Reconsider Denial of an Easement Encroachment Agreement for 16306 Lithium St NW (Project 22-122); Case of Igor Zhelavskyi

The Applicant has requested a reconsideration of the request due to technical issues at the regular meeting on May 24th, 2022.  The Applicant was unable to connect remotely and present his case directly to the Council.  The Council ultimately denied the encroachment agreement request.

Information from previous case.
The purpose of this case is to consider a request from Igor Zhelavskyi (the "Applicant") for a detached structure to continue to be placed within the property's drainage and utility easement near the west and south property lines of the property at 16306 Lithium St NW (the "Subject Property"). The Subject Property is approximately 0.31 acres. The currently placed building is a 10 x 12 foot shed to store items. The Subject Property is in the R-1 Residential (MUSA) Zoning District and guided as Low Density Residential in the Comprehensive Plan. The Subject Property is surrounded by other residential properties.
 

Public notification is not required for an Easement Encroachment Agreement from the City Council.

Summary
Igor Zhelavskyi (the "Applicant") has requested an Easement Encroachment Agreement to keep a 10' x 12' detached shed (the "Structure") within the drainage and utility easement of the Subject Property. The Subject Property is surrounded by a ten (10') foot drainage and utility easement; the structure would encroach roughly four (4') into the southern side yard easement, and five (5') feet into the western rear yard easement. The structure meets accessory structure setback requirements of the R-1 (MUSA) Zoning District, but requires the agreement to remain within the drainage and utility easement. Section 117-349 of City Code regarding Accessory Uses and Buildings does note that no portion of a structure may encroach on a drainage and utility easement.

The requested agreement is to allow the structure to encroach in the drainage and utility easement on the western and southern property lines. The Applicant was informed that City Staff would not be supportive of their request, and they were not willing to move the structure to another location on the property due to location of irrigation system lines. The Applicant would prefer to keep the structure in its current placement, which was not approved by City Staff and did not receive a permit prior to its construction.

The City discovered and enforced the structure through the code enforcement process, and the encroachment agreement was provided as a potential course for resolution to the case. The Applicant responded to the City's code enforcement process in a reasonable amount of time, and has properly applied for a zoning permit which is currently in review. The proposed location met setbacks, but did not stay outside of easements. The Applicant was then informed to apply for the agreement as a potential resolution. Multiple City departments reviewed this request as part of Development Review, and are not supportive of it.

City Council - May 24, 2022
The City Council reviewed and denied the request during their regular meeting on May 24, 2022. The Applicant experienced technical issues during the meeting and was not able to answer questions from the City Council. The Applicant has requested an additional review of the request, which would require City Council action. A copy of the request is attached to this case.

City Code Sections

• 117-349 (Accessory Uses and Buildings)
• 117- 111 (R-1 Residential District).

Alternatives

Alternative 1: Reconsider the request for an Easement Encroachment Agreement at the June 28th City Council regular meeting. Staff would present the case and the Applicant would be provided the opportunity to defend their case in person, to avoid any technical issues. Staff are not supportive of this alternative.

Alternative 2: No action. The Easement Encroachment Agreement would remain denied and the Applicant would have to move the structure outside of easements. Staff are supportive of this alternative.

The Applicant is responsible for all costs associated with this project and review.

City Staff recommend adopting Resolution #22-114A denying an Easement Encroachment Agreement for an accessory structure at 16306 Lithium St NW.

No action required - the action taken at the May 24th meeting will still stand, which was denial of the agreement.

OR

Motion to reconsider Resolution #22-114A denying an Easement Encroachment Agreement for an accessory structure at 16306 Lithium St NW.  Please note, if the Council is to reconsider, this may occur immediately the same evening.