Agenda - Council - 08/11/2015 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

CC Regular Session 4. 7. Meeting Date: 08/11/2015 By: Chris Anderson, Community Development Information Title Adopt Resolution #15-08-196 Approving an Encroachment Agreement for a Portion of a Proposed Deck in a Drainage and Utility Easement at 7214 167th Ter NW; Case of Brandon Sis Purpose/Background: The owner of the property located at 7214 167th Ter NW (the "Subject Property") has submitted an application for a Building Permit to construct a twelve foot by thirty-two foot (12' x 32') deck off the rear wall of the home. The rear wall of the home is approximately six (6) feet from a Drainage and Utility Easement (the "Easement"), which encumbers a wetland in the rear yard of the Subject Property. The proposed deck would not encroach into the wetland per a wetland delineation and analysis by the Anoka Conservation District.. Notification: Notification is not required when considering an Encroachment Agreement. Observations/Alternatives: Almost all of the rear yard of the Subject Property is encumbered by the Easement (to within about six [6] feet of the rear wall of the home). The purpose of the Easement is to encumber a wetland and stormwater pond that is located behind the homes along both 167th Terrace and Limonite Street. The patio or sliding glass door is positioned near the center of the rear wall of the home and with the proximity of the Easement, constructing a of deck of any reasonable depth would result in an encroachment into the Easement. When the Brookfield subdivision was originally approved, there was a wetland delineation completed that identified wetland area to within about fifteen (15) feet of the rear wall of the home. The property owner engaged the services of the Anoka Conservation District (ACD) to have the wetland area delineated. The ACD has provided a written response stating that the proposed deck would not impact any portion of the wetland. Both Planning and Engineering Staff have reviewed this request and support the request for an Encroachment Agreement, based on several things. First, the proposed deck will not impact the wetland, which is the purpose for the Easement. Secondly, due to the proximity of the home to the Easement, along with the location of the sliding glass door, it appears that any deck of typical depth would at least partially encroach into the Easement. Finally, the Easement does not contain any infrastructure (e.g. storm sewer), it only encumbers a wetland. Thus, an encroachment likely would not impede any potential future maintenance within the Easement. Nonetheless, the Encroachment Agreement has been drafted such that the City retains its rights within the Easement area and, if it were ever necessary for the functionality of the Easement, includes a provision that would require the owner of the Subject Property to remove those portions of the Deck that encroach in the Easement area. Alternatives Alternative #1: Adopt Resolution #15-08-196 approving an Encroachment Agreement for the proposed deck. Without an Encroachment Agreement, it does not appear likely that any sort of deck with a typical or standard depth would be feasible based on the proximity of the home to the Easement and the location of the sliding glass door. Staff supports this option as it does not appear that the deck would negatively impact the purpose or function of the Easement.