Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-06-2026 - Decision & Appendix A -- 4th Dimension1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 SITE PLAN AND REASONABLE USE- 1 CAO VARIANCE - 1 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON RE: 4th Dimension Building Site Plan and Reasonable Use LUA25-000193 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND FINAL DECISION Summary The Applicant requests approvals of hearing examiner site plan and a reasonable use critical areas variance for the construction of a five-story mixed-use building located at 4502 NE 4th St. The Applicant is requesting a reasonable use critical areas variance for a building encroachment into the buffer of a daylighted pipe stream along with installation of a concrete stream bed. The applications are approved subject to conditions. Testimony A computer-generated transcript of the hearing has been prepared to provide an overview of the hearing testimony. The transcript is provided for informational purposes only as Appendix A. Exhibits Exhibits 1-24 as shown on the “Exhibits” list presented during the October 28, 2025 hearing were entered into the record during the hearing. The hearing was also re-opened for the admission of the following two additional exhibits: Exhibit 25: November 20, 2025 memo from Jill Ding re 4th Dimension Building. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 SITE PLAN AND REASONABLE USE- 2 CAO VARIANCE - 2 Exhibit 26: November 20, 2025 memo from Concept re additional variance analysis FINDINGS OF FACT Procedural: 1. Applicant. Jarnail Singh, Thindr LLC, 12704 Pacific Hwy SW, Lakewood, WA 98499. 2. Hearing. A virtual hearing was held on the applications on October 28, 2024, at 11 am. Since only the Applicant and City staff participated in the hearing and the record was incomplete in regard to the reasonable use request, the record was reopened through November 20, 2025 to provide City staff and the Applicant to provide further evaluation on the reasonable use request in response to Examiner questions about that application. 3. Project Description. The Applicant requests approvals of hearing examiner site plan and a reasonable use exception for the construction of a five-story mixed-use building located at 4502 NE 4th St. The Applicant is requesting a Reasonable Use Variance to allow the piped stream to be redirected to a new surface channel that would be constructed in the central portion of the site. The proposed 70-foot (70’) tall building includes 49 structured parking spaces, approximately 6,108 square feet of ground-floor commercial space, and 26 apartment units on levels 2 through 5. An existing single-family structure would be demolished. Access to the site would be at the rear of the property from Bremerton Ave NE. The site contains a piped stream channel and sensitive slopes. The City of Renton (COR) Maps database shows an off-site stream located 80 feet (80’) to the east of the project site and a wetland also associated with the stream channel approximately 230 feet (230’) east of the site. The variance request seeks a waiver of the stream protection standards imposed by RMC 4-3-050G7. Under RMC 4-3-050G7, the stream is a Type Ns stream with a 50-foot buffer. RMC 4-3-050G7 prohibits alterations to the stream or stream buffer. The Applicant proposes to line the channel of the stream with concrete and to build portions of the building within the stream buffer. 4. Adequacy of Infrastructure/Public Services. The project will be served by adequate and appropriate infrastructure and public services. Infrastructure and public services are more directly addressed as follows: A. Water and Sewer Service. The project is located within the City’s water and sewer service areas. There are existing sewer and water mains on Sunset Boulevard. B. Fire and Police. The City of Renton will provide police service. Renton Regional Fire Authority will provide fire service. Police and Fire Prevention staff indicated that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development with the improvements and fire impact fees required of the project. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 SITE PLAN AND REASONABLE USE- 3 CAO VARIANCE - 3 C. Drainage. The proposal provides for adequate and appropriate drainage facilities since its proposed stormwater controls have been found by City staff to conform to the City’s stormwater regulations. The proposal is subject to full drainage review under the 2022 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual. As required by state law, the Manual adopts all known, available and reasonable methods of stormwater prevention, control and treatment (AKART). See RCW 90.52.040 and RCW 90.48.010. The Manual generally requires that the proposal not generate off-site flows that exceed pre-developed forested conditions of the project site. The Manual also incorporates the latest feasible technology on assuring adequate water treatment. The Applicant submitted a Technical Information Report, prepared by Harmsen, LLC, dated April 25, 2025 (Exhibit 7). Public works staff have determined that the TIR establishes compliance with the Manual for this stage of review. The Applicant proposes to install a storm detention vault below the lowest parking level and discharge to the storm system to meet the Manual’s flow control requirements. The site is located within a Basic Water Quality Treatment Area and as a commercial use is thereby required to meet the Enhanced Basic Water Quality standard. A BioPod Treatment System has been chosen to meet this water quality standard. The Biopod facility will be located in the northwest corner of the site near the access drive and would drain to the detention vault. D. Parks/Open Space. Design District D standards require 50 square feet of common open space per dwelling unit. Based on the proposed 26 dwelling units, the project is required to provide 1,300 square feet of common open space within the proposed development. To meet the common open space requirement, the Applicant is proposing the commercial spaces to have patio areas of approximately 977 square feet on the Bremerton Ave NE street side for seating and common uses. In addition, the Applicant is proposing a large patio space of approximately 2,100 square feet for recreational use on the second level for residents. A Park Impact Fee is required for the future dwellings. The current Park Impact Fee is $2,222.84 per each new multi-family dwelling unit within a multi-family project of five (5) or more units. Assessed fees are based on the City of Renton Fee Schedule. The fee is calculated and paid at time of building permit issuance. E. Transportation and Circulation. The proposal is served by adequate and appropriate transportation facilities. As conditioned, the proposal meets the City’s level of service (LOS, i.e. traffic congestion) standards. The Applicant submitted a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), prepared by Kimley- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 SITE PLAN AND REASONABLE USE- 4 CAO VARIANCE - 4 Horn and Associates, Inc., Exhibit 8. Vehicular access to the site is proposed via Bremerton Ave NE via a two-way driveway. The TIA identifies the proposal will lower the level of service of the southbound lane of the Bremerton Ave NE/NE 4th St. intersection from LOS E to LOS F. To mitigate this reduction in LOS the MDNS requires the Applicant to pay its proportionate share for a traffic light installation at the intersection. The Applicant’s proportionate share was set in the MDNS as $15,686.27. The proposal otherwise meets the City’s LOS standards and passed the City’s traffic concurrency standards as documented in Ex. 13. In addition to the proportionate share intersection responsibility, the Applicant is required to pay transportation impact fees to mitigate its proportionate added demand to the City’s overall road network. The current transportation impact fee applicable to multi-family uses would be $6,184.59 per dwelling unit. The current transportation impact fee for a shopping center is $24.37 per square foot of building area. The transportation impact fee increases each year and the applicable fee is paid at the time of Building Permit issuance. The proposal provides for desirable transitions and linkages by providing vehicular access to Bremerton Ave NE from an access driveway that connects to the proposed parking garage. Pedestrian connections will be provided from the building to the public sidewalks. Public works staff have evaluated the proposal for safe and efficient pedestrian and vehicular circulation and have found that with recommended conditions the proposed circulation achieves this purpose. Safe pedestrian circulation would be provided within and around the project perimeter. The addition of sidewalks along NE 4th St and Bremerton Ave NE would provide a safe walking condition for the proposed project and surrounding neighborhood. F. Schools. It is anticipated that the Renton School District can accommodate any additional students generated by this proposal at the following schools: Hilltop Heritage Elementary, Risdon Middle School and Hazen High School. Students attending Hilltop Heritage Elementary would walk to school along the following route: east along the existing sidewalks on NE 4th St and north along the existing sidewalks on Duvall Ave NE. Students attending Risdon Middle School would be bussed to school and would walk 0.26 miles to the existing stop located at Bremerton Ave NE and NE 6th St. High School students attending Hazen High School would be bussed to school after walking 0.13 miles north along Bremerton Ave NE to the existing stop at Bremerton Ave NE and Bremerton Pl NE. A School Impact Fee, based on new residential dwelling units, would be required in order to mitigate the proposal’s potential impacts to the Renton School District. The fee is payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code. Currently the fee is assessed at $3,268.00 per multi-family dwelling unit plus a five percent (5%) surcharge fee. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 SITE PLAN AND REASONABLE USE- 5 CAO VARIANCE - 5 G. Refuse and Recycling. The proposal provides for required refuse and recycling areas. The Applicant will provide a 273-square-foot refuse and recycling location in the underground parking level on the east side of the building, approximately in the middle of the structure on the east side of the drive aisle (Exhibit 2). Based on the proposal for 26 dwelling units, a minimum of 39 square feet of recyclable deposit area and 78 square feet of refuse deposit area is required, for a total minimum of 117 square feet. Based on the proposal for 1,446 square feet of restaurant use, a total of four (4) square feet would be required for recyclable deposit area and nine (9) square feet of refuse deposit area would be required, for a total minimum area of 13 square feet. Based on the proposal for 4,481 square feet of retail use, a total of 22 square feet would be required for recyclable deposit area and 45 square feet of refuse deposit area would be required, for a total minimum area of 67 square feet. Together the commercial uses would require a combined refuse and recyclable deposit area of 80 square feet (13 square feet + 67 square feet = 80 square feet). The requirement of 80 square feet of refuse and recyclable deposit areas is less than the minimum 100-square-foot requirement; therefore, a total minimum of 100 square feet of refuse and recyclable deposit areas would be required for the restaurant and retail uses. The project as a will require a total minimum area of 217 square feet of refuse and recyclable deposit areas (117 + 100 = 217 square feet). The proposal for 273 square feet complies with the minimum requirement of 217 square feet. H. Parking. The proposal provides for adequate and appropriate parking because the proposed parking complies with the City’s parking standards. The Applicant is proposing 26 dwelling units, which requires between 26 and 46 parking spaces; 1,446 square feet of restaurant space with 850 square feet of dining area would require a minimum and maximum of nine (9) parking spaces; 4,481 square feet of retail space would require a minimum and maximum of 11 parking spaces. Based on the aforementioned uses and square footages, the proposal would be required to provide between 46 and 66 spaces. The submitted materials indicate that a total of 49 spaces would be provided. I. Landscaping and Fencing. As conditioned, the proposal provides for adequate and appropriate landscaping and fencing by conforming to the City’s landscaping standards. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 SITE PLAN AND REASONABLE USE- 6 CAO VARIANCE - 6 The City’s landscape regulations (RMC 4-4-070) require a 10-foot landscape strip along all public street frontages. Minimum planting strip widths between the curb and sidewalk are established according to the street development standards of RMC 4-6-060. The Applicant submitted Conceptual Landscape Plans, prepared by Origin Design Group, dated July 13, 2018 (Exhibit 4), with the project application materials. The submitted landscape plans include landscaping between the building and public sidewalk, a landscape buffer along the north property line, and required street trees between the curb and sidewalk within the public right-of-way. Eight (8) Tilia cordata ‘Greenspire’ (Greenspire linden) trees are the proposed street trees that would be planted along Bremerton Ave NE and NE 4th St. Greenspire linden trees are not on the City’s approved street tree planting list. A condition of approval requires that a detailed landscape plan be submitted at the time of construction permit review. The detailed landscape plan shall include, but not be limited to, street tree species selected from the City’s approved tree list. City staff will assure conformance to all landscaping standards in its review of the required final landscaping plan. J. Transit and Bicycle. The proposal complies with City bicycle parking requirements and thus provides for adequate bicycle facilities. Transit is also easily accessible. City standards require that bicycle parking shall be provided for all residential developments that exceed five (5) residential units and/or all non-residential developments that exceed four thousand (4,000) gross square feet in size. The number of bicycle parking spaces shall be equal to ten percent (10%) of the number of required off-street vehicle parking spaces. Based on the proposal for 26 attached dwelling units, a total of twelve (13) bicycle parking spaces are required for the residential units. Per RMC 4-4-080F.11 bicycle parking spaces are required at 10% of the number of required off-street parking spaces for all other uses. Based on the proposal for 6,108 square feet of restaurant/retail uses and a combined minimum/maximum parking requirement of 20 spaces, the project would be required to provide two (2) bicycle parking spaces. Together, this would result in a total of 15 required bicycle parking spaces on the project site. Twelve (12) bicycle parking spaces are designated within the lower level of the underground parking garage, which is less than the minimum thirteen (13) spaces required, and two (2) additional bicycle parking spaces are proposed within the upper level of the structured parking area as shown on the architectural floor plans (Exhibit 2). 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 SITE PLAN AND REASONABLE USE- 7 CAO VARIANCE - 7 Bicycle parking required for the multi-family units shall be provided for secure extended use and shall protect the entire bicycle, its components, and accessories from theft and weather. Acceptable examples include bike lockers; bike check-in systems; in-building parking; and limited-access, fenced areas with weather protection. For in-building bike parking and limited-access fenced areas, fixed structures for locking individual bikes, such as racks, must be provided within the facility. The two (2) stalls that shall be provided for the restaurant/retail uses are to be conveniently located to the street right-of-way and be within 50 feet (50’) of the main entrance of the building. Therefore, a condition of approval requires that the Applicant submit revised floor plans and site plan with the building permit application identifying the location of code-compliant bicycle parking that meets the standards of RMC 4-4-080.F.11, and provides a minimum of 15 bicycle parking stalls. King County Metro provides public bus transportation from Renton Transit Center. The closest bus stop is located at NE 4th St & Union Ave NE. K. Loading and Delivery. No specific loading or delivery areas are proposed. 5. Adverse Impacts. As conditioned, there are no significant adverse impacts associated with the proposal. On September 23, 2025, the City issued a Mitigated Determination of Non-significance (MDNS) for the project. Adequate infrastructure serves the site as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4. Impacts are more specifically addressed as follows: A. Views. No impacts to views are anticipated. The proposed building is taller than the structures surrounding the development. However, the proposed building complies with the height requirements of the CA zone, and there do not appear to be any view corridors that would be obstructed by the construction of the proposed mixed-use building. B. Compatibility. As conditioned, the proposal is compatible with surrounding uses. Surrounding uses are composed of multifamily use to the west and commercial uses on all other sides. The Applicant contends that the proposed building design and scale would be consistent with neighboring multi-family/mixed-use structures and would be compatible with other commercial developments along the street. Aesthetic compatibility will be further enhanced with screening of utility equipment. The Applicant is proposing to screen the utility equipment within the building. All other utilities would be located within an underground vault or would be screened with landscaping. The project design includes adequate on-site screening for utility equipment from public view through the combination of landscaping, building architecture, and placement. C. Light, glare, noise and privacy. As conditioned and mitigated, the proposal will not create any significant adverse light, noise or glare impacts and will not impact privacy. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 SITE PLAN AND REASONABLE USE- 8 CAO VARIANCE - 8 i. Light and Glare. As conditioned, no lighting impacts are anticipated. No lighting specifications were shown on the utilities or site plan and no separate lighting plan was submitted. Therefore, a condition of approval requires that the Applicant submit a lighting plan for City staff approval that demonstrates compliance with RMC 4-4-075 and provides enough light for security but does not create excessive light impacts on neighboring properties. In addition, the parking and pedestrian areas shall also contain adequate lighting to ensure safety and security. ii. Noise. As conditioned and mitigated, no adverse impacts from noise are anticipated. Nothing about the proposed uses suggests significant noise impacts. The City’s noise standards, Chapter 8-7 RMC, assure that noise shall not exceed reasonably acceptable levels. iii. Privacy. The proposal will create no apparent privacy impacts. No street level residential use is proposed. The only adjoining residential uses are located across Bremerton Ave NE to the west. D. Critical Areas. The project site is encroached with a Type F Stream and sensitive slopes. No wetlands, flood hazards, or habitat conservation areas were found on the site per the Applicant’s Stream Study and Buffer Mitigation Plan, prepared by Wetland Resources, Inc., dated May 30, 2024 (Exhibit 13). The proposal is found to adequately avoid impacts to the stream and sensitive slopes since it conforms to the City’s critical area regulations as follows: i. Type F Stream. As mitigated, the proposal will not create any significant adverse impacts to a Type F stream located on the project site. The City’s COR mapping database identifies the property to contain a piped stream. The Applicant submitted a Technical Memorandum for Stream and Wetland Reconnaissance, prepared by Raedeke Associates, Inc. (Raedeke), dated June 25, 2019 (Exhibit 6) with the project application. The stream channel was found to be associated with an off-site wetland complex approximately 180 feet (180’) east of the project site. The wetland is considered by Raedeke to be a seasonal pond with a wetland rating of a Category III. As a result, Raedeke determined that the off-site wetland buffer does not extend onto the project site. Raedeke classified the off-site stream as Type Ns (non-fish bearing, seasonal). The off-site stream channel enters an approximately 24-inch (24”) diameter plastic pipe that extends underneath the central portion of the project site. The flow continues through a series of drainage pipes before discharging into Maplewood Creek, approximately 850 feet (850’) west of the site. Based on Raedeke’s review of historic aerial imagery, the on-site 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 SITE PLAN AND REASONABLE USE- 9 CAO VARIANCE - 9 portion of the stream appears to have been piped sometime between the late 1960s and early 1980s as part of site development. The Applicant is requesting a variance to allow the piped stream to be redirected to a new surface channel that would be constructed in the central portion of the site (Exhibit 15). The new stream channel would be spanned by the new building that would be constructed over the open top of the channel (Exhibit 7). According to Raedeke, the existing 24-inch (24”) diameter culvert and pipe servicing the property are not adequate to accommodate water from the stream during heavy storm events. This results in water overtopping the culvert and ponding in the central portion of the site. The proposed building would be constructed with an open space under the building footprint to accommodate the new stream channel and provide additional storage during storm events. The open channel below the building would be required to be privately maintained. The new building would have access routes and hatches above the open channel and adjacent to Bremerton Ave NE to allow access for maintenance at the bottom of the channel. Clearance of 10 feet (10’) vertically (from highest elevation within horizontal clearance) and 15 feet (15’) horizontally, centered over the channel, would be required by the City. In addition, an easement would be required to be provided to the City to allow access to the stream channel in case of an emergency. According to the Technical Information Report, prepared by Harmsen, LLC, dated April 25, 2025 (Exhibit 7), the current volumes and water quality standards would be maintained as part of the proposed project. In addition, new stormwater generated from the construction of the new building would be detained and treated on-site before being released to the stormwater system downstream of the project site. As such, no adverse impacts to water storage, volume, or water quality are anticipated as part of the proposed site development application. According to Raedeke, the overall project is anticipated to improve the flow of drainage across the site and reduce potential impacts from flooding on neighboring properties. In addition, the Applicant concluded that the TIR numbers generated for backwater and flood storage were suitable for the flow calculations. ii. Sensitive Slopes. According to City of Renton (COR) Maps, sensitive slopes are located on the project site. Beyond the reference to the COR maps, the staff report and notably the Applicant’s geotechnical report don’t recognize any steep slopes on the property. The geotechnical report doesn’t address or apply the City’s critical area steep slope standards. The staff report identifies that the project site is encumbered with “steep, relatively minor, slopes along the north and south sides of the lot.” Beyond the topographic information in the Applicant’s civil plans, the quoted staff report description is the only 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 SITE PLAN AND REASONABLE USE- 10 CAO VARIANCE - 10 explanation of how the project site may qualify as having geotechnical hazardous areas. Despite the lack of information as to the precise reasons why some slopes qualify as geologically hazardous areas, the geotechnical report does contain numerous recommendations for assuring safe construction. See Ex. 5. The report concludes that “[b]ased upon the results of our study, it is our professional opinion that the site is geologically suitable for development.” E. Tree Retention. Beyond the City’s critical area regulations, the only regulations requiring protection of vegetation are the City’s tree retention standards. As conditioned, the proposal meets the City’s tree retention standards and thus is found to adequately protect and retain site trees. The Applicant submitted a Tree Retention Plan with the Landscape Plans. No significant trees are located on-site; therefore, no tree retention requirements would be triggered. According to the Tree Retention Plan, there are 13 blackwood cottonwood trees located within the public right-of-way (ROW) along Bremerton Ave NE. These 13 trees within the ROW would be removed to widen the public road and to complete frontage improvements. The Applicant is proposing to plant up to eight (8) trees in the planter strip and four (4) trees on-site. The proposed project is required to provide a minimum of 30 tree credit units per net acre. The project site would have a net developable area of 19,349 square feet (0.444 acres) and would be required to provide a total of 13 tree credits on-site. As shown on the submitted Conceptual Landscape Plan, one (1) small species tree (Vanderwolf pyramid limber pine) is proposed to be planted on-site, which would provide 0.25 tree credits. Additionally, three (3) medium species trees (‘Fastigiata’ maidenhair) are proposed to be planted, which would provide an additional three (3) tree credits, for a total of 3.25 tree credits. The proposal for 3.25 tree credits is less than the 13 tree credits required. A condition of approval requires that a final tree retention and replacement plan be submitted at the time of civil construction permit review. The final tree retention and replacement plan shall include the planting of an additional 9.75 tree credits to satisfy the 13 required tree credits on the project site. 6. Necessity of Reasonable Use Request. Approval of the reasonable use request is necessary for reasonable use of the property. The RMC only gives the Applicant two options to accommodate the existing piped stream (1) daylight the pipe and avoid any development within the stream or its buffer; or (2) leave the stream as piped and refrain from developing over the pipe as prohibited by RMC 4-3- 50G7di(b). 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 SITE PLAN AND REASONABLE USE- 11 CAO VARIANCE - 11 Neither of the two options listed above leave any reasonable use for the project site. Daylighting the pipe would result in a protected stream with a 50-foot buffer. Without even including the width of the stream, it removes approximately 10,527 sf of otherwise buildable land. The existing site after dedications is only 19,349 sf, so over half of the land will then become an undevelopable buffer. Further, this buffer splits the property leaving a 2,847 sf section and another 5,975 section, with the smaller section too small for any reasonably sized development in a commercial zoning district. The Applicant also has no reasonable alternative to lining the stream bed with concrete. As noted by the Applicant’s engineer, the concrete lining is necessary for a stable foundation while providing a safe and efficient method of maintaining water flow across the project site. Conclusions of Law 1. Authority. The site plan and reasonable use variance requests require hearing examiner review and final approval. The staff report doesn’t identify why City staff determined that a public hearing was required for the site plan. As best as can be surmised, City staff applied RCW 4-9-200.D.2.a, which requires a public hearing if there are significant unresolved concerns raised by the proposal. RMC 4-8-080G classifies hearing examiner site plans as Type III applications, administrative variances such as the reasonably use request as Type II applications and street modifications as Type I applications. RMC 4-8-080(C)(2) requires consolidated permits to be collectively processed under “the highest-number procedure.” The Type III review is the “highest-number procedure” for the permit applications identified above and therefore must be employed for the reasonable use, street modification and site plan applications. As outlined in RMC 4-8-080(G), the hearing examiner is authorized to hold hearings and issue final decisions on Type III applications subject to closed record appeal to the Renton City Council. 2. Zoning/Design District/Comprehensive Plan Designations. The subject property is zoned Commercial Arterial (CA) within Urban Design District D. Its comprehensive plan land use designation is Commercial Mixed Use (CMU). 3. Review Criteria. Site Plan criteria are governed by RMC 4-9-200.E.3 and reasonable use criteria by RMC 4-9-250B7. All applicable review criteria for the reasonable use and site plan applications are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions of law. SITE PLAN RMC 4-9-200(E)(3): Criteria: The Administrator or designee must find a proposed project to be in compliance with the following: a. Compliance and Consistency: Conformance with plans, policies, regulations and approvals, including: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 SITE PLAN AND REASONABLE USE- 12 CAO VARIANCE - 12 i. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan, its elements, goals, objectives, and policies, especially those of the applicable land use designation; the Community Design Element; and any applicable adopted Neighborhood Plan; ii. Applicable land use regulations; iii. Relevant Planned Action Ordinance and Development Agreements; and iv. Design Regulations: Intent and guidelines of the design regulations located in RMC 4-3-100. 4. The criterion is met. As conditioned, the proposal is consistent with all applicable comprehensive plan policies and development standards, including those of Design District D, as outlined in Findings No. 15-19 of the staff report, adopted by this reference as if set forth in full. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(b): Off-Site Impacts: Mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and uses, including: i. Structures: Restricting overscale structures and overconcentration of development on a particular portion of the site; ii. Circulation: Providing desirable transitions and linkages between uses, streets, walkways and adjacent properties; iii. Loading and Storage Areas: Locating, designing and screening storage areas, utilities, rooftop equipment, loading areas, and refuse and recyclables to minimize views from surrounding properties; iv. Views: Recognizing the public benefit and desirability of maintaining visual accessibility to attractive natural features; v. Landscaping: Using landscaping to provide transitions between development and surrounding properties to reduce noise and glare, maintain privacy, and generally enhance the appearance of the project; and vi. Lighting: Designing and/or placing exterior lighting and glazing in order to avoid excessive brightness or glare to adjacent properties and streets. 5. As conditioned, the criteria quoted above are met. As outlined in Finding of Fact No. 4E, the proposal provides for desirable transitions and linkages between uses, streets, walkways and adjacent properties. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4G, the proposal complies with the City’s refuse and recycling standards. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5A, the proposal will not adversely affect any views. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4I, the proposal is consistent with the City’s landscaping standards. The proposal will not create any significant light impacts, including excessive brightness or glare, for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 5C. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 SITE PLAN AND REASONABLE USE- 13 CAO VARIANCE - 13 RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(c): On-Site Impacts: Mitigation of impacts to the site, including: i. Structure Placement: Provisions for privacy and noise reduction by building placement, spacing and orientation; ii. Structure Scale: Consideration of the scale of proposed structures in relation to natural characteristics, views and vistas, site amenities, sunlight, prevailing winds, and pedestrian and vehicle needs; iii. Natural Features: Protection of the natural landscape by retaining existing vegetation and soils, using topography to reduce undue cutting and filling, and limiting impervious surfaces; and iv. Landscaping: Use of landscaping to soften the appearance of parking areas, to provide shade and privacy where needed, to define and enhance open spaces, and generally to enhance the appearance of the project. Landscaping also includes the design and protection of planting areas so that they are less susceptible to damage from vehicles or pedestrian movements. 6. The criteria quoted above are met. Privacy impacts are adequately addressed as identified in Finding of Fact No. 4I and 5C. Due to compliance with the City’s critical areas ordinance with respect to geologically hazardous areas and streams, there are no natural features adversely affected by the proposal. The scale of the structure is adequately mitigated through the extensive design standards of Design District D and landscaping requirements. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(d): Access and Circulation: Safe and efficient access and circulation for all users, including: i. Location and Consolidation: Providing access points on side streets or frontage streets rather than directly onto arterial streets and consolidation of ingress and egress points on the site and, when feasible, with adjacent properties; ii. Internal Circulation: Promoting 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; iii. Loading and Delivery: Separating loading and delivery areas from parking and pedestrian areas; iv. Transit and Bicycles: Providing transit, carpools and bicycle facilities and access; and v. Pedestrians: Providing safe and attractive pedestrian connections between parking areas, buildings, public sidewalks and adjacent properties. 7. The criterion is met. The proposal provides for safe and efficient access and vehicular and pedestrian circulation as required by the criterion above for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 SITE PLAN AND REASONABLE USE- 14 CAO VARIANCE - 14 4E. Transit and bicycle facilities are available as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4J. Loading and delivery areas shall be separated as required in a condition of approval. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(e): Open Space: Incorporating open spaces to serve as distinctive project focal points and to provide adequate areas for passive and active recreation by the occupants/users of the site. 8. The criterion is met as noted in Finding of Fact No. 4D. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(f): Views and Public Access: When possible, providing view corridors to shorelines and Mt. Rainier, and incorporating public access to shorelines. 9. The criterion is met. As noted in Finding of Fact 5A, no shoreline or mountain views are available at the project site due to topography. The proposal is not adjacent to any shoreline. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(g): Natural Systems: Arranging project elements to protect existing natural systems where applicable. 10. The criterion is met. The City’s critical area regulations identify and adequately protect all natural systems of significance. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5D, the project protects all affected critical areas as required by the critical area regulations. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(h): Services and Infrastructure: Making available public services and facilities to accommodate the proposed use. 11. The criterion is met. The project is served by adequate services and facilities as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(i): Phasing: Including a detailed sequencing plan with development phases and estimated time frames, for phased projects. 12. There is no phasing plan proposed. Reasonable Use RMC 4-9-250B7a: That the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which subject property is situated; 13. The criterion is met. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5D, the proposed stream standard waivers would not result in any adverse environmental impact. RMC 4-9-250B7b: There is no reasonable use of the property left if the requested variance is not granted; 14. The criterion is met for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 6. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 SITE PLAN AND REASONABLE USE- 15 CAO VARIANCE - 15 RMC 4-9-250B7c: The variance granted is the minimum amount necessary to accommodate the proposal objectives; 15. The criterion is met for the reasons identified in the preceding Conclusion of Law. There is no lesser encroachment of the stream or its buffer apparent from the record that could still accommodate reasonable use of the property. RMC 4-9-250B7d: The need for the variance is not the result of actions of the Applicant or property owner; and 16. The criterion is met. The need for the variance is solely due to the stream and not the actions of the Applicant. RMC 4-9-250B7e: The proposed variance is based on consideration of the best available science as described in WAC 365-195-905; or where there is an absence of valid scientific information, the steps in subsection F of this Section are followed. 17. The criterion is met. Per WAC 365-195-905, the criteria to determine whether information is considered the “best available science” includes peer review, methods, logical conclusions and reasonable inferences, quantitative analysis, and the utilization of context references. As described in the project submittal documents and staff reports, the proposed variance is based upon the quantitative and/or expert opinions of qualified professionals in preparing geotechnical, stormwater, civil construction, and critical areas reports, the accuracy of which was verified by the expertise of the professionals in the City’s public works and planning departments. DECISION The site plan and reasonable use critical areas variance request meet all applicable review criteria for the reasons identified in the Conclusions of Law of this decision and are approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. The Applicant shall comply with the mitigation measures issued as part of the Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated, dated September 23, 2025. 2. A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted at the time of Construction Permit review. The detailed landscape plan shall include, but not be limited to, street tree species selected from the City’s approved Tree List. The detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to the Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval. 3. A final tree retention and replacement plan shall be submitted at the time of Civil Construction Permit review. The final tree retention and replacement plan shall include the planting of an additional 9.75 tree credits to satisfy the 13 required tree credits on the project site. The final tree retention and replacement plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager. Alternatively, if it is determined by the Current Planning Project Manager that it is infeasible to supplement trees on the site, payment into the City’s Urban Forestry Program fund may be approved in accordance with RMC 4-4-130H.1.f. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 SITE PLAN AND REASONABLE USE- 16 CAO VARIANCE - 16 4. The Applicant shall grant a private access easement to the CA zoned parcel located to the east of the project site, specifically parcel no. 1023059117. The access easement document shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager and Development Engineering, and shall be recorded prior to Temporary Certificate of Occupancy. 5. The Applicant shall submit revised floor plans and site plan with the Building Permit application identifying the location of code compliant bicycle parking that meets the standards of RMC 4-4- 080.F.11, and identify a minimum of 15 bicycle parking stalls. The revised floor plans, site plan and bicycle parking details shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. 6. The location of the refuse and recyclables deposit area shall be approved by the City of Renton’s solid waste utility provider prior to building permit issuance. 7. The Applicant shall submit a detailed landscape plan include climbing vines on the greenscreen proposed near the parking garage pedestrian entrance located along Bremerton Ave NE. The Applicant shall submit a green wall detail with the final landscape plan for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to issuance of the civil construction permit. 8. The Applicant shall include permeable pavement materials for pedestrian walkways, where feasible, consistent with the 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual. 9. The Applicant shall provide additional details for the proposed public art and site furniture. The details shall demonstrate that the proposed site furniture and public art would be made of durable, vandal- and weather-resistant materials that do not retain rainwater and can be reasonably maintained over an extended period of time. The site furniture and public art details shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. The public art would also require approval by the City of Renton Arts Commission. 10. The Applicant shall submit a public art plan in order to reduce the apparent size of the building and add visual interest. The preferred public art plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. 11. A materials board including material samples and colors coded to the building elevations shall be provided at the time of building permit application for review and approval by the Current Planning Manager. 12. If concrete is used for walls and/or columns, the concrete shall be enhanced by techniques such as texturing, reveals, and/or coloring with a concrete coating or admixture. Treatment of any concrete walls and/or columns proposed should be included on the materials board submitted as part of the building permit application. 13. A lighting plan and light fixture details shall be submitted at the time of building permit application for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit issuance. 14. The Applicant shall provide building floor plans with details for ADA compliant bathrooms, a central plumbing drain line, and a grease trap and a ventilation shaft for a commercial kitchen hood/exhaust at the time of building permit application for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager. DATED this 26th day of November, 2025. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 SITE PLAN AND REASONABLE USE- 17 CAO VARIANCE - 17 City of Renton Hearing Examiner Appeal Right and Valuation Notices As consolidated, RMC 4-8-080(G) classifies the application(s) subject to this decision as Type III applications subject to closed record appeal to the City of Renton City Council. Appeals of the hearing examiner’s decision must be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the decision. A request for reconsideration to the hearing examiner may also be filed within this 14-day appeal period. Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation Appendix A -- 4th Dimension 10 (Completed 11/11/25) Transcript by Rev.com Page 1 of 4 Appendix A October 28, 2025, Hearing Transcript 4th Dimension Building File No. – LUA25-000193 Note: This is a computer-generated transcript provided for informational purposes only. The reader should not take this document as 100% accurate or take offense at errors created by the limitations of the programming in transcribing speech. A recording of the hearing is available from the City should anyone need an accurate rendition of the hearing testimony. Examiner Olbrechts: (00:02): Alright, good morning everybody. My name's Phil Albright. I'm a hearing examiner for the City of Renton holding a hearing this morning on site plan review and a reasonable use variance for file number L lu A 25 dash 0 0 0 1 9 3. The fourth dimension, building a mixed use building in the city of Renton. The hearing format today is we'll have a presentation from Jill Ding will give us an overview of the project. Once she's done, we'll move on to applicant comments and applicant. You don't have to participate if you don't want to. It's up to you. After that, we'll move on to public comments. So far it looks like we don't have any members of the public, but we'll, if anyone comes in, we'll certainly give 'em a chance to make their comments if they want. After that, we go back to Ms. Ding to answer any questions that were raised or provide rebuttal evidence. Then the applicant gets a final opportunity of rebuttal under due process and I get 10 business days to issue a decision. So not too complicated. Let's see. And who's here on behalf of the applicant today? Sir, what's your name? You just have to unmute yourself there. Speaker 3 (01:06): Reer son, the architect. Examiner Olbrechts: (01:07): Oh, okay. Great. And Mr. Reer, have you had a chance to see Ms. STS staff report and the list of exhibits she has in there? I have. Do you have any objection over entry of any of those documents? Speaker 1 (01:18): No, I do not. Examiner Olbrechts: (01:19): Okay. And Mr. Ros, I take it there's three additional ones right down there at the bottom? Yeah. Where's your, these Speaker 1 (01:28): Are the additional, Examiner Olbrechts: (01:29): Appendix A -- 4th Dimension 10 (Completed 11/11/25) Transcript by Rev.com Page 2 of 4 There they are. Okay. So Mr. Rumor, we also have the staff PowerPoint, the City of Renton Maps and the Google Earth. Any objection over those? Nope, those are admitted as well. That's exhibits one through 24. And again, Mr. SROs, I am assuming there's no members of the public out there, is that correct? Speaker 1 (01:47): I do not see any. Examiner Olbrechts: (01:47): Okay. Alright, so took care of the exhibits. Alright, Ms. Ding, let me swear you in. Just raise your right hand. Do you swear affirm to tell the truth, nothing but the truth in this proceeding? Ms. Ding: (01:56): I do. Examiner Olbrechts: (01:56): Okay, great. Go ahead. Speaker 1 (01:58): Thank you. Okay, let me share my screen. Okay. Ms. Ding: (02:17): Are you seeing my PowerPoint? Speaker 1 (02:20): Yes. Ms. Ding: (02:20): Yes. Okay, excellent. Okay, so it's not a PowerPoint mode per se, it's more like the, it's got your descriptions on the side. Oh, okay. It's the other screen. Speaker 1 (02:38): Let's try that. Yeah, that one. That work. Ms. Ding: (02:43): That work? Okay, good. It's always tricky. It is tricky. All right. Thank you. Good morning. My name is Jill Ding. I'm a senior planner here with the city and I'm here to present the staff recommendation for the fourth dimension building. It is file number A 25 dash 0 0 1 93. Just to start off with a brief description of the proposal. You can see it on the vicinity map here that it is located at the intersection of Northeast fourth Street and Bremerton Avenue Northeast. The applicant is requesting hearing examiner site plan review and a reasonable use variance to construct a new five-story mixed use building. A similar project was previously approved on this site under LUA 19 dash 0 0 1 53. However, that application expired. The project site is located within the commercial arterial zone. It is located within Urban Design District D. It is approximately 0.53 acres in area and there is a pipe stream mapped on site. Appendix A -- 4th Dimension 10 (Completed 11/11/25) Transcript by Rev.com Page 3 of 4 (04:04): The proposal would include the construction of a five story 70 foot tall mixed use building, approximately 6,108 square feet of ground floor commercial retail, 26 dwelling units on levels two through five, a second level roof deck, all parking located within a structured parking garage with 49 parking spaces. Construction of an open channel below the mixed use building access would be provided off Bremerton Avenue Northeast and a five foot setback reduction along Bremerton Avenue Northeast is requested. A 14 day public comment period began on August 20th and ended on September 3rd. Comments were received from the Duwamish tribe and Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife on September 23rd. The Environmental Review Committee issued a determination of non- significant mitigated with five mitigation measures. (05:12): The proposal was reviewed for compliance with the site plan and reasonable use variance criteria. It was found that the proposal would be consistent with the relevant comprehensive plan land use policies. It would be compliant with all relevant zoning regulations if all conditions of approval are complied with. Would be compliant with all site plan review criteria if all conditions of approval are complied with. And it would be compliant with the reasonable use variance criteria if all conditions of approval are complied with. The proposal was routed to other departments for review. Police and fire prevention staff indicate that sufficient exist to furnish services to the proposed development. Water services provided by the city of Renton and water improvements will be required within and around the project site. Sewer service is also provided by the city of Renton. Sewer improvements will be required within and around the project site. We received a technical information report or drainage report prepared by harmson LLC. The proposed project would provide underground detention facilities and a pod treatment system to meet surface water flow control and water quality requirements. The project would be required to comply with the city of Renton Surface Water design manual. And in conclusion, staff is recommending approval of the fourth dimension building as depicted in Exhibit two, subject two 14, conditions of approval. Examiner Olbrechts: (06:57): Okay, sounds good. Pretty straightforward for a project for you, Ms. Sting. I know you get all the tough ones for the city of Renton. Some quick questions about the variance. I'm just not exactly sure what standards are being modified in that. So are pipe streams, do they have buffers themselves or just, are we talking about an encroachment for the resulting open stream or is it some regulation that prohibits the relocation of a pipe stream? I wasn't quite sure what was going on there. Ms. Ding: (07:29): The city's critical. The city's variance criteria has specific criteria for construction over pipe streams. Speaker 1 (07:38): So Ms. Ding: (07:38): That was the criteria that was reviewed. There are no buffers from pipe streams. They are opening the channel, but it's not really a restored channel. I guess it's going to be concrete. It's going to allow for greater flows, but it's going to be covered by the building. It's not going to be open to the semi at. Appendix A -- 4th Dimension 10 (Completed 11/11/25) Transcript by Rev.com Page 4 of 4 Examiner Olbrechts: (08:09): Okay. So that open channel doesn't have any buffers then. And so there are specific code criteria about building over a pipe stream and that's what's being waived then. Okay. Okay. Yeah, that's what I was trying to figure out. Speaker 1 (08:20): Okay. What was evaluated? Correct. Examiner Olbrechts: (08:22): Sounds good. Alright, got it. Thank you. Alright then. Looks, sounds great. Let's move on to Mr. Reamer. Any comments from the applicant here? I'll have to swear you in sir, if you want to say something. Speaker 3 (08:35): I don't have any other than I'm available for questions. Examiner Olbrechts: (08:38): Okay. Speaker 3 (08:39): Any comments that you might want from me. But we're happy with the project. We think it's going to be great for the city and we had gone through this process once before and the city is great to work with, so we're excited to get through it today. Examiner Olbrechts: (08:53): Okay, sounds good. Alright, well at this point I'm going to open it up for public comments. I don't know if any members of the public have joined us since we started. It doesn't look like it. Mr. Cisneros, do you see any members of the public there? If there's anyone out there that wants to say anything, click on the raise hand button at the bottom of your screen. Not we do not have Speaker 1 (09:11): To members of the public. Examiner Olbrechts: (09:13): Okay. Alright. Yeah, pretty much anticipated that. So I guess I can just go ahead and close the hearing then. As I said, this is a pretty straightforward project and MS thing usually gets the complicated ones, but this one is not, it looks like except for the pipe issue. And that looks like that's pretty straightforward as well, ultimately. So it shouldn't be too difficult to put together an approval and I'll get that approval out within the next couple of weeks. So thanks all for participating today. We're adjourned. Have a great rest of the day. Speaker 1 (09:42): Recording stopped.