Laserfiche WebLink
Alternative 1: Deny an Easement Encroachment Agreement. The location of the irrigation system could be easily <br /> resolved, and Staff do not feel is reasonable justification to leave the structure in the easement. The easement is near <br /> the location of a force main for the area. If the agreement is denied, the structure would have to be relocated outside <br /> of the drainage and utility easement, as required by City Code. Once relocated, Staff would approve the zoning <br /> permit currently in review. If the structure is not moved, the structure could be subject to further code enforcement <br /> actions including citations and potential abatement of the structure. City Staff are supportive of this alternative. <br /> Alternative 2: Approve an Easement Encroachment Agreement. The structure would be allowed to remain in its <br /> current placement, and could be removed if necessary as part of the agreement.No additional approvals would be <br /> required other than the active zoning permit that is still in review until this matter is resolved. If approved, Staff <br /> anticipate similar requests to come forward in the future. City Staff are not supportive of this alternative. <br /> Funding Source: <br /> The Applicant is responsible for all costs associated with this project and review. <br /> Recommendation: <br /> City Staff recommend adopting Resolution#22-114 denying an Easement Encroachment Agreement for an <br /> accessory structure at 16306 Lithium St NW. <br /> Action: <br /> Motion to adopt Resolution#22-114 denying an Easement Encroachment Agreement for an accessory structure at <br /> 16306 Lithium St NW. <br /> Attachments <br /> Site Location Map <br /> Sketch Plan <br /> First Notice of Violation <br /> ACTION-Resolution#22-114 <br /> Form Review <br /> Inbox Reviewed By Date <br /> Brian Hagen Brian Hagen 05/18/2022 06:26 PM <br /> Form Started By:Brian McCann Started On:05/09/2022 11:59 AM <br /> Final Approval Date:05/18/2022 <br />