Laserfiche WebLink
CC Regular Session 4. 11. <br />Meeting Date: 04/28/2015 <br />By: Chris Anderson, Community <br />Development <br />Information <br />Title <br />Adopt Resolution #15-04-097 Approving an Encroachment Agreement for an Existing Deck and Septic System <br />Located in a Drainage and Utility Easement at 8077 155th Lane NW; Case of Mike and Diana Swanson <br />Purpose/Background: <br />The property located at 8077 155th Lane NW (the "Subject Property") is currently for sale. A prospective buyer of <br />the Subject Property noticed that there is an exhibit of the Subject Property showing a portion of a Drainage and <br />Utility Easement (the "Easement") proposed to be vacated and inquired with the City as to whether this vacation <br />process was ever completed. After researching this matter, it was discovered that the Easement Vacation process <br />was never completed and that the septic system and deck on the Subject Property are both located within the <br />Easement. <br />Notification: <br />No notification is required to consider an Encroachment Agreement. <br />Observations/Alternatives: <br />It appears that the original developer of The North Forty 3rd Addition, R.J.S. Builders, had applied for an Easement <br />Vacation in 1991. At that time, City Staff reviewed the request and was supportive of the easement vacation <br />contingent upon the developer submitting and constructing a revised ponding area and encumbering the revised <br />ponding area with an easement. At the Public Hearing in November of 1991, the Planning Commission tabled <br />action on the request until the developer submitted a revised Grading and Drainage Plan. It does not appear that the <br />developer ever submitted revised plans for this ponding area and thus, the vacation of the Easement was never <br />completed. <br />As part of the review of the original request for an Easement Vacation, the City inspected the Subject Property and <br />noted that the ideal location for the drain field would be within a portion of the Easement. It appears that a permit <br />was issued by the City for the installation of the septic system within the area of the Easement that was proposed to <br />be vacated. Additionally, a Building Permit for an attached deck was also issued by the City, again within the area <br />of the Easement that had been proposed to be vacated. <br />Engineering Staff has reviewed this to determine whether the Easement area could be vacated as originally <br />requested in 1991. It does not appear that the ponding area was ever revised per the direction of City Staff in 1991 <br />and thus, it appears that this Easement may still be necessary. However, it has been approximately twenty-five (25) <br />years since the installation of the septic system and over fifteen years since the installation of the deck and there <br />have been no documented concerns with water interfering with either improvement (or with the improvements <br />interfering with drainage). It should be noted that both improvements appear to be outside the natural depression <br />and thus, are in a location that serves to convey rather than hold water. Thus, Staff is comfortable approving an <br />Encroachment Agreement that addresses these improvements in their current locations and configurations rather <br />than requiring their removal from the Easement. <br />The Encroachment Agreement would allow these improvements to remain in place and would allow for ongoing <br />maintenance but would not permit expansion. In the event the septic system ever failed, an alternate site located <br />outside of any drainage and utility easement will be necessary (or a new Encroachment Agreement may need to be <br />considered prior to installation of improvements). The Encroachment Agreement also reserves the City's rights <br />