The URL can be used to link to this page

PRE 2010 DOCS (2)City of Fridley, Minn. BUILDING PERMIT N° C538) Date: e Owner: Builder �.: Address _ Address OCAT.,, NFA BUILDING No. Street : I . - --= Part of t Lot _ Block `� Addition or Sub-Divtsin f Comer Lot _._ Inside Lot _ Setback — S yard Sewer Elevation Foundation Elevation DESCRIPTION OF BUILDING To Used,,��/' s i�,r �' _ Front s Depth -aif Z Height ,� . Sq. Ft. i Cu. F Ljr DepthHeight Y Sq. Ft. Cu. Ft Type of Construction ` .. e — Est. Cost �3. ' "2 & "io be Completed In consideration of the issuance to me of a permit to construct the building described above, I agree to do ==work work in accordance with the description above set forth and in compliance with all provisions of ordinances of the city of Fridley. In consideration of the payment of a fee of $'r- permit is hereby granted to to construct the building or addition as described above. This permit is granted upon the express condition that the person to whom it is granted and his agents, employees and workmen, in all work done in, around and upon said building, or any part thereof, shall conform in all respects to the ordinances of Fridley, Minnesota regarding location, construction, alteration, maintenance, repair and moving of buildings within the city limits and this permit may be revoked at any time upon viclation.at ay of the provisions of said ordinances. ., Building Inspector NOTICE: Ub permit does not cover the construction, installation for wiring, plumbing, gas heating, sewer or water. Be sure to no the Building IB3p9atMr for separate permits for 1111938 Items. .QW4 APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PHRUT CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA Owners Name Builder �-�° '�-'� • Address Address _ yyl r LOCATION OF BUILDING No. 1 l Street'J` Part of Lot ,� Lot Block . l i Addition or 5ub.Div. ` Corner Lot= side Lot Set Back 1 Side-Yard_bS- ,_.. SEM ELEVATION FOUNDATION ELEVATION Applicant attach to this form Certificate of Survey of Lot and proposad building location. DESCRIPTION OF BUILDING To be used ass Front Depth Height Sq. Ft. Cu. Ft. Front Depth Height Sq. Ft. Cu. Ft. Type of Construction Estimated Cost To be completed The undersigned hereby makes application for a permit for the work herein specified, agreeing to do all work in strict accordance with the City Ordinances and ruling of the Department of Buildings, and hereby declares that all the facts and representa- tions stated in this application are true and correct. DATE 9 ' 3 _ � ( SIGNATURE (A Schedule of Fee costs can be found on the Reverse Side.) Application for Power Pkmts and: Heating. Coding, Ventilation, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Systems and Devices PARTIAL RATE SCHEDULE GRAVITY WARM AIR: RATE TOTAL, Furnace Shell & Duct Work .......................... 8.00 $ Replacement of Furnace ............................. 5.00 $ Repairs & Alterations—up to $500.00 .................. 5.00 $ Repairs & Alterations each add. $500.00 ............... 2.50 $ MECH. WARM AIR Furnace Shell & Duct Work to 120,000 BTU ............ 8.00 $ /` .each add. 60,000 BTU .... . .................. 2.00 $ Replacement of Furnace 5.00 $ Repairs & Alterations—up to $500.00 .................. 5.00 $ Repairs & Alterations each add. $500.00 ............... 2.50 $ STEAM or HOT WATER SYSTEM Furnace Shell & Lines—to 400 sq. ft. EDR Steam ...... 8.00 $ Furnace Shell & Line --to 640 sq. ft. EDR Hot Water ... 8.00 $ Each add. 200 sq. ft. EDR Steam ...................... 2.50 $ Each add. 320 sq. ft. IDR Hot Water .................. 2.50 $ OIL BURNER—to 3 gal. per hour ........................ 5.00 $ over 3 gal. per hour—See Fee Schedule GAS BURNER (up to 400,000 BTU) ....................... 5.00 $� GAS FITTING FEES: NO RATE TOTAL 1st 3 Fixtures ...................... x $1.50 $ Additional Fixtures ................. x .50 $ Gas Range to 200,000 BTU ........... x 2.00 $ AIR CONDITIONING $ FAN HEATING SYSTEM See Fee Schedule VENTILATING SYSTEM ALTERATIONS & REPAIRS TOTAL Fa•� ROUGH FINAL Dept. of Bldgs. Phone SU. 4-7470 4 City of Fridley: The undersigned hereby makes application for a permit for the work herein specified, agreeing to do all work in strict accordance with the City Ordinances and ruling of the Department of Buildings, and hereby declares that all the facts and representations stated in this application are true and correct. ; Aey, 11 inn �© 19 Owner 0 Kind of Building / Used as To be completed about Estimated Cost, $ Old—New. Building Permit No. Permit No. DESCRIPTION OF WORK HEATING or POWER PLANTS—Steam, arm Air—No a'e- � Trade Name °" Size Capacity Sq. Ft. E D.R BTU H.P. Total Connected Load Kind of Fuel Li a'4 BURNER — Trade Name Size No Capacity Sq. Ft. E.D.R BTU H.P. (REMARKS -OVER) By ZZ -2:/X&4 ZA-4 z 4M 7_59 Business Phone No. ��/��' v Z- Windows an oors—Crackage and Area Width Height No. of Lineal ft. Area No.of pane of pane lights of crack sq. ft. "D-56 �sq. �-. ==�� -az Coef. LRIDLEY, HEAT LOSS CALCULAli Coef.1 DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING MINN. Weatherstrips S. N. elp I Construction No. Insulation Glass Guide Glass a -5D WdAws _ oor I Reference Out. Wall Int. Wall Ceiling Roof Floor Kind How Applied e No No 19— Net exp. wall Q F1.1 Room I Lenath,?® -R® 4 0 A°,' II / F1.1 Room I Length l' _ Width Height / Windows an oors—Crackage and Area Width Height No. of Lineal ft. Area No.of pane of pane lights of crack sq. ft. Width Height No. of Lineal f . Area No. of pale of pane Ilghts of cr�aick ft. �sq. Coef. Coef. Coef.1 Coef.1 Coef. Btu Infiltration /9 elp I 9A ®e49 Glass Glass a -5D Exp. wall ?,o 9 Net exp. wall Exp. wall Net exp. wall Int. wall Net exp. wall Q Int. wall -R® 4 0 /dl /x -g -p Int. wall Ceiling Gr / /O Zo /Q Ceiling /® o Floor �ZD, Total Btu. "..? / C. // a Required sq. ft. E.D.R. or sq. ins. W.A. Leader area FIJI;; , .,-,-JR-oom I Length 9' J9 idth //' Height � Windows an oors--Crackage and Area Width Height No. of Lineal ft. Area No.of pane of pane lights of crack sq. ft. Width eight No. of Lineal ft. Area No. of pane of pane lights of crack sq. ft. y / -/:, ® c.�.� /�: Coef. Coef. Coef.1 Coef.1 Btu Infiltration Glass /9 elp I 9A ®e49 Glass C;2 O a -5D Exp. wall ?,o 9 Net exp. wall Net exp. wall Int. wall Floor Q Int. wall -R® 4 0 Floor Ceiling Gr / /O Zo /Q Floor Total Btu. Required s t. E. . or sq. ins. W.A. Leader area / FQ41tr Tp,,,4yRoom I Length /s' Width A/ Heiaht A' Windows and Doors—Crackage and Area Width Height No. of Lineal ft. Area No.of pane of pane lights of crack sq. ft. zi7 .16 72 1 -Fe 77 Coef. Coef. Coef.1 Btu Infiltration // Glass /9 elp I / 1-71Z Glass C;2 O �5-® 1 IA -e-6 Exp. wall 1,51 Net exp. wall Net exp. wall Int. wall Floor Q Int. wall -R® 4 0 Floor Ceiling Gr / /O Zo /Q Floor Tbtal Btu. Required sq. ft. E.D.R. or sq. ins. W.A. leader area Windows and Doors--Crackage and Area Width Height No. of Lineal ft. Area No. of panne of paane lights of crack__ sq. ft. O {G PC's• ��" Coef. Coef. Coef. Btu Infiltration // Glass /9 Glass T3 Glass Exp. wall v, Net exp. wall 1;Z 0--0 Exp. wall Net exp. wall Net exp. wall Int. wall Floor Q Int. wall -R® 4 0 Floor Ceiling Gr / /O Zo /Q Floor Total Btu. Q;P'A Required sq. ft. E.D.R. or sq. ins. W.A. Leader area Windows and Doors—Crackage and Area Width Height No. of Lineal ft. Area No. of pane of panne lights of crack sq. ft. 1,9 Coef. Coef. Btu Infiltration of // Glass /9 Glass Exp. wall Exp. wall v, Net exp. wall Net exp. wall Ceiling Int. wall Floor D �e Ceiling -R® 4 0 Floor Total Btu. Required sq. ft. E.D.R. or sq. ins. W.A. Leader area FI.L-4? Room I Lengthrv'- Width/�'v Height ,r,� Windows and Doors—Crackage and Ana Width Height No. of Lineal ft. Area No. of pane of pane lights of crack sq. ft. ed. 49 Coef. Btu Infiltration of // Glass /9 -25-6 Exp. wall Net exp. wall Int. wall Ceiling Floor D �e '16 -R® 4 0 Total Btu. Required sq. ft. E.D.R. or sq. ins. W.A. Leader area 42 HEAT LOSS CALCULATIONS DEPARTMENT OF BUILDINGS FRIDLEY, MINN. Weatherstrips A.S.H.V.E. Construction No. Insulation Guide WindowsI Doors Reference Out. Wall Int. Wall Ceiling Roof Floor Kind How Applied Yes—No Yes—No 19— / FI.L,�/, 1 Room I Length AO' Width /,.2 '14-' 1 ' II Fl.l . t Room I I. Width /d ' Height ®- Windows and Doors—Crackage and Area Width Height No. of Lineal ft. Area No. of pane of pane lights of crack sq. ft. Width Height No. of Lineal ft. Area No. of pane of pane lights of crack sq. ft. d /z Coef. Btu Infiltration Coef. ICoef.1 Btu Infiltration Btu Infiltration Glass //,7V Glasses Ceiling Exp. wall Floor SO Exp. wall Net exp. wall — // p Net exp. wall Exp. wall e," -- Ceiling Int. wall /o t Floor ® Ceiling �. 6 /Q /-76a Floor 1 otal 13tu. Required sq. ft. E.D.R. or sq. ins. W.A. Leader area / Fl.1 Room I Length 'Width -,e,� Height 7' Windows and Doors—Crackage and Area Width Height No. of Lineal ft. Area No. of pane of pane lights of crack sq. ft. Width Height No. of Lineal ft. Area No. of pane of pane llghts of crack sq. ft. 1-3Z �� Q /� d /z Coef. Btu Infiltration Coef. Btu Infiltration CoeE Btu Infiltration Glass Int. wall — Ceiling Exp. wall Floor Glass Net exp. wall — // p Int. wall Exp. wall e," -- Ceiling /o t Floor ® 7 �. Total Btu. Required t. . or sq. ins. W.A. Leader area Fl.l ft tV dty Room I Lenath Widths _---5 i Heiaht ,G - Win ows and Doors—Crackage and Area Width Height No. of Lineal ft. Area No. of pane of pane lights of crack sq. ft. Width Height No. of Lineal ft. Area No. of pane of pane llghts of crack a//q/ft# 1-3Z �� Q /� d /z Coef. Btu Infiltration Coef.1 Btu Infiltration CoeE Btu Infiltration Glass Int. wall Ceiling Exp. wall �, y Floor Glass Net exp. wall // p Int. wall Exp. wall e," D Ceiling Floor ® �. Tbtal Btu. —5, e, /= a Required sq. ft. E.D.R. or sq. ins. W.A. Leader area Windows and Doors—Crackage and Area Width Height No. of Lineal ft. Area No. of pane of pane lights of crack sq. ft. Width Height No. of Lineal ft. Area No. of Dane of panne lights of crack eq. ft. /z Coef. Btu Infiltration /,7 CoeE Btu Infiltration Int. wall Ceiling Floor Glass Exp. wall e," D Net exp. wall Int. wall Ceiling Floor �3' ""5;"64 Total Btu. Required sq. ft. E.D.R. or sq. ins. W.A. Leader area L Fl.l Room I Length Width Height Windows and Doors--Crackage and Area Width Height No. of Lineal ft. Area No. of pane of pane lights of crack sq. ft. Coef. Btu Infiltration Glass Exp. wall Net exp. wall Int. wall Ceiling Floor Total Btu. Required sq. ft. E.D.R. or sq. iris. W.A. Leader area Fl.l Room I Length Width Height Windows and Doors—Crackage and Area Width Height No. of Lineal ft. Area No. of pane of pane tights of crack sq. ft. Coef. Btu Infiltration Glass Exp. wall Net exp. wall Int. wall Ceiling Floor Total Btu. ft. E.D.R. or so. ins. W.A. Leader area City of Fridley Application for Plumbing and Gas Fitting Porntit Dept. of Bldgs. Phone SII 4-7 DESCRIPTION OF WORK Number, Kind and Location of Fixtures PARTIAL RATE SCHEDULE PLUMBING FIXTURE RATES: NO. RATE TO AL Number Fixtures ...................... x $1.50 $ G 0 Future Fixture Opening ................ x 1.20 $ New Fixture Old Opening .............. x 1.00 $ Catch Basin ............................ x 3.25 $ Water Heater (Up to 200,000 BTU) ...... � x 2.00 $ c Z • U C/ New Ground Run Old Bldg . ............ x 3.25 $ GAS FITTING FEES: NO. RATE TOTAL 1st 3 Fixtures .......................... x $1.50 $ �. Additional Fixtures .................... x .50 $ Gas Range to 200,000 BTU .............. x 2.00 $ REPAIRS & ALTERATIONS—Refer to Code Description ................................................$ TOTAL FEE $ -Z CR City of Fridley: The undersigned hereby makes application for a permit for the work herein specified, agreeing to do all work in strict accordance with the City Ordinance and ruling of the Department of Buildings, and hereby declares that all the fact and representations stated in this application are true and correct. Own Kind of Building Used as To be completed about Estimated Cost, $ . Old—New. Building Permit ROUGH FINAL 19-!I�-/ 3 �� 3F cLL joy ac $ <3 t�°d c9 ? Z (90 • F • N WATER HTR. GAS ELEC. Base lot I 2nd _ 3rd 4th • Future Connection Openings New Fixture, Old Openings Connected with Sewer Cesspool PARTIAL RATE SCHEDULE PLUMBING FIXTURE RATES: NO. RATE TO AL Number Fixtures ...................... x $1.50 $ G 0 Future Fixture Opening ................ x 1.20 $ New Fixture Old Opening .............. x 1.00 $ Catch Basin ............................ x 3.25 $ Water Heater (Up to 200,000 BTU) ...... � x 2.00 $ c Z • U C/ New Ground Run Old Bldg . ............ x 3.25 $ GAS FITTING FEES: NO. RATE TOTAL 1st 3 Fixtures .......................... x $1.50 $ �. Additional Fixtures .................... x .50 $ Gas Range to 200,000 BTU .............. x 2.00 $ REPAIRS & ALTERATIONS—Refer to Code Description ................................................$ TOTAL FEE $ -Z CR City of Fridley: The undersigned hereby makes application for a permit for the work herein specified, agreeing to do all work in strict accordance with the City Ordinance and ruling of the Department of Buildings, and hereby declares that all the fact and representations stated in this application are true and correct. Own Kind of Building Used as To be completed about Estimated Cost, $ . Old—New. Building Permit ROUGH FINAL 19-!I�-/ City of Fridley, Minn. BUILDING PERMIT N® 6693 NrA nil� ✓/fit �//" , i.r % i117111T,73,+sr LO 10 F G No./JY/ Street P Lot Block Addition or S vision Corner Lot Inside Lot _ _� Isetbac r._ ideyard Sewer Elevation �— .— F dation Elevation DESCRIPTION OF BUILDING TO Front Depth Height Sq. Ft. C _ Cu. Ft.(,� F n Depth _ Height Sq. Ft. Cu. Ft. Type of Construction Est. Comir, *—To be Completed 3 --/9 46 .�.r In consideration of the issuance to me of a permit to construct the building described above, I agree to do the proposed work in accordance with the description above set forth and in compliance with all provisions of ordinances of the city of Fridley. X In consideration of the payment of a fee of $ , permit is hereby granted to to construct the building or addition as described above. This permit is granted upon the express condition that the person to whom it is granted and his agents, employees and workmen, in all work done in, around and upon said building, or anypaw thereof, shall conform in all respects to the ordinances of Fridley, Minnesota regarding location, construction, alteration, maintenance repair and moving ofbuildings within the city limits and this permit may be revoked at any p� of of any of the provisions said ordinances. Building inspector NOTICE: Uh penuh does not Cover the Construction, lmt&Won for WMh& phuAing, Cas hoating, sower or water. Be aura to no the Building Inspector for separate permits for those Ilene. . - f APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA Owner's Name 7 ®M C ®C N ft A N Builder In, F,S T f_' Eli e o m s T t o Address LtNDF' pit IV Address 3017- IL:N 0#9&I S 0&*7'N LOCATION OF BUILDING No. 1171 Street L: Ny r. 6 n 1 v 1 Part of Lot Lot L Block L Addition or Subdivision L YNVA .r dui t-ne i Corner Lot Inside Lot Setback Side -Yard SEWER ELEVATION FOUNDATION ELEVATION Applicant attach to this form Certificate of Survey of Lot and proposed building location. DESCRIPTION OF BUILDING To be used as: do_ A- IQ Air F Front 2 C1 Depth % Height Z Sq. Ft. 3+ YV Cu. Ft. _ !1,?40 Front Depth Height Sq. Ft. Cu. Ft. o® Type of Construction F n .4m F~ Estimated Cost ®® ® To be Completed n C -T 0 13 r r- 31 0/ 156 The undersigned hereby makes application for a permit for the work herein specified, agreeing to do all work in strict accordance with the City Ordinances and ruling of the Department of Buildings, and hereby declares that all the facts and representations stated in this application are true and correct. (A Schedule of Fee Costs can be found on the Reverse Side.) A* City of Fridley l AT THE TOP OF THE TWINS t t • COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIV. r PROTECTIVE INSPECTION SEC. � = t CITY HALL FRIDLEY 55432 612-560-3150 SUBJECT APPLICATION TO BOARD OF APPEALS NUMBER 910-F23 REV. 1 DATE 3/21/75 PAGE OF 1 2 APPROVED by-! 800 Name Address Phone Legal Description Lot No. j Block No. Tract or Addn. ,� L Variance Request(s); including stated hardships (attach plat gr survey of property showing building, variances, etc., where applicable)) //S S'&'O I /lZ /t't , /`% ��d L ' �.� e. e j-0 'l QpW oo 4:50Z ,4A fit %J Date Meeting Date Fee Receipt No. 8'6- 6S U Signature Comments & Recommendations by the Board of Appeals City Council Action and Date City of Fridley 3., AT THE TOP OF THE TWINS suaJECT APPLICATION TO BOARD OF APPEALS r- �`�------- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIV. r PROTECTIVE INSPECTION SEC. 1 . i � � CITY HALL FRIDLEY 55432 �•"'�' 'j 612-560-3450 (Staff Report) NUMBER 910–F23 REV. 1 DATE 3/21/75 PAGE OF 2 2 APPROVED by 800 Staff Comments Board members notified of meeting by List members, date notified, and "Yes" or "No" for plans to attend hearing. Plan Name Date To Attend 8'%7 17 77 Pearson making appeal and the following property owners having property within 200 .feet notified: By Whom Name Date Phone or Mail Notified _ Mr. & Mrs. Robert Johftbn 1070 Lynde Drive Mr. & Mrs. Robert prots, 106Q Lynde Drive Mr. & Mrs. Walter Hanson, 1050 Lynde Drive — Mr. & Mrs. Neil Allan, 1040 Lynde Drive Mr. & Mrs. Richard Rignell, 1171 Lynde Drive — Mr. & Mrs. Richard Larson 1161 Lynde Drive Mr. & Mrs. Arnold Ervasti, 1151 Lynde Drive Mr. & Mrs. Kenneth Tigue, 1141 Lynde Drive Mr. & Mrs. Dudley Persons, 1131 Lynde Drive Harry Kalow, 1090 Hathaway Lane — Mr. & Mrs. Stephen Eggert, 1080 Hathaway Lane David Anderson, 1070 Hathaway Lane Mr. & Mrs. Terry Reyes, 1060 Hathway Lane Roland Radil, 1081 Hathaway Lane Vernon D. Keinanen, 1091 Hathaway Lane — Mr. & Mrs. Earl Niewald, 1080 Hathaway Lane Mr. & Mrs. Paul Edegaard, 5740 Regis Drive Mr. & Mrs. Douglas Strong, 5720 Regis Drive — Mr. & Mrs. Warren Nolt, 1181 Lynde Drive Gilbert A. Mankveld, PO Box 447, Anoka 55303 — Mr. & Mrs. Allan Bohon, 5651 Regis Drive Mr. & Mrs. Paul Kirchner, 5691 Regis Drive Mr. & Mrs. James Legatt, 5701 Regis Drive '–' Mr. & Mrs. Eppel, 5721 Regis Drive N.E. Mr. & Mrs. Anthony Gnerre, 1202 Hathaway Lane Mr. & Mrs. Claude Little, 5690 Regis Drive mr. & Mrs. jonn Amerman, 565U Regis Drive Fridley School Board, 6000 West Moore Lake Drive OFFICIAL NOTICE CITY OF FRIDLEY PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE APPEALS COMMISSION TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that'thb Appeals Commission of the City of City of Fridley will meet in the Council Chamber of the City Hall at 6431 University Avenue Northeast on Tuesday, April 12, 1977 at 7:30 P.M. to consider the following matter: A request for a variance of Section 115.02, 5, A, to allow the use of an existing 6 foot horizontal redwood climbable fence as an enclosure for a swimming pool, located on Lot 1, Block 1, Lyndale Builder's 6th Addition, the same being 1171 Lynde Drive N.E., Fridley, Minnesota. (Request by Richard D. Rignell, 1171 Lynde Drive N.E., Fridley, Minnesota 55432). Anyone who desires to be heard with reference to the above matter will be heard at this meeting. VIRGINIA SCHNABEL CHAIRPERSON APPEALS COMMISSION Note: The Appeals Commission will have the final action on all residential variance requests unless there are objections from surrounding neighbors, the City Staff, or the petitioner does not agree with the Commission's decision. If any of these events occur, the request will continue to the City Council through the Planning Commission with only a recommendation from the Appeals Commission. City of Fridley November 1, 1976 Anoka County 6431 University Ave. Fridley, Minnesota 55432 Re: Fencing Requirements, Appeal for Variance I would like to bring to your attention all the considerations and facts that have led to this appeal for a variance in regard to the fencing of my property to meet city code requirements for swimming pool areas . First, in preparing this statement, I do not intend to 'out smart' the City of Fridley or neglect the responsibilities that involves pool owner- ship and safety factors that must be adhered to. My intent is to explain that I attempted to get all the information that I would need to even began making plans for installing a pool. Unless a person has ever considered buying such an item, it is difficult to imagine the planning it involves. The only thing I was certain of at the beginning was that a pool would fit in my yard. Some of the items I wasn't sure about and had to be considered were; excavating equipment and hauling trucks accessing my property and my neighbors' property. Removal of power lines and telephone lines. Removal of trees and shrubs, electrical hookups, gas line hookups, and where to dig trenches, etc. It's obvious that a person does not buy a swimming pool on a moments notice during a shopping spree and then later look at the problems that may come about . My wife and I took fourteen months to come to our dicision. It was our inclination at the start that our fence had to be one of the first items to be dealt with. The fence I have was installed several years before I moved in (1972). It is 230' of 6' redwood horizontal board privacy fence. This is an item worth several thousand dollars in material and installation cost, certainly a real concern on my part. In September of 1975 I made several calls to the city offices with questions about requirements in regard to things such as power lines, property lines, and questions on how close I could build to my neighbors' property line. I also attempted to get some of these details in writing but was unable. In fact, I think if you called today and told the city of your plans to install a pool and asked for any information in writing with regards to any critical requirements for wiring, fencing, gas hookups, etc. they would say it's not available. Yes, someone in the office may refer you to Mr. Ikemiller who is the electrical inspector for the city, or Mr. Sandine who is the gas line inspector. Thats' fine. FRIDLEY BOARD OF APPEALS o..MEEXHIBIT No.-A.- MEETING ETING DATE �Z 7 2 Two weeks ago I called Mr. Sandine and inquired about gas line hookups and told him of my intention to install a gas line leading from the outlet outside the house 87' back to my pool heater. He did not even tell me about the fifferent types of lines available or which kind to use. The only information I received from him was to 'go deep enough so that a spade won't hit it if I'm digging in the yard'. Yet, after all the trouble of putting in the line, I bet he will be there to inspect it and then tell me what I did wrong after I've done it. This is exactly what has happened with the fence situation. Early this spring (1976), my wife made further attempts through telephone conversations with the city hall to get more information. In each instance, the city office indicated that we should have no problems with our existing fence. In September 1976, after years of saving and months of planning, we signed a contract that involved thousands of dollars and a commitment on our part that meant alot of hard work ahead. Approximately one week after the pool company purchased a building permit from city hall, I, for the first time, received information from Mr. Olson (city inspector) with details about swimming pool requirements. Prior to this, all my conversations with people that had any knowledge of what would be necessary dealt with non-climable fence to todlers and children. In my estimation a 6' fence is certainly non-climable to children who are too young to know the danger of water. It is my feeling that the 'code' is even vague in stating what is required. It should state exactly what kind of fence. Whether is should be cyclone, vertical board on board, or whatever. It was irritating and shocking, to say the least, to have Mr. Olson walk onto my property without notifying me, ten minutes after com- pletion of construction, then turn and tell me that my fence would probably not meet city code requirements. I strongly feel that responsible city employees were neglegent in properly informing me of established city codes upon my direct request, and therefore I am requesting a variance. Richard D. Rignell Attached: 3 pictures of fence 1 picture of recent Tribune nevmphoto r 11'71 de- Dr. Fr d lecJ 5-21— I(p X 3 66e 19;000 � a t1a�n5 Ag909 ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT 1171 Lynde Drive N.E. A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT: Section 115.02, 5, A, requiring fencing that shall prevent the entrance of -h; lAron enable a pe Public purp intruders f B. STATED HARD. Had I been fence as a accompanyin, C. ADM I N I STRAT: The exi sti n, ✓ *� board on boi 7- - A letter fry 1976 to Mr. �t permit was including feet high, which is ink j perimeter o• Rignell of • r with the owt /, G�� failed to m( CS7z.Q was i nfotmec the fence of C L- City of Fridley SUBJECT P 13823 AT THE TOP OF THE TWINS BUILDING PERMIT i ` RtCEIPT NO. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIV. PROTECTIVE INSPECTION r SEC. 1 � = CITY HALL FRIDLEY 55432 NUMBER REV. DATE PAGE OF APPROVED BY ,•J 612-560-3450 1. 910-F15 10/13/76 JOB ADDRESS 1171 Lynde Drive N.E. 1 LEGAL LOT NO. BLOCK TRACTOR ADDITION SEE ATTACHED DESCR. 1 1 Lyndale Builders 6th I SHEET 2 PROPERTY OWNER MAIL ADDRESS ZIP PHONE Richard Rignell 1171 Lynde Drive N.E. 3 CONTRACTOR MAILADDRESS ZIP PHONE LICENSE NO. Aquarius Pool Co. 16900 Cedar Avenue South 4 ARCHITECT OR DESIGNER MAIL ADDRESS ZIP PHONE LICENSE NO. 5 ENGINEER MAIL ADDRESS ZIP PHONE LICENSE NO. 6 USE OF BUILDING Residential 7 CLASS OF WORK Ej NEW ❑ ADDITION ❑ ALTERATION ❑ REPAIR ❑ MOVE ❑ REMOVE 8 DESCRIBE WORK Install swimming pool 9 CHANGE OF USE FROM TO STIPULATIONS 51w=KXH Stipulations as per Environmental Officer's letter dated October 13, 1976. REQUIRED 'POR W11"46t PERMITS SEPERATE PER ,,, AND SIGNS• WARNING PLUMBING 1.1EATIWG, ed9fe digging cal! local utilities ,TELEPHONE - ELECTRIC - GAS EtC- ItgOUIREb BY LAW SEPARATE PERMITS ARE REQUIRED FOR ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, HEATING, TYPE OF CONST. OCCUPANCY GROUP OCCUPANCY LOAD VENTILATING OR AIR CONDITIONING. THIS PERMIT BECOMES NULL AND VOID IF WORK OR CONSTRUCTION ZONING SQ, FT. CU. FT. AUTHORIZED IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN 60 DAYS, OR IF CONSTRUCTION OR WORK IS SUSPENDED OR ABANDONED FOR A PERIOD OF 120 DAYS AT R-1 ANY TIME AFTER WORK IS COMMENCED. NO. DWLG. UNITS OFFSTREET PARKING 1 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ AND EXAMINED THIS APPLICATION STALLS GARAGES AND KNOW THE SAME TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT. ALL PROVISIONS OF LAWS VALUATION SURTAX AND ORDIN CES GOVERN" THIS YPE OF WORK WILL BE COMPLIED. $4,907 $2.45 WITH WH ER SPECIFIED E EIN R OT. THE GRANTING OF A PERMIT DOES N PRESUME TO V AU ORIVY TO VIOLATE OR CANCEL THE PERMIT FEE SAC CHARGE PR I ONS OF ANY OTH RTA OR LOCAL LAW REGULATING CO - $30 o0 ST TION OR THE ERF ANC OF CONSTRUCTION. R PLAN CHECK FEE TOTALFEE / _ hqN-1 $32.45 Ell I N TU E C N CTOR OR O CZE AGE IDAm WHEN PROPERLY VALIDATED THIS IS YOUR PERMIT • BLDG WSP DATE SIGNATURE OF OWNER IIF OWNER BUILDER"IDATEI 11 560.3450 ce�t� o� ¢"p��le� -, ANOKA COUNTY 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE NE October 13, 1976 FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432 Mr. Bill Schumacher Aquarius Pool Company 16900 Cedar Avenue South Rosemont, Mn. Re: Swimming Pool Construction at 1171 Lynde Drive N.E. Dear Mr. Schumacher: This letter is to make clear this departments requirements for the swimming Pool construction at the above address. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. As indicated, one (1) skimmer approved by the National Sanitation Foundation will be provided. As indicated, two (2) inlets of approved design for fresh and/or repurified water will be provided. , As indicated, a main drain of approved construction will be provided. The filter and pump shall be approved by the N.S.F. and be of sufficient capacity to provide a minimum turnover of at least two (2) times in 24 hours. This department recommends a turnover rate of 6-8 hours. A deck of at least three (3) feet wide, measured from the pool water's edge, shall be provided which extends completely around all private residential pools. Above ground private residential pools may be provided with decking of a minimum size of 4 feet by 4 feet at pool entry points and provided that such decking has the approval of the City. The diving area will be acceptable provided there is no overhead obstruction. A fence or other suitable barrier, a minimum of six (6) feet high, that affords no external hand or foot holds and which is impenetrable by toddlers, must be provided around the entire perimeter of the pool. All gates and other accesses shall be equipped with self-closing and self -latching devices which are capable of being locked. An automatic chlorinator should be provided with a suitable test kit. All electrical and plumbing installations shall be inspected and approved by the City Inspection Department. All electrical lines must be 10-20 feet or more away from the pool surface. The pool fill spout must be air gapped or protected by a vacumn breaker. Mr. Bill Schmacher Aquarius Pool Company October 13, 1976 Page 2 12. Suitable safety equipment to include but not limited to a ring buoy and rope that is A .times the pool diameter, and shepards crook pole must be provided and maintained with the pool at all times. Furthermore, these and any other requirements must meet the provisions of the Fridley City Code, Section 115, Swimming Pools. The building permit is approved contingent on final inspections and approval by the City. If any questions or problems arise from.this letter, please feel free to contact me at 571-3450, ext. 170. Sincerely S Environmental Officer SJO/mh CC: Mr. Richard Rignell 1171 Lynde Drive N.E. 4 ' CITY OF FRIDLEY APPLICATION FOR. RESIDENTIAL BUILDING. PERMITS (NEW, ALTERATIONS, ADDITIONS, OR REPAIRS) OWNER'S NANE 4dc2 rl XV fl BUILDER: !� © • ADDRESS:, - l iA Wa ]:2y, ADDRESS: `W O rJ�� V e SD TEL No:. % STREET: Z r, LOT:BLOCK: ADDITION: CORNER LOT: INSIDE LOT: SETBACK: SIMARD: Applicant attach to this form Two Certificates of Survey of Lot and proposed building location drawn on these Certificates. DESCRIPTION OF BUILDING To Be Used As: L4Front: Depth: P Height: Square Feet: Cubic Feet: Front: Depth: Height: Square Feet; Cubic Feet: Type of Construction: .*To Be Completed: Estimated Cost:2- The undersigned hereby makes application for a permit for the work herein specified, agreeing to do all work in sttict accordance with the City of Fridley Ordinances and rulings of the Department of Buildings, and hereby declares that all the facts and representations stated in this apication are true and correct. DATE: v / - SIGNATURE: L (See Reverse Side For Additional Information.) 560-3450 cittyof 7ricllety ANOKA COUNTY 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE NE October 28, 1976 FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432 Mr. Richard Rignell 1171 Lynde Drive N.E. Fridley, Mn. 55432 Re:' Fencing Requirements Around a Private Pool Dear Mr. Rignell: This letter,will reiterate our conversation of October 27, 1976 and make clearb:the,City's requirementt with regard to the fence around your swimming pcttlz,: Section 115,, par'agreph S, of the City '_Swimzding Pool Code. says that; 5. Fencing. Fencing or other effective means including but not limited to walls or buildings, -acceptable to the City, shall be proyided'to positively control all access to public and- , private residential swimming pools. Fencing shall meet the following criteria: a),-n'e_ fencing shall prevent the entrance of children and be without hand or foot holds that would enable a person to climb over'it. bi- The fencing shall be at least 6 feet high and entrances skull be equipped with..self-closing and self -latching gates capable of being locked. c$ Self-closing and self -latching devices shall be.placed- au the top of -the -gate or otherwise inaccessible to small children. d) The opening between the bottom of the fence and the ground or other surface shall be not more than four inches. :My 'on,s'ite inspection on October 25, 1976 determined that your fence . `consisted of 1` x 6" boards running horizontally with each board alternating from,one side of the post to the other. I:have consulted with my supervisor, Mr. Darrel Clark, Community Development Administrator, and it is our opinion that this type of fence fails to meet the Code specifications calling for.no hand or foot holds in the fence. Therefore, the City must require you to bring your fence into compliance by reconstructing it or by coming in and applying for and receiving approval -I of a variance that would permit you to keep your fence -ds it is. - , . ' Mr. Richard Rignell October 28, 1976 Page 2 It is expected that the fence will be brought into compliance as described above on or before April 1, 1977 at which time a reinspection will be conducted to determine compliance. We are confident in your cooperation and if this letter creates any questions or problems, please feel free to call on me at 571-3450. Sincerely, 'OF J. SJO/mh ficer 560-3450 Cif o ANOKA COUNTY 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE NE October 28, 1976 FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432 Mr. Richard Rignell 1171 Lynde Drive N.E. Fridley, Mn. 55432 Re: Fencing Requirements Around a Private Pool Dear Mr. Rignell: This letter will reiterate our conversation of October 27, 1976 and make clear the City's requirements with regard to the fence around your swimming pool. Section 115, paragraph 5, of the City Swimming Pool Code says that; J ; 5. Fencing Fencing or other effective means including but not limited to walls or buildings, acceptable to the City, shall be provided to positively control all access to public and private residential swimming pools. Fencing shall meet the following criteria: a) The fencing shall prevent the entrance of children and be without hand or foot holds that would enable a person to climb over it. b) The fencing shall be at least 6 feet high and entrances shall be equipped with self-closing and self -latching gates capable of being locked. c) Self-closing and self -latching devices shall be placed - at the top of the gate or otherwise inaccessible to small children. d) The opening between the bottom of the fence and the ground or other surface shall be not more than four inches. My on site inspection on October 25, 1976 determined that your fence consisted of 1" x 6" boards running horizontally with each board alternating from one side of the post to the other. I have consulted with my supervisor, Mr. Darrel Clark, Community Development Administrator, and it is our opinion that this type of fence fails to meet the Code specifications calling for.no hand or foot holds in the fence. Therefore, the City must require you to bring your fence into compliance by reconstructing it or by coming in and applying for and receiving approval of a variance that would permit you to keep your fence as it is. Mr. Richard Rignell October 28, 1976 Page 2 It is expected that the fence will be brought into compliance as described above on or before April 1, 1977 at which time a reinspection will be conducted to determine compliance. We are confident in your cooperation and if this letter creates any questions or problems, please feel free to call on me at 571-3450. Sincerely, SJO/mh 560-3450 Croy o/ yridley ANOKA COUNTY 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE NE October 13, 1976 FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432 Mr. Bill Schumacher Aquarius Pool Company 16900 Cedar Avenue South Rosemont, Mn. Re: Swimming Pool Construction at 1171 Lynde Drive N.E. Dear Mr. Schumacher: This letter is to make clear this departments requirements for the swimming pool construction at the above address. 1. As indicated, one (1) skimmer approved by the National Sanitation Foundation will be provided. 2. As indicated, two (2) inlets of approved design for fresh and/or repurified water will be provided. 3. As indicated, a main drain of approved construction will be provided. 4. The filter and pump shall be approved by the N.S.F. and be of sufficient capacity to provide a minimum turnover of at least two (2) times_ in 24 hours. This department recommends a turnover rate of 6-8 hours. 5. A deck of at least three (3) feet wide, measured from the pool water's edge, shall be provided which extends completely around all private residential pools. Above ground private residential pools may be provided with decking of a minimum size of 4 feet by 4 feet at pool entry points and provided that such decking has the approval of the City. 6. The diving area will be acceptable provided there is no overhead obstruction. 7. A fence or other suitable barrier, a minimum of six (6) feet high, that affords no external hand or foot holds and which is impenetrable by toddlers, must be provided around the entire perimeter of the pool. All gates and other accesses shall be equipped with self-closing and self -latching devices which are capable of being locked. 8. An automatic chlorinator should be provided with a suitable test kit. 9. All electrical and plumbing installations shall be inspected and approved by the City Inspection Department. 10. All electrical lines must be 10-20 feet or more away from the pool surface. 11. The pool fill spout must be air gapped or protected by a vacumn breaker. ,r • ' Mr. Bill Schmacher Aquarius Pool Company October 13, 1976 Page 2 12. Suitable safety equipment to include but not limited to a ring buoy and rope that is 1� times the pool diameter, and shepards crook pole must be provided and maintained with the pool at all times. Furthermore, these and any other requirements must meet the provisions of the Fridley City Code, Section 115, Swimming Pools. The building permit is approved contingent on final inspections and approval by the City. If any questions or problems arise from.this letter, please feel free to contact me at 571-3450, ext. 170. Sincerely, STEVEN J. OLSON Environmental ^fficer SJO/mh CC: Mr. Richard Rignell 1171 Lynde Drive N.E.��p` ,J/; z (2'ae4'n I® . Appeals Commission Meeting April 12, 1977 Page 3 this property, two different addresses, in fact, everything was separate except the legal title. Mrs. Schnabel said that she felt it should be pointed out that Mr.Coddon owns all the land on this parcel and one building. The other building is under separate ownership. Mr. Coddon said that he would like to sell the b6ilding he owns with the land to the person renting the building. He would like to divest his interest in this property. Mr. Kemper said he felt that this was more of a housekeeping item. Mrs. Gabel had some questions on the advertising signs on the property. Mr. Coddon-said there were two different signs, one for each property. Mrs. Gabel questioned if one of the signs were legal, but said that could be checked out by City Staff at a later time. Mr. Coddon said that it was probably confusing because one sign was for the service station and an automatic car wash, and one sign was for the self-service car wash, which were two separate businesses. Mr. Holden asked Mr. Coddon if there was anything inflamable stored on the premises for the automatic car wash. Mr. Coddon said he didn't think so because they had all underground storage tanks. Mr. Holden said that he had just spoken to Robert Aldrich before this meeting, and he agreed that his statement was still stood as far as this property was concerned about the danger of conflagration of fire. Mr. Holden said the construction of the common walls between the two buildings did meet all the requirements of the building code. There were no openings in the common wall area. MOTION by Plemel, seconded by Barna, to close the Public Hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the Public Hearing was closed at 7:50 P.M. Mrs. Schnabel said that she was glad that Mr. Holden had checked with Mr. Aldrich for his concerns on -fire protection, because she thought that would be the main concern of the Commission. Mr. Plemel said that the buildings were not going to move whether there was a variance granted or not. Mrs. Schnabel said that one of the concerns of the Planning Commission was that the ownership might change on the self-service car wash building, and that owner could change the nature of the business in that building. If a building permit was requested for a change of use of this building, there would have to be a check made as to what type of material they were going to use or store in that building, but at this point, she didn't think that was an issue. MOTION by Kemper, seconded by Barna, that the Appeals Commission recommend to Council, through the Planning Commission, approval of the request for a variance of a sideyard setback from the required 15' to 5' for 7300 and 7320 University Avenue N.E. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 2. REQUEST FOR VARIANCE OF SECTION 115.02, 5, A, FRIDLEY CITY CODE, TO ALLOW THE USE OF AN EXISTING 6FOOT HORIZONTAL REDWOOD CLIMBABLE FENCE c H Rri c T C n_ I nCATFD ON L OT -1 -BLOCK ALE MINNESOTA. (Request by Richard D. Rignell,iynae urive n►,tr., "Fridley, Minnesota 55432). MOTION by Gabel, seconded by Plemel, that the Public Hearing be opened. Appeals Commission Meeting April 12, 1977 Page 4 Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the Public Hearing opened at 8:03 P.M. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT: Section 115.02, 5, A, requiring fencing that shall prevent the entrance of children and be without hand of foot holds that would enable a person to climb over it. Public purpose served by this requirement is to protect unescorted intruders from the dangers of the pool area. B. STATED HARDSHIP: Had I been properly informed, I would not have used my existing fence as a pool fence. (This is a 'summary paraphrase of petitioner's accompanying letter.) C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: The existing fence which was used as a pool enclosure is a horizontal board on board fence which does afford external foot and hand holds. A letter from Steven Olson, Environmental Officer, dated October 13, 1976 to Mr. Bill Schumacher of Aquarius Pools was included when the permit was issued. This letter contained several requirements, including "A fence or other suitable barrier, a minimum of six (6) feet high, that affords no external hand holds or foot holds and which is inpenetrable by toddlers, must be provided around the entire perimeter of the pool." A copy of the letter was sent to Mr. Richard Rignell of 1171 Lynde Drive. The matter of the fense was discussed with the owner and City Staff and it was determined that the fence failed to meet the requirement of being "non -climbable". The owner was informed by letter on October 28, 1976, to either reconstruct the fence or obtain a variance to retain the fence as is. Mr. Richard Rignell was present. a Mr. Ron Holden said there were some pictures in the file that Mr. =pignell had given to the City. He said that basically there was some misunderstand- ing between the petitioner and City Staff on information he had received over the telephone well in advance of construction of the swimming pool, as to what the requirements were for such construction. At the time the pool permit was taken out, a copy of the requirements were given to the pool company with a copy of the requirements going to Mr. Rignell. He said this letter was dated October 13, 1976. He said that he thought that most of the misunderstanding came from this being a board on board fence, but the fact that it was horizontal board on board makes it climbable, almost like a ladder. Chairwoman Schnabel said that all the members of the Appeals Commission had received a copy of Mr. Rignell's letter that accompanied the variance request and she wanted that letter received so it would be part of the record of the proceedings. MOTION by Plemel, seconded by Barna, that the Appeals Commission receive the letter from Mr. Rignell explaining his hardship. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Appeals Commission Meeting - April 12, 1977 Page 5 Mr. Rignell said that it was unfortunate that he didn't get anything in writing when he questioned the City Staff over the telephone. He said that he made the decision to have a swimming pool assuming that the fence he had would meet the requirements for a pool, and it wasn't until after the building permit for the pool had been issued and construction had almost been completed before Mr. Olson inspected the site and said that the fence would not meet the requirements of the swimming pool ordinance. Mr. Rignell they addressed the Appeals Commission to show them on a drawing where the fences of other neighbors were located and where there was open area. He said the point he was trying to make was that the area was not very accessible. Mr. Plemel asked if there wasn't some way that this fence could be altered to meet the code. Mr. Rignell said that when you start moving redwood around a lot of it would break and he felt it would be a complete waste of lumber. Mr. Holden said that another alternative would be to move the inside board to the outside and fit it into the spaces. Mr. Rignell said that he had discussed this matter with his insurance agent who was with a reputable company, and its their contention that having a six foot fence that anyone who gets over that fence, he can not be liable for. Mr. Plemel said the the courts can interpret things much differently than an insurance company. Mrs. Gabel wondered what the legal ramifications would be, if we were to approve a variance from the City Code, and allow a climbable fence as a pool enclosure, and there was an unfortunate accident. Mr. Holden said that in cases like that, they tend to sue everyone in sight. Mrs. Schnabel said that besides the children in the neighborhood who would be aware that there was a pool on the property, she was also concerned about the children from North Park School which is less than a block away. She said that when she visited the site, the portion of the fence that was closest to the gate was not 6 ft. high. Mr. Rignell said a board had been removed during construction of the pool, and because of the terrain in this area, the fence looked lower. Mr. Rignell said that he felt one deterrent was that you had to get right up to the fence before you could see the pool. It was not attractive from a distance. He said that he had not chased a child off this fence in the four years he has lived at this location. Mrs. Schnabel said that she was distressed that Mr. Rignell had not received the correct information from City Hall and that he had such a difficult time in getting any information. Mrs. Schnabel said they did encourage the neighbors to voice their opinions on any variance request, and if they got no response from the neighbors, then they had no way of knowing if the neighbors agree with the variance or not, so in this spirit she hoped that Mr. Rignell would realize that the neighbors should voice their concerns and hoped he would understand that this was a necessary thing. She said they had received a letter from one neighbor, a Mr. & Mrs. James Legett of 5701 Regis Trail. MOTION by Barna, seconded by Plemel, that the Appeals Commission receive this letter. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mrs. Schnabel read the letter which made two points: (1) They have a 13 month old child and have people visiting them with small children, (2) There is a tiny tot program in the summer at the school across the street, and 4 year olds Appeals Commission Minutes, April 12, 1977 Page 6 could be very tempted when walking home on a very hot summer day. Mr. Douglas Strong, 5720 Regis Drive, asked that when a pool permit was taken out, when was the first inspection made. Mr. Holden said that when they ..ter• called in for an inspection. He said the electrical inspector and plumbing inspector made the first inspections, and there weren't many inspections on a pool until they were completed. He said the inspections were made by the Environmental Officer then. He said that pool construction,as opposed to building inspection, there wasn't much inspection that could be made when they were pouring concrete. Mr. Strong asked who checked on the location of the pool. Mr. Holden said it was up to the contractor and owner to see that the pool was located as they had proposed to locate in on the survey that was presented with the request for a building permit. Mr. Strong said that he felt the City had Out a burden on Mr. Rignell when after the pool was already constructed, they then told him he had to have a 6' unclimbably fence. He said that there lot was back to back with Mr. Rignell's property and he had a 6' vertical fence. He said that he had a 4 year old and two other children, and he said he had a problem with the wording of toddlers and children, because he knew that his four year old had climbed the fence, but had not gone over the fence. He said that this week end he had counted 8 children under ten,playing in his yard, and they were concerned about one of those children climbing over the fence. He said they were upset with the City. also, because this puts a burden on us, and we have to live with our neighbors. Mr. Kemper said that he was looking at a copy of the building permit that was issued for this swimming pool on October 13, 1976. On this permit it states that the stipulations are in the letter from Steven Olson dated the same date. This was sent to the pool company and to Mr. Rignell, and item 7 of the stipulations does give the fence requirements for a swimming pool enclosure. He said that it states no hand holds or foot holds, and the picture that you have presented of your fence, clearly indicates that this fence would not meet this requirement. He said he didn't know if Mr. Rignell had been led down the primrose path, but the stipulations on the building permit were crystal clear. Mr. Kemper asked when construction on the pool was started. Mr. Rignell said they broke ground on October 23rd and finished the pool on October 25th. Mr. Strong said that he thought if a board was added on one side of the fence, this would eliminate the objections from the neighbors. Mrs. Carol Eppel, 5721 Regis Drive, said that she agreed with Mr. Rignell that if somone was over the fence, they did not belong there, but that was an afterthought if an accident should happen. She said she would not like to see the variance granted. There were over 50 children living in this neighborhood, and whether Mr. Rignell did or did not get the correct information from the City, it still is a climbable fence and she would like to see this changed. Mr. Rignell said there were alternatives to making this fence not climbable, but he didn't see how the City could be held liable if this fence was left the way it was and the variance was granted. Mr. Kemper said he wasn't concerned about liability, he was more concerned about a human life. Mr. Kemper said that if the Appeals Commission did recommend denial of this request, he didn't think they should stipulate how the fence should be changed to meet the code. He said this was a matter of economics and it should be left to Mr. Rignell's discretion on how this fence could be changed to meet the code. Mr. Holden said that Mr. Rignell was given a deadline of April 1st, 1977 to either change the fence so that it met the code, or request a variance. He said that he wanted to apoligize to Mr. Rignell for getting either the wrong information or not _e Appeals Commission Meeting April 12, 1977 Page 7 not the information he needed when he contacted the City. He said this problem had made the City Staff consider a new policy for pool permit. Before any pool permit would be issued when the use of any existing fences or other structures was proposed, an on-site inspection would be required. The existing structures would be checked for compliance and any questions answered for the homeowner. He said the pool companies wouldn't be very happy with this delay, but they didn't want to have a reoccurrence of what happened to Mr. Rignell. Mr. Barna said he wanted the Council to know that he did not feel that a chain link fence met the requirements for a non -climbable fence. Other members of the Commission agreed with him. MOTION by Barna, seconded by Kemper, that the Appeals Commission close the Public Hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the Public Hearing was closed at 8:50 P.M. Mrs. Gabel said she felt this was an extremely unfortunate incident, but this was something that could happen when there was a new ordinance. She said she was sure that this would not make Mr. Rignell any happier because it was at his expense. She still felt that she could not go along with this request, because after seeing the fence there would be no deterrent to stop a small child from climbing this fence. Mr. Kemper said it was a climbable fence and we have neighbors who are opposed -to the variance, so he was not in favor of it being granted. Mr. Plemel said that it was unfortunate that the petitioner was going to have to come up with money out of his pocket to modify the fence, but if the City had made the inspection even a year ago, this fence would still have had to be modified before he could get a pool permit. Mr. Barna said we could discuss responsibility, liability, and toddlers and children, but he would hate to have a child have an accident in the pool, whether the owner was liable or not. He said he felt this was a moral and emotional issue rather than legal liability. MOTION by Kemper, seconded by Plemel, that the Appeals Commission recommend to Council, through the Planning Commission, denial of the request for a variance to allow a climbable fence to be used as a pool enclosure. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 3. NG HAMILTON'S ADDITION TO MECHANICSVILLE, THE SAME BEING 451-453 54TH AVENUE N.E. FRIDLE , MINNESO(Request by John A. Saccoman, 5470 7th Street N.E., Fridley, Minnesota 55432). MOTION by Plemel, seconded by Barna, that the Public Hearing be opened. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the Public Hearing was opened at 9:00 P.M. Appeals Commission Meeting April 12, 1977 Page 8' ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT: Section 205.053, 4, A, requiring a front yard setback of 35 feet. Public purpose served is to allow for off-street parking -without encroaching on the public right of way. Also for aesthetic con- sideration to reduce the "building line of sight" encroachment into the neighbor's front yard. B. STATED HARDSHIP: Hardship would be a 20 ft. wide house instead of a 24 ft. wide house. C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: The lot in question is zoned R-2 (single and two family dwellings). The only size house that one could be able to build without a variance would be 20 ft. deep. There are no adjacent houses facing 54th Avenue on this side of the street. There is approximately seven feet of boulevard in this area. Mr. John Saccoman was present. Mr. Holden said this would be the only dwelling facing 54th Avenue. The lot was 130' x.80' and due to the shallowness of the lot, this was the only way the house could be built to meet the other set back requirements. He said the property to the rear of this lot was the parking lot for the apartment complex. Mrs. Schnabel said this must be going to be an up and down duplex instead of a side by side. Mr. Saccoman said that was correct. Mr. Saccoman said he had a solar energy system build into the house to be used as auxilliary heat, but he didn't know if he could get financing on the house with this option, so he may have to scrap that part of the plan. Mrs. Schnabel said there were a lot of trees on this lot. Mr. Saccoman said that most of them were in the center of the lot where the duplex would be built so most of them would have to go. He said he could probably save a couple of trees on the back of the lot. Mr. Holden told Mr. Saccoman that the garage was too small to meet the requirements for a duplex, but there was enough width on the lot to increase the size to meet the requirements. Mrs. Schnabel said there was a 7' boulevard so the house would be 38 feet from the street. MOTION by Barna, seconded by Babel, that the Appeals Commission close the Public Hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the Public Hearing was closed at 9:13 P.M. MOTION by Barna, seconed by Gabel, that the Appeals Commission 11 CITY OF FRIDLEY APPLICATION FOR POWER PLANTS AND HEATING, COOLING, VENTILATION, REFRIGERATION AND AIR CONDITIONING SYSTEMS AND DEVICES PARTIAL RATE SCHEDULE' GRAVITY I AP -M AIR: RITE TOTAL Furnace Shell & Duct Work $12.00 $ Replacement of Furnace 7.00 $ Repairs & Alterations -up to $500.00 7.00 $ Repairs & Alterations each add. $500.00 4.00 $ MECHANICAL WAR>i AIR: Furnace Shell & Duct Work to 100,000 BTU $12.00 $ each add. 50,000 BTL' 4.00 $ Replacement of Furnace 7.00 $ Repairs & Alterations -up to $500.00 7.00 $. Repairs & Alterations each add. $500.00 4.00 $ STEAM OR HOT tiINTER SYSTEM: Boiler & Lines up to 100,000 BTU $12.00 $ each addn. 50,000 BTU 4.00 $ Boiler only up to 100,000 BTU 7.00 $ each: addn. 50,000 BTU 6.00 $ OIL BURNER- to 3 gal. per hour $10.00 $ each add. 3 gal. per hour 10.00 $ GAS BURNER- from 100,000 BTU to 199,999 BTU $10.00 $ (over 199,999 BTU see Fee Schedule) $ GAS FITTING FEES: 1st 3 Fixtures x $ 3.00 $ Additional Fixtures x $ 1.00 $ Gas Range to 199,000 BTU x $10.00 $ AIR CONDITIONING �1 $ FAN HEATING SYSTEMS _ See Fee Schedule $ VENTILATING SYSTEMS $ ALTERATION'S $ REPAIRS-� $ State Surcharge $ .50 TOTAL FEE $ 004-b I ROUGH INSP. FINAL INS?. Date APPROVAL FOR PERMIT REINSPECTION FEE (.$10.00) MINIMUM FEE FOR ANY HEATING PER"4IT IS $7.50 Job Address Department of Buildings City of Fridley Tel. #x571-3450 The undersigned hereby makes application for a permit for the work herein specified agreeing to do all work in strict accordance with the City Codes and rulings of the Department of Buildings, and hereby declares that all the facts and representations stated in;this application are true and correct. Fridley, Minn. OWNER KIND OF BUILDING USED AS TO BE COMPLETED ABOUT ESTIMATED COST 4/ LD - NEW BUILDING PERMIT NO. PERMIT NO. /7-j DESCRIPTION OF FURNACE/BURNER HEATING or POWER PLANTS, Steam, Hot Water, Warm Air- No. Trade Name Size No. Capacity Total Connected Load Sq. Ft. EDR BTU HP Kind of Fuel BURNER - Trade Name Size No. Capacity Sq. Ft. EDR BTU HP Company Signed By Tel. No. •6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE Richard D. Rignell 1171 Lynde Drive N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Dear Mr. Rignell.: CITY COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN NOTICE officially xpvx)ox%*X-xVxX)m, with the stipulations liste CITY. OF DRir.3LE�',., . N.E., FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 66432 TELEPHONE ( 612)571-3450 May 11, 1977 AMX denied your reauest_.for a variance for below. present type fence for swimming pool enclosure. Please review the noted stipulations, sign the statement below, and return one copy to the City of Fridley. If you have any questions regarding the above action, please call the Community Development Office at 571-3450. Sincerely, ,CERR LLD L. BOARD,TIAN ITY PLANNER JLB/de Stipulations: Concur with action taken. �OLUT�Op� m J C 1171 Lywde Dxive NE 0 sb-A* n At 2- Aft - o•i� 30 VW" ki 40 At +s " • S: 4 i iZ... spat � � A► � n x g +� f3� u J7 4v $?* 2 �g► rZt g y, . 4t►i �. �a ♦v 03 ^� � �...... 'pP 'Aa q-v9rn • a � .! i.-. !w,plA:• t =+ ` ` 7 �' ► db Vii.- `'�!°.4 +� - .i•01'Oe . '�P��t - nom•? sf�q f • '.p. ,` s4• s0 n ai n x as t6 71 s" : ' [, !• q �'' /3 ♦ V R� i i �d '4 a ¢i M lia, 000, 9 /f 1139 ` 75 7f a 9 8 7 6• ! � o•�, j • ,/� Ply.p rose ?tI$i 7Y 7Y 7S V � �� f �� Af -- %- I�;py.,�r�.p.s3•H ¢is1l�T`742 Tlt J6. n � Eo av �• i' LYNDE DRIVE s ,9 t6lS J9 9f!3 rf.i1 ./#, IO �1S Tl 7tAs Tw .y. d 7 /Gi SjO-I�l '� ! 1 / � � :,°• ® 7 6 S 4 3 1 lit 1r3i -n 97 % +7 e• $t ' -�+ ,plc ,' 9.04•// 1%.w+ AUDI 1 OR J ,' of ae�z -s4 sm�. zs 5 =''S,V I -i- (-r` jj-=--T"' .3.^..•� O.sfricf .�a. I3' - �VI r'S'ON 1 � i 6. S 5 • l9GR5 _ ...--.� _ - LvQ_ - _______-_.,___.____. w ---foo) ------_-- - -- ----1--------------- � (/�s�> `� ` • `.. /96To r44sa ad�Y 9u1.'i.._-__.._.__._ ". .___. �_-♦ T- 9 i•'BOO1 � nM �i .♦ ♦ ✓-....Hdy.•., ...BJO,� �^ �..IAOY.. T :. 1e, /1f.0/ - O. ------------ KULab9 ♦ � �'G' � 3 V �� , iiaao so _ •� ._. � � �=-?•mss•-'� 4 �^t 7 From the desk of NASll6I QURES[-II CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE MEMORANDUM # DS -422 UAIL: May 31, 1977 TO SUBJECT: Fence Around Swimming Pool on Lynde Drive Dc o ie As you know -,..the City Council disallowed the variance for the fence and we have received complaints from the neighbors that.no action has been taken to comply with the code for fences or discontinue the use of the swimming pool. Please look into the matter and take quick action. Thank you for your assistance. NMQ/ms 6/3/77.- Please note attached correspondence to Mr. Rignell. If the property owner hasn't complied with the ordinance by June 16th, a formal complaint will be issued. DS/jm 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E., FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 66432 Mr. Richard Rignell 1171 Lynde Drive N.E. Fridley, Mn. 55432 Re: Swimming Pool Violation Dear Mr. Rignell: TELEPHONE ( 812)571-3450 Registered Mail #495240 It has been brought to my attention that your pool enclosure (fence) is still in violation of Item 7 of the City Environmental Officer's letter dated October 13, 1976 and which was made a part of Building Permit #13823. The matter of the fence not meeting the "non -climbable" requirement was again called to your attention in a letter dated October 28, 1976 which stated you should complete the fence alteration by April 1, 1977. On March 28, 1977 you elected to apply for a variance to the fence requirement. Consequently your appeal was heard by the Appeals Commission on April 12, 1977. Their unanimous recommendation to Council was for denial. On May 9, 1977 the City Council voted unanimously to concur with the Appeals Commission recommendation for denial. On May 11, 1977 you were notified of the City Council action on your request, that being that your appeal was denied. It has been brought to our attention and confirmed by Mrs. Rignell that as of June 1, 1977 that you still have not made any effort to alter the fence to bring it into compliance with the permit issued on October 13, 1977.. This continued violation must be discontinued on or before June 16, 1977 or we will have no choice but to start proceedings on a building permit violation. Your cooperation on this matter will be appreciated. please call me at 571-3450. e ly, DARREL G. CLARK Community Development Adm. CC: City Attorney - Virgil Herrick Steven Olson - Environmental Officer If you have any questions U, w v E.�. June 3, 1977 !A/�d r llij 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E., FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 66432 Mr. Richard Rignell 1171 Lynde Drive N.E. Fridley, Mn. 55432 Re: Swimming Pool Violation Dear Mr. Rignell: TELEPHONE ( 812)571-3450 Registered Mail #495240 It has been brought to my attention that your pool enclosure (fence) is still in violation of Item 7 of the City Environmental Officer's letter dated October 13, 1976 and which was made a part of Building Permit #13823. The matter of the fence not meeting the "non -climbable" requirement was again called to your attention in a letter dated October 28, 1976 which stated you should complete the fence alteration by April 1, 1977. On March 28, 1977 you elected to apply for a variance to the fence requirement. Consequently your appeal was heard by the Appeals Commission on April 12, 1977. Their unanimous recommendation to Council was for denial. On May 9, 1977 the City Council voted unanimously to concur with the Appeals Commission recommendation for denial. On May 11, 1977 you were notified of the City Council action on your request, that being that your appeal was denied. It has been brought to our attention and confirmed by Mrs. Rignell that as of June 1, 1977 that you still have not made any effort to alter the fence to bring it into compliance with the permit issued on October 13, 1977.. This continued violation must be discontinued on or before June 16, 1977 or we will have no choice but to start proceedings on a building permit violation. Your cooperation on this matter will be appreciated. please call me at 571-3450. e ly, DARREL G. CLARK Community Development Adm. CC: City Attorney - Virgil Herrick Steven Olson - Environmental Officer If you have any questions U, •Fg rte"'`' , 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E., FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432 TELEPHONE ( 612)571-3450 Mr. Richard Rignell 1171 Lynde Drive N.E. Fridley, Mn. 55432 Re: Pool Fence Dear Mr. Rignell: This is to confirm our verbal communication of June 14, 1977. Your attorney, Mr. John Rachie, had called to inform us that you had made progress on your fence conversion and that you would be unable to complete the project by the scheduled completion date of June 16, 1977. An on site inspection made on June 14, 1977 indicated that you indeed had made progress and that the portion of the fence altered does meet the intent of the City Code for pool enclosures. You stated that you would be working on the fence this weekend and that by Monday, June 20th, you would have it either all done or at least all but the east portion done where you were having a problem with a neighbor due to his retaining wall being so close to your fence. You were told that we would be back on June 20, 1977 to review the situation and that we would expect that at least all but the east portion of the fence would be complete and that we may help resolve the neighbor problem if you were unable to do so over the weekend. Your progress has shown that you are intending to comply with the City Code and we are therefore extending your compliance date to at least June 20, 1977 when the situation will be reviewed again. Thank you for your efforts so far. Si erely, s&�' DARREL G. CLARK Community Development Adm. DGC/mh CC: Mr. John Rachie, 1216 Foshay Tower, Dipls. 55402 Mr. Virgil Herrick, City Attorney Mr. Steven J. Olson, Environmental Officer June 3, 1977 CITY OF FRIDLEY 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E., FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432 TELEPHONE ( 812)571-3450 Registered Mail #495240 Mr. Richard Rignell 1171 Lynde Drive N.E. Fridley, Mn. 55432 Re: Swimming Pool Violation Dear Mr. Rignell: It has been brought to my attention that your pool enclosure (fence) is still in violation of Item 7 of the City Environmental Officer's letter dated October 13, 1976 and which was made a part of -Building Permit #13823. The matter of the fence not meeting the "non -climbable" requirement was again called to your attention in a letter dated October 28, 1976 which stated you should complete the fence alteration by April 1, 1977. On March 28, 1977 you elected to apply for a variance to the fence requirement. Consequently your appeal was heard by the Appeals Commission on April 12, 1977. Their unanimous recommendation to Council was for denial. On May 9, 1977 the City Council voted unanimously to concur with the Appeals Commission recommendation for denial. On May 11, 1977 you were notified of the City Council action on your request, that being that your appeal was denied. It has been brought to our attention and confirmed by Mrs. Rignell that as of June 1, 1977 that you still have not made any effort to alter the fence to bring it into compliance with the permit issued on October 13, 1977. This continued violation must be discontinued on or before June 16, 1977 or we will have no choice but to start proceedings on a building permit violation. Your cooperation on this matter will be appreciated. please call me at 571-3450. Sincerely, ( 1%-===� (14m, DARREL G. CLARK Community Development Adm. CC: City Attorney - Virgil Herrick Steven Olson - Environmental Officer If you have any questions CITY OF FRI®LEY 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E., FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432 f �r•: June 15, 1977 r, Mr. Richard Rignell 1171 Lynde Drive N.E. Fridley, Mn. 55432 Re: Pool Fence Dear Mr. Rignell: TELEPHONE ( 612)571-3450 This is to confirm our verbal communication of June 14, 1977. Your attorney, Mr. John Rachie, had called to inform us that you had made progress on your fence conversion and that you would be unable to complete the project by the scheduled completion date of June 16, 1977. An on site inspection made on June 14, 1977 indicated that you indeed had made progress and that the portion of the fence altered does meet the intent of the City Code for pool enclosures. You stated that you would be working on the fence this weekend and that by Monday, June 20th, you would have it either all done or at least all but the east portion done where you were having a problem with a neighbor due to his retaining wall being so close to your fence. You were told that we would be back on June 20, 1977 to review the situation and that we would expect that at least all but the east portion of the fence would be complete and that we may help resolve the neighbor problem if you were unable to do so over the weekend. Your progress has shown that you are intending to comply with the City Code and we are therefore extending your compliance date to at least June 20, 1977 when the situation will be reviewed again. Thank you for your efforts so,€ar. Si ere ly, DARREL G. CLARK Community Development Adm. DGC/mh CC: Mr. John Rachie, 1216 Foshay Tower, Mpls. 55402 Mr. Virgil Herrick, City Attorney Mr. Steven J: Olson, Environmental Officer t j "JI -ILL 7A -i t "11 Bignell loses variance reques#; council upholds fence ordinance nell had appealed to for -another week's' extension, said since Rignell had not, added additional protection to his fence, he would make a motion to deny the variance request a1- together. The motion w -z seconded by Councilwoman -at -large. Carroll Kukowski. And the council unani- mously agreed to deny the variance. After the final vote, Schneider added that his motion was not "a di- rect attack on Mr. Rigneli's property and I hope that some compromise can be worked but but a dangerous situation does exist and something must be done about it." ' Mayor William Nee noted that he regretted that a member of the Frid- ley city staff might have contributed to a misunderstanding of the fencing ordinance but Rignell would, have to comply with the law. Acting on a member of the audi- ence's comment that the fencing or- dinance :needs further clarification, Nee directed Public Works Director Richard Sobiech to take a look at the ordinance and "see what can be done about it." In other action, the council ap- BY TOM COLLINS Unable to obtain a copy of the Frid- ley city council, minutes for May 2, Richard Rignell of 1171 Lynde Dr., Fridley, was not represented by his attorney at Monday's council meet- ing and his request for a variance on the fence requirement for swimming pools was denied by the council. On May 2, Rignell asked the coun- cil for one week's delay in action so that he might have his case better represented by an attorney. How- ever, Rignell stated Monday that his attorney could not prepare a case without the minutes of the council meeting and asked for another week's delay. City Manager Nasim Qureshi ex- plained that council minutes are never made public until they have been approved by the city council, which means that Rignell will have to wait until the May 16 meeting for the May 2 minutes. Rignell's .problems stem from his fence, which does not comply with the Fridley fence! ordinance. His de- mise began Monday when Council- man Dennis Schneider, whom Rig - proved a request by Clifford Mis- talski to vacate the 17 foot street and utility easement on Lot 6, located at 58016th St. NE, Fridley, to make the area a buildable lot. . And the council also awarded a contract to the Julian Johnson Con- struction Co. for sanitary sewer main repair and replacement. Johnson's bid of $10,873.80 was the lowest of 10 submitted to the city. 40 PUBLIC HEARING MEETING OF MAY 9, 1977 PAGE 2 ' ` MOTION by Councilman Hamernik to close the Public Hearing. Seconded by Councilwoman Kukowski. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously and the Public Hearing closed at 7:50 p.m. OLD BUSINESS: x CONSIDERATION OF VARIANCE ON FENCE REQUIREMENT FOR SWIK14ING POOL; RICHARD RIGNELL, 1 171 LYNDE DRIVE: Councilman Schneider asked Mr. Rignell if he had any additional comments to make from the last meeting. Mr. Rignell stated he did not have the minutes from the last meeting and really has nothing further to state. Mr. Qureshi stated minutes are not distributed, unless approved by the Council, and the minutes of the May 2 meeting would be on the next agenda for approval. Councilman Schneider questioned Mr. Rignell if he had taken any action, since the last meeting, to protect the pool area. Mr. Rignell replied in the negative and stated he felt the pool is adequately protected as the fence exists now. Councilman Schneider stated he would have been prepared to move to continue this item for an additional week, if provision had been made for additional protection. Since this has not been done, Councilman Schneider moved the following: MOTION by Councilman Schneider to concur with the Appeals Commission and deny the variance for Richard Rignell. Seconded by Councilwoman Kukowski. Mrs. Nancy Strong, 5720 Regis Drive N.E., asked if the fence was inspected since the last meeting. Mr. Sobiech stated the fence was up and providing adequate support, but the City does not certify if it can withstand additional types of attachments. Mayor Nee questioned when the fence was constructed and stated he was told it was 1962. Mr. Rignell stated he would not argue with that date. Mr. Herrick, City Attorney, asked if the City has any pictures on file of the fence. Mr. Sobiech stated they do have pictures as part of the City's file. Councilman Schneider stated he can sympathize with Mr. Rignell's situation, and would have liked to see some compromise worked out to protect the children that might come into Mr. Rignell's yard. However, since nothing could be worked out, he felt it necessary to take action for safety purposes. Mayor Nee stated it seems a member of the staff contributed to a misunderstanding that is very regretable, but feels the safety requirements have to be taken into consideration; as he felt it was a serious question. UPON A VOICE VOTE TAKEN ON THE MOTION, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. Mrs. Strong, 5720 Regis Drive N.E., stated she was led to believe this property was not seen before the permit for the pool was granted. She felt this was unforgiveable and before the permit was granted, the premises should have been inspected. Mr. Sobiech stated, when the permit was issued, a copy of the rules and regulations regarding installation were sent to the property owner so before the pool was actually dug, he was aware of the rules and regulations. Mrs. Strong stated they were led to believe, from the Appeals Commission, that there was no inspection of the property at all until a few weeks ago. Mr. Sobiech stated the City Staff did not approach the property owner prior to the issuance of the permit, but a copy of the rules were attached to the permit as well as sending a copy to the property owner. Mr. Sobiech stated, in swimming pool construction, one or two inspections are made. Mayor Nee stated he also read in the Appeals Commission minutes that it was months, after completion of the pool, before an inspection was made. Councilman Schneider questioned if an inspection was made within a week after completion of the pool, to which Mr. Rignell answered in the affirmative. Mr. Rignell stated the rules and regulations sent to the contractor and himself contained wording which he felt was quite different from the wording that appears in the ordinance and therefore, i THE MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC HEARING MEETING OF THE FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL OF MAY 9, 1977 The Public Hearing Meeting of the Fridley City Council of May 9, 1977 was called t ordert 7:35 p.m. by Mayor Nee. PLEDG OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor a led the Council and the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance to a Flag. ROLL CAL MEMBERS RESENT: Councilwoman Kukowski, Councilman Schneider, M or Nee, Councilman Hamernik, and Councilman Fitzpatri MEMBERS AB ENT: None ADOPTION OF AG NDA: MOTION by Coun\STR mernik to adopt the agenda as pr ented. Seconded by Councilwoman Kukowski. Upon vote, all voting aye, Mayor N declared the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS PUBLIC HEARING T AND ALLEY VACATIONS_ #77-01, BY CLIFFORD MISTALSKI, GENERALLY MOTION by Councilman Hame ik to waive th reading of the Public Hearing notice and open the Public Hearing.Secon d by Council an Schneider. Upon a voice vote, -all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motio carried animously and the Public Hearing opened at 7:38 p.m. Mr. and Mrs. Mistalski were pres n to answer any questions from the Council. Mr. Sobiech, Public Works Direc r, explained this is a request for vacation of a 17 foot street and alley ease nt th presently exists on Lot 6, Block 32, Hyde Park. The purpose of this vacation s to all a buildable lot of Lot 6 together with the adjacent Lot 7. Mr. Sobiech stated the P1 nning Commission ecommended approval, with the City main- taining a 10 foot easem t on the south prot n. He noted there is no objection to this vacation from the util' y companies or the Cit staff, if the easement is maintained for the existing wate main. Mr. Qureshi, City nager, questioned if there was walkway easement. Mr. Sobiech stat d it would be necessary to verify if e City retained a walkway ease- ment on. a prev'ously vacated portion of 57z Avenue jus south of the subject vacation. Mayor Nee qu tioned the garage setback from Lot 7 and Mr. istalski stated it is six feet from t lot line. Mr. Qures i stated, even without the vacation, they have almost buildable lot. Mr. Sobiech tated, however, the vacation would give an 88 foot lot i luding the utility easeme Coun ilman Hamernik questioned the 12 foot alley shown on the drawing. 'tor. Sobiech s ed this is not improved, but strictly for utility purposes. Mayor Nee-.nquired if t applicants were going to combine the two lots, to which they answer in t affirmative r the purposes of making one building site. Mr. Sobiech checked and found there is a walkway easement that is fenced, but co ld be removed if the City wished to use it. No persons in the audience spoke for or against this vacation request. J• '1 PUBLIC HEARING MEETING OF MAY 9, 1977 felt he was not informed properly. PAGE 3 Mr. Sobiech stated the permit was taken out October 13, 1976 and it was only a matter of weeks before an inspection was made. Mayor Nee stated it is normally the contractor's obligation to call the City for an inspection. He indicated he agrees the City contributed in some way to the misunderstanding and stated he was regretful about this. Mr. Dick Kalow, 1090 Hathaway Lane N.E., stated this item has taken a lot of every- body's time and questioned if there is any way the code can be written more clearly so this will not happen again. He felt the interpretation of the code is different for everyone. He indicated something should be written in the code spelling out the type of fencing, either cyclone or vertical redwood. Mr. Herrick, City Attorney, stated the present standard for fencing was adopted after substantial discussion. Some of the staff felt they should have strictly cyclone fencing and others felt some other type of fence would provide the same element of safety, without dictating a certain type of fence. He felt no fence is non -climbable to a matter of degree. What the City is really looking for is some type of fence that will not permit easy climbing or permit youngsters to readily climb it. He stated he doesn't maintain that anyone could say the fence in question is non -climbable. Mr. Kalow, 1090 Hathaway Lane N.E., felt it would be beneficial for persons constructing a swimming pool to submit a sketch of what is proposed before proceeding. Mr. Herrick felt this could be done and perhaps alleviate the problem they now have. Mayor Nee stated he appreciated Mr. Kalow's concern. Councilman Schneider questioned Mr. Rignell if he specifically asked staff about the fence and described it to them. Mr. Rignell stated they are talking about conver- sations that happened over a year ago, but would like to point out, the present code calls for a self-closing and self -latching door that is capable of being locked. He felt this clearly shows any child that can reach to the top of the gate can get into the yard anyway and he indicated, that to him, the code is referring to small children. Based on the Council's action to deny this variance filed by Mr. Rignell, steps must betaken to satisfy the requirements of the ordinance regarding fencing for the swimming pool. RECEIVING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR SANITARY SEWER MAIN REPAIR - CHANNEL ROAD PROJECT S #122 BID OPENING MAY 5, 1977): Julian Johnson Construction 1229 Osborne Road Fridley, MN 55432 $10,873.80 De -Luxe Construction 527 Emil Avenue Shoreview, MN 55112 $11,547.00 N.D.H. Asphalt 5400 Industry Avenue N.W. Anoka, MN 55303 $12,623.00 Kenkq Inc. 8275 Central Avenue N.E. Minneapolis, MN 55432 $13,858.94 Berghorst Plumbing & Heating 10732 Hanson Blvd. - Box 33037 Coon Rapids, MN 55433 $14,226.50 PUBLIC HEARING MEETING OF MAY 9, 1977 PAGE 4 c Encon Utilities • Underground Utilities 1530 East Cliff Road Burnsville, MN 55337 $14,663.60 Randall Brothers 3400 Silver Lake Road Mpls., MN 55418 $15,265.00 G. L. Contracting P. 0. Box 340 Hopkins, MN 55343 $23,168.50 Bianconi Construction 986 Bayard Avenue St. Paul, MN 55102 $25,278.10 Dawson Construction Co. 1803 S. Ferry Street Anoka, MN 55303 $28,345.00 MOTION by Councilman Schneider to receive the above bids for Project S #122. Seconded by Councilman Hamernik. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Sobiech stated the bids were opened on May 5 for this sanitary sewer main repair and replacement, Project S #122 and recommended the low bidder, Julian Johnson Construction be awarded the contract. Councilman Schneider questioned the range of differences in the bid prices. Mr. Sobiech stated he did not have an answer, but felt a key point is that some contractors may be busier than others and willing to do a project at alower price. MOTION by Councilman Schneider to award the contract to the low bidder, Julian Johnson Construction for sanitary sewer main repair and replacement Project #122 in the amount of $10,873.80. Seconded by Councilwoman Kukowski. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVING ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY: Councilman Schneider referred to the 11th page from the front of the report con- cerning revenue sources and expenditures. He questioned what happened to the money that wasn't spent. Mr. Qureshi explained these monies go into the surplus which is used to carry the City over until the County turns over the money to the City from taxes collected. It was explained the City needs money to operate in the interim periods before monies are received from the County. Mayor Nee questioned the interfund transfers, and stated he would like to see a breakdown on what is left in the Contingency Fund. Mr. Brunsell, Finance Director, stated a breakdown could be given on how much was not spent and how much was used to increase the operating departments' budgets. Councilwoman Kukowski stated she wanted to see the transfer of funds from the Contingency Fund. Mr. Qureshi stated, if the Council is interested in what was transferred from the Contingency Fund, this information can be furnished. Councilman Schneider questioned the amount of monies lost in tax revenue because of the Fiscal Disparities law. Mr. Qureshi explained roughly 3.5% of $4,500,000 would not come back to the City. Councilwoman Kukowski requested an explanation of the mill rates under Table 5 which Mr. Brunsell explained. Councilman Fitzpatrick referred to Tables 2 and 3 and questioned the differences in the general property tax of $1,762,000 and collection of $1,812,000. Mr. Brunsell explained Table 2 is just General Fund and Table 3 is tax levies for all funds. Mr. Brunsell also stated the difference is due to the pension funds which are now Wednesday, May 4,1977\ Pool- fencing -debated at council � If someone builds a swimming pool has to keep other residents out of the Monday, A the Fridley city council Fridley. The planning commission and encloses it with a fence, what is th amount of responsibility he or she pool?listened was the main point argued Richard Rignell 1.1171. L nde tDr: iance, w that the council deny l's - q y' requested which would allow Rignell horizontal board on board fence to - - -- remain standing. I , The Fridley fence ordinanbe states that fencing shall be required to pre- vent the entrance of children and be without hand or foot holds that would enable a person to climb over it. According to Fridley Public Works Director Richard Sobiech'the city has been requiring'that fencing around a swimmingpool be six foot J high and vertical board on board. 11C j, vert, he also noted that a sixes chain-link fence was acce pta le Ringne Ps, fence c oes not meet the city's standards because it does allow hand and foot holds. However, Ring- nell contended that the city was put- ting too much responsibility on his' shoulders. "The fencing I have around the pool will keep small children from entering," said Ringnell. "But must I also be responsible for children who are able to wander from yard to yard or who are old enough to attend school"' Virgil Herrick, city attorney exp- lained that the., Fencing ordinance draws a fine line. He said that no fence is ' absolutely unclimbable, however the line "had to be drawn somewhere and the current ordi- nance should be enforced. Mayor William Nee asked Ringness how much it would cost to staple a chainlink fence to the existing posts and remove the redwood fencing. "To replace my redwood fence would cost approximately $2,100," said Ringnell. "However, a chain- link fence would be much cheaper." But Ringnell added that replacing the fence was not the point. He be- lieved the city's standards were too strict. . "I have spoken with many respon- sible DeoDle. including my insurance He also noted that if he would have been required to replace the fencing at the time he purchased the swim- ming pool, he would never.have made the purchase. In response to Ringnell's request for a delay in council action on the variance request until he could get an attorney to represent him, the coun- cil voted to table the discussion for one week. In other action, the .council ap- proved a request by the Fridley Knights of Columbus, to use $14,200, from their bingo revenues, to pay off the mortgage on their building at 6831, Highway 65, Fridley and to make im- provements on the building. Rep- resentatives from the Catholic or- ganization noted that the request was for -one time only. Also, the Islands of Peace received a,25 year extension on its lease from the city, on the condition that the foundation for the. handicapped re- ceive state support. And, the council overwhelmingly approved a request by the Canadian Financial Corporation to allow con- struction of housing for the elderly, similar to a complex built by CFC in Golden Valley. The council chambers was filled with representatives of Fridley senior citizen groups and they ex- pressed their srpport for the project. Richard Kahn of CFC said his company will need assistance for the project and asked the council and those present, to express their sup- port to the state. e- SUBJECT P MI City of Fridley iTl 1514 AT THE TOP OF THE TWINS BUILDING PERMIT RECEIPT N COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIV. INSPECTION r PROTECTIVE SEC. 1 � i NUMBERDATE REV. PAGE OF APPROVED BY CITY HALL FRIDLEY 55432 812-560-3450 910-F15 4/24/79 JOB ADDRESS 1171 Lynde Drive N. E. 1 LEGAL LOT NO. BLOCK TRACT OR ADDITION SEE ATTACHED DESCR. 1 1 Lyndale Builders 6th SHEET 2 PROPERTY OWNER MAIL ADDRESS ZIP PHONE Richard Rignell 1171 Lynde Drive 3 CONTRACTOR MAILADDRESS ZIP PHONE LICENSE NO. Professional Roofing Service 7257 Yucca Lane, Maple Grove 55369 425-8233 4 ARCHITECT OR DESIGNER MAIL ADDRESS ZIP PHONE LICENSE NO. 5 ENGINEER MAIL ADDRESS ZIP PHONE LICENSE NO. 6 USE OF BUILDING Residential 7 CLASS OF WORK ❑ NEW ❑ ADDITION ❑ ALTERATION ❑ REPAIR ❑ MOVE ❑ REMOVE X 8 DESCRIBE WORK Reroof structure 9 CHANGE OF USE FROM TO STIPULATIONS Roof can be second but not third roof. Install ridged galvanized valleys. SEPERATE PERMITS REQUIRED FOR "W#IRM11011 mEATING, PLUMBING AND SIGNS. TYPE OF CONST. OCCUPANCY GROUP OCCUPANCY LOAD SEPARATE PERMITS ARE REQUIRED FOR ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, HEATING, VENTILATING OR AIR CONDITIONING. THIS PERMIT BECOMES NULL AND VOID IF WORK OR CONSTRUCTION ZONING SO. FT. CU. FT. AUTHORIZED IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN 60 DAYS, OR IF CONSTRUCTION OR WORK IS SUSPENDED OR ABANDONED FOR A PERIOD OF 120 DAYS AT ANY TIME AFTER WORK IS COMMENCED. NO. DWLG. UNITS OFFSTREET PARKING 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ AND EXAMINED THIS APPLICATION ISTALLS GARAGES AND KNOW THE SAME TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT. ALL PROVISIONS OF LAWS VALUATION SURTAX AND ORDINANCES GOVERNING THIS TYPE OF WORK WILL BE COMPLIED. $.82 WITH WHETHER SPECIFIED HEREIN OR NOT. THE GRANTING OF A PERMIT $1,647 DOES NOT PRESUME TO GIVE AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE OR CANCEL THE PERMIT FEE SAC CHARGE PROVISIONS OF ANY OTHER STATE OR LOCAL LAW REGULATING CON- $12.00 STRUCTION OR THE P RFORM C F CONSTRUCTIO . PLAN CHECK FEE TOTALFEE _ $12.82 SIG A UREOFCONTRACTORORAUTHORIZEDAGENT (DATEI WHEN PROPERLY VALIDATED THIS IS YOUR PERMIT 0AJ—) BLDG INSP DATE SIGNATUREOF OWNER(IF OWNERBUILDER) IDATEI e- CITY OF FRIDLEY APPLICATION FOR RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS ' (NEW, ALTERATIONS, ADDITIONS,' OR REPAIRS) OWNER: f Address: I v NO.: Street: BUILDER: eL Address: c Tel. No.: IAT: BLOCK: ADDITION: CORNER LOT: INSIDE LOT: SETBACK: SIDEYARDS: Applicant attach to this form Two Certificates of Survey of Lot and proposed building location drawn on these Certificates. To Be Used As: • 3 DESCRIPTION OF BUILDING Front: Depth: Height: Square Feet: Cubic Feet: Front: Depth: Height: Square Feet: Cubic Feet: Type of Construction: Y`e_ �1�`D O� •0Llep- Estimated CoIt t: $ GX �'s4 Gt3 c�l To Be Completed. - % lt. A Alt. B � � � A Proposed Driveway Width If New Opening Is Desired $ $ (SEE REVERSE SIDE OF SHEET) The undersigned hereby makes application for a permit for the work herein specified, agreeing to do all work in strict accordance with the City of Fridley Ordinances and rulings of the Department of Buildings, and hereby declares that.all the facts and representations stated in this application are true and correct. See reverse side for additional information. _ DATE: -2 �1- 7e SIGNATURE: Stipulations: SUBJECT PERMIT NO. City of Fridley _ 1721�� AT THE TOP OF THE TWINS BUILDING PERI IT _ rp i V -------- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIV. r PROTECTIVE INSPECTION SEC. t _ � CITY HALL FRIDLEY 55432 NUMBER REV. DATE PAGE OF APPROVED BY 612-571-3450 910-F15 8/26/83 JOB ADDRESS 1171 Lynde Drive N.E. 1 LEGAL LOT NO. BLOCK TRACT OR ADDITION SEE ATTACHED DESCR. 1 1 Lyndale Builders 6th Addition SHEET 2 PROPERTY OWNER MAILADDRESS ZIP PHONE Richard Rignell 1171 M Lynde Drive N.E. 3 CONTRACTOR MAIL ADDRESS ZIP PHONE LICENSE NO. Same 4 ARCHITECT OR DESIGNER MAIL ADDRESS ZIP PHONE LICENSE NO. 5 ENGINEER MAIL ADDRESS ZIP PHONE LICENSE NO. 8 USE OF BUILDING Residential 7 CLASS OF WORK ❑ NEW Q. ADDITION ❑ ALTERATION ❑ REPAIR ❑ MOVE ❑ REMOVE 8 DESCRIBE WORK 3 Season Porch Addition 9 CHANGE QF USE FROM TO STIPULATIONS maino�3 QI,4Q� e��GSY9.01810313 - 3NOHd olca P��? sai�i.Rr ►1 le�o� Ilei IW24 gio"I�� 911INNYAA � SEPARATE PERMITS ARE REQUIRED FOR ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, HEATING, TYPE OF CONST. OCCUPANCY GRUP OCCUPANCY LOAD VENTILATING OR AIR CONDITIONING. THIS PERMIT BECOMES NULL AND VOID IF WORK OR CONSTRICTION ZONING SO. FT. CU. FT. AUTHORIZED IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN 60 DAYS, OR IF CONSTRUCTION OR WORK IS SUSPENDED OR ABANDONED FOR A PERIOD OF 120 DAYS AT ANY TIME AFTER WORK IS COMMENCED. NO. DWLG. UNITS OF, FSTREET PARKING I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ AND EXAMINED THIS APPLICATION ISTALLS GARAGES AND KNOW THE SAME TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT. ALL PROVISIONS OF LAWS VALUATION SURTAX AND ORDINANCES GOVERNING THIS TYPE OF WORK WILL BE COMPLIED $2 599 $1.30 WITH WHETHER SPECIFIED HEREIN OR NOT. THE GRANTING OF A PERMIT DOES NOT PRESUME TO GIVE AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE OR CANCEL THE PERMIT FEE S C CHARGE PROVISIONS OF ANY OTHER STATE OR LOCAL LAW REGULATING CON- $35.50 STRUCTION OR THE PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTION. PLAN CHECK FEE T TAL FEE $39.80 I NATUREOFCONTRACTOR ORAUTHOR1ZEDAjWpT IDATEI Vy N PROPERLY VALID D HIS I YOUR PERMIT v BLDG INSP ^ATE SIGNATURE OF OWNER 0F OWNER BUIL DERI IDATEI • CITY OF FRIDLEY Effective Aug. 1, 1981 APPLICATIM FOR RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PEW-11ITS (New, Alterations, Additions, or Repairs) OWNER: BUILDER. ,�In ADDRESS: f /�/ ,�r 1d2�re�. ADDRESS: TEL NO: onstructi STRIST NO: 9 I STREET: TEL 110: -i — tion LOT: BLOCK: ADDITION: AiARs 6 7W Corner Lot: Inside Lot: A Setback.: Sidcyards: Applicant attach to this form two Certificates of Survey of lot and proposed building location drawn on certificates to scale.) DESCRIPTION OF C01-11STRUCTI011 c �v" Front:_ Square Feet: C�a Depth: Hleight: Cubic Feet: Front: Depth: Square Feet: Cubic Feet: ,c � //4 q0 Type of Construction: Tb Be Cbrapleted: J Height: Estimated Cost: Alt.. $ jSW A Alt. B Proposed Driveway Width If New Opening Is Desired: $ $ SEE PZVF.R; I' SIDE OF SHEET . ZSie undersigned hereby makes application for a permit for the %:.,ork herein specified, agreeing to do.all work in strict accordance with the City of Fridl y Ordinances and rulings of the Department of Buildings, and hereby declares that al the facts and representitiens stated in this application are true and correct. a DATE: —& SIGNATUTS- Stimulations: 2&90 CITY OF FRIDLEY APPLICATION FOR PLUMBING AND GAS FITTING PERMIT RATE SCHEDULE m RATE TOTAL New Fixtures e $ Future Fixtures $ 3.50 o Old Opening, New Fixture x v Beer Dispenser Water N y .N � 9 to $ 5.00 F 1 rt {�� {roe Q to A u per,, w 5 $ Heater ." M m ro $ 5.00 c N 43 W N .0 c Gas Dryer $ 10.00 $ �` ( ) Type $ 5.00 S ALL OTHERS AND/OR REPAIRS AND ALTERATIONS 1% of Value of Fixture or Appliance $ State Surcharge x Reinspection Fee $ U N FEE +� ro °� ro m ro o °c g rd ro" w m w U m ao S C7 t7 O s lec Basq 1st 2nd 3rd 4th (R) = Future Connection Opening Connected with Sewer (*) = New Fixture, Old Opening Water RATE SCHEDULE PLUMBING FIXTURE RATES: NO. RATE TOTAL New Fixtures $ 5.00 $ Future Fixtures $ 3.50 $ Old Opening, New Fixture $ 1.50 $ Beer Dispenser $ 4.00 $ Blow Off Basin _ $ 5.00 $ Catch Basin $ 5.00 $ Rain Water Leader $ 5.00 $ Hydraulic Valve $ 5.00 $ Sump or Receiving Tank $ 5.00 $ Water Treating Appliance $ 7.00 $ Hot Water Heater $ 5.00 $ Gas Range $ 10.00 $ Gas Dryer $ 10.00 $ Back Flow Preventer Required. . . Yes ( ) No ( ) Type $ 5.00 S ALL OTHERS AND/OR REPAIRS AND ALTERATIONS 1% of Value of Fixture or Appliance $ State Surcharge $ .50 Reinspection Fee $ ($15.00) TOTAL FEE Effective Date May 1, 1988 Job Address --/-/7/ b r . Department of Buildings City of Fridley Tel. #571-3450 The undersigned hereby makes application for a permit for the work herein specified agreeing to do all work in strict accordance with the City Codes and rulings of the Department of Buildings, and hereby declares that all the facts and representations stated in this application are true and correct Fridley, Mn. [ 19 O OWNER g. �2 2 Y) �P L RIND OF BUILDING I j1_,% .,r •.f— USED AS au) -e //' f7 y TO BE COMPLETED ABOUT it J�I/J /� ,/l &- ESTIMATED COST ( (r' O, o V OLD - NEW BUILDING PERMIT NO. PERMIT NO. M, /1.)- Company �f/ vttic� Signed By Tel. No. ROUGH INSP. Date FINAL INSP. Date APPROVAL FOR PERMIT MINIMUM FEE FOR ANY PLUMBING PERMIT IS $15.00 PLUS THE $.50 STATE SURCHARGE 01 SUBJECT P City of Fridley AT THE TOP OF THE TWINS BUILDING PERMIT -PECET—T NO. Ir? COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIV. V r I PROTECTIVE INSPECTION SEC 0?U�� W NUMBER REV DATE P GE OF APPROVED By CITY HALL FRIDLEY 55432 �j 612-571-3450 910-F15 6/4/97 JOB ADDRESS 1171 LYME DRIVE NE 1 LEGAL LOT NO. BLOCK TRACT OR ADDITION SEE ATTACHED DESCR. 1 1 LYNDALE BUILDERS 6TH ADDITION SHEET 2 PROPERTY OWNER MAIL ADDRESS ZIP PHONE Dick Ringell 1171 Lynde Drive NE 571-1805 3 CONTRACTOR MAIL ADDRESS ZIP PHONE LICENSE NO. Nutzmann Bros. Construction 736 1st Ave NW, New Brighton MN 55112 20043453 4 ARCHITECT OR DESIGNER MAIL ADDRESS ZIP PHONE LICENSE NO. 628-0128 5 ENGINEER MAIL ADDRESS ZIP PHONE LICENSE NO. 6 USE OF BUILDING Residential 7 CLASS OF WORK ❑ NEW ❑ ADDITION ❑ ALTERATION Ci REPAIR ❑ MOVE ❑ REMOVE 8 DESCRIBE WORK Reroof house & garage (34 Sq) Tear -off 9 CHANGE OF USE FROM TO STIPULATIONS Underlayment must comply with the State Building Code. e TYPE OF CONST. OCCUPANCY GROUP OCCUPANCY LOAD SEPARATE PERMITS ARE REOUIRED FOR ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, HEATING, VENTILATING OR AIR CONDITIONING THIS PERMIT BECOMES NULL AND VOID IF WORK OR CONSTRUCTION ZONING SO. FT. CU. FT AUTHORIZED IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN 60 DAYS, OR IF CONSTRUCTION OR WORK IS SUSPENDED OR ABANDONED FOR A PERIOD OF 120 DAYS AT ANY TIME AFTER WORK IS COMMENCED, NO. DWLG. UNITS OFFSTREET PARKING 1 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ AND EXAMINED THIS APPLICATION STALLS GARAGES AND KNOW THE SAME TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT. ALL PROVISIONS OF LAWS VALUATION SURTAX AND ORDINANCES GOVERNING THIS TYPE OF WORK WILL BE COMPLIED $2,805 $1.40 WITH WHETHER SPECIFIED HEREIN OR NOT. THE GRANTING OF A PERMIT DOES NOT PRESUME TO GIVE AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE OR CANCEL THE PERMIT FEE SAC CHARGE PROVISIONS OF ANY OTHER STATE OR LOCAL LAW REGULATING CON- $74.75 Fire SC $2.81 STR CTION OR THE PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTION PLAN CHECK FEEL TO FEE -- L n SC $ .00 $83.96 SIGNATURE OF CONTRA OR AUTHORIZED AG -ERT- (DATEI E P O Y VALI T D THIS IS YOUR P RMIT SIGNATURE OF OWNER OF OWNER BUILDER) IDATEI8 G INS• GATE 01 NEW [ ] Effective 1/1/97 ADDN [ ] CITY OF FRIDLEY ALTER [ ] SINGLE FAMILY AND DUPLEXES R-1 AND R-2 BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION ConstructionAddress:1�� Legal Description: Owner Name &Address: 2 /� Tel. # Contractor: 10477n4 A.$� MN LICENSE #_Z Address:3�' UPyt/� `/Ue`v �, ��rd� • / Tel. # Attach to this application, a Certificate of Survey of the lot, with the proposed construction drawn on it to scale. DESCRIPTION OF EWPROVEMENT LIVING AREA: Length Width Height, GARAGE AREA: Length Width Height DECK AREA: Length Width H Grc OTHER: U%[ . 6/-3 License Surcharge Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. 2!Z is Construction Typ®C—� Estimated Cost: $ (Fee Schedule on Back) Driveway Curb Cut Width Needed: Ft. + 6 Ft = Ft x $ _ $ DATE: 647115 APPLICANT: �f Tel. # 13 P STIPULATIONS: CITY USE ONLY Permit Fee $ 4 , !% � Fee Schedule on Reverse Side Fire Surcharge $ / .001 of Permit Valuation (1/10th%) State Surcharge $ $.501$1,000 Valuation SAC Charge $ $950 per SAC Unit License Surcharge $ $5.00 (State Licensed Residential Contractors) Driveway Escrow $ Alt. "A" or Alt. "B" Above Erosion Control $ • $450.00 Conservation Plan Review Park Fee $ Fee Determined by Engineering Sewer. Main Charge $ Agreement Necessary [ ] Not Necessary [ ] TOTAL $ C% STIPULATIONS: };, AzT CITY OF rRIDLEY INSPECTION DN. Ettect�ie On January 1, 19976431 University. Ave NE Fridley, MN 55432 APPLICATION FOR POWER PLANTS AND HEATING, COOLING, VENTILATION, 572-3604 REFRIGERATION AND AIR CONDITIONING SYSTEMS AND DEVICES State Surcharge $ ,50 TOTAL FEE ' MINIMUM FEE FOR ANY HEATING/COOUNGNENTIIATION REFRIGERATION/AIR. CONDITIONING PERMIT IS $25.00 PLUS THE $.50 STATE SURCHARGE REINSPECTION FEE $42.00/Hr *Air Conditioners can not be placed in a side yard without written permission from adjoining property owner. Bumer Trade Name JOB ADDRESS RATE SCHEDULE BTU HP EDR J The undersigned hereby makes application for a permit for the work herein Residential Rate TOTAL specified agreeing to do all work in strict accordance with the City Codes and Furnace Shell and Duct Work, Burner — rulings of the Building Division, and hereby declares that all the facts and Also Replacement Furnace (Side Vent — Fill Out Back) $ 30.00 $ representations stated in this application are true an 'c'*-' : 4 Gas Piping (Needed with new furnace) $10.00 $ • -�� ,-""�, 1997 ;. a: . OWNER. -- Gas Range $10.00 $ BUILDING USED AS Gas Dryer $10.00 $ *Air a�� e. ESTIMATED COST PERMIT NO. Conditioning —All Sizes $ 25,00 $ All Others/Repairs & Alterations (LIST ON BACK DESCRIPTION OF FURNACE AND OR BURNER 1 % of Value of Appliance or Work $ No, of Heating Units Circle One (Steam) (Hot.Water) (Warm Air) Commercial�lndustrial Trade Name , Site No BTU HP No. 1.25% of Value of.Appliance or Work $ EDA Fuel Total Connected Load State Surcharge $ ,50 TOTAL FEE ' MINIMUM FEE FOR ANY HEATING/COOUNGNENTIIATION REFRIGERATION/AIR. CONDITIONING PERMIT IS $25.00 PLUS THE $.50 STATE SURCHARGE REINSPECTION FEE $42.00/Hr *Air Conditioners can not be placed in a side yard without written permission from adjoining property owner. Bumer Trade Name Size No. BTU HP EDR HEATING COMPANY Signed By Tel No. Approved ByRough—In Date FILL OUT BACK SIDE F R STACK VERIFICATION ON REPLACEMENT FURNACE Final Date�21%6 �? CHDjNEY AND STACK VERIFICATION The undersigned hereby verifies that the existing chimney or stack: 1. Has been carefully examined .. Yes O No ( ) No ( ) 2. Is free fromrust or deterioration Yes ( ) No ( ) 3. Has no foreign objects lodged within Yes ( ) No ( ) 4. Is securely supported Yes ( ) No ( ) 5. Meets all current Code requirements for size and total BTU's connected 6 Has total heating BTU's of All other BTU's TOTAL BTU's 7. Has a liner been provided. for water heater 8. Has combustion air been provided for water heater Remarks: . List ALTERATIONS Being Done: HEATING CO: Signed By: Date: gar FURNACE EXCHANGE INC. 4M 83rd Avenue North Soo" Park, MN 554.43 Yes,( ) No ( ) Yes () No ( ) Yes () No ( ) 01 SUBJECT City of Fridley 6 3153---- AT THE TOP OF THE TWINS BUILDING PERMIT r RECEIPT NO. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIV. i V - PROTECTIVE INSPECTION SEC. r � � 1 1 1 CITY HALL FRIDLEY 55432 NUMBER REV DATE PAGE OF APPROVED By 612-571-3450 9t0 -F15 10/27/00 JOB ADDRESS 1171 Lynde Drive NE 1 LEGAL LOT NO. BLOCK TRACT OR ADDITION SEE ATTACHED DESCR. 1 1 Lyndale Builders 6th Addition SHEET 2 PROPERTY OWNER MAIL ADDRESS ZIP PHONE Richard/Kathy Rignell 1171 Lynde Drive NE 763-571-1805 3 CONTRACTOR MAIL ADDRESS ZIP PHONE LICENSE NO Renewal By Anderson 350 73 Avenue NE, Fridley, MN 55432 612-502-4777 4 ARCHITECT OR DESIGNER MAIL ADDRESS ZIP PHONE LICENSE NO. 20130983 5 ENGINEER MAIL ADDRESS ZIP PHONE LICENSE NO B USE OF BUILDING Residential 7 CLASS OF WORK ❑ NEW ❑ ADDITION O ALTERATION Cj REPAIR O MOVE O REMOVE 8 DESCRIBE WORK Replace 9 window inserts & 3 full frame windows within existing openings 9 CHANGE OF USE FROM TO STIPULATIONS Provide smoke detectors in all sleeping rooms and on all levels of the dwelling per Section 310.9.1.2 of the 1997 Uniform Building Code. rermlt Inrp®Ction Cards Will Be �rW19d r® Homeolvnor To post SEPARATE PERMITS ARE REOUIRED FOR ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, HEATING, TYPE OF CONST. OCCUPANCY GROUP OCCUPANCY LOAD VENTILATING OR AIR CONDITIONING, THIS PERMIT BECOMES NULL AND VOID IF WORK OR CONSTRUCTION ZONING SO. FT CU FT_ AUTHORIZED IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN 80 DAYS, OR IF CONSTRUCTION OR WORK IS SUSPENDED OR ABANDONED FOR A PERIOD OF 120 DAYS AT ANY TIME AFTER WORK IS COMMENCED, NO. DWI,G. UNITS OFFSTREET PARKING I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ AND EXAMINED THIS APPLICATION 1 STALLS GARAGES AND KNOW THE SAME TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT. ALL PROVISIONS OF LAWS VALUATION SURTAX AND ORDINANCES GOVERNING THIS TYPE OF WORK WILL BE COMPLIED $11, 181 $5.59 WITH WHETHER SPECIFIED HEREIN OR NOT. THE GRANTING OF A PERMIT DOES NOT PRESUME TO GIVE AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE OR CANCEL THE PERMIT FEE SAC CHARGE PROVISIONS OF ANY OTHER STATE OR LOCAL LAW REGULATING CON- STRUCTION OR THE PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTION PLAN CHECK FE TOTAL/Et Licens S $5. 31.02 SIGNATURE OF CONTRACTOR OR AUTHORIZED AGENT ,DATE, EN PRO E ALIDATED S IS YOUR PER IITTRJ !V S-GNATURE OF OWNEROF OWNER BURDE R� lDATE- 'Bl9' SO BATE 01 NEW[ ] Effective 5110/99 ADDN [ ] CI'T'Y OF FRIDLEY ALTER [ ] SINGLE FAAMY AND DUPLEXES R-1 AND R-2 BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION Constriction Address: Legal Description: Owner Name & Address•1'\eC c� Tel. #�-c✓�- Contractor:; RENEWAL BY ANDERSEN MN LICENSE # 350 -73RD AVE. NE Address: ERIDLEY, MN 55432 Tel. # ( 612) 5024777 � LICENSE X20130983 Survey of the 1 on it to scale. LIVING AREA: Length Width Height Sq. Ft. GARAGE AREA: Length Width Height Sq. Ft. DECK AREA: Length Width Hgt/Ground Sq. Ft. OTHER:W 'J ov-Q tv� Construction Type: Estimated Cost: $ Driveway Curb Cut Width Needed: Ft. + 6 Ft = _ Ft x $ _ $ DATE: J ©-D5 • Cn APPLICANTj�-*U—k"tC:) Tel. # Permit Fee Fire Surcharge State Surcharge SAC Charge License Surcharge Driveway Escrow Erosion Control Park Fee $ Sewer Main Charge TOTAL STIPULATIONS: I CITY USE ONLY Fee Schedule on Reverse Side .001 of Permit Valuation (1/10th%) $.50/$1,000 Valuation $1050 per SAC Unit $5.00 (State Licensed Residential Contractors) Alt. "A" or Alt. 'B" Above $450.00 Conservation Plan Review Fee Determined by Engineering Agreement Necessary [ ] Not Necessary j ]