Laserfiche WebLink
• 5 <br /> 1 <br /> 2 Staff Report <br /> 3 <br /> 4 Assistant Van:!erHeyden stated that when Nedegaard <br /> 5 Construction c=ompany took over the project they were under <br /> 6 the impression that the previous construction company had <br /> 7 designated the lot lines in accordance .with the setback <br /> 8 requirements . However, after the footings were installed, <br /> 9 the architect .reviewed the work and discovered the <br /> 10 eight-foot error . Nedegaard immediately notified Public <br /> 11 Works Director , Larry Hame-r. The two -units affected are <br /> 12 one-story units . Assistant VanderHeyden stated that city <br /> 13 staff is of the opinion that the units being eight feet <br /> 15 rea , par tlr`__arly ti'_ =,se the th=y a _,r:_-st•.._� _snits <br /> 16 rather than two-story .nits . <br /> 17 <br /> IS hai rL.erson moi '_... 1, tl r_ -.`i_ truCtn c,:ntiuc ? <br /> 19 after the discovery of the error . He also stated that the <br /> 20 drawing suppl -d was very difficult to interpret , because <br /> 21 the street , right Cr .J line , and retaining wall- ire not. <br /> 22 shown. He as=.ed what the relationship is between the <br /> 23 retaining wall and the right of way line , stating that , if <br /> 24 the distance is less than a certain number of feet , a <br /> 25 guardrail might be required by County-State Aid Highway <br /> 26 rules . Assistant VanderHeyden deferred to Bruce Nedegaard <br /> 27 of Nedegaard Construction Company, who stated that the <br /> 28distance is a-proximately five -feet . Chairperson Madden <br /> 29 stated that he would need. more information regarding the <br /> 30 retaining wall to make a decision. <br /> 31 <br /> 32 Commissioner Wagner pointed out that , according to the <br /> 33 drawing, the variance request should actually ask for a <br /> 34 four-foot setback variance on Lot 2 and an eight-foot <br /> 35 setback variance on Lot 3 . <br /> 36 <br /> 37 The public hearing was opened at 8 : 05 p.m. by Chair Madden , <br /> 38 who invited Bruce Nedegaard to present his case to the <br /> 39 Commission. <br /> 40 <br /> 41 Mr. Nedegaard stated that construction on the affected units <br /> 42 did not continue after the setback error was discovered . <br /> 43 The problem was not noticed until after the blocks were in, <br /> 44 .the backfilling was completed, and the crew had moved on to <br /> 45 the next unit . - The only work which was done on the affected <br /> 46 units after the error was discovered was to run water and <br /> 47 sewer into the units , which would neither affect nor be <br /> 48 affected by the- problem or the variance request . He <br /> 49 concurred that the variance request f(-r .lot Number 2 should <br /> 50 be four feet. while the request for Lot Number 3 should be <br />