Laserfiche WebLink
5 <br /> 1 <br /> 2 Staff Report <br /> 3 <br /> 4 .=assistant VanderHeyden stated that when Nedegaard <br /> 5 Construction Company took over the project they were under <br /> 6 the impression that the previous construction cor:pany 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 Hamer . 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 /> 14 cloS_I to the str K'i J.' not il-mPact th_ s'ilrrc,._--:d- ?-g !a- n,-;' <br /> 15 area , particularly because the they ars one-story units <br /> 16 rather than two-story units . <br /> 17 <br /> 13 Chair:erson Madden _eked why the ccnst.­_ctien continued <br /> 19 after the discovery of the error . He also stated that the <br /> 20 drawing supplied was very difficult to interpret , because <br /> 21 the street , right of way line , and retaining wall are not <br /> 22 shown . He asked 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 /> 28 distance is approximately 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 for .Lot 17umber 2 should <br /> - 50 be four feet while the request for Lot Number 3 should be <br />