Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTalbot Hill Substation Improvements, Conditional Use Permit1 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 CONDITIONAL USE CAO VARIANCE - 1 1 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON RE: Talbot Hill Substation Improvements Conditional Use Permit LUA16-000922, ECF, SA-H, CUP-H FINAL DECISION Summary Puget Sound Energy is requesting conditional use permit and site plan review approval to rebuild a portion of the Talbot Hill Substation. The applicant seeks to demolish an existing 999sf building and replace it with a new 1,449sf building. The applicant will also remove substation equipment and create a new storm drainage system. The conditional use permit is approved with conditions. Testimony Angelea Weihs, Associate Planner, summarized the staff report and entered additional exhibits into the record (Ex. 17-19). She noted the City had received comment from Seattle PUD regarding access. In response to the examiner, Ms. Weihs stated the substation was in excess of 460 feet from the nearest residences and that the existing and proposed planting areas will serve as a buffer. Brianne Bannwarth, Development Engineering Manager, stated the project must meet the King County Stormwater Manual. In response to the examiner, Ms. Bannwarth stated all the potential impacts from the project with respect to construction are mitigated within the City’s development codes. Ms. Bannwarth stated the City would be amenable to adding a condition of approval requiring the City to set up a call number for construction related concerns. 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 CONDITIONAL USE CAO VARIANCE - 2 2 Kerry Kriner, Planner for PSE, stated the staff report is incorrect in describing the building proposed for demolition as a control house. The building is actually an oil storage building. Ms. Kriner noted PSE had originally applied for a permit in March 2016 and was told the building was exempt from the IBC and therefore did not require a permit. In September, the City of Renton required an electrical permit and then reversed the need for a building permit. In response to the examiner, Jennifer Henning, Planning Director, stated the City had not originally known the building was taller than the maximum height for an accessory structure permitted within the zone. They had originally understood the building was smaller and not as tall. The electrical permit triggered the need for a building permit. The presence of a building permit triggered a conditional use permit because of the use within the zone. Ms. Kriner stated PSE objects to the City’s $200,000 frontage improvement requirement and will be submitting a request for a waiver. No modifications or variances are currently at issue. Ms. Kriner stated the applicant had submitted a landscape narrative (Ex. 20). Ms. Henning stated the value of the applicant’s improvements triggered the frontage improvements. Exhibits The February 14, 2107 Staff Report Exhibits 1-16 identified at part B of the Staff Report itself were admitted into the record during the hearing. In addition, the following exhibits were admitted during the hearing. Exhibit 17 Staff PowerPoint Exhibit 18 COR Maps Exhibit 19 Google Maps Exhibit 20 Landscape Narrative (December 13, 2106) FINDINGS OF FACT Procedural: 1. Applicant. Puget Sound Energy. 2. Hearing. The Examiner held a hearing on the subject application on February 14, 2017 at 11:00 am in the City of Renton Council Chambers. Substantive: 3. Project Description. Puget Sound Energy is requesting hearing examiner conditional use permit approval and site plan approval to perform improvements at the existing Talbot Hill Substation located at 2400 S. Puget Dr. The site is 50.4 acres. PSE is proposing to rebuild a portion of the Talbot 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 CONDITIONAL USE CAO VARIANCE - 3 3 Hill Substation in order to replace aging equipment. The existing 999sf oil storage building 1 will be demolished and replaced with a 1,440sf building. The existing 230kV substation equipment will be removed, including steel structures and foundations. No additional transmission lines are proposed with the rebuild of this project. A new storm drainage system is proposed within the fenced area. A detention pond will be installed south of the southerly substation fence. The detention pond will involve excavation of more than 500 cubic yards of soil. The substation footprint will remain unchanged. Access to the site is provided via an existing driveway extending from Puget Drive Southeast. Additional driveway improvements are proposed to allow larger vehicle access to the substation. The applicant proposes to construct the project in two phases. Phase one includes the civil portions of the project. This phase is proposed for April 2017 to October 2017. Phase two includes assembly of the electrical equipment which is proposed for April 2018 to October 2018. The project site contains moderate coalmine hazards, moderate landslide hazards, and sensitive slopes. The site is zoned Residential R-8 and the Comprehensive Plan designation is Residential Medium Density (RMD). The site is surrounded by single family uses in the R-8 zone on the north, east and south. To the west are single-family and multi-family dwellings in the R-8 and RMF zones. 4. Adequacy of Infrastructure/Public Services. The project will be served by adequate infrastructure and public services as follows: A. Water and Sewer Service. Neither water nor sewer service is proposed or required for the redevelopment project. B. Fire and Police. Police and Fire Prevention Staff indicate that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development. C. Drainage. Runoff from the site sheet flows outward from the middle of the substation. There are existing drainage pipes from the northeast and southeast side of the substation which are tied to catch basins within the fence line. The rims of the catch basins are currently at an elevation higher than the surrounding ground, which prevents them from capturing stormwater. Grade differences between the substation slab and the surrounding ground surface along the north and northeast sides of the substation prevent stormwater from draining away from the substation, which tends to pond within the substation footprint. Runoff along the southern edge of the 1 The staff report refers to the structure as a control house, however, the applicant at hearing corrected the description. 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 CONDITIONAL USE CAO VARIANCE - 4 4 substation flows into a culvert located beneath the access road which ultimately flows east towards Grant Avenue South. The applicant’s Preliminary Drainage Plan and Technical Information Report (TIR) (Ex. 7) demonstrates compliance with the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual and the 2010 City of Renton Amendments thereto. A new storm drainage system is proposed within the fenced area. A detention pond will be installed south of the southerly substation fence and will involve excavation of more than 500 cubic yards of soil. Drainage improvements include a new stormwater conveyance network inside the substation which would route flows to a 75,000-cubic foot stormwater detention pond located along the southeastern edge of the substation. The pond will discharge to a depression on the southern side of the existing access road, where flow would resume the existing drainage path towards Grand Avenue South. The applicant is exempt from water quality requirements. D. Parks/Open Space. City development standards do not require any set-asides or mitigation for parks and open space for the proposed use. E. Transportation. The site is bordered by Beacon Way South to the northeast. Beacon Way South is classified as a Residential Access Road and is located within the City of Seattle Cedar River Pipeline Easement. Access to the site is provided via an existing access driveway extending to Puget Drive Southeast. Puget Drive Southeast is classified as a Minor Arterial street. The existing right of way for Puget Drive Southeast is approximately 100 feet wide and contains no frontage improvements. RMC 4-6-060 requires half street improvements including 0.5-foot curb, an eight-foot planting strip, an eight-foot sidewalk, street trees and storm drainage improvements. A condition of approval requires installation of half street improvements to code. Though the applicant indicated they will request a modification of the street frontage improvements pursuant to RMC 4-9-250.C.5.d, the applicant has not yet submitted such a request. No transportation impact fees are applicable to this project. F. Parking. Adequate parking exists on site to service the substation. No changes to the existing parking or driveway access are proposed. 5. Adverse Impacts. As conditioned, there are no significant adverse impacts associated with the project. Specific issues related to impacts are discussed below. A. Tree Retention. As conditioned, the proposal will satisfy tree retention and landscape screening requirements. The applicant submitted an arborist report and landscape narrative (Ex. 8 and 20) and a Stormwater Pond Tree Removal and Landscaping Plan (Ex. 4). A total of 116 significant trees are presently on site. The construction of the stormwater pond will remove a total of 69 trees. An additional 11 trees are proposed for removal to the west of the entrance driveway along 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 CONDITIONAL USE CAO VARIANCE - 5 5 the south side of the substation. Therefore, a total of 80 trees are proposed for removal. A total of 36 significant trees (31%) are proposed for retention. The City’s tree retention standards require a minimum of 30 percent tree retention. The proposal significantly complies with the City’s tree retention requirements. The applicant has argued the 11 Douglas Firs located near the entrance drive pose a wind throw hazard to the substation and its operations. Though the applicant intends to retain shrubs and smaller trees in this area to serve as a landscape screen, the applicant did not provide an explanation as to why the trees cannot be pruned or trimmed rather than completely removed. A condition of approval will require the applicant to provide a revised arborists report detailing an explanation as to why no reasonable alternative to tree removal is possible. The condition will further require suggested locations and species of supplemental trees to replace the existing Douglas firs. B. Landscaping. As conditioned, no impacts from the proposed landscaping plan are anticipated. The applicant submitted a tree removal and landscaping plan (Ex. 4). The majority of the site will not be disturbed and existing native landscaping will continue to screen adjacent residential properties. The proposed new stormwater detention pond will be located along the southeaster edge of the substation. The City code requires a 15-foot landscape buffer around the stormwater perimeter. The applicant has alternatively proposed landscape screening southwest of the stormwater pond, immediately south of the existing driveway, and to the west of the stormwater pond outside the perimeter fence, rather than along the entire perimeter. The applicant plans to fill gaps in the existing natural vegetative screening between the substation and existing residences. The proposed site obscuring landscaping buffer will be 20 feet in width in these two locations and will contain a mix of trees and large shrubs. The existing vegetation provides screening when viewed from the southeast and southwest of the site. However, as noted above in FOF 5A, the applicant proposes the removal of 11 trees south of the substation and to the west of the access drive. The applicant has not proposed additional plantings in this location. Removal of the trees in this location could reduce the effectiveness of the landscape screening. Therefore, a condition of approval will require the applicant to submit a revised tree replacement/visual barrier plan for this area. C. Geologically Hazardous Areas. Critical areas will not be adversely affected and the project will not result in impacts to health and safety for people utilizing the site or in surrounding areas. The applicant submitted a geotechnical report (Ex. 6). The project contains moderate coalmine and landslide hazards with sensitive slopes within 50 feet. The extent of disturbance for the proposal will be 5.89 acres. The net cut/fill will be 2,500-cubic yards with 11.500 cubic yards of cut and 9,000 cubic yards of fill. The geotechnical report concludes the proposal will not adversely affect the stability of the slopes in or around the site and coalmine hazards are minimal. In the absence of any contrary evidence, the examiner takes the geotechnical engineer’s conclusions as verity. D. Structure Scale. The proposed new structure will have a maximum building height of 19’4” with a 4:12 pitched roof. The building will be obscured from view by the nearest residential area with native and planted landscaping. No adverse effects are anticipated for surrounding properties. 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 CONDITIONAL USE CAO VARIANCE - 6 6 E. Traffic. The Talbot Hill substation property is accessed via an existing access driveway extending from Puget Drive SE. The applicant is proposing improvements to the existing access driveway including repaving with asphalt, widening the approach apron, and a security gate. The project will not generate a significant number of vehicles trips either during construction or operation. No traffic impacts to the surrounding area are anticipated. F. Noise, Light and Glare. The reconstructed building will have minimal lighting to provide for safe egress. The lighting will be directed downward. No glare or light are expected to be visible from neighboring properties. The substation is over 460 feet from the nearest residential lot. No noise impacts to surrounding areas are anticipated. Conclusions of Law 1. Authority. Large utilities are allowed in the R-8 district as a conditional use subject to Hearing Examiner review (RMC 4-2-060(O)). RMC 4-8-080(G) classifies conditional use applications as Type III permits when Hearing Examiner review is required. Site plan review is not required in the R-8 zone, except optionally when site plan review may be used as a means to propose modifications to development standards for developments otherwise exempt from site plan review (RMC 4-9- 200(B)(2)(b)). Pursuant to RMC 4-4-70(F)(8), site plan review is required for the proposal in order to deviate from storm drainage facility landscaping standards. In the absence of the conditional use permit application, no Hearing Examiner review would be required for the site plan and it would be classified as a Type II permit by RMC 4-8-080(G). Both of the aforementioned permits have been consolidated. RMC 4-8-080(C)(2) requires consolidated permits to each be processed under “the highest-number procedure”. The conditional use has the highest numbered review procedures, so both permits must be processed as Type III applications. As Type III applications, RMC 4-8-080(G) grants the Examiner with the authority to hold a hearing and issue a final decision on them, subject to closed record appeal to the City Council. 2. Zoning/Comprehensive Plan Designations. The subject property is zoned R-8, a single family residential zone. The comprehensive plan land use designation is Residential Medium Density. 3. Review Criteria. Conditional use criteria are governed by RMC 4-9-030(C). Site plan review criteria are governed by RMC 4-9-200(E). All applicable criteria are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions of law. Conditional Use The Administrator or designee or the Hearing Examiner shall consider, as applicable, the following factors for all applications: 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 CONDITIONAL USE CAO VARIANCE - 7 7 RMC 4-9-030(C)(1): Consistency with Plans and Regulations: The proposed use shall be compatible with the general goals, objectives, policies and standards of the Comprehensive Plan, the zoning regulations and any other plans, programs, maps or ordinances of the City of Renton. 4. The proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan as outlined in Finding 16 of the Staff report, adopted and incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full. The proposal is consistent with all applicable zoning and other development standards as outlined in Finding 17 of the Staff report, adopted and incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full. RMC 4-9-030(C)(2): Appropriate Location: The proposed location shall not result in the detrimental overconcentration of a particular use within the City or within the immediate area of the proposed use. The proposed location shall be suited for the proposed use. 5. The substation is an existing utility facility on a large lot. The proposed location of the reconstructed and expanded building will not result in either the detrimental over-concentration of a particular use within the City or within the immediate area of the proposed use. The substation footprint will remain unchanged and, as conditioned, the improvements will be fully screened from adjacent residences through thick and dense native vegetation and landscaping. As discussed in the Staff Report, the proposed location is suitable for the proposed use. Given these factors the criterion is met. RMC 4-9-030(C)(3): Effect on Adjacent Properties: The proposed use at the proposed location shall not result in substantial or undue adverse effects on adjacent property. 6. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5 and as conditioned, there are no adverse impacts associated with the proposal, so it will not result in substantial or undue adverse effects on adjacent property. RMC 4-9-030(C)(4): Compatibility: The proposed use shall be compatible with the scale and character of the neighborhood. 7. The proposal is an expansion of an existing building within an existing utility use. The footprint of the overall substation will not change. As conditioned, the reconstructed building and stormwater pond will be fully screened from view. The proposed use will meet all of the City’s bulk and dimensional regulations and will provide landscaping on the site that will buffer the residential uses on all sides. This criterion is satisfied. RMC 4-9-030(C)(5): Parking: Adequate parking is, or will be made, available. 8. No additional parking is proposed. As noted in Finding of Fact No. 4, adequate parking exists on site to service the substation. This criterion is met. 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 CONDITIONAL USE CAO VARIANCE - 8 8 RMC 4-9-030(C)(6): Traffic: The use shall ensure safe movement for vehicles and pedestrians and shall mitigate potential effects on the surrounding area. 9. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the project will not have a significant impact on the general traffic in the vicinity and, as conditioned, provides for adequate and safe pedestrian circulation. The criterion is met. RMC 4-9-030(C)(7): Noise, Light and Glare: Potential noise, light and glare impacts from the proposed use shall be evaluated and mitigated. 10. As stated in FOF 5F, no impacts from noise, light or glare are anticipated. This criterion is satisfied. RMC 4-9-030(C)(8): Landscaping: Landscaping shall be provided in all areas not occupied by buildings, paving, or critical areas. Additional landscaping may be required to buffer adjacent properties from potentially adverse effects of the proposed use. 11. As conditioned, the landscape complies with the City’s landscape regulations. As described in FOF 5(B), landscaping will provide a vegetative screening between the substation and adjacent residential areas. The reconstructed building and stormwater pond will be fully screened. As conditioned, this criterion is met. 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: 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. 12. As discussed in Conclusion of Law No. 4, as conditioned, the proposal is consistent with the City’s comprehensive plan, as well as development and design regulations. The proposal does not qualify as a Planned Action Ordinance, as outlined at Finding No. 21(d) of the Staff Report. The Staff 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 CONDITIONAL USE CAO VARIANCE - 9 9 Report Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are adopted and incorporated by 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. 13. The substation facility is necessarily concentrated on one portion of the site; however the scale and bulk of the building is compatible with the low rise residential structures that surround the site. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, no lighting or view impacts are anticipated and landscaping is effectively used to protect adjoining properties from noise and glare and to maintain privacy and enhance the appearance of the project. This criterion is satisfied. 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 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 CONDITIONAL USE CAO VARIANCE - 10 10 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. 14. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the site is large with 460 feet of native vegetation between the substation and the nearest residential area. As proposed and conditioned, native and planted landscaping has been well designed to provide for privacy and noise reduction. There is nothing in the record to reasonably suggest that the scale, spacing and orientation of the project could be modified to provide for more privacy and noise reduction without unreasonably interfering with the objectives of the facility. The scale of the facility will not create any adverse impacts as discussed and is compatible with vehicle and pedestrian circulation as determined in Finding of Fact No. 5. In addition, there is nothing in the record to reasonably suggest that the scale of the project is incompatible with sunlight, prevailing winds or natural characteristics. The comments by Staff on this criterion, at Finding No. 21(f), are adopted by this reference and incorporated as if set forth in full. 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. 15. The proposal provides for adequate access and circulation as required by the criterion above for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 4(E), 4(F), and 5(E). 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. 16. No open space is required for this use 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 CONDITIONAL USE CAO VARIANCE - 11 11 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. 17. There are no view corridors to shorelines or Mt. Rainier affected by the proposal. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(g): Natural Systems: Arranging project elements to protect existing natural systems where applicable. 18. As determined in FOF 5(C), the natural systems at the site will not be adversely affected by the proposal. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(h): Services and Infrastructure: Making available public services and facilities to accommodate the proposed use. 19. 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. 20. The applicant has provided a detailed phasing plan as described in the staff report. This criterion is satisfied. DECISION As conditioned below, the conditional use permit is approved. 1. The applicant shall comply with the mitigation measures issued as part of the Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated, dated January 23, 2017. 2. If the 11 trees to the west of the access driveway are proposed for removal, the applicant shall submit a revised tree replacement/visual barrier plan at the time of Construction Permit application for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager. 3. The applicant shall submit a revised Arborist Report with Construction Permit application for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager. The revised Arborist Report shall provide further detailed explanation for why no reasonable alternative to tree removal is possible for the 11 trees to the west of the access driveway and shall provide suggested locations and species of supplemental trees to be planted. The report shall include planting and maintenance specifications for replacement trees. 4. The applicant shall either submit plans to construct the required half street improvements along Puget Drive SE (including the required 8-foot wide landscape strip between the curb and 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 CONDITIONAL USE CAO VARIANCE - 12 12 sidewalk) or shall acquire approval of a modification from the required frontage improvements at the time of Civil Construction Permit Review. 5. The City shall establish a call-in number for citizens to complain about noise or other construction related issues. DATED this 28th day of February, 2017. Emily Terrell City of Renton Hearing Examiner Appeal Right and Valuation Notices RMC 4-8-110(E)(9) provides that the final decision of the Hearing Examiner is subject to appeal to the Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-110(E)(9) requires appeals of the Hearing Examiner’s decision to be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the Hearing Examiner’s decision. A request for reconsideration to the hearing e examiner may also be filed within this 14 day appeal period as identified in RMC 4-8-110(E)(8) and RMC 4-8-100(G)(4). A new fourteen (14) day appeal period shall commence upon the issuance of the reconsideration. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk’s Office, Renton City Hall – 7th floor, (425) 430-6510. Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation.