Laserfiche WebLink
CC Regular Session 7. 2. <br /> Meeting Date: 05/24/2022 <br /> By: Brian McCann, Community <br /> Development <br /> Information <br /> Title: <br /> Adopt Resolution#22-114 Denying an Easement Encroachment Agreement for 16306 Lithium St NW(Project <br /> 22-122); Case of Igor Zhelayskyi <br /> Purpose/Background: <br /> The purpose of this case is to consider a request from Igor Zhelayskyi (the "Applicant") for a detached structure to <br /> continue to be placed within the property's drainage and utility easement near the west and south property lines of <br /> the property at 16306 Lithium St NW(the "Subject Property"). The Subject Property is approximately 0.31 acres. <br /> The currently placed building is a 10 x 12 foot shed to store items. The Subj ect Property is in the R-1 Residential <br /> (MUSA)Zoning District and guided as Low Density Residential in the Comprehensive Plan. The Subject Property <br /> is surrounded by other residential properties. <br /> Notification: <br /> Public notification is not required for an Easement Encroachment Agreement from the City Council. <br /> Observations/Alternatives: <br /> Summary <br /> Igor Zhelayskyi (the "Applicant")has requested an Easement Encroachment Agreement to keep a 10'x 12' <br /> detached shed(the "Structure")within the drainage and utility easement of the Subject Property. The Subject <br /> Property is surrounded by a ten(10') foot drainage and utility easement; the structure would encroach roughly four <br /> (4')into the southern side yard easement, and five (5') feet into the western rear yard easement. The structure meets <br /> accessory structure setback requirements of the R-1 (MUSA)Zoning District,but requires the agreement to remain <br /> within the drainage and utility easement. Section 117-349 of City Code regarding Accessory Uses and Buildings <br /> does note that no portion of a structure may encroach on a drainage and utility easement. <br /> The requested agreement is to allow the structure to encroach in the drainage and utility easement on the western <br /> and southern property lines. The Applicant was informed that City Staff would not be supportive of their request, <br /> and they were not willing to move the structure to another location on the property due to location of irrigation <br /> system lines. The Applicant would prefer to keep the structure in its current placement,which was not approved by <br /> City Staff and did not receive a permit prior to its construction. <br /> The City discovered and enforced the structure through the code enforcement process, and the encroachment <br /> agreement was provided as a potential course for resolution to the case. The Applicant responded to the City's code <br /> enforcement process in a reasonable amount of time, and has properly applied for a zoning permit which is <br /> currently in review. The proposed location met setbacks,but did not stay outside of easements. The Applicant was <br /> then informed to apply for the agreement as a potential resolution. Multiple City departments reviewed this request <br /> as part of Development Review, and are not supportive of it. <br /> City Code Sections <br /> • 117-349 (Accessory Uses and Buildings) <br /> • 117- 111 (R-I Residential District). <br /> Alternatives <br />