HomeMy WebLinkAboutBSP 9605081004 ,
RECEIVED THIS DAY
ADMINISTRATIVE SITE PLAN REVI3 f+ 51 fill
• - CITY OF RENTON
OF RENTON
AND DECISION
ON
AMENDMENT r,' ' �uu►,iTY
TO BINDING SITE PLAN
�. ...._ . � DIVISION
DECEMBER 16, 1992
APPLICATION NO.: LUA-92-064-BSP;ECF;SA
OWNER Albertson's Inc.
APPLICANT: McConnell/Burke
CONTACT PERSON Ron McConnell
PROJECT NAME: Site Plan Approval for Albertson's Expansion &
Central Highlands Plaza Amended Binding Site Plan
LOCATION: Central Highlands Plaza: South of Sunset Blvd between Anacortes Ave NE
& Duvall Ave NE
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Site Plan Approval and amendment to existing Binding Site Plan to permit:
(1) a 6,849 sf expansion of Lot 3 (total amended area is 46,501 sf); (2) a 130
sf reduction in area of Lot 2 (total amended area is 24,170 sf); and (3) a
7,814 sf expansion to the existing Albertson's retail food store (total
expanded area is 34,683 sf).
COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The following exhibits were entered into the record:
Exhibit No. 1: Yellow file containing: application, proof of posting and publication,
er environmental review and other documentation pertinent to this request.
Exhibit No. 2: Neighborhood Detail (Vicinity) Map (Received April 7, 1992).
Exhibit No. 3: Central Highlands Plaza: An Amended Binding Site Plan; Cover Sheet
[Sheet 1 of 2] (Received April 7, 1992).
Exhibit No. 4: Central Highlands Plaza: An Amended Binding Site Plan; Site Plan Sheet
[Sheet 2 of 2] (Received April 7, 1992).
Exhibit No. 5: Sheet L-1; Landscape Plan (Received April 7, 1992).
ri
Exhibit No. 6: Elevations of proposed Albertson's store expansion (Received April 10,
1992).
Exhibit No 7: Schematic floor plan of proposed Albertson's store expansion (Received April
10, 1992).
Exhibit No. 8: Storm Drainage Report (Received September 23, 1992).
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND DECISION
Having reviewed the written record in the matter, the City now makes and enters the following:
STPLR PTA DOC/PDF
' ADMINISTRATIVE SITE PLAN REVIEW ALBERTSON'S EXPANSION&CENTRAL HIGNDS PLAZA AMENDED BINDING SITE PLAN
DECEMBER 16,1992 PAGE 2
FINDINGS
1. The Applicant, McConnell/Burke, has requested Site Plan Approval and an Amendment to its previous
Binding Site Plan to permit: (1) a 6,849 sf expansion of Lot 3 (total amended area is 46,501 sf);-(2) a 1"s0 sf
reduction in area of Lot 2 (total amended area is 24,170 sf); and (3) a 7,814 sf expansion to the existing
Albertson's retail food store (total expanded area is 34,683 sf).
The purpose of the proposal is to amend a previously approved Binding Site Plan [ December 31, 1987; File
No. BSP-091-87 ] to allow expansion of the existing Albertson's supermarket located in the Central Highlands
Plaza shopping center. The proposed building addition would provide increased sales display area for the
supermarket's deli section. The proposal is located at the intersection of Sunset Boulevard and Duvall
Avenue NE. An existing approved and recorded Binding Site Plan for the Central Highlands Plaza must be
amended in order to accomplish this proposal. Site Plan Approval is also required for the proposed revisions
to the building facade, parking and landscaping.
2. The applicant's file containing the application, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) documentation, the
comments from various City departments, the public notices requesting citizen comment, and other pertinent
documents was entered as Exhibit No. 1.
3. . Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA (RCW 43.21C, 1971 as amended), a
Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated was issued for the subject proposal on November 9, 1992, with
rt, the following conditions:
a) In order to address potential impacts on the existing cedar trees adjacent to the revised driveway on
Duvall Avenue NE, the applicant is required to retain an Arborist to provide recommendations for
preservation of the trees. The Arborist's recommendations shall be submitted to the Development
Services Division prior to Site Plan Approval and amendment to the Binding Site Plan.
11) 4. The 14 day appeal period ended on November 24, 1992, with no appeal filed.
5. Compliance with ERC Conditions:
a) In order to address potential impacts on the existing cedar trees adjacent to the revised
driveway on Duvall Avenue NE, the applicant is required to retain an Arborist to provide
recommendations for preservation of the trees. The Arborist's recommendations shall be
submitted to the Development Services Division prior to Site Plan Approval and amendment to
the Binding Site Plan.
Compliance: The applicant retained, John D. Hushagen, Consulting Arborist with Seattle Tree
Preservation, Inc. to review potential impacts of the proposed driveway relocation on two existing
large diameter cedar trees. The arborist's report is contained in Attachment A to this report. The
report concludes:
1) Of the two cedar trees on site, only the one to the north is not worth saving. This tree was
damaged during the original shopping center construction or perhaps from the widening of
Duvall Avenue NE. Because die back of the tree is substantial, it should be removed at the
start of construction.
2) While the southern of the two trees has had some damage, the soil grade changes were not
as sever and the tree has reached an equilibrium between the needs of its crown and what its
roots can supply.
3) The proposed parking and driveway revisions would cause some minor disturbance of the
southern tree's roots, however probably not enough to cause it to die or become physically
unstable. Since this tree is worth saving, the arborist recommended the following measures
to save the tree:
a. "Do not add or remove soil within the tree's drip line."
b. "Install sturdy tree protection fencing at the drip line prior to beginning excavation."
c. "Apply a 3 to 4 inch layer of wood chips to serve as a mulch for moisture retention
during and after construction."
d. "Provide 1 inch of irrigation water per week on the tree's root zone during the April to
October growing season, both during construction and for 2 to 3 years thereafter."
STPLRPT1.DOC/PDF
•
ADMINISTRATIVE SITE PLAN REVIEW fir` ALBERTSON'S EXPANSION&CENTRAL HIC'~rtANDS PLAZA AMENDED BINDING SITE PLAN
DECEMBER 16,1992 PAGE 3
e. "Consider root zone therapy with eight vertical mulching or the Gro-Gun to stimulate
new root growth within and outside the tree's drip line."
6. Plans for the proposal have been reviewed by all City departments affected by the impact of this proposal.
7. The subject proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation of Commercial.
8. The site plan as presented, complies with the zoning requirements and development standards of the B-1,
Business District.
9. The subject site was annexed into the City on July 7, 1975 by Ord. 2945. At the time of the annexation, the
site was zoned G-1. The site was rezoned from G-1 to B-1 on August 15, 1977.
10. Land uses surrounding the subject site include: commercial uses to the north, west and east. Residential uses
exist to the south of the site.
11. The applicant's site plan complies with the requirements for information for Site Plan Review, as contained in
Section 4-31-33; and requirements for information Binding Site Plans as set forth in Section 9-12-6-A.
CONSISTENCY WITH SITE PLAN APPROVAL CRITERIA
Section 4-31-33(D) lists ten criteria that is asked to consider along with all other relevant information in making a
decision on a Site Plan Approval application. These include the following:
1. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, its elements and policies;
The subject proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation of Commercial. The proposal is
also consistent with the Commercial Areas Objective: "Sound commercial areas should be created and/or
maintained and decling areas revitalized"; and the Commercial Structure and Sites Objective: "Commercial
structures and sites should be well-designed, constructed and maintained.
2. Conformance with existing land use regulations;
The site plan as presented, complies with the zoning requirements and development standards of the B-1,
Business District. The proposal exceeds minimum front yard/street setback of ten feet; has less than the
maximum 65 % lot coverage allowed; and its 24 foot high buildings are less than the 95 feet allowed.
3. Mitigation of impact to surrounding properties and uses;
rfe a) Mitigation of undesirable impacts of proposed structures and site layouts that could impair
the use or enjoyment or potential use of surrounding uses and structures and of the
community.
The proposal would make minor revisions to an existing commercial development. The proposed
addition to the front of the existing Albertson's store would be setback from Sunset Boulevard by over
400 feet, and thus should have minimal impact on surrounding properties. Likewise, relocation of the
entrance drive at Duvall by approximately 35 feet to the north should have minimal impact on
surrounding uses, since the driveway has been designed to preserve two existing large diameter
cedar trees which create a visual buffer on the east side of the subject site.
Cr)
b) Mitigation of undesirable impacts when an overscale structure, in terms of size, bulk, height,
and intensity, or site layout is permitted that violates the spirit and/or intent of the Zoning
Code and impairs the use, enjoyment or potential use of surrounding properties.
Not applicable. The existing commercial structures, as well as the subject addition, are all
approximately 24 feet in height, which is compatible in scale with other surrounding commercial in the
vicinity.
c) Provision of a desirable transition and linkage between uses and to the street, utility, walkway,
and industrial systems in the surrounding area by the arrangement of landscaping, fencing
an/or other buffer techniques, in order to prevent conflicts and to promote coordinated and
planned benefit from, and access to, such elements.
STPLP PT 1.DOC/PDF
•
•
ADMINISTRATIVE SITE PLAN REVIEW 4110 ALBERTSON'S EXPANSION&CENTRAL HIGANIODS PLAZA AMENDED BINDING SITE PLAN
DECEMBER 16, 1992 PAGE 4
Existing sidewalks along Duvall and Anacortes provide linkages to Sunset. The proposal would
provide pedestrian linkages from the various store entrances via an east-west walkway in front of the
stores.
•
d) Consideration of placement and scale of proposed structures in relation to the natural
characteristics of a site such that they create a perception of greater height or bulk than
intended the spirit of the Zoning Code.
Not applicable. The existing commercial structures, as well as the subject addition, are all
approximately 24 feet in height, which is compatible in scale with other surrounding commercial in the
vicinity.
e) Effective location, design and screening of parking and service areas in order to promote
efficient function of such facilities, to provide integrated facilities between uses when
beneficial, to promote "campus-like" or "park-like" layouts in appropriate zones, and to
prevent unnecessary repetition and conflict between uses and service area or facilities.
With the exception of minor revisions to the existing parking and firelane to allow expansion of the
existing Albertson's store, the proposal would have minimal impact on existing parking and landscape
screening. Existing loading areas at the rear (south side) of the stores would not be affected by the
proposal. In order to address the impact of revisions to the proposed driveway relocation at Duvall
Avenue NE, it is recommended that the applicant be required to submit a landscaping plan and install
additional landscaping in the planting area bordering the east side of the subject site.
f) Mitigation of the unnecessary and avoidable impacts of new construction on views from
existing buildings and future developable sites, recognizing the public benefit and desirability
of maintaining visual accessibility to attractive natural features and of promoting "campus-
like" or"park-like"settings in appropriate zones.
Not applicable. The proposal would continue the existing single story construction that currently
exists on the subject site and would not impact views from existing or potential future buildings.
g) Provision of effective screening from public streets and residential uses for all permitted
outdoor storage areas(except auto and truck sales), for surface mounted utility equipment, for
rooftop equipment, and for all refuse and garbage containers, in order to promote a "campus-
like" or"park-like"setting where appropriate and to preserve the effect and intent of screening
or buffering otherwise required by the Zoning Code.
Not applicable. An existing outdoor storage area for Ernst's nursery section is visually screened at
the west side of the site. No new or expanded outdoor storage areas are part of this proposal.
h) Consideration of placement and design of exterior lighting in order to avoid excessive
brightness or glare to adjacent properties and streets.
Not applicable. No new exterior lighting is proposed.
4. Mitigation of impacts of the proposed site plan to the site;
a) Building placement and spacing to provide for privacy and noise reduction; orientation to
views and vistas and to site amenities, to sunlight and prevailing winds, and to pedestrian and
vehicle needs.
The proposal would make minor revisions to an existing commercial development. The proposed
addition to the front of the existing Albertson's store would be setback from Sunset Boulevard by over
400 feet, and thus should have minimal impact on surrounding properties. Likewise, relocation of the
entrance drive at Duvall by approximately 35 feet to the north should have minimal impact on
surrounding uses, since the driveway has been designed to preserve two existing large diameter
cedar trees which create a visual buffer on the east side of the subject site.
b) Consideration of placement and scale of proposed structures in relation to the openness and
natural characteristics of a site in order to avoid overcentration or the impression of oversized
structures.
STPLRPT 1.DOCIPDF
•
ADMINISTRATIVE SITE PLAN REVIEW ',ere ALBERTSON'S EXPANSION&CENTRAL HICi wiANDS PLAZA AMENDED BINDING SITE PLAN
DECEMBER 16, 1992 PAGE 5
The existing commercial structures, as well as the subject addition, are all approximately 24 feet in
height, which is compatible in scale with other surrounding commercial in the vicinity.
• c) Preservation of the desirable natural landscape through retention of existing vegetation and
limited soil removal, insofar as the natural characteristics will enhance the proposed
development.
The primary natural feature on this site are two large diameter cedar trees which predate the original
development of the shopping center. Under this proposal the entrance drive at Duvall would be by
relocated approximately 35 feet to the north; however, the driveway has been designed to preserve
two existing large diameter (approximately 36" diameter) cedar trees which create a visual buffer on
the east side of the subject site. Note: Based on the Arborist's report, the northern of the two trees
will have to be removed because of previous construction damage to its root system. Nevertheless,
preservation of the southern tree, because of its substantial size, will still provide visual buffering of
the site perimeter.
d) Use of topography to reduce undue cutting, filling and retaining walls in order to prevent
erosion and unnecessary storm water runoff, and to preserve stable natural slopes and
desirable natural vegetation.
Not applicable. No grading or retaining walls are proposed.
e) Limitation of paved or impervious surfaces, where feasible, to reduce runoff and increase
natural infiltration.
Not applicable. While the proposal would not reduce the total area of impervious surfaces, it would
reduce the area of paving subject to automobile use.
f) Design and protection of planting areas so that they are not susceptible to damage from
vehicles or pedestrian movements.
r? Not applicable. Existing planting areas are currently protected by a combination of extruded concrete
curbing and wheelstops.
0
4 g) Consideration of building form and placement and landscaping to enhance year round
conditions of sun and shade both on-site and on adjacent properties and to promote energy
conservation.
Not applicable. The proposed building expansion is approximately 400 feet from off-site structures
and would have no impact on solar conditions.
CPI 5. Conservation of area-wide property values;
The proposed building expansion is not expected to have a negative impact on property values in the area
since the proposed improvements would continue the visual appearance of the existing shopping center
buildings, which are in good condition.
6. Safety and efficiency of vehicle and pedestrian circulation;
a) Provision of adequate and safe vehicular access to and from all properties.
Transportation Plan Review staff have reviewed the proposed driveway access revisions at Duvall
Avenue NE and do not anticipate safety problems. The proposal also includes a new sidewalk along
the north side of the Ernst Nursery at Anacortes, which should improve pedestrian safety by
separating pedestrian from vehicular traffic. In addition, the applicant has voluntarily agreed to
contribute its fair share to a fund for the upgrade of the intersection of Anacortes Avenue NE and
Sunset Boulevard.
b) Arrangement of the circulation pattern so that all ingress and egress movements may occur at
as few points as possible along the public street, the points being capable of channelization
for turning movements.
No new site access points are proposed. The site currently has five access curb cuts for the main
parking lot and two curb cuts for the loading area at the rear (south side) of the existing buildings.
STPLRPT1.DOC/PDF
ADMINISTRATIVE SITE PLAN REVIEW 111110 ALBERTSON'S EXPANSION&CENTRAL HIGhLwraDS PLAZA AMENDED BINDING SITE PLAN
DECEMBER 16,1992 PAGE 6
None of the existing curb cuts could be eliminated without negatively impacting traffic circulation on-
site, as well as, off-site.
c) Consolidation of access points with adjacent properties, when feasible. -
The site currently has five access curb cuts for the main parking lot and two curb cuts for the loading
area at the rear (south side) of the existing buildings. None of the existing curb cuts could be
eliminated without negatively impacting traffic circulation on-site, as well as, off-site. Because the
subject site takes up almost entire block, there are no opportunities for consolidation off access with
adjacent properties.
d) Coordination of access points on a superblock basis so that vehicle conflicts and
vehicle/pedestrian conflicts are minimized.
Because of its size, the existing block on which the subject site is located could be considered a
"superblock". The subject site currently has five access curb cuts for the main parking lot and two
curb cuts for the loading area at the rear (south side) of the existing buildings. None of the existing
curb cuts could be eliminated without negatively impacting traffic circulation on-site, as well as, off-
site. Because the subject site takes up almost all of the entire superblock, there are no opportunities
for consolidation off access with adjacent properties.
e) Orientation of access points to side streets or frontage streets rather than directly on to
arterial streets, when feasible.
Three of the five existing access points are oriented to side streets. The two remaining access is
oriented to Sunset Boulevard.
1) Promotion of the safety and efficiency of the internal circulation system, including the
location, design and dimensions of vehicular and pedestrian access points, drives, parking,
turnarounds, walkways, bikeways, and emergency access ways.
The existing parking area generally provides safe and efficient internal circulation.
g) Separation of loading and delivery areas from parking and pedestrian areas.
Loading is currently provided at the rear of the existing commercial buildings, and is separated from
the main customer parking area and sidewalks by the buildings themselves. The subject proposal
would not alter the existing loading facilities.
h) Provisions for transit and carpool facilities and access when appropriate.
Not applicable.
i) Provision for safe and attractive pedestrian connections between parking areas, buildings,
public sidewalks and adjacent properties.
Existing sidewalks along Duvall and Anacortes provide linkages to Sunset. The proposal would
provide pedestrian linkages from the various store entrances via an east-west walkway in front of the
stores. Note, part of this sidewalk already exists, the applicant has proposed to extend this sidewalk
in front of the Ernst Nursery to complete the linkage to Anacortes.
7. Provision of adequate light and air;
The proposal provides setbacks and building separations in excess of minimum zoning code requirements,
which should insure adequate light and air to adjacent streets and uses. Note existing structures are abutting
(zero lot line) along the north/south lot lines between lots 1, 2 and 3. The subject proposal would not change
this existing condition.
8. Mitigation of noise, odors, and other harmful or unhealthy conditions;
Construction activity will generate some noise, dust and debris on adjacent City streets. As a Result, it is
recommended that the applicant be required to post a surety device of at least $2,000.00 to reimburse the
City for street cleaning during construction.
STPLRPT1.DOC/PDF
•
•
ADMINISTRATIVE SITE PLAN REVIEW Noe ALBERTSON'S EXPANSION&CENTRAL HICN.e s NDS PLAZA AMENDED BINDING SITE PLAN
DECEMBER 16, 1992 PAGE 7
9. Availability of public services and facilities to accommodate the proposed use; and,
Fire: In order to address impacts on level of fire and emergency services, the applicant will be required to
pay a Fire Mitigation Fee of $0.52/sf per the requirements of Resolution 2895, for the area of the proposed
store addition.
Police: No substantial impacts to police services are anticipated.
Water: The applicant may be required to pay Special Utility Connection Charges for water service
connections. There are adequate water mains adjacent to the site to serve the proposal.
Sewer: The applicant may be required to pay Special Utility Connection Charges for water service
connections. There are adequate sewers to serve the proposed use.
Electrical, Telephone, Cable Television: The utilities are available in the vicinity of the site. The applicant
is required to underground all such utilities both within the site and as part of required off-site improvements.
10. Prevention of neighborhood deterioration and blight.
The proposed development is expected to have a positive impact on the surrounding properties. The
proposed buildings would utilize high grade materials which would be compatible with adjacent commercial
structures.
11. Signage
a) Employment of signs primarily for the purposes of identification
The proposal includes a single new sign on the north elevation of the proposed Albertson's store
expansion. This sign is an identification sign containing the name of the store: "Albertson's".
b) Management of sign elements, such as size, location and arrangement so that signs
complement the visual character of the surrounding area and appear in proportion to the
'Cr building and site to which they pertain.
The proposed store identification sign is consistent with existing signs on adjacent commercial
buildings in the existing shopping center.
c) Limitation of the number of signs to avoid visual clutter and distraction.
A single identification sign is proposed for the front (north elevation) of the store expansion.
vi d) Moderation of surface brightness or lighting intensity except for that necessary for sign
visibility
The proposed sign would be a colored, back-lit sign, similar to the sign on the existing storefront. The
blue color of the sign and type of lighting should not pose a brightness or glare problem.
e) Provision of an identification system to allow for quick location of buildings and addresses.
The proposal would not alter the existing address identification system of the shopping center.
12. Hazardous Waste Treatment and Storage Facilities.
Not applicable, no hazardous waste treatment or storage facilities are proposed.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The subject proposal complies with the policies and codes of the City of Renton.;
2. Specific issues were raised by various City departments in areas such as fire flow and transportation.
3. The proposal complies with the Comprehensive Plan designation of Commercial.
STPLRPT1.DOC/PDF
•
•
ADMINISTRATIVE SITE PLAN REVIEW IOW ALBERTSON'S EXPANSION&CENTRAL HIGhDS PLAZA AMENDED BINDING SITE PLAN
DECEMBER 16, 1992 PAGE 8
4. Transportation staff estimate that the proposal would generate up to 356 additional vehicular trips. This
increase in trips would impact the existing intersection at Anacortes Ave. NE and NE Sunset Boulevard. The
intersection at Duvall and Sunset has already been upgraded. In order to address the impacts from these
increased trips, the applicant has agreed to contribute its fair share (based on the additional trips generated by
the proposed expansion) to a fund for the improvement of the intersection of NE Sunset Boulevard and
Anacortes Avenue NE. The applicant's fair share cost of such improvements are estimated to be $2,541.31,
and shall be paid prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. Note, this amount would be credited towards a
towards Albertson's share of a future LID for the intersection improvements.
5. Revisions to the applicant's landscaping plan are necessary to provide a suitable transition to the street
(Duvall Avenue NE) adjacent to the proposed driveway relocation.
DECISION:
The site plan for the Albertson's Expansion and the Amendment to Binding Site Plan for Central Highlands Plaza
File No. LUA-92-064-BSP;ECF;SA is recommended for approval, subject to following conditions:
1. Contribution to Intersection Improvements: In order to address the traffic impacts from increased trips,
the applicant has agreed to contribute its fair share (based on the additional trips generated by the proposed
expansion) to a fund for the improvement of the intersection of NE Sunset Boulevard and Anacortes Avenue
itr NE. The applicant's fair share cost of such improvements are estimated to be $2,541.31, and shall be paid
prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. [Note, this amount would be credited towards a towards Albertson's
share of a future LID for the intersection improvements.]
2. Additional Perimeter Landscaping and Preservation of Cedar Tree: In order to address the impacts from
x' revisions to the proposed driveway relocation at Duvall Avenue NE on the existing cedar trees and the visual
buffering of the site, the applicant is required to: incorporate the recommendations contained the letter to Ron
McConnell dated December 2, 1992, from John D. Hushagen, Consulting Arborist with Seattle Tree
Preservation, Inc. (See Attachment A) into the Landscape Plans and Specifications for the project. Revised
landscaping plans and specifications are to be approved by the Development Services Division, prior to the
issuance of Building or Construction Permits. The Landscaping Plans and Specifications shall include:
a) Removal the existing "north" cedar under the supervision of a qualified arborist. [See item "c)" below]
b) Implementation of the following measures to retain and preserve the "south" cedar:
1) Do not add or remove soil within the remaining south cedar tree's drip line.
2) Install sturdy tree protection fencing at the drip line prior to beginning excavation. Tree
protection fence details to be shown on the landscaping plan.
3) Apply a 3 to 4 inch layer of wood chips to serve as a mulch for moisture retention during and
after construction.
4) Provide 1 inch of irrigation water per week on the tree's root zone during the April to October
growing season, both during construction and for 2 to 3 years thereafter. This shall consist of
an automated irrigation system which shall be approved by the Development Services
Division, with concurrence by the arborist.
5) Implement a three year program of root zone therapy with eight vertical mulching or the Gro-
Gun to stimulate new root growth within and outside the tree's drip line. This program shall
be monitored for the three year following construction by the arborist. The arborist shall
provide annual inspection reports to the Development Services Division on the condition of
the tree and the results of the irrigation and root therapy program.
c) A qualified arborist shall be retained, if needed, to:
1) Oversee the removal of the north cedar.
2) Provide recommendations for the replanting of the north cedar area.
3) Oversee the root therapy program and general landscape maintenance of this area.
STPLRPT1.DOC/PDF
•
•
ADMINISTRATIVE SITE PLAN REVIEW. ALBERTSON'S EXPANSION&CENTRAL HI,,,,.,tANDS PLAZA AMENDED BINDING SITE PLAN
DECEMBER 16, 1992 PAGE 9
4) Provide recommendations on the automated irrigation system to be installed for the south
cedar and the remainder of the planting area.
5) Prepare and submit annual reports to the Development Services Division for a three year
period following completion of construction. These reports hall describe the condition of the
remaining south cedar and the impact of the root therapy program.
3. Landscaping Agreement: In order to maintain the integrity of this site plan approval, the applicant is
required to enter into an agreement with the city, acknowledging the current and future owner's responsibilities
for maintaining the landscaping and site improvements on the site in accordance with accepted landscape
principals. The agreement shall require the applicant to agree to replace any and all landscaping that has
died or been so severely damaged through improper maintenance (e.g. improper or excessive pruning) as to
destroy or significantly reduce the original intent. The landscaping covenant shall be approved by the
Development Services Division and City Attorney prior to the issuance of a Building Permit.
4. Landscaping Surety Device: The applicant is required to post a surety device equal to at least ten percent
(10%) of the value of all landscaping improvements, to be approved by the Development Services Division
for maintenance and plant replacement of all site landscaping for a minimum period of three (3) years.
Evidence of the surety device is required prior to the issuance of a Building Permit.
5. Street Cleaning Surety Device: The applicant is required to post a surety device, to be approved by the
Transportation Systems Division for street cleaning during the construction phase of the project. Evidence of
the surety device is required prior to the issuance of a Building Permit.
6. Recyclables Storage and Collection: The applicant is required to revise the proposal to include an area for
deposit and storage of recyclables generated by Albertson's, consistent with the City's adopted Garbage Code
Amendment. The recyclables plan is to be approved by the Development Services Division and Solid Waste
Division prior to the issuance of a Building Permit.
7. Filing of this Report: The applicant shall file this report as part of the Official Record of Deed at File, along
with other documentation of the Amendment to the Binding Site Plan with the King County Court House
NOTES TO APPLICANT
For the purpose of these decisions, the terms "should" and "shall" are to be considered mandatory and the term "may"
is considered discretionary.
C
1. Hold Harmless: An applicant complying with these provisions and willing to hold the City harmless for any
expense or damages incurred for work begun prior to the exhaustion of the 14-day appeal period and/or for
work which may consequently be stopped by an appeal or work required to be altered or returned to its pre-
construction state, may begin construction activities with the issuance of the proper permits.
2. Special Utility Connection Charges: The project may be subject to Special Utility Connection Charges for
water and sewer.
3. Fire Mitigation Fee: The project is subject to a Fire Mitigation Fee of $0.52/SF for the proposed addition
under Resolution 2895.
4. Uniform Fire Code: The proposed expansion is subject to the Uniform Fire Code. In order for the Fire
Prevention Bureau to calculate the fire flow requirements for the project, the applicant will need to have its
architect analyze the existing fire separation walls between Albertson's and Pay N Save, and certify the fire
rating of that assembly.
ORDERED this Sixteenth day of December, 1992 on behalf of the City of Renton Site Plan Approval Committee.
Donald K. Erickson, AICP
Secretary
STPLRPT1.DOC/PDF
ADMINISTRATIVE SITE PLAN REVIEW ALBERTSON'S EXPANSION&CENTRAL HIGF IDS PLAZA AMENDED BINDING SITE PLAN
DECEMBER 16,1992 PAGE 10
TRANSMITTED this 5th day of January, 1993 to the parties of record: N/A, there were no parties of record.
TRANSMITTED this 5th day of January, 1993 to the following:
Mayor Earl Clymer
Lynn Guttmann, Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator
Jim Hanson, Development Services Manager
Jim Chandler, Building Official
Councilman Richard M. Stredicke
Members, Renton Planning Commission
Gary Gotti, Fire Marshal
Arneta Henninger, Public Works Division
Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
Valley Daily News
4.4 REQUESTS FOR RECONSIDERATION must be filed in writing on or before January 21, 1993. Any aggrieved
cr person feeling that the decision of the Site Plan Review Committee is based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or
fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior meeting,
17, may make a written request to the Zoning Administrator for review by the Site Plan Committee within fourteen (14)
days of the decision. This request shall set forth the specific errors relied upon by such appellant, and the Committee
may, after review of the record, take further action as it deems proper. If an appeal is made to the Hearing Examiner,
G7 requests for reconsideration will be forwarded to that office for consideration at the same time as the appeal.
AN APPEAL TO THE HEARING EXAMINER is governed by Title IV, Section 4-8(B)(1), which requires that such
appeals be filed directly with the Hearing Examiner. Appeals must be made in writing before 5 p.m. on January
21, 1993. Any appeal must be accompanied by a $75.00 fee and other specific requirements.
THE APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS DOCTRINE provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may
occur concerning land use decision. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial committee decision, but to all Request
for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the Hearing Examiner. All communications after the decision date must be
made in writing through the Zoning Administrator. All communications are public record and this permits all interested
parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence in writing. Any
violation of this doctrine could result in the invalidation of the request by the Court.
•
STPL R PT1.DOC/PDF