08-15-2016 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

PC Exhibit B Narrative Description of Conditiona! Use Permit Aaalication Mike and Janelfe Shields ("the Shields") recently constructed a new home on their property at 364 Westlake Street in Orono (the "Shields Property"). They are requesting a Conditianal Use Permit(CUP)alfowing them to maintain an existing retaining wall within 5 five of their common property line shared with Rabert D. Erickson (the"Property Line°). Robert Ericksan's property is at 372 Westlake Street (the "Eridcson Property"). The boulder wafl is approximately 80 feet long, extending from the Property Line comer ("Property Comer'� approximately 20 feet to the west, and 60 feet to the south. The walf is located entirely on the Shields Property and is less than four feet in height over its entire length. The wall is accurately depicted on the survey drawing that has been submitted as part of this application. The retaining wall was constructed approximate(y one foot from the Properly Line by a subcontractor working for LDK Builders, Inc., and encroaches upon a perimeter drainage and utility easement that benefits the City of Orono. The current drainage and utility easement extends five feet either side of the Property Line. Drainage flows for both the Shield's Property and the Erickson property are enhanced by the cunent location of the retaining wall and are significantly better than drainage pattems that would exist w�thout the wall, or with a re-located waN. Specifically, the wall minimizes the amount of surFace ffow from the Shields Property onto the Erickson Property since permits surFace runoff from the Shields' driveway to be sheet drained across the Shields Property rather than running onto the Erickson Property. The current Iocation of the retaining wall also enhances the privacy and control for both property owners since it is locatecf at the dividing line between the prope�ties and creates a natural separation without creating an orphaned area owned by the Shield's but more easily accessible from the Ericksan Property. In iieu of removing the retaining wall, the Shields reguest a CUP under which the City's future use of the easement is not impaired. Conditions for said permit could include execution of an Agreemertt by the Shields agreeing that the City is not obligated to restore or repair the wall in the event the City a�ts to use or modify the area of the easement now covered by the retaining wall. Altematively, said agreement could include the grant of a substitute easement area which is not covered by or impaired by the existing wall. Future City use or modification of the easement area that conflicts with the current location of the retaining wa1! seems unlikely. The perimeter easement terminates at the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka 171 feet south of the Property Comer.