PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR MAJOR TREE REMOVAL

Transcription

1 Mayor Jeff R. Johnson Ballinger Way NE Lake Forest Park, WA Telephone: Fax: Councilmembers Tom French Phillippa M. Kassover Mark Phillips E. John Resha III Catherine Stanford Semra Riddle John A. E. Wright File Number: 2018-TREE-0116 Proponent: Francesco Crocenzi Location of proposal: Shore Dr NE Lake Forest Park, WA PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR MAJOR TREE REMOVAL Proposal: The applicant requests to remove 8 significant trees from the property, including one invasive holly. See tree table on reverse side. The proposal is still under review. Required replacement canopy will be determined in pending City arborist s report. PROJECT SITE A public notice process is required for the removal of more than 5 significant trees that represent more than 50% of the site s existing canopy coverage, in accordance with Lake Forest Park Municipal Code D.3. Public Comment: Interested parties may comment on this application by submitting written comments to Lake Forest Park City Hall, Ballinger Way NE, Lake Forest Park, WA or via to aplanner@cityoflfp.com for two weeks following the publication date of this notice. Additional Information: Additional information, including the applicant-submitted arborist report, may be obtained by contacting the Lake Forest Park Planning Department at (206) or at the City s Notices and Announcements webpage (cityoflfp.com/313/notices-and- Announcements). Materials related to this proposal may be reviewed at City Hall Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm. Contact Lauren Hoerr, Assistant Planner, at lhoerr@cityoflfp.com if you prefer to make an appointment to review the materials with a planner s assistance. Date of Publication: Thursday October 4, 2018

2 File Number: 2018-TREE-0116 Proponent: Francesco Crocenzi Location of proposal: Shore Dr NE, Lake Forest Park, WA Date of Publication: Thursday October 4, 2018

3

4

5 ARBORIST REPORT Date: September 15, 2018 Prepared for: Collette Highberger Crocenzi property Site Address: Shore Drive NE Lake Forest Park Prepared by: Tom Quigley ISA Certified Arborist, PN0655A Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Olympic Nursery, Inc. P.O. Box 2013 Woodinville, WA

6 NARRATIVE Scope of Work You have asked me to assess the current condition of the trees located at the above referenced site, as well as to calculate the current canopy coverage as required by the City of Lake Forest Park development standards. Methodology The methods used for this assessment are as outlined in Tree Risk Assessment by Julian Dunster and as adopted by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA). The end goal of most assessments is to provide the owner or manager of the tree(s) with factual information, enabling them to make decisions about the management of the tree(s). For this particular assessment, I used a Level II Assessment that includes inspection of the root collar, lower trunk, and canopy of the tree as can be seen from the ground. Basic assessment does not include climbing the tree or excavation of soils to inspect root structure or condition. You provided a simple site map that details the lot lines, building footprint, and relative location of the existing site trees. Each tree was numbered on your site plan. No additional tagging was attached to the trees. Their relative location to the building renders them very easy to locate. I used a wood mallet to sound the trees and field glasses to look at the trees upper limbs and canopy. Each tree was measured for its Diameter at Breast Height (DBH), an industry standard of measuring trees at 4.5 above grade. A Tree Inventory was created that details each tree by Reference #, Tree Species, Size (DBH), Canopy Drip-line radius, Condition, with Remarks as appropriate. The Tree Inventory also notes the trees retention or removal. Findings and Observations The site is a residential lot with thirteen (13) trees or large shrubs. One tree is smaller than the 6 threshold for the City of Lake Forest Park and one identified tree is a large English laurel shrub. At the time of my initial site visit, the planting beds been cleared of all shrubs and groundcovers; only the tree remained. The overall condition of the trees indicated that little tree maintenance had been undertaken for several years. There are six (6) evergreen trees and five (5) deciduous trees. Tree #1-8 are growing within close proximity to the sidewalk that runs along the west side of the subject parcel. There is slight sidewalk heaving, cracking or root overgrowth evident along that stretch of sidewalk. You plant to remove Tree #1-6. Tree #6 is smaller than the 6 threshold for consideration by the City; it is in poor condition as well. Tree #8 is a large Western Red Cedar located in the SW corner of the property. The tree has been topped or lost its top in a windstorm. It has begun to overgrow the sidewalk with its root buttress but the tree is rated in Good condition. Typical of many Western Red Cedars in the Puget Sound region, the tree is showing evidence of drought stress. OLYMPIC NURSERY, INC. OLYMPICNURSERY.COM

7 Tree #9 is a Hawthorne tree that you plan to retain. This tree needs pruning to remove dead and dying branches and to improve structure. Tree #10 is an invasive holly tree that should be removed. Tree #11 is in poor condition and should be removed. Tree #12 is a Hazelnut tree that has poor structure because it has been so impacted by the invasive English Laurel growing nearby and above the Hazelnut. I calculated the exiting tree canopy at 3182 square feet of coverage. The parcel is 9570 square feet, according to King County records. City code provides that a minimum 28% of the parcel needs canopy coverage. 28% of the 9570 square foot parcel is 2680 square feet. You propose to retain 1104 square feet of canopy coverage; there will be a shortage of 1576 square feet of canopy coverage. The shortage could easily be mitigated with the planting of a few ornamental landscape trees. Considerations The trees you plan to remove are species that should not have been planted within such close proximity to a public sidewalk or to each other. They are competing with each other because they were so closely planted or because they self-seeded themselves in these locations. The removal of Tree # s 2-6 will provide better airspace and light to retained Tree #7. Conclusions Retention of Tree #7, 8, and 9 should be successful with proper mitigation measures. Install tree protection measures (TPM) in the form of protective fencing placed at the drip-line of the trees scheduled for retention. The fencing should be 6 tall chain link and should be installed as indicated in the Tree Retention Plan that I provided you, revision date September 15, Any excavation at or near the TPM should be considerate of roots encountered. Encountered roots should be cut with proper pruning tools. Exposed roots should be covered with moist soil or mulch as soon as is reasonable following excavation. Care must be given to protecting retained trees while others around them are removed. The removal of the stump of Tree #3 may not be possible without significant impact to the roots of Tree #7, which is scheduled for retention. Grinding the stump may be possible but this work should be completed under the supervision of a tree professional that can monitor for root disruption. A better option would be to cut the stump as close to the ground as possible and leave it in place. The area inside the TPM should have a 2 layer of mulch or arborist wood chips added. The TPM areas should be marked with a signed indicated the purpose of the TPM. Typical OLYMPIC NURSERY, INC. OLYMPICNURSERY.COM

8 signage includes, Tree Protection Area. No Access Permitted. No building material or soils are to be stacked or stored in these areas. Additional hydration would be beneficial but very difficult to administer to trees that have a large portion of their structural root system under sidewalk and street paving. Care should be given to selecting replacement tree species appropriate for the location. Right tree Right place will provide for decades of benefits. This report was prepared by Thomas Quigley, ISA certified arborist PN0655A. Tree Risk Assessment Qualified (TRAQ) by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA). OLYMPIC NURSERY, INC. OLYMPICNURSERY.COM

9 Name:Crocenzi Property Address:16505 Shore Drive NE August 2018 revised:08/23/2018 Thomas Quigley ISA certified arborist PN0655A Tree # Species DBH" Drpln rad' Cndtn Comments Rmv Rtn 1 Acer platanoides Good Dead stump next to it, minor girdling root, minor concrete heaving nearby sidewalk X 2 Thuja Plicata 10,12 12 Good Two stems fused at 4.5' above grade. Rope has girdled tree X 3 Thuja Plicata Good Roots impacted by removal of old pond, minor X 4 Thuja Plicata Fair Lless dense toward Tree #7, competition stress X 5 Thuja Plicata 10 mixed Fair Cut off stem at 4.5', under canopy of Tree #7, tri-dominant stems at 7' above grade X 6 Thuja Plicata 5 16' avg Poor Growing out of stump X 7 Psuedotsuga menz '+ Fair Canopy impacted by nearby trees grwoing up and under. Root impacts to nearby sidewalk X 8 Thuja Plicata 38 18' avg Good Reduced vigor likely associatedw ith drought stress X 9 Crateagus 20 mixed F - P Under canopy of Tree #8, lots of deadwood, trees leans X 10 Ilex Invasive species X 11 Sorbus 3,5,7 mixed Poor Leans south, out-competed by Holly tree X 12 Corylus multi 8 Fair Leans north away from Holly tree X 13 Laurel, English multi Invasive species X Total exosting canopy coverage Per statute 28% canopy coverage required. Lot is 9570 square feet. 28% equals Retain 226, 671, 207 equals Shortfall

10 Canopy Name:Crocenzi Property Address:16505 Shore Drive NE August 2018 revised:08/23/2018 Thomas Quigley ISA certified arborist PN0655A

11

12

13

14

15

16