Consider Resolution #22-212 Denying an Easement Encroachment Agreement for 7160 148th Ln NW (Project 22-137); Case of Demetrious and Christine Jones

The purpose of this case is to consider a request from Demetrious and Christine Jones (the "Applicants") for a detached structure, and pool patio, within the property's rear drainage and utility easement at 7160 148th Ln NW (the "Subject Property").
 

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

Summary
Demetrious and Christine Jones (the "Applicants") have requested an Easement Encroachment Agreement to keep a 10' x 16' detached shed (the "Structure") for storage of personal items, within the drainage and utility easement in the rear yard of the Subject Property. The Agreement would also allow a pool patio to encroach in the easement.

Subject Property
The Subject Property is approximately 0.38 acres, and includes various improvements in the rear yard including a sport court (without a permit) and a below-ground swimming pool (patio constructed outside of approved plans). 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, except to the south which is the site of Ramsey Storage Center (zoned and guided E-1 Employment / Business Park).

The Subject Property has a ten (10') foot drainage and utility easement along the rear lot line. The proposed structure would encroach roughly five (5') into the southern rear yard easement. The constructed pool patio encroaches entirely into the easement (10'). The structure would meet the 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 requires that no portion of a structure may encroach on a drainage and utility easement.

Structure Encroachment
The requested agreement is to allow the structure and pool patio to encroach in the drainage and utility easement on the southern property line. The Applicants were informed that City Staff would not be supportive of their request during a pre-application meeting, and indicated that they are not willing to place the structure in a more suitable location on the property due to aesthetic preferences. The Applicants stated they would prefer to keep the structure in its proposed placement.

The Applicants applied for a zoning permit, but did not receive approvals before purchasing the structure. Staff noted the proposed location was within an easement, contacted the Applicants about the situation, and the Applicants have withheld bringing the structure to the property until the situation has been resolved. Additionally, Staff contacted the structure manufacturer at the request of the Applicants, and was told they were relayed the standards prior to purchasing the structure. 

Pool Patio Encroachment
A pool permit was approved in 2006 for the construction of the pool in the rear yard. The plan did not include a concrete patio that encroaches into the rear drainage and uiltiy easement, as well as the rear setback requirement for the R-1 (MUSA) district. The Applicants are proposing to include the patio encroachment with the structure encroachment in the agreement. If the Easement Encroachment Agreement is approved, the Applicants will need to apply for a Variance to the rear setback from the Planning Commission, and receive a zoning permit with after-the-fact fees applied (twice the permit fee) for the patio addition. Aerial photos, a copy of the permit, and the approved pool plan are attached to this case.are attached to this case for reference.

Sport Court
Aerial photography shows a playground and sandbox in 2011, and a sport court in 2014. Sport courts and other impervious surfaces require a zoning permit at time of construction, and this was the same standard when the playground was converted between 2011 and 2014. A zoning permit will be required for the sport court with after-the-fact fees applied (twice the permit cost), regardless of the outcome for the Easement Encroachment Agreement. Aerial photos are attached to this case for reference.

City Code Sections

• 105-55 (Swimming Pools and Spas - Accessory Uses and Buildings)
• 117-349 (Accessory Uses and Buildings)
• 117- 111 (R-1 Residential District).

Alternatives
Alternative 1: Deny the request for an Easement Encroachment Agreement for the structure and pool patio. The Applicant purchased the structure prior to receiving approvals, and were relayed this standard according to their structure manufacturer. The pool patio was constructed outside of approved plans associated with the pool permit in 2006. The sport court was also constructed without a zoning permit between 2011 and 2014, and will require a permit to resolve this. City Staff are supportive of this alternative.

Alternative 2: Approve the Easement Encroachment Agreement for the structure and pool patio within the rear drainage and utility easement on the Subject Property. The Applicants would be allowed to proceed with the proposed location for the structure in the rear drainage and utility easement, and for the pool patio construction that does not meet approved plans for the pool from 2006. The Applicants would be required to apply for permits for the pool patio and sport court. A Variance would be required for the rear setback for the pool patio, and after-the-fact fees (twice the permit cost) would be applied for permits for the sport court and pool patio permits. City Staff are not supportive of this alternative.

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

City Staff recommend adopting Resolution #22-212 denying an Easement Encroachment Agreement at 7160 148th Ln NW.

Motion to adopt Resolution #22-212 denying an Easement Encroachment Agreement for at 7160 148th Ln NW.