7.2.
CC Regular Session
- Meeting Date:
- 05/24/2022
- By:
- Brian McCann, Community Development
Information
Title:
Adopt Resolution #22-114 Denying an Easement Encroachment Agreement for 16306 Lithium St NW (Project 22-122); Case of Igor Zhelavskyi
Purpose/Background:
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.
Notification:
Public notification is not required for an Easement Encroachment Agreement from the City Council.
Observations/Alternatives:
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 Code Sections
Alternative 1: Deny an Easement Encroachment Agreement. The location of the irrigation system could be easily resolved, and Staff do not feel is reasonable justification to leave the structure in the easement. The easement is near the location of a force main for the area. If the agreement is denied, the structure would have to be relocated outside of the drainage and utility easement, as required by City Code. Once relocated, Staff would approve the zoning permit currently in review. If the structure is not moved, the structure could be subject to further code enforcement actions including citations and potential abatement of the structure. City Staff are supportive of this alternative.
Alternative 2: Approve an Easement Encroachment Agreement. The structure would be allowed to remain in its current placement, and could be removed if necessary as part of the agreement. No additional approvals would be required other than the active zoning permit that is still in review until this matter is resolved. If approved, Staff anticipate similar requests to come forward in the future. City Staff are not supportive of this alternative.
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 Code Sections
- 117-349 (Accessory Uses and Buildings)
- 117- 111 (R-1 Residential District).
Alternative 1: Deny an Easement Encroachment Agreement. The location of the irrigation system could be easily resolved, and Staff do not feel is reasonable justification to leave the structure in the easement. The easement is near the location of a force main for the area. If the agreement is denied, the structure would have to be relocated outside of the drainage and utility easement, as required by City Code. Once relocated, Staff would approve the zoning permit currently in review. If the structure is not moved, the structure could be subject to further code enforcement actions including citations and potential abatement of the structure. City Staff are supportive of this alternative.
Alternative 2: Approve an Easement Encroachment Agreement. The structure would be allowed to remain in its current placement, and could be removed if necessary as part of the agreement. No additional approvals would be required other than the active zoning permit that is still in review until this matter is resolved. If approved, Staff anticipate similar requests to come forward in the future. City Staff are not supportive of this alternative.
Funding Source:
The Applicant is responsible for all costs associated with this project and review.
Recommendation:
City Staff recommend adopting Resolution #22-114 denying an Easement Encroachment Agreement for an accessory structure at 16306 Lithium St NW.
Action:
Motion to adopt Resolution #22-114 denying an Easement Encroachment Agreement for an accessory structure at 16306 Lithium St NW.
Attachments
Form Review
| Inbox | Reviewed By | Date |
|---|---|---|
| Brian Hagen | Brian Hagen | 05/18/2022 06:26 PM |
- Form Started By:
- Brian McCann
- Started On:
- 05/09/2022 11:59 AM
- Final Approval Date:
- 05/18/2022