Staff report CU-08-13.pdf
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 - 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020
PLANNING DIVISION
ADVISORY REPORT
FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
To:
File #CU-2008-13
From
:
Mike Clugston, AICP
Planner
Date:
JUNE 20, 2008
File:
An application for a tree cutting permit for Michael Hathaway
I.INTRODUCTION
A.Application
1. Applicant: Michael Hathaway
th
2. Site Location: 17016 74
Avenue West (see inset).
3. Request: A Conditional
Use Permit to allow the removal of
several trees in a steep slope area.
4. Review Process: An
Administrative Conditional Use
Permit.
5. Major Issues:
a.Compliance with Edmonds
Community Development
Code (ECDC) Section 18.45 -
Land Clearing and Tree
Cutting.
b.Compliance with ECDC
Section 20.15A -
Environmental Review
(SEPA).
City of Edmonds Zoning Map, May 1, 2008
c.Compliance with ECDC
Section 20.95 - Application
and Staff Review.
d.Compliance with ECDC Section 23.40 - Environmentally Critical Areas General
Provisions.
Michael Hathaway
File No. CU-08-13
Page 2 of 6
B.Description of Proposal
In April 2007, the applicant topped a bitter cherry, six red alders, and a willow tree on a steeply
sloped area of the subject parcel without a permit. A post-event conditional use permit was
required by the City (Attachment 1). According to the applicant, the trees had been repeatedly
topped due to a view easement that exists on the property. In fact, the subject property and several
neighboring parcels are burdened by a restrictive covenant regarding view maintenance
(Attachment 2). The covenant is a private agreement between the adjoining landowners to which
the City is not bound except to the extent that it holds the burdened landowners to perform work
regulated in ECDC Chapter 18.45.
In addition to the eight trees that were topped in April 2007, the applicant is also requesting to
remove three additional trees on the parcel through this permit (Attachment 3). The Tree Removal
Plan (Attachment 4) shows the location of all the existing trees. The additional three trees
proposed to be removed are healthy; however, they impact the views of the parties described in the
view easement. While the City normally desires to retain healthy trees on steep slopes, the
presence of the view easement conflicts with the ability to retain these trees in their current
condition. A Tree Replacement Plan (Attachment 5) identifies replacement species and locations.
C.Decision
Based on statements of Fact, Conclusions, and Attachments in this report, the application for a
Conditional Use Permit for tree cutting is APPROVED with the following conditions:
1.Trees 1-11 on the revised Tree Removal Plan (June 3, 2008), shall be removed in accordance
with the arborists report of June 5, 2008 (Section 7.0).
2.The replacement trees indicated on the revised Tree Placement Plan (June 3, 2008), shall be
installed in accordance with the recommendations of the arborists report of June 5, 2008. In
the event that those specific trees are not available (as described in Section 5.2 of the
arborists report), similar trees may be installed at the arborists discretion. An updated Tree
Placement Plan shall be submitted and approved by the City prior to the installation of the
trees.
3.The following erosion control shall be implemented as discussed in Section 6.0 of the
arborists report:
a.All planting shall be done by hand using hand shovels.
b.No mechanical equipment shall be used in the rear yard.
c.Excess soil shall be removed during replanting shall be removed from the site.
d.Three to four inches of wood chip mulch is to be placed over the exposed soils below
each plant.
4.All cuttings shall be removed from the site.
5.One year from the date of installation, the applicant (or his designee) shall contact the
Planning Division to schedule a site inspection to ensure compliance with the replacement
plan.
6.All future land clearing and tree cutting work undertaken by those burdened by the McClintick
viewshed easement (# 8705120211) shall be done in accordance with all applicable City
codes.
Michael Hathaway
File No. CU-08-13
Page 3 of 6
II.FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
A.Site Description
1.Site Development, Neighboring Development, and Zoning:
a)Facts:
(1)Size: Approximately 20,061 square feet.
(2)Land Use: Single family residential.
(3)Zoning:Single-Family Residential (RS-20).
(4)Terrain and Vegetation: The parcel, particularly western half of the subject area,
slopes significantly from the east down to the west. Vegetation in the area consists of
the identified trees as well as well as lawngrass and other typical residential
landscaping.
2.Surrounding Development and Zoning:
a)Facts:
(1)North, South, East, and West: The area surrounding the subject parcel is a mix of
lots zoned Single-Family Residential (RS-12 and RS-20) with most being already
developed with single family homes.
B.Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Compliance
1.ECDC Section 18.45 (Land Clearing and Tree Cutting)
a)Facts:
(1)ECDC Chapter 18.45.030 exempts clearing on an improved single-family lot, except
for that portion of the lot that has slopes exceeding 25 percent.
(2) Clearing means the act of cutting and/or removing vegetation. (ECDC
18.45.040.C)
(3)Removal is the actual destruction or causing the effective destruction through
damaging, poisoning or other direct or indirect actions resulting in the death of a tree
or ground cover. (ECDC 18.45.040.O)
(4)Routine landscape maintenance shall mean trimming and ground cover
management which is undertaken by a person in connection with the normal
maintenance and repair of property. (ECDC 18.45.040.P)
(5)ECDC 18.45.050.B states that trees shall be retained to the maximum extent
feasible.
b)Conclusions:
(1)Tree topping is not considered to be routine landscape maintenance; it is
indiscriminant cutting which is harmful, and often fatal, to trees.
(2)The subject parcel has slopes in excess of 25% which, while visually apparent, was
confirmed through the submission of a critical areas checklist (CRA-2008-0013).
(3)A permit was required for the tree topping in question since the activity occurred on a
slope in excess of 25%. A permit is also required for the proposed removal of Trees
1, 10 and 11.
Michael Hathaway
File No. CU-08-13
Page 4 of 6
(4)An arborists report, Tree Removal Plan, and Tree Replacement Plan were submitted
per ECDC 18.45.050.B.2.
2.ECDC Section 20.15A (Environmental Review SEPA)
a)Facts:
(1)The City of Edmonds, acting as lead agency, issued a Determination of
Nonsignificance (DNS) for the project on April 14, 2008 (Attachment 6). No
comments were received.
b)Conclusions:
(1)The applicant and the City have complied with the requirements of ECDC 20.15A.
3.ECDC Section 23.40 (Environmentally Critical Areas)
a)Facts:
(1)The subject parcel contains slopes in excess of 25% (Attachment 7). Generally,
vegetation in such critical areas is to be retained. Select vegetation may be removed
(per ECDC 23.40.220.C.7) and trees may be removed if they are hazardous, pose a
threat to public safety, or pose an imminent risk of damage to private property.
(2)Trees 2-9 on the Tree Replacement Plan have been irreparably harmed through the
topping process and are considered to be dead, diseased or dying.
(3)Trees 1, 10 and 11 on the Replacement Plan are healthy but are proposed to be
removed to comply with the view easement.
b)Conclusions:
(1)The City of Edmonds desires to maintain healthy trees, particularly in critical areas
such as steep slopes. In this case, however, the presence of the view easement would
require that Trees 1, 10 and 11 be topped or trimmed so low as to effectively destroy
them. Rather than top Trees 1, 10 and 11 and start what would be their inevitable
decline in health, it was determined that replacement of Trees 10 and 11 with smaller
evergreens like the Leyland cypress would provide some of the environmental benefits
of the existing trees (Elm and Douglas fir) while providing a tree that better accepts
regular maintenance. Similarly, replacing the topped trees on the slope as well as Tree
1 with slow-growing ornamental species lower on the slope would lessen the need for
future work on those trees.
(2) ECDC 23.40.220.C.7.b.iv states:
The land owner shall replace any trees that are removed with new trees at a ratio
of two replacement trees for each tree removed (two to one) within one year in
accordance with an approved restoration plan. Replacement trees may be
planted at a different, nearby location if it can be determined that planting in the
same location would create a new hazard or potentially damage the critical area.
Replacement trees shall be species that are native and indigenous to the site and
a minimum of one inch in diameter at breast height (dbh) for deciduous trees and
a minimum of six feet in height for evergreen trees as measured from the top of
the root ball.
According to the code, trees are to be replaced at a 2:1 ratio. The arborists report
suggests replacing the eleven trees being removed with eighteen trees. While the 2:1
ratio is not maintained, the replacement plan is reasonable given the constraints on the
site. The Tree Replacement Plan (Attachment 5) indicates the 1:1 replacement of
ornamental species on lower portions of the eastern sloped area and 9:2 replacement
of Leyland cypress at the western parcel boundary. The root systems of the existing
Michael Hathaway
File No. CU-08-13
Page 5 of 6
trees will be left to further minimize disturbance on the slope. While the replacement
called for is not ideal, the view easement burdening the parcel presents a unique
challenge to revegetating the parcel. The proposed Replacement Plan strikes a
reasonable balance between the code, the strictures of the easement, and
environmental preservation as discussed in the Comprehensive Plan (see below).
(3)All future tree cutting on the subject parcel, with the exception of those actions
considered routine landscape maintenance, will require a tree cutting permit from the
City.
C.Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Compliance
1.Land Use
a)Facts:
(1)The City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property and those
in the immediate vicinity as Single Family Resource.
(2)The Comprehensive Plan has the following stated goals and policies for Residential
Development and development within areas of sensitive soils and topography which
appear to apply to this project.
Soils and Topography
C. Goal. Development on steep slopes or hazardous soil conditions should
preserve the natural features of the site, in accordance with the following
policies:
C.3. Erosion Control.
C.3.b. Natural vegetation should be preserved wherever
possible to reduce erosion and stabilize slopes,
particularly on the downhill property line.
C.3.c. Slopes should be stabilized with deep rooted vegetation
and mulch, or other materials to prevent erosion and
siltation of drainage ways.
b)Conclusion: The proposed conditions of approval ensure the permit is consistent with
the policies of the Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of the Tree Cutting and Land
Clearing Code.
D.Technical Committee
The Permit has been evaluated by the Engineering Division as well as the Public Works and Fire
Departments. The Engineering Division submitted comments that are included as Attachment 8.
E.Public Comment:
The City received no comments regarding the application.
III.RECONSIDERATION AND APPEALS
The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsiderations and appeals. Any
person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the Planning Department
for further procedural information.
Michael Hathaway
File No. CU-08-13
Page 6 of 6
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.
B.Appeals
Section 20.105.020.A & B describe how appeals of a staff 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.
C.Time Limits for Reconsideration and Appeals
The time limits for Reconsiderations and Appeals run concurrently. If a request for a
reconsideration is filed before the time limit for filing an appeal has expired, the time clock for
filing an appeal is stopped until a decision on the reconsideration request is completed. Once the
Hearing Examiner has issued his decision on the reconsideration request, the time clock for filing
an appeal continued for the point it was stopped. For example, if a request is filed on day 5 of the
appeal period, an individual would have 9 more days in which to file an appeal after the Hearing
Examiner issues his decision on the reconsideration request.
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.
V.ATTACHMENTS
1.Land Use Application
2.McClintick Viewshed Easement and map Filing # 8705120211
3.Arborists Report, dated June 5, 2008
4.Tree Removal Plan, revised June 3, 2008
5.Tree Replacement Plan, revised June 3, 2008
6.Determination of Nonsignificance, issued January 4, 2008
7.Critical Areas Report, dated March 25, 2007
8.Engineering Comments, dated May 7, 2008
VI.PARTIES OF RECORD
Michael Hathaway Planning Division
Jeffrey L. Carey, P.S.
th
1526 49 St. NE Engineering Division
524 First Avenue South
Tacoma, WA 98422
Seattle, WA 98104
Matt Gubbels
th
17039 76 Avenue West
Edmonds, WA 98026