Laserfiche WebLink
6 <br /> 1 for eight feet . <br /> 2 <br /> 3 Mr. Nedegaard stated that the distance to the retaining wall <br /> 4 will be approximately ,18 feet on Lot Number 3 after the <br /> 5 variance request is granted , or four feet from the right of <br /> o way. Chairperson Madden asked whether Mr . Nedegaard <br /> 7 intended to install guardrail on top of the retaining wall , <br /> 8 and Mr. Nedegaard replied that he would be willing to look <br /> 9 at that option or to do additional landscaping on the <br /> 10 boulevard, if that is required. Mr . Nedegaard told the <br /> 1 Commission that he did not intentionally create the problem <br /> 12 and that he would be willing to construct the unit properly <br /> 13 unless some accommodation could be worked out. <br /> :4 <br /> 5 Commissioner Brownell asked whether the building was <br /> �6 designed in accordance with the final plat as approved by <br /> 17 City Council . Mr. Nedegaard replied that it was . <br /> _3 Com:nissioner Brownell stated that the building design does <br /> =9 not appear to be in accordance with the plan initially <br /> 20 submitted. Assistant VanderHeyden noted that the initial <br /> 21 plan had been changed . Commissioner Brownell stated that <br /> 22 the preliminary plat showed a 30-foot setback to the <br /> 23 buildings . <br /> 24 <br /> 25 Chairperson Madden asked Mr. Nedegaard for the measurement <br /> 26 of the Lot 1 side yard setback , and Mr . Nedegaard stated <br /> 27 that it is 15 feet . The Commission compared the preliminary <br /> 28 plat with the map of the property as it now exists , and <br /> 29 found a number of adjustments that had been made. <br /> 30 <br /> 31 Commissioner Wagner asked Mr . Nedegaard why he replied <br /> 32 affirmatively in his petition for variance that the <br /> 33 difficulty or hardship is caused by city ordinance . Mr. <br /> 34 Nedegaard replied that he didn ' t think the situation would <br /> 35 infringe on any of the neighbors . Commissioner Wagner <br /> 36 stated that he found it difficult to see how the hardship <br /> 37 was created by city ordinance since the city ordinance was <br /> 38 in place before the project was planned or built. Mr . <br /> 39 Nedegaard replied that the biggest hardship from his point <br /> 40 of view was that he entered the situation after the problem <br /> 41 had been created. <br /> 42 <br /> 43 Commissioner Hansen asked Mr. Nedegaard what he would do if <br /> 44 the variance request were denied. Mr . Nedegaard replied <br /> 45 that he would have to go back and rip the basement out and <br /> 46 conform exactly to the ordinance . <br /> 47 <br /> 48 The public hearing was closed at 8 : 13 p.m. <br /> 49 <br /> 50 Commissioner Wagner stated that he had no objection to <br />