fie . et,(
9792 Edmonds Way #123
Edmonds, WA 98020
206-362-3380
Fax 206-362-3011
r �c
Washington Tree Experts proposes to pick up, deliver, and install the following plants as
a part of a restoration program after tree removal:
-3 five gallon or larger Western Hazelnut (Corylus cornuta)
-3 five gallon Redtwig Dogwood (Cornus stolonifera)
-3 one gallon Tall Oregon Grape (Mahonia aquifolium)
-6 one gallon or smaller Salal (Gaultheria shallon)
-6 one gallon Sword Fern (Polystichum munitum)
SIM
After planting we will provide and distribute arborist chips as a mulching agent.
$200
Replanting should occur in October through early November. During the subsequent
growing season plants should be monitored and watered as necessary.
Attachment 10
PLN -2009-0047
Clugston, Michael innD f)�
From: wind33mtn@comcast.net
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 2:07 PM
PLANNING DEPT
To: Clugston, Michael
Subject: Fwd 2: LANDSCAPE PLAN (PLN20090047) QUESTIONABLE TREE REMOVAL
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: wind33mtn@comcast.net
To: clugston@ci.edmonds.wa.us
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 1:59:37 PM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
Subject: Fwd: LANDSCAPE PLAN (PLN20090047) QUESTIONABLE TREE REMOVAL
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: wind33mtn@comcast.net
To: clugstone@ci.edmonds.wa.us
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 1:51:37 PM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
Subject: LANDSCAPE PLAN (PLN20090047) QUESTIONABLE TREE REMOVAL
11-30-09
RE: LANDSCAPE PLAN (PLN20090047) QUESTIONABLE TREE REMOVAL
ATTN: Mike Clugston, AICP, Planner
Thank you for putting the associated files online today for Landscape Plan PLN20090047.
The plan requested by the property owner (Richard Kirschner) involves the complete removal
of three beautiful and well established evergreen trees in front of three different properties
(7620/7622 and 7616 202nd PI SW, Edmonds, WA 98026). These trees are well established,
and have been here since before buildings were put on the property.
These trees not only provide beauty and oxygen for the environment, but they are also a
major abode for wildlife, including a variety of native birds, squirrels, and even an
occasional racoon and opossum. They also provide a wind shed for north -blowing
winds in the winter as well as much needed oxygen replenishment and protection from
carbon pollution.
Concerning the 'Arborist Reports', my question is, does this particular arborist stand
to profit from the cutting of those trees?
In the first place, according to the arborist what does "moderate vigor" mean. A description
more specific and a technical diagnosis as to the health of the trees would seem to be
appropriate. We are talking about the lives of well established trees here. I think they at least
deserve a qualified diagnosis.
Attachment 11,
PLN -2009-0047
11/30/2009
All three trees in question are well established, seemingly in good outward health and
appearance, and are at least 100 feet tall, if not over 100 to 150 feet tall each. Furthermore, in
the almost ten years that I have lived here, to my knowledge they have never been topped,
and I would inquire as to the date of their so-called topping. Don't all trees grow new limbs
each year? Don't all trees require some kind of regular trimming and maintenance?
Also, according to the arborist report:
"-there has been a recent sight disturbance in the form of neigboring lot clearance. This
has the potential to affect the integrity of the tree in newly exposed wind situations."
Let it be known, that the 'neighboring lot clearance' occurred several years ago, and is
not recent. At the time several full grown evergreens were also cut down from this
parcel (Parcel No. 00512700001700) (with or without a permit?) The trees in question with
the new Landscape Plan (PLN20090047) are on the north side of the building, and were
therefore not affected by windsail from the trees removed on the south side of the buildings
several years ago.
The arborist report also states that "the roots are interfering with walkways making them
uneven and difficult to navigate". Let it be known that the tree in front of 7616 202nd PI SW is
elevated on a berm, and there is no appearance of the roots interfering with the walkway.
The walkway was built sloping toward the building, so when it rains, the water runoff drains
toward the building and settles in the lowest part of the walkway causing it to settle and sink a
little more each year. So, due to rain and the downhill slope toward the building, the walkway
has settled over the years in spots, and is in need of 'regular maintenance', which is not the
fault of the tree.
It is interesting to note that there is no cap on the roof drain at ground level at 7616 202nd PI
SW. Therefore, the drain is open to weather debris flowing into and clogging the drain.
Also, the real danger is in the (seven inch) to (11 inch) drop-offs on either side of the walkways
leading to duplexes 7616 /7618 202nd PI SW. The drop-offs are in dire need of being filled
with gravel to avoid potential serious injury when the walkways get slippery. Again, this is a
maintenance issue, and is no fault of the trees.
What appears to be needed is trimming and maintenance of the trees.
It is my understanding from the insurance letters that the request is for the trees simply to be
trimmed and maintained.
The arborist seems to suggest that this would cause 'asymmetry' to the trees if they were
trimmed only on one side. My question is, wouldn't the tree be trimmed on all sides, rather
than on just one side by a qualified arborist?
In reference to the Replanting Plan on the north side of buildings: It appears that the
'Replanting Plan' for the north side of the buildings where the proposal is to remove
three well established, over 100 foot tall trees is to replace those trees with bushes.
Wouldn't the requirement be to replace evergreen trees with evergreen trees?
In reference to the Existing Landscape for 7616/7618: The Existing Landscape Plan on the
south side of the building does not show the location of the existing Madrone tree, over
11/30/2009
thirty to forty feet tall, perhaps taller. I would hope that the safety of this tree is not in
jeapordy when potentially the 'evergreen' juniper or arborvitae bushes are planted on the south
side of the building.
I understand that these comments will be included and considered concerning the evaluation
of the Proposed Landscape Plan (PNL20090047) for property addresses and 7616, 7620/7622
202nd PI SW, Edmonds, WA 98026.
Very Sincerely,
A very concerned Citizen and Resident
Mahria Jordan
7616 202nd PI SW
Edmonds, WA 98026
11/30/2009
To: Mike Clugston
City of Edmonds Planning
From: Claire Beach
Resident 7622 202nd PI SW
Edmonds, WA 98026
Re: Planning Request PLN 2009 0047
Date: November 30, 2009
\110V 3 0 2009
I am sending my public response to Richard Kirschner's request to cut down
our last 3 existing old trees on our property. In the last few years we have
watched while over 20 trees were cut down in our backyard without city
permits. These last 3 existing trees provide our last bit shade and privacy.
I moved in here in May of 2001 because of the beautiful Pacific North West
landscaping. Trees that provided beauty, privacy, shade and a home to many
kinds of wildlife surrounded us and now we are facing losing all of them.
These trees are not dead and even the State Farm Insurance report is only
asking for specific branches to be removed, which I would suspect is a
normal requirement of ongoing tree maintenance required by landowners.
The replacement plan is inadequate at best. There is no plan to replant
similar trees, only bushes. The "green fence" plan that would line the "back
yard" is something that Mr. Kirschner has needed to do for a long time but
not a reasonable replacement for removing 3 huge trees in the front. A
fence that used to provide us a bit of privacy from our back property
neighbors was removed when these some neighbors built their house. We
understand that the same neighbor has offered to split the cost of a fence
there, but nothing has happened. Hence, Mr. Kirschner already has a reason
means to put some kind of fence up regardless of the removal of our last
standing trees in the front. It is not an appropriate replacement plan.
Every time trees have been removed from near or on our property, it has
had a domino effect on other trees in our neighborhood. If this trend
continues, we will lose many more healthy trees. I know the City of Edmonds
treasures the natural beauty that makes our city such a beautiful place to
Attachment 12
PLN -2009-0047
live. As a public school teacher and a registered voter I hope that our
stewardship of natural resources will be upheld and you will decide in favor
of natural beauty and conservation. I thank you for listening and appreciate
the work you do to maintain our beautiful city.
Respectively,
Claire Beach
7622 202nd PL SW
Edmonds, WA 98026
425.275.8760
' o 4-. o
a�
cn
U O M
O 'C3
+�
,,
tB
ins
tUr N Ci O O O
iU+
u
O
N ~
X M
¢ E
CD
C)
CV
0 0 v U
Q N
O d
t�
O
O .0 CVO
®
C C
Q-
m
(D. - w W 4.1
+ -+CLC
C�
_0 Co
�
C
�
n
�4 ^•
-a0)t7�
U oti
4 ,
EQ)
LO
>
�+
-Zi.Z,
0
0
is
0
0
0 cd OU
Q�
C
m
Q)
U
O 4-4 O
N
Co
E o
0-
cn
E
,O 71 N 4
rn • - p
04-4
fir" O
0
a) L
�_
H U
w�
z
bA O O
3•E rC�
(D.°' a� c
> 0- o 0 O
-a ``'
O
Q
U
''_•
0
a O s,
Cr 0-
L 0)
a�
o >
n
(�
ca
�, 0
4-1
r¢
O >.
o 0
CL
E
a
�� o�+�
r. (D
10-r
� .-
(D
(D C
L)
H cd U P,N
41 fl
(B
N
CU
(�
U ; N
d
N Q) 0-
O
Q) a) X
O _
d
p
Qs ctMCL
Z
N
0
U
O
Q
0(N E
�" O N W
O
0')
O
1i
'a
ClIFO
00
Cz
Co
C
cd
O
ca
N
ca
U cn
N
(Dr,
U
9� ��
N
. CJ
U
Q
0
U
Co
"� '�
O
N OIt U
Ci �.
Q
CJ)
O
ti
Q ccs
cv
U O Q"
'+� U
N
O
Q
o
0
0
is
0
cn
U U
�
c O : O
U 0 o La-
CL
0
Q)
p O
Q)
O
Q Q-
0
Z
Q 4� U 'C
M
0
0
0
Cu
>, C. Attachment
13
z
U
°-
n-
C.
H
-, PLN -2009-0047
STATE OF WASHINGTON)
COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH)
FILE NO.: PLN -2009-0047
APPLICANT: Kirschner
I, 1&' /)Z-4�f -� first duly sworn, on oath, depose and say:
That on the IJ day of the attached Notice of Application was
posted on or near the subject property, in accordance with Edmonds Community
Development Code Chapter 20.03.
Signed_
Subscribed and sworn to before me this _� day ofD ,
NGUY�o®o
�pTARy ®®
'• 'DU81.�G � 2
Ni9••�OgY 08 �2Cp A-
ry public in and ti-eZlate of Washington.
Residing at A)6
STATE OF WASHINGTON)
COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH)
File Number: PLN -2009-0047
Applicant: Kirschner
I, Xlceq , first duly sworn, on oath, depose and say:
That on the /3 day of N0VifVJ3ZFA1,, the attached Notice of Development
Application was mailed as required to adjacent property owners, in accordance with
Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter 20.03.
Signed
Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of
OOT4A
'OUBLIG .°.�.
:� O
o9jF'q)' 08,
Notary Publ
tate of Washington.
Residing at 1411q
RECEIVED
NOV 1' 2009
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
MOUNTER
STATE OF WASHINGTON)
COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH)
FILE NO.: PLN -2009-0047
APPLICANT: Kirschner
I, �1 first duly sworn, on oath, depose and say:
That on the day of A)oy�Vggg. I caused to be published in the Everett
Herald a legal Notice of Application, in accordance with Edmonds Community
Development Code Chapter 20.03, a copy of which is attached.
Signed
Subscribed and sworn to before me this _� day of �oyer►�-►
ry"Public
Residing at
of Washington.
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH
Account Name: Kirschner Richard
PE 7ED
DEC 10 2009
DT-v1ODS CITY Cj:
Affidavit of Publication
S.S.
The undersigned. being first duly sworn on oath deposes and says that she is Principal Clerk of
THE HERALD, a daily newspaper printed and published in the City of Everett, County of
Snohomish, and State of Washington; that said newspaper is a newspaper of general
circulation in said County and State; that said newspaper has been approved as a legal
newspaper by order of the Superior Court of Snohomish County and that the notice
Notice of Development Application
Richard Kirschner
File Number: PLN -2009-0047
a printed copy of which is hereunto attached, was published in said newspaper proper and not
in supplement form, in the regular and entire edition of said paper on the following days and
times, namely:
November 13, 2009
and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to
Subscribed and sworn to before me this
day of November
Notary Public in a dIy the Sta
County.
during all of said period.
13th
Snohomish
r�t' . >�
�Z�
Account Number: 218555 b er Number: 0001674555
i
7 \"I
\� \:
> y:
W 'q o
0 iu
(D
X N
w
Z
-j