Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDecision - Asdourian - LUA-21-000025 - 11-4-20211 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 Shoreline and Administrative Variances - 1 CAO VARIANCE - 1 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON RE: Asdourian House Remodel Shoreline and Administrative Variances LUA21-000025, V-A, V-H ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) FINAL DECISION Summary Ryan and Ashley Asdourian request two shoreline variances from Lake Washington setback and building coverage requirements and three administrative variances for front and side yard setbacks and building height for the remodel and addition to an existing single-family residence located at 3901 Lake Washington Blvd N, Renton, WA 98056. The additions are composed of a third story to an existing two-story residence and adding 352 square feet to the existing footprint. All three of the administrative variances and the shoreline building coverage variance are approved. The shoreline setback variance is denied. The variance approvals are justified on the basis that they enable the Applicants to add a garage to their home while also maintaining a home of reasonable size. The currently existing home is only 1,800 square feet in size and does not have a garage. The average home size in the surrounding area is 2,790 square feet. A two-car garage can be considered minimum reasonable use for a single-family residence. If the Applicants were forced to convert existing living space into a garage that would leave them with roughly a 1,200 square foot home, which would be significantly less than the average home size of the area. The only way to accommodate additional construction for garage space is with approval of the administrative setback variances and approval of the shoreline building coverage variance. With just these three variance approvals, however, the building area of the project site will still be several hundred square feet short of the average size for homes in the surrounding area. The height variance enables a third story addition that will bring the total area of the home at or within 300 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 Shoreline and Administrative Variances - 2 CAO VARIANCE - 2 feet of the average size for homes in the vicinity. Since an average sized home with a two-car garage can be constructed with approval of four of the five variances, there is no basis to approve the remaining shoreline setback variance. The shoreline setback variance would enable the Applicants to extend their third-floor addition into the 25-foot setback of the project site. With the ability to build a home that is 2,790 square feet or just a couple hundred square feet shy of that size, there is no compelling reason to approve the shoreline setback variance. Shoreline variance criteria set a much higher standard for approval than administrative variances, requiring a showing that the shoreline setback “precludes, or significantly interferes with, reasonable use of the property.” The Department of Ecology, who is also tasked with approving the shoreline variances, submitted written comment questioning the need for the variances. Ecology’s comments are well taken. It must be concluded that the 25-foot Lake Washington shoreline setback does not deprive the Applicants of the reasonable use of their property when they are able to build a home over 2,000 square feet with a two car garage in an area that has homes of comparable size. 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 The October 19, 2021 staff report and Exhibits 1-13 identified at page 2 of the staff report itself were admitted into the record during the hearing. The following exhibits were also admitted during the hearing: Exhibit 14: Staff PowerPoint Exhibit 15: Google Maps Exhibit 16: COR Maps FINDINGS OF FACT Procedural: 1. Applicants. Ryan and Ashley Asdourian, 3901 Lake Washington Blvd N, Renton, WA 98056. 2. Hearing. A hearing was held on the applications via the Zoom application on October 19, 2021. 3. Project Description. Ryan and Ashley Asdourian request two shoreline variances and three administrative variances for the remodel and addition to an existing single-family residence located 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 Shoreline and Administrative Variances - 3 CAO VARIANCE - 3 within 100-feet of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) of Lake Washington at 3901 Lake Washington Blvd N, Renton, WA 98056. The proposal involves the addition of a third story to an existing two-story residence and a 352 square foot increase in the building footprint to 1,342 square feet, resulting in a new total living square footage of 3,579 square feet. The upland area (landward of the OHWM) of the project site is only 2,275 square feet. The proposal would not increase existing on-site impervious surfaces and would not exceed the maximum 24-foot wall plate height applicable in the R-6 district. The two shoreline variances are as follows: A. Building Coverage. The Applicants seek a shoreline variance to RMC 4-3090D.7a, which limits lot coverage for buildings landward of the buffer and within 100-feet of the OHWM to a maximum of 25 percent for the project site. The entire upland area of the existing lot is located within 100 feet of the OHWM of Lake Washington. As shown on Exhibit 2, the proposed addition/remodel would result in a 352 square foot increase to the 1,029 sq. ft. building footprint resulting in a total of 1,342 square feet. The addition results in a building coverage of 59 percent, which exceeds the 25% maximum building coverage. B. Building Setback. The Applicants seek a shoreline variance to RMC 4-3-090D.7.a, which requires a 10-foot vegetation conservation buffer as well as a 15-foot building setback to the vegetation buffer for a combined setback of 25 to Lake Washington. The proposed third story addition would encroach into the required 25-foot shoreline setback. The proposed increase in building footprint would not. The three administrative variance requests are as follows: A. Building Height. The Applicants seek an administrative variance to RMC 4-2-110A, which authorizes a maximum of two stories for single-family homes in the R-6 district. The Applicant proposes the addition of a third story. B. Front and Side Yards. The Applicant seek an administrative variance to RMC 4-2-110A, which requires a minimum 25-foot front yard and five-foot side yard with combined minimum side yards of 15 feet in the R-6 zone. The Applicants propose a 0-foot front yard setback, a 4-foot 9-inch side yard setback and a combined side yard setback of 12 feet. 4. Characteristics of Surrounding Area. The project site is in a segment of beach homes that stretches from Kennydale Beach Park to a promontory to the north accessed by N. 40th Place. This segment of beach serves as a natural and logical reference point for evaluating the land use character of the surrounding community. Ex. 12 identifies that in this segment there are 25 homes with an 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 Shoreline and Administrative Variances - 4 CAO VARIANCE - 4 average size of 2790 square feet. These 25 homes are composed of two one story homes, 18 two story homes and 5 three story homes. 5. Adverse Impacts. There are no significant adverse impacts associated with the project. The project is exempt for State Environmental Policy Act review. Impacts are more specifically addressed below. A. Environmental Impacts. As proposed the proposal might impact shoreline ecological function by increased shading from the third floor addition. At least in the case of overwater piers on Lake Washington, shading can have adverse ecological impacts in part by providing hiding places for predator fish. See, e.g. Burnside v. Seattle, Shoreline Hearings Board, p. 13. Shading impacts aren’t addressed in the record. However, as approved it doesn’t appear that the more limited third floor addition would make any appreciable increase in shading of the adjoining lake1. As proposed, the shading impacts may also be nominal, given the proposed setback from the deck and the amount of shading already occurring from the existing use. No other environmental impacts are manifest from the record. As noted in the staff report, the footprint expansion is located on the east side of the property, away from the Lake Washington shoreline. Further, the footprint addition would involve the replacement of existing pavement, which is considered pollution-generating impervious surface, with building footprint, which is considered non-pollution generating impervious surface. B. View Impacts. No significant view impacts are anticipated. The proposal is not found to significantly impact views because it complies with the City’s maximum height standards. Table 4-3-090D7a, Shoreline Bulk Standards, establishes a maximum height of 35 feet for buildings. Footnote 7 requires compliance with the maximum height of the underlying zone if that height less. For the R-6, zone the underlying height is less. RMC 4-2-110A, applicable to the R-6 zone, along with Note 18 allows wall plate height of up to 24 feet with an additional 6 feet for roofs with a pitch of equal to or greater than 4:12 or greater. The project is conditioned to comply with the R-6 height limit. The City Council has also adopted some standards protecting view corridors. As identified in the Applicant’s view impact analysis no such standards apply to the project area. The height and view corridor code provisions set what the City Council has determined are acceptable heights and hence acceptable view impacts at the project area. As noted by the Applicant, if they weren’t seeking a variance to building story standards, they would be free to construct a two-story structure with raised ceilings that extend to the maximum 30-foot height limit of the R-6 zone. Given that the City Council has deemed 30-foot 1 It is recognized that the large deck space proposed by the Applicant may also significantly reduce shading impacts. 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 Shoreline and Administrative Variances - 5 CAO VARIANCE - 5 height to be acceptable in this location, the proposal is not found to create any significant height impacts. C. Compatibility. The proposal as approved is fully compatible with surrounding development. As discussed in Finding of Fact No. 6 below, the proposal as approved will be of similar size to surrounding development and is the same type of use, i.e. single- family residential use. 6. Need for Variance. The three administrative variances and shoreline lot coverage variances are necessary for the addition of a garage and reasonably sized home. The shoreline setback variance is not necessary for reasonable use because approval of the other three variances will result in a home that is roughly 2,500-2,700 square feet in area, which is close to or at the average area of other homes in the vicinity. At the outset it should be recognized that the need for the variance is due both to the small size of the subject lot and the fact that it abuts shoreline on two sides. The upland portion of the lot is only 2,275 square feet and of this small area only what appears to be roughly a third is outside the 25-foot shoreline buffer. The result of this configuration makes most of the currently existing home nonconforming and does not leave sufficient unrestricted space to add a garage. The inability to add a garage necessitates the administrative setback variances. As recognized in the DOE comments, Ex. 9, garages are identified as an appurtenance to single family residences in WAC 173- 27- 040(2)(g). This means they are necessarily connected to the use and enjoyment of a single- family residence. The Applicants do not currently have a garage. They could theoretically convert living space into a garage, but at 1,800 square feet the home is already significantly smaller than the average 2,790 square foot size of other homes in the vicinity. Consequently, the proposed garage addition is necessary for the reasonable use of the subject property. The proposed location of the garage additions are the minimum necessary for reasonable use since there is nowhere else on the project site that can accommodate the additions. The small lot and shoreline setback necessitate the administrative height variance. Without the height variance the home size would be limited to roughly 2,1002 square feet without any significant second floor deck space. This is significantly less than the 2,790 square foot average of surrounding homes. While this necessity may not rise to the level of depriving the Applicant of reasonable use under the shoreline variance criteria, it does deprive the property owner of rights and privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity under the administrative variance criteria. Given the high value of waterfront properties, the comparatively small size of the home can have a significant impact on the Applicant’s property value. 2 The floor plan and site plans submitted by the Applicant, Ex. 2 and 5, do not have sufficient information to precisely calculate the areas added to the project site by each of the requested variances. Areas referenced to as “roughly” being of a certain size in this Decision are based upon rough interpolations of some of the dimensions shown in Ex. 2 and 5. 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 Shoreline and Administrative Variances - 6 CAO VARIANCE - 6 With approval of all three administrative variances and the shoreline lot coverage variance, the Applicant has reasonable use of its property. The Applicant will have room on the third floor to add at least 400 square feet of additional floor space for a roughly 2,500 square foot home, which puts it within range of the average size of surrounding homes. Overall, it simply cannot be concluded that the Applicant would be deprived of the reasonable use of their property if authorized to build a 2,500 square foot home. Conclusions of Law 1. Authority. RMC 4-8-080(G) classifies administrative variances as Type II applications and shoreline variance as Type III applications. RMC 4-8-080(C)(2) requires consolidated permits to each be processed under “the highest-number procedure”. The shoreline variance has the highest numbered review procedure, so both shoreline 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/Shoreline Designation. The subject property is zoned Residential 6 (R-6). The shoreline environmental designation is Single-Family Residential. 3. Comparable Nonconforming Uses. Other nonconforming homes can be used to assess the reasonableness and necessity of the Applicants’ variance requests. As shall be evident in the analysis below, the variances approved for the project are heavily dependent upon recognition that nonconforming homes in the vicinity are of similar size to the proposal as limited by this Decision. Review of the COR maps of the area of comparison identified in Finding of Fact No. 4 reveals that most, if not all, of the homes in the comparison area are nonconforming. The homes appear to be nonconforming as to both shoreline regulations subject to the Applicant’s request and many of the homes also don’t appear to comply with the setback standards that are the subject of the Applicant’s administrative variance requests. As identified by the Examiner at the hearing, as a general matter nonconforming uses may not be used to support variance applications. See Ling v. Whatcom County Board of Adjustment, 21 Wn. App. 497 (1978). The judicial reasoning for this conclusion is compelling – if a City amends its zoning code to depart from current development patterns, that objective can be seriously undermined if variance applicants are allowed to rely upon existing nonconforming development patterns to perpetuate it. The only case that goes in a different direction is Sherwood v. Grant County, 40 Wn. App. 496 (1985). Sherwood dealt with a variance application to place a mobile home in a zoning district that prohibited mobile homes. The court found acceptable “special circumstances” because the project site was located near numerous other mobile homes, some of them nonconforming within the same zoning district. The court found Sherwood distinguishable from Ling because it found 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 Shoreline and Administrative Variances - 7 CAO VARIANCE - 7 site to be in a “unique” location, thus precluding the “domino effect” that was of concern in Ling. 40 Wn. App. at 499. Ling and Sherwood can be reconciled by a determination of whether a condition is indeed “special” (or “unique” as referenced in Sherwood). If the circumstance is special, it by definition does not arise very often and therefore on that basis will not set a precedent that will apply to numerous other properties and thereby undermine the objectives of the development standard subject to the variance. This interpretation is consistent with the general concept of variances, which is to provide an out for “special” development circumstances that were not reasonably anticipated in the zoning code, while leaving more generally applicable unanticipated situations to the legislative amendment process. As to the administrative variances, the circumstances of the shoreline area likely are unique – the small lots, large homes and associated high property values are likely all unique to the shoreline portion of the R-6 zoning district that is the source of the regulations subject to the administrative variance requests. Most of the land mass within the City’s R-6 zoning district is not composed of shoreline lots, so the nonconformities of the homes along the Lake Washington shoreline can be considered a unique R-6 area where the approval of the variances will not set a precent for undermining the R-6 setback and height limits in the rest of the R-6 district. The shoreline vicinity of the project site is not as easy to classify as unique within the regulatory reach of the shoreline regulations of the Applicants’ variance requests. The nonconforming homes used as comparables in Ex. 12 are all nonconforming as to shoreline impervious surface and setback regulations because the lots involved are small. This is not a condition that is unique to the vicinity of the project area. As shown in the City’s COR maps, a large majority of all the Lake Washington waterfront lots are small. As a result, it is likely that many, if not most, waterfront homes along Lake Washington are nonconforming as to shoreline building coverage and setback requirements. However, Lake Washington is not the only waterbody within shoreline jurisdiction in the City of Renton. As identified at p.81 of the City’s comprehensive plan, there are several rivers also subject to shoreline jurisdiction. The City’s COR maps reveal that the lots along these rivers are not all substandard as with the waterfront lots, although much of the rivers are separated from adjoining uses by greenbelts. Overall, it can be concluded that the nonconforming lots in the vicinity of the project area are a unique condition found along the Lake Washington portion of the City’s shoreline jurisdiction. As such, it is appropriate to consider the surrounding nonconforming homes in assessing the reasonableness of the Applicants’ shoreline variance requests. 4. Review Criteria. RMC 4-9-190(I)(4)(b) sets the criteria for shoreline variances and RMC 4- 9-250B6 sets the criteria for administrative variances. The applicable regulations and policies are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions of law: Administrative Variances RMC 4-9-250B6a: That the applicant suffers practical difficulties and unnecessary hardship and the variance is necessary because of special circumstances applicable to subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the subject property, and the strict application of the 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 Shoreline and Administrative Variances - 8 CAO VARIANCE - 8 Zoning Code is found to deprive subject property owner of rights and privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity and under identical zone classification; 5. Criterion Met. The criterion is met for all three administrative variances for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 6. RMC 4-9-250B6b: 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; 6. Criterion Met. The criterion is met for all three administrative variances for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 5. RMC 4-9-250B6c: That approval shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitation upon uses of other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is situated; 7. Criterion Met. The criterion is met for all three administrative variances. The setback variances merely give the Applicants the ability to have a garage while at the same time having a reasonably sized home as detailed in Finding of Fact No. 6, which is a right/privilege shared by most single-family homeowners. The height variance enables the Applicants to have a home of comparable size to surrounding homes as identified in Finding of Fact No. 6. RMC 4-9-250B6d: That the approval is a minimum variance that will accomplish the desired purpose. 8. Criterion Met. The criterion is met for all three administrative variances. As detailed in Finding of Fact No. 6, the Applicant is only able to have both a garage and a home of comparable size to others in the vicinity if all three administrative variances are granted. In this regard, the variances are the minimum that will accomplish reasonable use of the property. Shoreline Variances RMC 4-9-190I4b: Decision Criteria: Variance permits should be granted in circumstances where denial of the permit would result in a thwarting of the policy enumerated in RCW 90.58.020. In all instances the applicant must demonstrate that extraordinary circumstances shall be shown and the public interest shall suffer no substantial detrimental effect. i. Variance permits for development and/or uses that will be located landward of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM), as defined in RCW 90.58.030(2)(c), and/or landward of any wetland as defined in RCW 90.58.030(2)(h), may be authorized provided the applicant can demonstrate all of the following: 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 Shoreline and Administrative Variances - 9 CAO VARIANCE - 9 (a) That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in the applicable master program precludes, or significantly interferes with, reasonable use of the property; 9. Criterion Only Met for Building Coverage. The criterion is met for the shoreline building coverage variance. As outlined in Finding of Fact No. 6, a two-car garage qualifies as minimum reasonable use for a lot developed with a single-family lot. As further determined in Finding of Fact No. 6, the shoreline building coverage requirement precludes the Applicants from adding a garage without having to reduce the size of their home to an unreasonably small size. As outlined in Finding of Fact No. 6, the shoreline setback variance does not meet the criterion. With approval of the four other variance requests, the Applicants can have both a two-car garage and a reasonably sized home. Consequently, approval of the variance is not necessary for reasonable use of the property. RMC 4-9-190I4bib: That the hardship is specifically related to the property, and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features and the application of the master program, and not, for example, from deed restrictions or the applicant's own actions; 10. Criterion Met. The criterion is met for both shoreline variance requests. As outlined in Finding of Fact No. 6, the need for the variance arises from the small size of the subject property and the unusual circumstance that the property fronts Lake Washington on two sides. RMC 4-9-190I4bic: That the design of the project is compatible with other authorized uses within the area and with uses planned for the area under the comprehensive plan and shoreline master program and will not cause adverse impacts to the shoreline environment; 11. Criterion Met for Building Coverage Variance. The criterion is met for the shoreline building coverage variance for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 5. Under the same finding, it’s not entirely clear if the shoreline setback variance will not cause adverse impacts to the environment due to the increase in shading impacts that would result from building closer to the shoreline. RMC 4-9-190I4bid: That the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area; 12. Criterion Only Met for Building Coverage Variance. The criterion is met for the shoreline building coverage variance. As outlined in Finding of Fact No. 6, the variance is necessary for the Applicants to accommodate a two-car garage while at the same time also accommodating a reasonably sized home of comparable size to the other homes in their vicinity. As such, approval of the variances cannot be construed as a special privilege since it is a right enjoyed by most other homeowners in the area. The criterion is not met for the shoreline building coverage variance. The Applicants seek to waive shoreline setback requirements when that is not necessary for the reasonable use of their property. 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 Shoreline and Administrative Variances - 10 CAO VARIANCE - 10 There is no basis for such a request and such a variance would not be approved for anyone else. As such, approval of the request would qualify as a special privilege. RMC 4-9-190I4bie: That the variance requested is the minimum necessary to afford relief; and 13. Criterion Only Met for Building Coverage Variance. For the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 6, the criterion is met for the building coverage variance. The shoreline building coverage variance uses all of the space available and necessary to accommodate both a two-car garage and a reasonably sized home in conjunction with the approval of the administrative variances. The criterion is not met for the shoreline setback variance because the Applicants will have a reasonably sized home along with a two-car garage upon approval of the other four variances. There is no remaining legitimate “relief” to be sought under such circumstances. RMC 4-9-190I4bif: That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. 14. Criterion Met for Building Coverage Variance. The criterion is met for the shoreline building coverage variance because it enables reasonable use of property without creating significant adverse impacts as determined in Findings of Fat No. 5 and 6. The criterion may not be met for the shoreline setback variance because of potential shading impacts at an individual project level or cumulatively. DECISION The shoreline and administrative variance applications are approved except for the shoreline setback variance as they meet all the applicable regulations and policies addressed in this decision, provided they comply with the following conditions: 1. A building height survey prepared by a qualified professional shall be completed and submitted for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to the approval of the building permit’s framing inspection. The height survey shall clearly confirm the proposed addition complies with the maximum wall plate height of 24 feet with a total maximum height of 30 feet to the top of the pitched roof. 2. The east building elevation shall be revised to provide one of the following: 1. The front porch projects in front of the garage a minimum of five feet (5’), and is a minimum of twelve feet (12’) wide, or 2. The roof extends at least five feet (5') (not including eaves) beyond the front of the garage for at least the width of the garage plus the porch/stoop area, or 3. The garage doors contain a minimum of thirty percent (30%) glazing, architectural detailing (e.g. trim and hardware), and are recessed from the front façade a minimum of five feet (5’), and from the front porch a minimum of seven feet (7’). 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 Shoreline and Administrative Variances - 11 CAO VARIANCE - 11 The revised elevations shall be provided to the Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval at the time of Building Permit review. If none of the options above are feasible, the applicant shall demonstrate that the proposal would comply with the applicable design guidelines for this standard as approved by the Current Planning Project Manager. 3. The primary building entrance does not include a porch or stoop. The entry shall be reviewed to provided either a porch or stoop with a minimum depth of five fee and the minimum height of twelve inches above grade, or the applicant shall demonstrate that the porch or stoop cannot be provided due to accessibility (ADA) requirements. If the applicant is unable to demonstrate compliance with this standard, the applicant shall demonstrate that the proposal would comply with the applicable design guidelines for this standard as approved by the Current Planning Project Manager. 4. Revised elevations shall be submitted with the Building Permit application demonstrating that twenty-five percent (25%) of the façade facing the private access easement would be comprised of windows and/or doors. 5. Building elevations shall be provided at the time of Building Permit review that provide: 1. Eaves projecting from the roof of the entire building at least twelve inches (12") with horizontal fascia or fascia gutter at least five inches (5") deep on the face of all eaves, and 2. Rakes on gable ends must extend a minimum of two inches (2") from the surface of exterior siding materials. 6. Revised elevations shall be submitted at the time of Building Permit review that provide the required: 1. Three and one half inch (3 1/2") minimum trim surrounds all windows and details all doors, or 2. A combination of shutters and three and one half inches (3 1/2") minimum trim details all windows, and three and one half inches (3 1/2") minimum trim details all doors. DATED this 2nd day of November, 2021. ________________________________ Phil A. Olbrechts City of Renton Hearing Examiner Appeal Right and Valuation Notices RMC 4-8-080(G) 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 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 Shoreline and Administrative Variances - 12 CAO VARIANCE - 12 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.