Loading...
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