Laserfiche WebLink
Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Kuzma, Councilmembers Heineman, Riley, Specht, and <br /> Woestehoff. Voting No: None. Present Not Voting: Councilmembers Howell and Musgrove. <br /> 7.02: Adopt Resolution#22-114 Denying an Easement Encroachment Agreement for 16306 <br /> Lithium St NW (Project 22-122); Case of Igor Zhelayskyi <br /> City Planner McCann reviewed the staff report. He stated the applicant is proposing to keep a 10 <br /> by 12-foot utility shed in its current placement within the drainage and utility easement. As the <br /> City code stands, they do not allow accessory structures in drainage and utility easements. The <br /> existing shed was discovered through the code enforcement process. He stated the applicant was <br /> offered alternate locations on the property that would meet requirements but they refused the <br /> locations due to conflicts with irrigation on the property. He stated the structure encroaches by <br /> five feet on two sides of the easement but does meet code for setbacks. He stated multiple <br /> departments of Staff reviewed this during one of the development review meetings and recommend <br /> adopting Resolution 422-114 denying an easement encroachment agreement because other viable <br /> locations are on the property and the irrigation concerns are not enough to necessitate the <br /> agreement. He stated the applicant is online. <br /> Councilmember Musgrove referenced the case and stated part of the reason why the applicant <br /> didn't want to move it out of the easement is because of irrigation. She asked City Planner McCann <br /> to explain how that would be impacted. <br /> City Planner McCann replied he spoke to the applicant and believed he was referring to the <br /> sprinkler system and if he were to bring it outside of the easement, farther into the yard, it would <br /> be over one or more of the sprinkler heads. <br /> Councilmember Musgrove asked for an explanation of the role that easement plays on the property. <br /> City Engineer Westby replied that is a drainage and utility easement and he believed there are no <br /> utilities underneath that easement and it is strictly needed for drainage. <br /> Councilmember Musgrove asked if it was the case that part of the shed is on blocks and part is on <br /> the ground. She asked that the picture of it be displayed and how easy it would be to move. <br /> Councilmember Woestehoff commented he understood her question and thought there were <br /> concrete footings. He thought the underlying question was if Council was comfortable allowing a <br /> building to exist in a drainage easement when there are other viable spots in the yard, regardless if <br /> it is easy to move or not. <br /> Councilmember Musgrove replied she was asking if it would be easy to move. <br /> Councilmember Woestehoff asked if Council was comfortable asking the applicant to move the <br /> building. <br /> City Engineer Westby commented the applicant is online but is not indicating a desire to speak at <br /> this time. <br /> City Council/May 24, 2022 <br /> Page 18 of 21 <br />