Loading...
19226 OLYMPIC VIEW DR (2).pdfEZ LU LL. L)LU 8 z I PAGE(Q) TO.POLLOW REVIEW AND ADVISE IF CHANGES ARE DESIRED x FOR YOUR INFORMATION OTHER -ii WOTE: The Information In this fax transmission Is privileged and confidant 1. tat. At is'intended ant for the use of the recipient named above (or the eWtoyee or agent retponsibte to dalNer It to the intanded recipient). , it you received this in error, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying' afthis commintcatfon to strictly pronlolted, if you how received this mewing. ln':errlar, ptoose not us by t�Lwodfta lmnedlat*ty, and return tho orlofnat massage to us at the Above address vfs,U.S. PostatlarVice. We fll, of course, be happy to rofaburse you for any costs. Thank you. 11/6447 11:56 FAX 206 670 1311 RUR,DEMAN & 7ESCH 111802. .,WWI z _j WANLAAl & TESCly P , ' Rkko D. Wv m,-m ATTCRNEYS AI' LAW mum T. GC )arm# A. CWeya 320 DAYTON, SW70101 Tel*(me Ob 771-0230 d� �{ n�pwn�iedMnta.iMe EoMonma,WAsinnGTo► "020.3!1" FAcsimilt(4 �670.1311 L) in uij November 4, 1997 Meg Gruwell City of Edmonds Planning Department 121 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 SENT VIA FACSIMILE AND REGULAR MAIL Ile: Tree Clearing Application #CUT-97-95 Dear Ms. Gruwell: Thank you for your letter of November 4, 1997 confirming that no additional apim been filed in The alx)ve referenced matter. In view of that fact, it is the Burns' desire to wit their.appeal also. Therefore, please treat this letter as our notice to the city that the Burns' is being Withdrawn. s had If you have any questions regarding this letter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Otherwise, thmik you for your cooperation. Sin cly, Rick Wurdeman CITY OF EDMONDS BARBARA FAHEY 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA98020 • (425)771-0220.•. FAX (425) 771.0221 'MAYOR COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Public Works a Planning/Building • Parks and Recreation • Engineering • Wastewater Treatment Plant `n C.'189" November '4,1097 Mr. Richard D. Wurdeman Wurdeman & Tesch, P.C. M Dayton, Suite' 101 Edmonds, WA 98020 via facsimile: (425) 670-1311 no. pages: 1 Dear Mr. Wurdeman: This letter is in response to your letter, to Paul Mar, dated October 30,:1997, inquiring if any other appeals had been received on the Burns' tree cutting permit, file CUT-97-95. We have not received any appeals on the CUT-97-95 decision except for the one which you submitted. Our deadline to advertise this appeal for the next Hearing Examiner agenda is by 2:30 p.m. this afternoon, so if the Burns wish to withdraw the appeal, we would appreciate your notifying us before that time today. If you have any questions, please call me at (425) 771-0220. s r s rf � S � f � dr. S'L '� La crr`�t �x��•r. x tx r r s tFii� 4 1 4 v. { �, t to p � [t° ��. iR �ry } tF i� t, i i � f �r� �fj✓r �1 ��zd.'t} .. t N. CITY < �IaMONDS Iswwenl�n rt►i•v 121 GYM ~U14 N NO- • YOMONbe, V"A .0. • ove)'71. 20 M% (•:t1) f11.01f1 MAYpA i OO Publie Works 9ERVIt70t! OliPAlq')'M9N7 'io Wbrtw • PtanNnO!®uiltlln0 • Yarke and Reoreation . Unoineerino • tNft t ter 7hmtment slant November 4. 1997 ,! Mr. Richard EX Wurdeman Wurdeman &s "roach. P.C. 320 Dayton, suite 101 i Edmonds, WA 95020 i via facsimile; (425) 670-131.1 no. pages: 1 O. Dear Mr. Wurdemen: O� This letter is in response to your letter to Paul Mar. dated October 30. 1997. inquiring if any other ®� appoals had been received on the Burns' tree cutting permit. file CT7T-97-95. .Zi We have not received any appeals on the CUT-97-93 decision except for the one which you j submitted. Our deadline to advertise this appeal for the next Hearing SXaminer agenda is by 2.30 p.m. this afternoon. so if the I.3turna wish to withdraw the appeal, we would appreciateyour notifying us before that time today. i If you have any questions, please call me at (425) 771-0220. - Sincerely. Man '? Meg .� ! a Planner i W :3 NO REMOTE STATION I.D. START TIME DURATION I #PAGES COMMENT 1 206 670 1311 11- 4-97 9:43AM 0'56" 1 .. •. ..•. ^tl..�.: r.,k':u, e......t+ski.r;�nf111:Li.ti''u.(u'c''�e4''Sc U4�1`�:tiS u.nim.,rw,r!iA..x4+.Vh.Y�k.'cw.N`�.,e�tiw�i&e7iiCu'4»X'furl:WSY.'wen+aw.a.rum4...... ,. R'.SMAN & TEscXI Richard D. Windeman ATDORNEYS AT LAW Donald T. Tesch James A. Conley* 320 DAYTOWSU1T8101 ` Telephone (425) 771-$230 (z i 'Abo Wmittad is Masan EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020.3598 Facsimile (425)670431 l . October 30 1997.LU R of'+�� �� )V rs w Paul Mar ���U�airbts 99.7 ` cn U. ; City of Edmonds R E C E ! V E D 4pr ; Ui 01 Community ,Development Director 121 5th Avenue North aT 3 1997 L. a d 1 Edmonds, WA 98020 COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR _ Re: Tree Clearing Application #CUT-97-95 . z Dear Mr. Mar: As you know, I wrote to you on October 22, 1997, indicating the Bums' desire to appeal, o ��# the city's decision in the above referenced matter. 'However, at this. point the Burns' are. w Dui considering withdrawing that appeal. Prior to making a decision in,that regard they want to know I-- F-, if anyone else appealed the cit's decision. Therefore, I would greatly appreciate if our office � z would inform me in writing as to whether or not any other; party appealed the decision in w cn question. z Thank you very much for your anticipated cooperation in this regard. Sincerely, Rick Wurdeman RDW:jc 1 i 3 Z uj L u i i 0 LU LLJ Ln LL ui n < r Lu. -r z E- r 0 Z F- Lij LU 0 o F- LU LU Ll F- z cn z 0 O Re: Tree Clearing Application # CUT-97-95 Dear Mar: I have been retained by Chuck and Sandi Burns to represent them in connection with the above -referenced matter. Please treat this letter as their appeal to the hearing examiner of that Portion of the final staff decision therein that denies their request for permission to cut the two subject trees furthest from their home to the east. The Burns are satisfied with the City's decision regarding the tree closest to their house, and do not wish to appeal that aspect of the decision In connection with the above appeal, the following information required by ECDC 20.105.020 is provided: 1. The decision being appealed is that portion of the staff decision dated October 8, 1997, that denies their request for permission to cut the two trees approximately 20 and 30 feet from the garage," in permit applica- tion # CUT-97-95. The project applicants are Chuck and Sandi Burns. 2. The names and address of the persons appealing are Chuck and Sandi Burns, 19226 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds, WA 98026. 3. The Burns believe the decision in question to be wrong for the following reasons: a. b. The two trees in question are not within an area designated by the City as environmentally sensitive. The two trees in question present a significant safety hazard to the improvements, occupants and visitors on and around the subject property. 0 0 < I.-: 7 Z Uj LLJ 0 V) 0 Cn UJ LU 0 LU LL LI) d r L.U. z 0 Z I-- LU LU U (j) 0 —1 0 r-; LU UJT LLD z Ljj Cj) L) Z CO J b d CITY OF EDMONDS 250 STH AVENUE NORTH,: EDMONDS, WA 98020 PLANNING DIVISION ADVISORY REPORT FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOIN,0[04DATIONS To: File #CUT-97-95 From: M.E. N6fi Gruwell Planner Date: OCTOBER 8,1997 File: CUT-97-95 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page LINTRODUCTION .................................. ...................................... .......... . ..... li ................................ A. APPLICATION ....... ..................... ................................... o ..................... B.DESCRiiyrioNoFWO;OSAL*.*"****"**.***".*'*"."**.**"**"***., .... 11 ......... ..... ..... ............. ................................................ 2 C. DECISION ........................................................................... ................ I .................. I ............................... IL FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS ................. .........................................................................:.........2 A. SITE DESCRIPTION .................... ........................................................................ .................... 2 B. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE..:. .......: ......... I ...................... 3 C. EDMONDS COMPREHENSIVE PLAUCOMPLTANCE ........... ............................... I .............. .............................. �.5 D. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE .......... ...... ............................ I ........ 11 ................ ........... ........................... 6 III. RECONSIDERATION AND APPEALS ......................... i ......... 6 .............. I ............... . . . .... .. . ...... .. . . . ... .................. 6 A. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION ................................................. ............................ I ............................ ;6 B. APPEALS ............................................................................................... * ........ I .. . .............................. 6 IV. LAPSE OF APPROVAL ........................................... ....................... ....... ................... ..................................... V. ATTACHMENTS .............................................. .................... ...................... ...... .. I ............ I ...... ..7 VI. PARTIES OF RECORD ....................................................................................................... I ................ 7 L INTRODUCTION A. Application 1. Applicant. Charles and Sandra Bums (see Attachment 2). 2. Site Location: 19226 Olympic View Drive (see Attachment J), 3. Request: A Conditional Use Permit,6 allow,the'rem6val'olfthree. trees In a'SingleFamily Residential (RS-12) zone (see Attachments 2 and3).,.: CUT97-.95.DOC October 8.1997 i Staff Report.' N Eff -4. J_ Z LU Lij _J U 0 V) 0 Cn LIJ LU X _J F_ U) LL 0 LU cc LL uj. z F_ 0 Z LULU U En; LU LUI 0 z LU (n L) X F- 0 Z T, A H ..Charles and S, andm Hums File No. CUT 97-95 Page 2bf7 4. Review _PrOceSS., 6ndid onal Use, Permit with an Optional public hearing follo,wed by, a staff decision. 5. Major Issues:. a. Compliance with .,Edmonds : C6 mmunity Development, Code' (ECDC) Section 18.45 (LAND CLEARING AND TREE CUTTING). b. Compliance with Edmonds Community. b6vej6 Pment Code(ECDC) Section. (APPLICATION AND.STAFF REVIEW). c. Compliance with the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan (especially VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE)., B. Description of Proposal The applicants are owners Of a lot which backs onto Chittenden Pond * and Fruitdale Creek. This lot is designated on the city's Environmentally Sensitive Areas Map as having Water Environment, so all tree cutting requires a permit The applicants .*isfi to remove three large trees from their front yard which they feel pose a danger to themselves and their house. C. Decision Based on statements of Fact; Conclusions, and Attachments in: this re Pori, the application for a Conditional Use Permit for tree removal is approved, in part and denied. in Part as'follows. The request to cut the two trees approximately 20 and 30 feet fromthe garage is DENIED. The request to cut the tree which is less than five feet from the garage is APPROVED subject to I the following conditions: 1. Three replacement tree shall be planted on the. subject property within one year of tree removal. Two of the replacement trees shall be native' -trees (see. Attachment 9. for examples), which shall be planted in the rear setback of the lot to provide habitat near the pond. A replanting plan must be submitted prior to planting. 2. The applicant shall, comply with any restrictions imposed by the -state Department, of Fisheries or Department of Wildlife. 3. This application is subject to the applicable requirements contained in the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure compliance with the various provisions contained in these ordinances. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS < 1-: Z UJ < 0 UJ LU LO LL 0 UJ 2 < U- D a Ui. Z � 0 Z I-- LU LU U)i O mil LLJ LUi U- 0 Z LU (J) 0 Z 0 a) Facts: (1) ECDC Chapter 18.45 exempts clearing'on a developed single-family lot, except for that portion of the lot that is located in a designated environmentally sensitive area. (2) The city's Environmentally Sensitive Areas Map, which was adopted by the City Council, shows the portion of the lot where the frees are located to be part of the area of the lot within a designated Water Environment. (3) Some of the purposes of ECDC Section 18.45.000.A-M state a desire I to: (a) To promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of Edmonds by preserving the physical and aesthetic character of the city through the prevention of indiscriminate removal or destruction of trees, and ground cover on undeveloped or partially developed property; (b) To implement the policies of the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 as revised in 1984; (c) To implement and further the goals and policies of the city's comprehensive plan in regard to the environment, open space, wildlife habitat, vegetation, resources, surface drainage, watershed, and economics; (d) To ensure prompt development, restoration and replanting and effective erosion control of property during and after land clearing; (e) To promote land development practices that result in a minimal adverse disturbance to existing vegetation and soils within the city; M To minimize surface water and ground water runoff and diversion;' (g) To aid in the stabilization of soil, and to minimize erosion and sedimentation; (h) To minimize the need for additional storm drainage facilities caused by the destabilization of soils; M To retain clusters of trees for the abatement of noise and for wind protection; 0) To acknowledge that trees and ground cover reduce air pollution by producing pure oxygen from carbon dioxide; (k) To preserve and enhance wildlife and habitat including streams, riparian corridors, wetlands and groves of trees; 4 (1) To promote building and site planning practices that are consistent with the city's natural topographic and vegetation features while recognizing that certain factors such as condition (e.g., disease, danger of failing, etc.), proximity to existing and proposed structures and improvement, interference with utility services, and the realization of a reasonable enjoyment of property may require the removal of certain trees and ground cover; (m) To promote the reasonable development of land in the city of Edmonds. 3 CUT97-95MOC 1 OctobeF 8; 1997 /Staff Report: 0 Ic M Charles and Sandra Bums File No.:CUT-97-95 Page 4 of 7 (4) ECDC Section 18.45.045 B states that "rhe city may require a modification of the clearing'plan or the associated land development plan to ensure the retention of the maximum number of trees. If the staff determlites that the plan will result in the destruction of more trees and vegetation than is reasonably necessary to achieve the proposed development the'perinit shall be denied." (5) the performance standards for land development permits are given in ECDC Section. 18.45.050. (6) The following are included as part of this proposal: (a) The applicants are proposing to take out three Deodara cedar trees in their front inches to 3 feet 4 i:inches. yard. These trees have diameters from 2 feet 5 (b) The applicants propose to replant with some type of flowering cherry or Chinese plum tree within one week of the tree removal. (c)` The applicants state that the three trees are in violation of Edmonds Driplifie Standards. and that two of the trees have very large branches that extend out over, their home and in the winter some branches fall. (7) The following have been ascertained by staff: (a) The three trees are part of a larger grove of trees between this lot and the lot to the north. (b) these trees are not immediately adjacent to the, pond, but they are approximately 150 feet from the pond. (c) The city of Edmonds does not have anything called Dripline Standards. In the Land Clearing and Tree Cutting Code definitions, ECDC Section 18.45.040, it states, "'Drip line' of a tree shall be described by a line projected to, the ground delineating the outer most extent of foliage in all directions." Drip lines are also mentioned under the Performance standards for land development permits, ECDC Section 18.45.050. Here they state that where trees are to be retained on property to be developed, the area within their drip line shall be protected fiorn adverse impacts of development, such as soil compaction. The house on the subject site was constructed under building permit 890566, which was obtained on August 11, 1989. The ordinance establishing the Land Clearing and Tree Cutting Code, ordinance 2804, was not passed until 1990. Though the applicants have shown the drip lines of th e three trees proposed to be removed as extending over the garage and the driveway, at the time the building permit for the house was obtained, there would not have been any requirement to protect the ground under the drip line of the tree. (d) A letter has been submitted from John D. Hushagen, an ISA Certified Arborist, with Seattle Tree Preservation, Inc. (Attachment 6) as part of the MDNS continents. He looked at the two trees furthest from the house, which have had the driveway compacting the area within their drip line since the house was, constructed. He finds that the trees look normal, with no signs indicating trunk defects or internal decay, and less than expected branch loss. (e) The above letter from Seattle Tree Preservation, Inc., also points out that branch loss can be reduced by pruning, by crown cleaning and thinning to reduce branch weight and crown density. He points out that the lower branches on, the north tree could be removed to reduce needle drop on the garage roof. M Other comments on the MDNS and the permit have ranged from support for maintaining as many trees as possible, to support f6r the removal of any or all trees (see Attachments 5, 6 and 8). (g) All of the trees are quite large, and can provide considerable bird and small animal habitat for testing and nesting. Chapter 18.45 allows fora replacement ratio of three trees for each tree removed so long as adequate gr9wmg space is 4 CUT97-95.DM October 8,1997/ Staff Report ...... . .... 0 i i Charles and Sandra Bums # File No. CUT-97-95 Page 5 of 7 provided. Trees located near to ponds and streams are'popular nesting and resting spots for birds and small animals. Many native trees also can provide Z food for birds and animals. = t= (h) If all three.trees were removed, there would be plenty of room for replanting. If w only the tree near the garage were removed, that area would continue to be Q shaded by the existing trees, providing an environment where only a few types of � u trees could thrive. On the other side of the home, near the pond, is an area U o landscaped primarily with lawn and no large trees. Ui WLU .i i —' F- b) Conclusion: The tree clearing plan appears to remove more trees necessary, to U. accomplish its goals of removing the danger to the house and the applicants. According LU to an ISA certified Arborist, pruning the trees further from the house will reduce the 4 :3 hazard to the occupants. The city has no drip line standards, so the trees are not violating um- a those. Because the house was constructed prior to the adoption of the tree clearing T d ordinance, the construction of the house did not violate the regulations regarding drip ? w" lines of trees. The removal of the tree near the northeast corner of the garage will Z eliminate the primary hazard to the occupants and house, and should be approved. If this a O tree is removed, the existing trees will shade the area vacated by it, so replacement trees w w should not be planted there, as they would also be very close to the garage. Replacing the x a habitat value of a tree of this size is difficult, but the Land Clearing and Tree Cutting code O �!' recommends that three trees be replanted for one tree removed, if area is' available. On k ' h=' the side of the home near the pond is an area which is not shaded by trees, Which would O be suitable for replanting. Replanting with native species near the pond will improve the " = Uj trees' habitat value for birds and small animals. _ z 2. Compliance with ECDC Chapter 20.15A (Environmental Review) wU) a) Facts: F- H? a Z(1) A conditional use permit for an tree clearing permit is not categorically exempt from a SEPA review. (2) The applicant submitted an environmental checklist, and the proposal received a fi Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (see Attachment 4).' This deternunation was not appealed and the deadline for appeals ended on September26, 1997. (3) Comments were received on the Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS), and those are attached as Attachment 5 and 6. The comments did not cause the city to withdraw or change the MDNS. b) Conclusion: The applicant and the City have complied with the requirements of ECDC 20.15A. 0 C. Edmonds Comprehensive ]Plan Compliance 1. Land Use a) Fact: The City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property ; "Single Family" residential. 0 b) Conclusion: The proposed tree cutting is compatible with the single family residential use designation. 5 CUT97-91DOC 1 October 8.19971 Staff Report ` ._ 0 0 rZ �,- Z W W J V U0 tt) � w W = J F �O LU LL ?. Lna _ LLI_ Z I— E_ o W? U to 0-1 a �-; W Wi 2 C) LL0 _Z ui r/1 U _ O~ Z M Charles and'Sandra Bums File No. CUT-97-95 Page 6 of 7 2. Vegetation and Wildlife' a} 'Fact: The City of Edmonds Comprehensive PIan has some goals and policies stated in the Land Use Element, under Vegetation and Wildlife, which relate to.the subject development proposal (1) B. "Goal: The city should ensure that its woodlands, marshes and other areas ' containing natural vegetation are preserved, in 'accordance with the following policies: w B.1.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. B.3. Grading should be restricted to building pads and roads only. Vegetation outside these areas should be preserved." b) `,Conclusion: The proposed trees to be cut are not on steep slopes or hazardous soils. However, with the exception of the tree located at the northeast corner of the garage, the ! trees are outside of the building and driveway pads, so the Comprehensive Plan appears to urge the retention of the two trees further east from the house: D. Technical Committee 1. The proposed Conditional Use Permit has been reviewed and evaluated by other Departments/Divisions of the City.. a) Only one comment was received regarding this application and that is a memorandum ' from the Engineering Division (see Attachment 7). III. RECONSIDERATION AND APPEALS The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsideration's and appeals. Any person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the Planning Department for further procedural information. A. Request for Reconsideration Section 20.95.050.B.2 allows for staff to reconsider their decision if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the date of the posting of the notice of the decision. R. Appeals Section 20.105.020.A & B describe how appeals of a Hearing Examiner decision or recommendation 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. IV. LAPSE OF APPROVAL Section 18.45.045.C. states "Any permit granted under the provisions of this section shall expire one year from the date of issuance. No work may commence on the permit until the appeal time limit has expired. Upon receipt of a written request, a permit may be extended for six months." 6 CUT97-95.DOC / October 5,1997'/ Staff Report 0 .:`u 10,®�_ I Ch wtes and Sends SumsUT '. :`Page 7 of 7 V. A'T'7rACI�1lrIEN�S Iz 1 Vicinity and Zomng'M—ap 2. Appl zication f' w 3. Site Plan w 4 Mitigated Determination of N,onsijni&ance dated 8/28/97 U a 5 Comments on MDNS from: !{a) Niels P and Airdrie A Thomsen, dated September 1, I997 and. Cn W {b)Fred E. and Jeretta:C. Graham; dated September 13; I997 uj 6. Ha and Tree Evaluation from' John D. Hushagen, Seattle Tree Preservatron,' Inc ,dated September" 14; — O 1997 :2 �! 7 Memorandum from Gordy. Hyde, Engineering Coordinator, dated July 30, 199? er.i9„1997 Letter from Allen Nance; undated, received SeptembLL M' _ VI. PARTMSDF RECORD =y Applicant ~ 0 Planning Division- w Niels P. and Airdrie A. Thomsen w o Fred E. and Jerretta C .Graham. c } cniz John D. Hushagen,'Seattle Tree Preservation, Inc CAS Alien Nance . w wi M LY w O Z u.i cn O Z ` I Sy' I CUT97 95.666) )etoberg, t997/SmffRepart � O ®� r city of eo�honds it land use application ❑ ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD ` _ o ❑ COMP PLAN AMENDMENT sz ❑ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FILE # Cy-+C' `i-t• c}!S' ZONE L' S- t2 ❑ HOME OCCUPATION ❑ FORMAL SUBDIVISION DATE 7/fiv/7-7 REC'D BY L) Q ❑ SHORT SUBDIVISION FEE O 8� �" RECEIPT# _ ( 01 9 vo ® LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT o, ❑ PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT HEARING DATE LU ❑ OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT 1 LL; STREET VACATION ❑ HE `PLSTAFF ❑ PB ❑ ADB ❑ CC D o F ❑ REZONE 2 � ❑ SHORELINE PERMIT ACTION TAKEN: a a ❑ VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE Cr. 31 EXCEPTION ❑ APPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ APPEALED O ❑ OTHER 191 Applicant Charles and Sandra Burns Phone Address 19226 Olympic View Drive Property Address or Location _ 19226 Olympic View Drive Property Owner Charles and Sandra Burns Phone_(425) 672-8493 Address _._19226 Olympic View Drive Agent Phone Address Tax Acc # 4251-000-005-0003 Sec. Twp. Rng. Legal Description LOT 5, CHITTENDEN' S ADDITION, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF IN VOLUME 31 OF PLATSi PAGE 751 RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WA. SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, WA. Details of Projector Proposed Use REQUEST PERMIT TO REMOVE THREE TREES FROM THE FRONT YARD OF OUR LOT. THE PROXIMITY OF THE TREES TO OUR HOME POSES A REAL DANGER TO OURSELVES AND OUR HOUSE, IN AS MUCH AS THE TREES ARE ALREADY IN VIOLATION OF EDMONDS TREE DRIPLINE STANDARDS WE FEEL THE PRUDENT THING TO DO IS REMOVE THE TREES: The undersigned applicant, and his/ her/ its heirs, and assigns, in consideration of 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 in part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/ her/ its agents or employees. The undersigned applicant grants his/ her/ its permission for public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject property for the purpose of inspection and postria attendant to this applicaF in Attachment 2 SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/ OWNER/ AGENT 0 E P. z W 2 M U O a W U- v z 0 } -I•- I i i; _:_I _.:�._� i! i �I 1�-I I I I i I I� _ ! I� ! i �.I I! 4-T I i�. i I I- I Imo- �� _► I L-J -17 1 _;-- -l-- I i j i ,- l i�, l ���. I l l i i I I I-�-- •- - • I I j • 1 .. • i i i I I_ I# i --i I I 1 I. i 1 i! I � i I'y� ! ! till i 1 I '! i I I I _ a 4. or. Eb CITY OF EDMONDS F„ 1.011 250 SPH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 (206) M-0220 Z RCW 197-11-970 Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) �. MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE LU 01 Description of proposal: Cut down three trees (Deodara Cedars) in front yard (City of Edmonds Fite CUT-97-95). CO fit iF Proponent: Charles and Sandra Bums Cn w U. Location of proposal, including street address if any: 19226 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds, Washington Lead agency: CITY OF EDMONDS U. N C The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the 3 environment. An environmental impact statement is not required under RCW 43.21.030(2)(c)., This decision was Z 1—I made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This z 1-j information is available to the public on request. w ut! : a� There is no comment period for this DNS. to to p t x This DNS is issued under 197-1 i-340(2); the lead agenc ,wil not act on this proposal for 15 days from w u� the date below. Comments must be submitted by 2 ; Responsible Official: Jeffrey S. Wilson LU Position/Tide: Current Planning Supervisor, Department of Community Services - Planning Division O Phone: (425) 771-0220 z Address: City of Edmonds, 121- 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020 Date: Signature• h XX You may appeal this determination to Robert Chave, Planning Manager, at 121 - 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020, no later than w a,4 -1997, by filing a written appeal citing the reasons. 0 You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact Jeffrey S. Wilson to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals. XX Posted on $ 2� 997 at the Edmonds Public Library, Edmonds Community Services Building, and the monds Post Office, XX Distribute to "Checked" Agencies on the reverse side of this form, along with a copy of the Checklist. MrnOAT6AOC Page t of 2 °n" JEPA Attachment 4 ".�.. -°yU r�3+�`Sy�f�f�i r1..'t.. + i�,;i 1�,,7-�^i"� "s Sr x t4s'�try 1�ea xet rs:y.. Yl"ixy �'{ +rt xi to v 'xii'4 i a` sv.r" y�v,,i Fry "�r. r st'y. F4 y'ir t:> _. .. �. .., ..,: Mailed to the following along with the Environmental Checklist XX Environmental Review Section Department of Ecology P.O. Sox 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703: Z XX Department of Fisheries Q -. 115 General Administration Building Olympia, WA 98504-871 i XX Deppartment of Wildlife 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard Mill Creek, WA 98012 in Lu` XX Applicant: Charles and Sandra Bums h-' 19226 Olympic View Drive to LL A Seattle, WA 98155 XCi XX MITIGATING MEASURES INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSAL: y. z 0 1. The two trees furthest from the house (noted on the site plan as having diameters of 2' S" and 3' z LU 4") shall not be cut unless an ISA certified arborist determines in a written report submitted to the 4 city that the trees pose a hazard to the house and its occupants. 0 - 2. For each tree removed, three trees shall be planted to mitigate for the loss in habitat. Two thirds of m a the trees planted shall be native trees (see examples on attached list), planted in the rear setback of = c`�',x the lot to provide habitat near the pond. A replanting plan must be submitted prior to planting. Replanting shall be done within one year of tree removal. v _ 3. The applicant shall comply with any restrictions imposed by the state Department of Fisheries or o t- Department of Wildlife. z } { Attachments i ® pc: Fite No. CUT-97-95 SEPA Notebook Mmo,►re nec pnp2 of 2 30M.seM; - � -.. ., ...-.r �, ..?.,z ... t<fi�`s w 't ,�',r.F , .:;, A#'� �•h �''1 �+)tiiFc �FM1 # rt 1 ��%�..._.....�t � r a-'t .. <.,.�.».:.._.__....«.�._. - ....,..,.._..+.�... .. ,_ ..._._...,_may...;_._ - .. ...:..�_.:._........_ -.:.' j Captain Niels P. Thomsen, USCG(ret);;v 18222 O lympia View Drive, Edmonds, WA 88020 - vt i' 4'° PH: 425-771-71371 Fax: 4257121880 "`° email: grenadineseearthink.net act Monday, September 01,1997 City'of Edmonds Department of community Services Planning Division Ref., File CVT 98-95 Mi#igate,DCC 8/28/97 Attention .Jeffery S, Wilson Dear Sire On behalf of the several hundred wild ducks and other wildlife which inhabit Fruitdale on -the -Sound Fond, an Environmentally Sensitive Area, and the surrounding woodland within the Chittenden Addition, we wish to express our appreciation and thanks to the City, of Edmonds for their recognition of the importance of extendingrote protection to this natural habitat, a relevant and essential refuge for native wild life, Sincerely, 41rdifie P . msA, Thoms Attachment 5a n� o 0 a Uj U. 0 z Xdftor: An ave Ybu driven Streets0 220j� JUOCK nit Me Z ago W.'en, InO cdd--d al ofhe' . thy, beautiful —tie j en ed to SPring, had bee teied, Only their, about f," Our feet hijh;,, 'I" '.; ..­,�..'I. out the' �,`­` " " - Crue tyth4iri Nergone'­-­,� PIW 220th Strut; on most bea6t-ifu'l Edmonds withblooariag the S ` Pnpg",golden ' - 1� -T — pii ..a Fall, bas-becqMme.. o*t minder 4, the O*fi ;'p-^­ "LIUU -plac I ; -monds- and' 9 .-e. other placin E-d- y Wpm M.,Odr'_,hutnan Xorthw6st ewayo in Isetii6d EdInOnds ecAu8e be'. � .... ... ur envir6ninent..., Ing raped d;Y after day, believed it wanted to keep its quaintness, its jusci. children lusciousgreen;.will soon be depri green- "o ery, Ahd'' f the nature .we we once receIYC4 -wonderful Water-'-'�` test --to**''-- front '.' I 'b"' I` "Cirea 'Wanted-, the c r t'' beJ Ozitinue-its,reputation,�,,if,,-cherished na 0 ­h` g- nd"'T to. ore an mvItiri more a 96 e* - tiv4A an the surro,111fidin c rnunities* ..v mar happens dvhen our chal Was it . 'ishf`ul tk ari"kave nothing -6:,.-1 o6k76t�Avenue,.ppcticnHng? & atthadhouses, bdildimg,treeftvrbeen treplay6d'by ' crate and c6TputerS?.­." mass 94s'1­ . , u, Bonnie Afttand Drveib9. -Olynpic_ e, T616sa Dix, for e�en denuded fur concespressing ydir't4` .Of deyilqpfii;�i City' Park was ara R. W V, once filled ree as LEM P;3ge 6L 0 "A � f t�h �t ' � . t � `• � ; F 4 r 4 h i {411 V� ti 1 City of Edmonds 9113/97 Department of Community Services zd € Planning Division 250 Sth, Ave North Edmonds, WA 98020 _J O Delivered via. FAX #(425)771-0221 on 9113/97 (apron. 5:30 p.m.) U a{ Cn to Attention : Jeffrey S. Wilson -Planning Supervisor J h° O� Subject: City of Edmonds File CUT 97.93; DNS #197-11-340(2) comments required on or before Ui 9/14/97 ti LL. Dear Mr. Nilson: C• On behalf of my wife, myself & the remaining birds that need time maturo trecs, thank r you for your thoughtful determination on this request by our neighbors the Burns', z 1x--1 We have only a few comments that we feel are pertinent to state: '. C' First; it would probably be wise to require that if any of these three trees is allowed to be i g=` destroyed, the plat) & installation of the stipulated three replacement trees per tree destroyed be o carried out prior to such destruction being carried out. This modification would insure the required replacement & would make it easier & therefore less expensive for city officials to enforce your 0 �— stipulation. w ur Second; as to the provision that destruction of the two trees ftrrthest ftmn the Burns' house tom- E- would require determination by an ISA certified arborist, we have chosen to do some "home work' `_ in advance of any such occurrence, in order to avoid possible contention in the future. We have j; asked Mr. John Hushagen of Seattle Tree Preservation, Inc. (Phone: 367.4048) to write his opinion Labout this possibility (of the trees being a danger to the Burns' house) & FAX that opinion to you 0 on or before the required date for comment of 9/14/97. We asked Mr. Hushagen specifically z because he was the first contractor that the Burns' asked to bid on removal of these trees & he 3 refused to bid or do the work because he disagreed with their removal. You should receive that transmittal via. FAX & later confirmation via mail, as with our transmittal , & we ask you to make it a part of the record for this case. Third, to enter our own opinion in the record about the possibility of these two trees becoming a danger to the Burns' house, we state that these two trots a= rooted such that they lean away from the ,Bums' house (we have taken photographs). It is difficult to envision how they could ever be determined to endanger tho Burns' house by anyone, whatever their motivation. Thank you for your attm ion to these matters. 0 we Fred . & Jeretta C. Graham 19316 Olympic View Drive Edmonds, WA 99020 .1 Y 2F t Attachment 5b i 1 ... T`� DDT6-00e race) !ta-+-1 .. ,}dDO.eDO 6D at +dr'D W rm September 14,1997 o Ms. Jeretta Graham INC. 19.316 Olympic View Drive w' Edmonds, Wa, 98020 C` Oil RE: Health and Hazard Evaluation of Two Deodar Cedar Frees at 19226 Olympic view Drive, Edmonds. 0 Dear 116, Graham: At your request, I recently visited the above site to examine two deodar cedar trees growing just north of the driveway. The purpose of my visit was to assess the health and hazard potentialof these trees. The following report is a summary of my findings. The trees are growing close together, and have DBH measurements of approximately 3811 and 26", respectively. Neither tree appears to have been pruned, other than to have some lower branches removed many years ago. Both trees show some signs of small to medium sized branches lost in past storms. The foliage color and density of each tree is normal, shoot growth is average, aril there are no trunk seams or other signs that would indicate trunk defects or internal decay. Deodar cedars typically fail by losing branches in wind and snow storms. The number of branches these trees have lost is less than expected from cedars of this age. Branch loss can be reduced by pruning by crown clove ing and thinning to reduce branch weight and crown density. I recommend that type of pruning for these trees. some lower bunches on the north tree could be removed to reduce needle drop on the garage roof. In hazard tree evaluation, a 10 point system is used to assess the value of the target, the size of the part expected to fall, and the haaard potential or risk of failure. These trees rate only five points out of ten, well within the moderate hazard nuip. I find no compeft reason to recommend tfle removal of these trees at this time. Please contact me if you Dave further questions. Sohn A Hushagen ISA Certified Arborist Seattle Tr2e JPreratiion, Incec� 14508 Whitman Ave. N. • Seattle, Washington 98133 0 (206) 367-4049 Member, international Society of Arboricuitme and National Ar ist Aasocistion 0 a �►=� . �`�� z Site/Address: �tpa�� l�t�t e�— twasutannae: MepA ovation:LU Fail + Size + Target Hazard = 2, Owner. public private unknown —_ other Potendat of pan Rating Rating "o Data: �pector. �,. 1 [C..G?G1.. lrnrn�iafeaL�annaetled V) w Date of last inspection: Needs further inspection Dead tree t— MEE CHARACTERISTICS V) U. w 0' Tree t Species: i 06111: # of trunb. _.,a! .._ 8elgbt �L7 r Spread: —4s�L J� LL =1 form: agenerally�s mmetric O minor asymmetry 13 major asymmety ❑stump sprout ❑ stag•headed � a' Crown cl■ss: ;;dominant O co -dominant O intermediato O auppreseed s ru$ z_ I--- Live crown ratio: 40 % Age doss: 0 young mi-mature ❑ mature O over maturelsenescent 1— O Pruning history: ❑ crown cleaned ❑ excesciuety thinned O topped own raised ❑ pollarded C crown reduced 0flush cuts O cabied/braced LU w O none ❑multiple pruning events Apprvx. dates: :D a SpscialVatue: Ospecimen &IIntageMistoric ❑wildlife ❑unusual 1]streettree tin fade Olndigenous El protected bygouagency v o -1 MEE HEATH w Wt Foliage color: normal D chloronc D necrotic tplcormics? eu Growth ohstnrtttantt i=. Fmlagedenztty: I�Aomal Osparse Leaf sin: �m'at ❑small ❑stakes I3vrirchles Cosigns Ocablos z Annual shoat growtir ceilent D average O oor Twig Oleback? Y N O curb/pavement Oguards U g wotmdwedddevelopmerrb ❑oxooilorrt varago ❑poor Mono ❑other z~ Wifor0m: clexcelleat age Dfair Opoor MajorPubldiseases: .07 67-P_ SITE CONDITIONS Site tdraracter. esidenco ❑ eommenial ❑ Industrial ❑ park Ca open space Onatural Ci woodtandYored Landscape type: 0011CIOW D raised bed D container Elmound &Ravg" O shrub border O wind break Irrigation: a 13 adequate D Inadequate ❑ excessive a trunkwettled .._ fieeeatsite disturbance? Y(!i.> C]construction ❑soiidisturbance Ogradechange Ofinectearing 0 ftclearing %driplinepavod: 0% 10:25H 25-50% 50.75% 75.100% PSVWentImo @6 dripline w/fill eon: 0% 10.266/. 96-t0%• 60.76-Y. 76.100% © % dripiine grade lowered: 4'/0 10-25% 25-50% 50.75% 75-1005'fl Sall problems: O drainaoe G shallow 0 compacted Ddroughh+ Osallne ❑ aldine O acidic ❑ small volume O disease center 0 history of fail D clay ❑ expansive ❑ slope ° aspect: Obstructions: Olights ignage Cflwot-sight ©view Coverneadtlnes Ctunderground utilities ❑traffic Dadjacentvcg. 0- Exposure to wind: single tree O below canopy O above canopy ❑ recently exposed 13 wbrdwa�d. canopy edge ❑ area prone to wbtdthrow, ® I'mrailing wind direction: �. rt�r Occurrence of snowAoo storms ❑ never �dorn C raguhrly TARGET Use tinder Tree: wilding C parking O tratno ❑ pedestrian D recreation O ianoscapa Mardscape Iw small features O 0 try lines Can target he moved? Ytv Can acre resWeted? Occupancy: O occasional use -14ft It use quart usa ❑ oomlant use Tne International Society or MWCuhure aeaumoo no msponsibitity for conclusions or reoommendations derived from use of thle form. t LL 0 cn z H z w M u 0 0 w s r U- U t= 0 z U a ~?"t OY TREE DEFECTS Rwafff m: luepedndrat 4w muhromnlmdp&ndutpmr& YQ lD: bpmdmm; ❑aeaan Omodmto Orow Uahrmtaad: Oam-w Omadono Olm RootlmmlkdimmfmmuUnk Rootarwrmiwol % lutlraaowumbt Y� whon R4ktDorkdrootatra: Ooovor4 Omdorata MW— Pat ftltonoatldkn: C m#rt nmodaram Bimf LM doa.f omvar W 9091'r OunrouW OearHAr MO, iotints"a Y N DeM lo atom or loam tom? Room bMken YQP Sad a:eordnp: Yfpj compmIal I La111dtrwtlty: Oaa+rera Cimadarata Otow MOi= pratanaa m MUM===M ano ma MW UWW to-WMfl, rn - R OM=, I ■ arag HAZARD RATING u0mmmimlrtotan palionpamdg t-I=2-mealum:3-tYph:4-ea+mm tnepedionpariod: annuaikkmmW othor motporx 1-+vpsap 2 - Sir (15-45 cm): Future tit+5heaPart +ikrdat tiadad a Wmrd Radng 3-IW '(45�5cm}t4-*3VJ75 cm) Lrpd rdtlg: i- occmww t se; 2 kdwmft d uaar _I_+. t t'a -cc 9-rroquentuw,,4-eotduu HAZARD ABATEMENT ME 2fI5muedat9a 4W 3�4040W*ght l9rarowttdo 18lldtl` ❑rallooMpy OWCA MUCe Orunatura OatW Wklefnoo: I leldec ww.. 0[ootomwn Odam Odem Omonlmr R6raeeekae: Y jp 6op1ae7 Y4p a mtarpt YO naw.. Elbdaa adju W l ma: rglfaw O.aaluatt How aym Oowmr ❑manager OOaamdndapenq+ Dark s /:�r� � COMMENTS MmraUtagadoddtnaDere, ! oaam4n4aohnaw�ladoam OWer Gft% M ❑NW* TAWIN U"Uohtttaa d ODir" Otfc Cl*adrM Oraor"n Olandow Ohu*ape O604dtaet M ❑utall *m Wataryd6ernmo <p ame"llmollool W: dommoOeacaNanalum �dmntum P tum Ooanetyntuee rww 1w .d-..d Q..bd.M&*-wdbw•wwd-1{-0 rm"PA IW Mr oanoiue" of moommwAad= dWW hym UW(II W k= . ira LU Co U s o ~�z ❑s U A Photographio Guide to the Evaluation of Hazard Trees In Urban Areas TREE HAZARD EVALUATION FORM end Edition Site/Address; ^�2 MapA-oMUM Owner public private Unknown other Date; � Inspector- {IW�—,...� Date of last inspection; HAZARD RATING: Patturo + t3ite , Tergat - dotard Potential of part Rating Railing Immediate action needed .�.�.,. Needs furtherinspertion Dead tree TREE CHARACTERIS'Ei1CS Trost 7s Species: OBH: -A&-- *of tromr.. P Netobt . , Sprawk 929 farm: ❑ generally symmetric mar asymmetry ❑ major asymmrwtry ❑stump sprota O stag -headed Crown lass; Erdimtnant ❑ co -dominant O intermadlate O suppressed Lttmecrown ratio: -192% Ageclass: Oyoung BadrfiC-mature Omatum Oovermature/senescont Motel; history: O crown cleaned O excessively thinned 0 topped wised O pollarded O crown reduced 0 flush cuts O cabled/braced ❑ none O multiple pruning evento Approx. dates: Speofal tfalue: O specimen ettl oa/historic r ivoldiife C unusuai O street tree S-scrt*" n *sulfa O inoigenouo O protected by you agency ilia^-rli. Foliage color. &k%rmai O ehlorotic O necrotic Epleormics? Y(:.i-,) Growth obstructions: Feliagodumitp Gt Wal ❑aparse Lost": ❑normal ❑small OstaltAs 0wira/ues Osions Ocables Annual shoot growth: ellent ❑ average ❑ poor Tiulg Dfebackt Yd�) O curb/pavement O guards Woundwood development: lO excellent gage O poor ❑ none 0othor Yigorcitsss: 0exco6ant loge ❑fair Opoor Major pit WdIscasea: R 621J9 — WE CONUITIONS Spa Character: 0491dance O commercial ❑ Industrial ❑ park ❑ open soave © natural r l woodtandtiorest Landscape type: O parkway O ralaed oed O container O mound 91gft O shrub border O wind break irrigation: M<n'e Dad ate ❑inadequate Dexcessive Otrunkwettled Recant afte disturbancs? YCAlo/ ❑ construction 0 coil disturbance O grade change O one clearing O site clearing 4`o drlpAne paved: 09. 25 25-50% 50.75% 751007c I'Mment litted? Y N sl driplide w/ till soli: CS;� IRS% 25.60Ye 075% 75-100% %drgtilue grade lowered: t� 10-26% 26-60% 60-75% 761V. 0O Sell problems: O drainage O sbaalow Cl compacted O droughty [] dine O aikallne O AC101c tO sma0 volume. O disease center O historyof fall C1 clay ❑ expansive O slope aspect; Obstructions: C tights Ci fgnago ❑ lino -of -alight ❑ view O overhead lines M undarground utildles O traftl00 O adjacent veg. CJ Exposure to wind: gie tree O below canoopy O above canopy D recentlyexposed O windward, canopy edge O area prone to Wndthrow prevailing wind diractlon; --- ��"-A� occurrence of snowtice storms O never &xt om O regul* TMOET �s Ilse under Tree: M%t l0ing O parMng O traffic O padestrtan ❑ reaoation O 1andseaps O haroscaps 0 small features O utility lines Can blast be moved? Yo Can use restriot®d? Y Doeupaaoy: O occacfonai use &tent use equent uss O constant use The International Society of Arboriculb,re assumes no responsibility for conclusions or recommendations dorlved from use of this farm. t 0 11 C TREE DEFECTS 19t�e naaraf�ar�: suspect root tot: Y 62 Mushroont/0"reokel prasent: f:1 iD. E posed roots: O severe O moderate Mow Uaeermfnett: O severe O moderate O tow Root pruned: distance from trunk Root area affected: % Buttress wounded: Y' Whom fioatrlcled rool arm: O severs O moderate 24aw"-- Potential lot root tallow. O severe 0 moderate Mow — LEAN deg. from vertical ❑ natural O unnatural 0 sal -corrected Soil heaving: Y tE) Decay In plane of lean: Y 'N Rools broken Y(7 Soll cracking: Compoundlogfaetars: Leanaaverity: Osavare Omodsrate Olow CROWN OEFECR., indicate presence of indlvldual defects and rate thelf severity (s s severe, m n moderate, I m low) DEFECT ROOTCROWN 'TRUNK $"KOt BRANCHES Poor ta or Bow, sweep Cododr antalforks Muhl to attachments Included bark Excesst re end wei ht Cracks/splits Han era OlydAn Woundalseam Decay cavity Conks/mushmoms/bracket visedinalsap flow Loose/crackad bark Nesting bolelbee hive Deadwoodtstubs �-- Borarsltermftaslants Gankersl atisiburts Previous failure HAZARD RATING Tree part most Iiksly tC fai{; Failure potential: 1- low; 2 - medium; 3 - high: 4 - severe Inspection period: annual biannual other Size of,pari: t - W (1ti am); 2 - VS` (16.46 cm): Failure Potential + Size of Part +Target Rating w Hazard Rating 3 -18-W (45-75 Oft 4 - 4V (75 om)i Target rating: 1- oocastonal use: 2 intermittent use: a - frequent use:4 - constant use HAZARD ABATEMENT - Prune: Strive defective part C 100ce eno weight EK76w0clean ettatf—o raise canopy O sown reduce O restructure ❑ 3haoe Cabt Race: tospectfudhar. 0mot crown Odecay ❑aerial Omonitor Removetreo: Y V Replace? Y<V Movateryet: YO Omer. Effect on adjacent trees: Sh0*4 O avaluata Notfficallow Oowner Omanager Ogovemingagency Data.* COMMENTS �... — 3ONx"9* Kra �'t tr/'s.urS� - tr s ,t ry rxf r r tf s r trr f'� t y ,t rti ` t t31 MMORANDUM u } ` a � t!y-S �t yy�`y �� i7C�J�f, S�u1v.�sc#ti `,.t$ � 7� rats 7t'�'Z�„�:f� t� yzKd Z a�,r ry,,...��t'�, i•�,�1 '` ri rr�n ✓ 1; rf}k r s z �! Date: July 30, 1997 W xTo: Planning Division Cn o From: Gordy Hyde, Engineering Coordinator C44— u Subject: CU T for Burns at 19226 Olympic View Dr. (CU-97-095) �o zThe application has been reviewed by the Engineering Division. The r o4 Engineering Division will reserve the right to make additional comments and W Wi requirements if any other submittals are forthcoming for this project. The Engineering Division does not y y g� g typical) .have an comment to make on tree cutting proposals. The applicant will need to comply with. all the terms of any �- future permits. The application for the Conditional Use permit is considered i ca complete at this time. CU97089.DOC t t U� r� Allen Nance �Faz�.`��'"j. 19309 Olympic View Dr Edmonds, WA 98020 To Whom It May Concern: ,- We are in favor of cutting any or all trees on the property of 19226 Olympic j View Dr EdmOndS, 98020. U. Allen Nance ER Or. LU �.4 CS.tn LUUJ = W -. U. LU V O Z. i -Attachment'. ; �+� y w + x4t �. s J JF r rrt'".E.kkr� � �hl'�3�4u �� ,- ..o*�+m�w.r....... ADJACENT PROPERTx OWNEI�.S LIST Lul On my oath; I- certify that to the best of my knowledge .the names and w addresses provided represent all properties located wit 'n 300 feet of the N a - subject property. Lu J4 . to . Lt RICHA.RD D. , WURDEMAN Attorney for Appellant w w, o N SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this day of October, s 1997. F- h LL S { % ..... ... .. ,..r vwo. r+s-...+.._........J... r.+z....._.__.`'__... ._. _. r. Yf Ja., r .... ..... ..........._._...«...._.._.._....._..,_..,. tr,�..... t........,...».......�...........__.�.. •_v.............. ..... 132703401300 Richard Parker 232703407800 434600006801 15902 Olympic View Dr. ' Willis Twiner 19128 Olympic View Dr. Robert McCallum 18620 Olympic View Dr. Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 Z r` ii �! 132703401400 Donald & Kim Booth 132703412500 434600006802 01 15904 Olq�mpic View Dr. John Maldazys 19130 Olympic View Dr. Douglas Strong 18624 94th Ave W p Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 UJI .wj v?O 132703401500 398900000200 434600007501 w ( �¢¢ Ross & Mice Johnson Constance Cohn Ray Lipps j 18906 Olympic View Dr. 18628 94th Ave W 18905 Ol View Dr. LL Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds Edympmc onds, iLj Z �, 132703401600 425100000300 434600007502 �' Arthur George Fredrick Graham Ray Guerin 18908 Olympic View Dr. 19316 Olympic View Dr. 18901 Olympic View Dr. Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 U M a t 132703401700 42510000050o 434600oo7503 LU F Rod Kean Charles & Sandra Burns William Davis LL O. 18910 Olympic View Dr. 19226 Olympic View Dr. 18903 Olympic View Dr. � Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 9$020 ,WA9 x 0+" 132-703401800 42510000o600 434600007601 Jerry & Janis Minear Niels Thomsen Jack Dublin 18912 Olympic View Dr. 19222 Olympic View Dr. 18911 Olympic View Dr. Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 132703402400 425100000700 434600007602 Cynthia List Jerroi Martinson Arthur Joachims 19012 Olympic View Dr. Edmonds, WA 98020 19210 Olympic View Dr. 18909 Olympic View Dr. Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 ® 132703402900 433500000100 434600007603 Lester Blume Charles Gehlen Loren Dada i 19026 Olympic View. Dr. 18914 Olympic View Dr. 18907 Olympic View Dr. Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 132703407700 433500000200 434600007700 ® William Thornburgh D. Seniot Olaree Hoppel 19106 Olympic View Dr. Edmonds, WA 98020 18916 Olympic View Dr. 18927 Olympic View Dr. Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 • x N A{A r 1 r� yFUJA ..+i- - '.�'3i sin;:, jj1 } i y is 434600007701 µ Mike Shimizu 43460000304 434600100200 18923.Olympic View Dr. Ellen Hatton 19213 Olympic View Dr. Cliff Rieck liff Sound View Pl. Edmonds; WA 98020 Edmonds WA 98020 : Edmonds, WA 98020 z� • :. f wI cc g �.:;;;;. 434600007702 434600008402 434600100201 Jtt I ©, liober�, Ullmaa . 2$921'Olympic View Dr. Sylvia Nance MarJorle Rieck N Edhidn ls, WA 98020 19223 Olympic View Dr. Edmonds WA 98020 18702 Sound View Pl. us L" i Edmonds, WA 98020 J F- Uj 0 y 434600007800' Janet Stubbs 43460000850I Edna Brumback 43460010050Q !� ti x901x Olympic View Dr. 19301 Olympic View Dr. Stephen Prison LL d( d Edmonds WA 98020 Edmonds WA 98020 x8716 Sound View PI. Edmonds, WA 98020 ~ 1-- ' •434600008001 Fi�waid'.DniY ' 43460Q008502 434600100600 2 �` w wI • . 105"Olympic View Dr. Randy �� 19305 Olympic View Dr. Estrella Hill 18720 Sound View g �, D a' Edmondss WA 98020 ° Edmonds WA 98020 , Pl. Edmonds, WA 98020 0L _ vi 434600008I01 ' Don Kobs • 4346000085Q3 434600100700 !- -' z 19117 Olympic View Dr. W S Wallace { 19303 Olympic Yiew Dr. T P Harviile I8?26 Sound View Pl. Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds; WA 98020 v sn ' d Z 434600008102 Ronald Young 434600008601 43460Q1008O3 1912I Olympic Yiew Dr. William Nance 19309 Olympic View Dr. Robert Adelman Edmonds, WA 98020. Edmonds, WA 98020 18732 Sound View Pl. Edmonds, WA 98020 434600008200 Joseph Basco 43460000$6Q2 Steve 43460Q10x2O1 ' 3� 19129 Olympic View Dr. �p Wang 19311 Olympic View Dr. Kenneth Pierson Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds WA 98020 9708 Wharf St. Edmonds, WA 98020 434600008201 E. A. Chambard 434600008604 484600101202 's 19125 Olympic View Dr. Grant Bush 19315 Olympic View Dr. Gale Andre Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 9702 Wharf St Edmonds, WA 98020 44346000OS302 Robert Wilson 434600100100 43460020O1OQ 19209 Olympic View Dr. Gary Nelson 9?l0 Wharf St. Timothy Jo y rgensen Edmonds WA 980209705 Edmonds, WA 98020 Wharf St Edmonds, WA 98020 rf^ t . t. 9 �% ;. � .. ... '"'. .. ,.,.. .. y .. ...� ,.x,;; �<.�. ,.c t,yu�.....ii�\z1.. R. Ft.f t:�... c'G`Ys.•n. ,.:. ,... ..I. .." .�, . r i u Y x r F, t' i i 434600200200 434600202101 Kathkleen Sears 565600101804 9707 Wharf St Grant Robert Steele Edmonds, WA 98020 9629 Wharf St 18415 94th Ave W Z Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 ~ I 434600200300 21 ArthtnrRunkel 434600300100 565600101805 V� 18612 Sound View PI James O'Connor George Murray � [! Edmonds, WA 98g20 18711 Sound View PI 18403 94th Ave W to su Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 a l=-� U. 434600200500 —0 434600300200 w a Thomas Pinkham Jahn Lavtaceford 565600101905 18606 Sound View PI 18703 Sound View P2 William Shoved L Edmonds, WA 98020 19423 94th Ave'W � Q "Edmonds WA 9sg20 o Edmonds, WA 98020 LA F 434600200700 0( Robert Jeffers Jim 0030 302 565600101906 HoffmE.-: 18604 Sound View PI 28623 Sound View Pi Thomas Hafford w W' Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 18425 94th Ave W S 0t Edmonds, WA 98020 p 434600200900 e ui W Vicki Haynes `f3460®300SOY 565600101907 18602 Sound View PI Wayne Swift Fred Tuttle U.b, Edmonds, WA 98020 18520 Sound View Pi 18431 94th Ave W z Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 Uj (a h 434600202000 434600300602 z Demnis 8isiel Catherine Niloa 145580000100 18600 Sound View PI 18509 Sound View PI 'William Lund Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 2031 Euclid Ave Edmonds, WA 98020 434600201100 '%34600400100 Nona Curry 745500000200 I8518 SoundView Pl Margaret Pryor Michael Meeks i" Edmonds, WA 98020 18711 Sound View P2 1029 Euclid Ave Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 434600201500 434600400302 Mark Neudorfer Bart Lynam 745500000300 18516 Sound View PI 9606 WhaSt Barbara Pratum rf 1027 Euclid Ave Edmonds, WA 98020 � Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 434600202900 434600600100 Steven Cook ® Timothy Jorgensen 745500000400 18610 Sound View P2 y rgensen Alejancro Pita Edmonds, WA 98020 9705 Wharf St 10023 Euclid Ave Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 980203� 434600008304 Ellen Hatton 19213 Olympic View Dr. Edmonds, WA 98020 425100000100 w �l Robert Johnson -1 1542 loth P1 N Edmonds, WA 98020 a F{ N O 425100000200 Charles Nasman 1530 10th PI N Edmonds, WA 98020 c d Z� 425100000300 F- 01 Frederick Graham Z p, 19316 Olympic View Dr LU jk Edmonds, WA 98020 425100000600 S Niels Thomsen I- � � 19222 Olympic View Dr -- Edmonds, WA 98020 V= p ~ 425100000700 Jerrol Martinson 19210 OIynapic View Dr Edmonds, WA 93020 432703408000 Vesta Lerdrup 1511 10 PIN r Edmonds, WA 98020 432703408400 Michael Bonney 1531 10th PI N Edmonds, WA 98020 432703408900 i Jerome Stephenson 1521 10th Pl N Edmonds, WA 98020 Q. 43270340900o Jerome Karnofski 1520 10th PI N Edmonds, WA 98020 432703409100 Karl Fischer 1510 loth P1 N Edmonds, WA 98020 Rick Wurdeman Wurdeman & Tesch, P.C. 320 Dayton, Suite 101 Edmonds, WA 98020-3598 ,f a k t ..... ..., v.. t.a .l.J ..,.0 wunr......awry.{..v.=...w....�.�.un�.•.+.«.. tYalwVn+.'•tr'Mw.nvmr ruxr•vreouan,nuYfn .rrn+n r n.i..e n....i. U, b Pare) Number , Owner Name Site Address VB Owner Phone 4251000 004 00 p4 Graham Fredrick E gt Jeretta *No Site Address* 4346 000 083 01 p4 Sutherland Irma R *No Site Address 425-778.1236 4346 000 084 0I 3 Simmons Richard F & Margaret eNc Site Address* 425.778.9804 1327 034 09100 3 Fischer Kaa1 V & Barbara J 151010th PI N Edmonds 98020 1989 253-771-2686 1327 034 090 00 4 Karnofaka Jerome R 152010th PI N Edmonds 98020 1916 423-775•1894 Z .� 1327 034 089 00 ? Stephenson Jerome D & Nadane E 1521 10th P1 N Edmonds 98020 1930 425.176-5295 s 42$1000 002 00 }6 Nasman Charles L/Kathy L 153010th I P N Edmonds 98020 1987 1327 034 084 00 p2 13unney Michael & Mary E 1531 10th Pt N Edmonds 98020 1951 425.672.3343 4251000 00100 7 Johnson Robert. A 1542 10th PI N Edmonds 98020 197$ 425-776-0035 �� 1327 034 080 00 t Lerdrnp Vesta P 1551 10th PI N Edmonds 9$020 1939 253.778.8478 U 1327 034 074 00 4 Savage Anthony 1561 loth PI N Edmonds 9$020 1960 V) w ` 7455 000 003 00 2 Pratam Barbara A 1027 Euclid Ave Edmonds 98020 1986 "'-F 7455 000()02 00 33 Meeks Michael D 1029 Euclid Ave Edmonds 98020 1987 425-775-9198 — u.o � 4346 000 086 03 7 Jones Thesle R 9325 Forest Deli Dr Edmonds 98020 1977 425.773.1797 w 4346 000 096 03 9 ()rout David C/Melinda K 9331 Forest Dell Dr Edmonds 98020 1974 ! 32? 034119 00 i Perry Paul AlCamlyi► M 1505 Olympic View Dr Edmonds 99020 1996 UL < 1327 034 079 00 0 Twiner Willis E 19128 Olympic View Dr Edmonds 9$02t) h 941 1327 034125 00 3 MaldUW John D/Marie A 19130 Olympic � d � ympic View Dr Edmonds 95020 1976 4346 000 083 02 3 Wilson Robert E & Shirley M 19209 Olympic Viow Dr Edmonds 98020 . 1987 4251000 007 QO I Erickson Elizabeth 14210 Olympia View Dr Edmonds 98020 1984 O` 46 000 083 03 2 Whitney Bethlyn J 19211 Olympic Mew Dr Edmonds 98020 1959 43 z 46 000 083 04 PI Hatton Ellen K/Craig 11213 Olympic View Dr Edmonds 98020 1953 253-672-3007 w w; 4251000 006 00�22 Thomsen Niois P1Airdrie Anne 19222 Olympic View Dr Edmonds 98020 1922 425-771.7137 4346 000 084 02 Nance Syhza 19223 Olympic Viow Dr Edmonds 98020 1954 4346 000 083 022 Bnunback Edna J 19301 Olympic View Dr Edmonds 98020 1960 425.779-3754 n E— 4346 000 085 03 0 Wallace W S 19303 Olympic View Dr Edmonds 98020 1973 -7 6 _ 4346 000 085 02 I Paevis Randy $/Katie L 19305 Olympic425 78 9?6 LL it 4346,000 086 01 1 Nance William A/Mo1 L 19309 Olympic V ew Dr Edmonds 99020 1964 IY ympic View Dr Edatonds 98020 1924 0 4346 000 086 02 0 Mattel Paul RUcheie A 19311 Olympic View Dr Edmonds 98020 i9$9 LU 4346 000 086 04 8 Bush Grant A & Carolina R 19315 Olympic View Dr Edmonds 98020 1975 4231 000 003 000 Graham Fredrick E & Jore to 19316 Olympic View Dr Edmonds 98020 1971 O 2 10 0 �i