Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
PRE 2010 DOCS
Date: Owner Addres Village of Fridley, Minn. BUILDING PERMIT L N° , 1736 Builder.............................................. Address............................................. LOCION OF BUILDING No. ............. Street ............ —................. Part of Lot ............................. Lot ..... 1./ ..... Block ....../ .......... Addition or Sub-Divisio _ . : OF �I City of Fridley, Minn. BUELDING PERMIT Date: .... / .................. Owner. ? Address .: �:. : E;� . �`.: ' ' .� ` Builder ....... . ... Address 11T® 317` .... ......: ate. .............. LOCATION OF BUILDING No. :... Street v r.....:���.::n................... P of Lot . .. ®S Lot ....� ..` .. Block ....'........... Addition or Sub-Divisio . .. ... . . Corner Lot ............ Inside Lot . .... Setback ............ Sideyard A . 1031:4;104-10 1 R:.��.''.^ ....... . . .^ mac/ ToAe Used as ' `. ,o �' t . i ..-... Front € : ` ... Depth .��....... Height .....C;%. Sq. Ft. t. :�. Cu. Ft. ........ .................... Front .. Depth .. a r .. Height ..... Sq. Ft. ........ Cu. Ft. ........ Type of Construction .C'` :........... Est. Cost.. .�.............. To be Completed ;��`�......... In consideration of the issuance to me of a permit to construct the building desribed 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. 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 any part thereof, shall conform in all respects to the ordinances of Fridley, Minnesota regarding location, construction, alteration, maintenance, repair and moving of buildings with- in the city Emits and this permit may be revoked at any time upon violation of any of the provisions of said ordinances. Building Inspector NOTICE: This permit does not cover the construction, Installation or alteration for wiring, plumbing, gas heating, sewer or water. Be sure.to see the Building Inspector for separate permits for these Items. ,o �' t e J In consideration of the issuance to me of a permit to construct the building desribed 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. 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 any part thereof, shall conform in all respects to the ordinances of Fridley, Minnesota regarding location, construction, alteration, maintenance, repair and moving of buildings with- in the city Emits and this permit may be revoked at any time upon violation of any of the provisions of said ordinances. Building Inspector NOTICE: This permit does not cover the construction, Installation or alteration for wiring, plumbing, gas heating, sewer or water. Be sure.to see the Building Inspector for separate permits for these Items. June 17, 1976 Dear Sir In 1973 we had a. building inspector out to inspect our home as we had noticed that our house was sinking which was causing strtictual damage, We were advised to have the wail tested Vhich we did and were told we must have ti=_e situation corrected or our home would be condemned as it would be eventually unsafe. This work was done in Januar" of .1971+ with all work .a,ving been inspected by your office, etc. This little job cost us over $7,000.00 before we were finished. N6w for the problem: The house next door to -ours, X539�rnouse. had th.e same problem we did a,nd t'�ey� were also advised to x The people that lived there at the time had purchased their home thru HUD had no money to fix the home so IIID moved them into a brand new home anal sold this house for a very cheap price with the idea Vh t the new o-�n ors would bring VAS 'Tome rp to city codes. They have done patch work on this home to cover- lap the problems and have recently put it tip for sale to make a very nice profit for themselves. I feel that this home short d be inspected as the former owners were told the same thing we were that it was very dangerous to live in the home as it was and it would have to be repaired or the City would have to condemn. it. I also do not feel it fair to sell a home in, that condition to some vmknoving soul. The former owners along with us had soil tests done by Soil & ater- ials Engineers � Inc. and they stated in our reports that future settlement was also anticipated in bath bones and work should be do -no. L really feel that this should be looked into and would appreciate your office's concern in this matter, I really would appreciate it if this could be kept confidential as far as my name is concerned but if it can't that's alright. If you have any questions regarding this feel .free to call me. I home most every day. My phone number is 560-7906. Sincerely, Mrs, Robert Noble 4551 H.E. 22 street Fridley, Mn, 55.21 i MEMO TO: Virgil Herrick, City Attorney MEMO FROM: Darrel Clark, Community Development Adm. MEMO DATE: August 3, 1976 REGARDING: City Responsibility for Private Dwelling Damage Virg, occasionally the City is informed of a structural problem in an older home; to best describe this I will use a specific example. In August of 1973 we were called to inspect the foundation of a home that had been built in 1958. The owner stated that during the summer of 1973 he started to notice cracks developing in his,foundation walls. Our inspection revealed several foundation cracks an4'some settlement along the front wall; none of which were severe enough to warrant further action by the City. The 1973'owner had very little equity in theme and let the lending institution, through HUD, have it back. We were recently informed by a neighbor who experienced a similar problem, that HUD resold the home at a reduced price. The new owner cosmetically covered up the cracks and now plans to resell at a profit without supposedly telling the buyer. The question and concern of mine is; are we in any way liable'for not somehow recording our records at a place other than City Hall? I am enclosing a copy of the neighbors letter that contains some information; most of which is true except for the part about condemnation. If you have any questions or need additional information, please let me know. DARREL G. CLARK Community Development Adm. DGC/mh ENC: 1 CC: Dick Sobiech _ Im TO: Darrel Clark, Community Development Administrator FROM: Virgil C. Herrick, City Attorney RE: City responsibility for private dwelling damage DATE: September 10, 1976 In response to your question about the liability of the city for not recording its records of building inspections at a place other than City Hall, the city is under no responsibility to do so. There is not a state statute which requires the city to record this type of information. Thus, when determining the liability of the city, it is necessary to look at Chapter 466 of Minnesota Statutes. §466.03 subd. 6 specifically excludes the discretionary acts of a municipality from any tort liability. Although "discretionary acts" is a term somewhat difficult to define, the U.S. Supreme Court in Dalehite v. United States held that "where there is room for policy jUdgment and decl-slo—n—,—tHere is discretion." Hoffert v. Owatonna Inn Towne Motel, 293 Mn 220, 199 NW 2d 158 (19 appears to sFied some light--o—n—the subject. In that case a motel was built in Owatonna. The fire exits were not adequate to meet the building code, but when the building was inspected by the city, they failed to note the defect. Within a few weeks, the building was destroyed by fire and two guests were trapped inside. Subsequently, the representatives of the estates of the descendants sued the city. The Minnesota Supreme Court held that the actions of a building inspector is for the public benefit, and an individual who is injured by any alleged negligent performance of the building inspector does not have a cause of action. Although the Hoffert case may at any time be overruled by the court, I feel that it, c� ed with MSA§466.03, removes any liability from the city for not recording building inspection records. VCH/lz CITY OF FRIDLEY APPLICATION FOR POWER PLANTS AND HEATING, COOLING, VENTILATION, REFRIGERATION AND .AIR CONDITIONING SYSTEMS AND DEVICES PARTIAL RATE SCHEDULE GRAVITY WARM AIR: RATE TOTAL _ JJ E. Job Address �"" `,TrQ a- Al - (- Furnace Shell & Duct Work $12.00 $ Replacement of Furnace 7.00 7.00 $ $ Department of Buildings Repairs & Alterations -up to $500.00 4.00 $ City of Fridley Repairs & Alterations each add. $500.00 Tel. #571-3450 MECHANICAL WARM AIR: The undersigned hereby makes application for a permit for the work herein Furnace Shell & Duct Work to 100,000 BTU $12.00 $ specified agreeing to do all work in strict accordance with the City Codes each add. 50,000 BTU 4.00 $ and rulings of the Department of Buildings, and hereby declares that all the Replacement of Furnace 7.00 $ facts and representations stated in this application are true and correct. Repairs & Alterations -up to $500.00 7.00 $ Repairs & Alterations each add. $500.00 4.00 $ Fridley, Minn. STEAM OR HOT WATER SYSTEM: OWNER L m d g c `, n K e' Boiler & Lines up to 100,000 BTU $12.00 $ KIND OF BUILDING -PrCL Yyl C/ each addn. 50,000 BTU 4.00 $ II Boiler only up to 100,000 BTU 7.00 $ USED AS ('0 0-1 i G each addn. 50,000 BTU 6.00 $ TO BE COMPLETED ABOUT OIL BURNER- to 3,gal. per hour $10.00 $ each add. 3 gal. per hour 10.00 $ ESTIMATED COST PERMIT NO. o GAS BURNER- from 100,000 BTU to 199,999 BTU $10.00 $ OLD - NEW BUILDING PERMIT NO. (over 199,99'9 BTU see Fee Schedule) $ GAS FITTING FEES: s 1st 3 Fixtures x $ 3.00 $ _ DESCRIPTION OF FURNACE/BURNER Additional Fixtures x $ 1.00 $ Gas Range to 199,000 BTU x $10.00. $ HEATING or POWER PLANTS, Steam, Hot Water, Warm Air- No. AIR CONDITIONING o Trade Name C �" size No.� �C� FAN HEATING SYSTEM See Fee Schedule $ P v r 1 Y TEM $. Sq. Ft. EDR BTU HPr A$ EPAIRS $' Capacity State Surcharge $ .50 Total Connected Load Kind of Fuel TOTAL FEE $-/0-S70 BURNER --Trade Name Size No. ROUGH INSP. REINSPECTION FEE Capacity Sq. Ft. EDR BTU HP Date ($10.00) FINAL INSP. < A0 Company An, Date Signed By APPROVAL FOR PERMIT 'Pel. No. 7 5- 7 - (®2 0o MINIMUM FEE FOR ANY HEATING PERMIT IS $7.50 PLUS $.50 STATE SURCHARGE City of Fridley AT THE TOP OF THE TWINS SUBJECT BUILDING PERMIT PE NO. Nk - r COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIV. r PROTECTIVE INSPECTION SEC. ;,� CITY HALL FRIDLEY 55432 L 612-571-3450 '117662 RECEIPT NO. e��^ / G NUMBER 910-F15 REV. DATE 8/16/84 PAGE OF APPROVED BY JOB ADDRESS 4539 - 21. Street N.E. 1 LEGAL DESCR. LOT NO. 11 BLOCK 1 TRACT OR ADDITION SEE ATTACHED Rearrangement of Plymouth. Bl. 13,14,15 SHEET 2 PROPERTY OWNER MAIL ADDRESS ZIP PHONE Steven Renkert 4539 - 21 Street N.E. 572-0002 3 CONTRACTOR MAIL ADDRESS ZIP PHONE LICENSE NO. Same 4 ARCHITECT OR DESIGNER MAIL ADDRESS ZIP PHONE LICENSE NO. 5 ENGINEER MAILADDRESS ZIP PHONE LICENSE NO. 6 USE OF BUILDING Residential 7 CLASS OF WORK ❑ NEW ❑ ADDITION ALTERATION ❑ REPAIR ❑ MOVE ❑ REMOVE 8 DESCRIBE WORK Install masonry chimney for wood burning stove — 9 CHANGE QF USE FROM TO STIPULATIONS .'Wwe , nC.ou � 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 AUTHORIZED IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN 60 DAYS, OR IF CONSTRUCTION ZONING SQ. FT. CU. FT. OR WORK IS SUSPENDED OR ABANDONED FOR A PERIOD OF 120 DAYS AT ANY TIME AFTER WORK IS COMMENCED. NO. DWLG. UNITS OFFSTREET PARKING I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ AND EXAMINED THIS APPLICATION 1 STA LS GARAGES AND KNOW THE SAME TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT, ALL PROVISIONS OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES GOVERNING THIS TYPE OF WORK WILL BE COMPLIED WITH WHETHER SPECIFIED HEREIN OR NOT. THE GRANTING OF A PERMIT VALUATION $200 SURTAX $.50 DOES NOT PRESUME TO GIVE AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE OR CANCEL THE PROVISIONS OF ANY OTHER STATE OR LOCAL LAW REGULATING CON- STRUCTION OR THE PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTION. PERMIT FEE $15.00 SAC CHARGE LAN CHECKFEE TOTALFEE $15.50 SI N-R�\T;UURREOF,pCONTRACT RORA THORIZE AGE T (DATEI J�— ,-'�J"�/`�. � WHEN PROP RLY I TED T IS IS YOUR P R/MIT • BLDG INSP OAT 17 SIGNATURE OF OWNER IIF OWNER BUILDER) (DATEI NEW [ ] City of Fridley Effective 4/1/84 ADDN. [ ] �R-1 AND R-2 ALTER. [ ] Building Permit Application Construction Address: Legal Desei Owner Name Contractor # Address: Attach to this application, a Certificate of Survey of the lot, with the proposed construction drawn on it to scale. DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENT LIVING AREA: Length Width Height Sq. Ft. GARAGE AREA: Length Width Height Sq. Ft. DECK AREA: Length Width Hgt/Ground Sq. Ft. OTHER: Corner Lot [ ] Inside Lot [ ] Ft. Yd. Setback Side Yard Setback Type of Construction: C�t1 VA Yry `1/1�0�`��'"��"� stimated Cost: $ � Approx. Completion Date: Alt. A Alt B Proposed Driveway Width If New Opening Is Desired: $ See Back Page for Explanation .. �-�Qr'Tel. # 1+1. C ��U J 7 P - DATE: S / APPLICANT: CITY USE ONLY Permit Fee $ is, o u Fee Schedule on Reverse Side Plan Check $ 25% of Building Permit Fee State Surcharge $ $.50/$1,000 Valuation SAC Charge $ $425 per SAC Unit ' Park Fee $ Fee Determined by Engineering Sewer Main Charge $ Agreement Necessary [ ] Not Necessary [ ] TOTAL $ STIPULATIONS: MEND 70: Memo To File (7\� Q_ MEND FROM: Darrel Clark, Chief Building Official MEND DATE: July 30, 1986 REGARDING: 4539 - 2 1/2 Street N.E. In response to a request frau Mr. George Puzak, listing agent from Merrill Lynch Realty for the owner, Ms. Renkert, I met with Mr. Puzak, Ms. Renkert, Mr. Jim Buzzy (contract holder),, Ms. Bonnie Ruzak (purchaser) , and Ms. Carole Gavic, agent for the purchaser, at the house located at 4539 - 2 1/2 Street N.E. The reason for the inspection was to determine if there was any apparent foundation settlement problem with the structure. I communicated to them the following knowledge that we had previously received on the property: The house was built by Amalgamated Builders in 1955. In August of 1973 we were invited, by the owner, Mr. Gerald Mueller, to inspect a possible foundation failure problem. Also inspected at that time was the home located at 4551 - 2 1/2 Street at the reguest of that owner, Mr. Robert Noble. It was apparent in both hones that there had been foundation and basement floor slab movement. Both owners were advised that they should retain a soils and foundation expert to examine the basements and make the necessary soils test to determine the cause and the corrective action necessary to remedy the foundation failures. The owner of 4551 - 2 1/2 street didcontract to have an investigation made by Soil & Materials -]Engineers` Inc. The report on f ile in our office does conclude that a soils problem did cause the foundation failure at 4551 - 2 1/2 Street. Soon after their report, the homeowner contracted to have the problem corrected by replacing the effected area with a new foundation wall, placed on a new footing approximately 9 feet below the existing basement floor. Our office received no report on any soils investigation nor have we issued any permits for any corrective action to the property at 4539 - 2 1/2 Street. We did issue a permit to the present owner, Mr. Renkert, for a masonry chimney in 1984. He was advised that he must enlarge his chimney footing to spread the imposed weight over a larger area (approximately 30" x 3011) or install a metal asbestos class A chimney. The footing inspection for the chimney was conducted by our office on Augusta 16, 1984. A hand boring done. at the time indicated 4 feet of fat clay of rather firm consistency. The inspection conducted today revealed that sometime after 1973, the interior wall of the basement had been covered with sheetrock and or paneling and therefore no foundation block is visible on the inside. It is apparent that the floor in the northwest corner is lower than the rest of the basement floor. There were no other signs of failure on the inside. i Maw To File July 30, 1986 Re: 4539 - 2 1/2 Street N. E. Page 2 die outside of the block has been covered with a parge coat of stucco; some of it had fallen off or had been peeled off and some foundation cracks are visible on the outside. Shese cracks indicate that some foundation movement had taken place since the last time these were filled. These cracks were on the north and west walls. 11he chimney built in 1984 shows no visible signs of movement. We advised those present that a qualified soils engineer should be employed to conduct subsurface tests to determine the cause of the foundation movement and to make buggestions on how any necessary repair should be conducted. If copies of the soils report on 4551 - 2 1/2 Street are desired, we would release them to the owner of the property at 4551 - 2 1/2 Street and they could distribute then to whcemever they wish. In conclusion, the inspection did not or is not intended to determine the cause for the cracks in the foundation. It just indicated that further investigation is necessary to determine why the foundation has cracked and what should be done to correct the problem that exists. DGC/mh CC: Mr. George Puzak Ms. Carole Gavic os� 4 C, 5-"\ 4c, I I- rDt 00, —Iov Ab 4 e g -T 'o /F- s✓Y/ - ;2- 5 T. /V, e Fa (' wle D,- �, XA e, 1 7 e 1v 6ovrgr-,7r- eev;7,- q 7 6 civT-c g f,)R, ' MEMD M: Jock Robertson, CCMT= ity Development Administrator I7M FRDM: Darrel Clark, Chief Building Official MEMD DATE: August 4, 1988 RBaAMIW.: Foundation Problems in Carlson's Summit Manor North Addn. Please be advised that since July 21, 1988, I have received calls from six homeowners who own hones in the vacinity of the 53 00 block of Horizon Drive, requesting that I inspect their house foundations because of apparent differencial settlements. Prior to these calls we had inspected 5 other foundations during 1987 and 1976 that were in this general area. There appears to be a pattern of things that probably have caused these settlements to occur or are present at each location: 1. They have all occured during long cry spells (1976, 1987 & 1988). 2. All have bad mature trees growing in the general vacini.ty of the failure. 3. Yard and street settlement has also occured in front of those homes that bad mature trees in the front yard near the failure. 4. All those that have had soil tests done have had a layer of moisture receptive or active soil at or below the footing elevation. 5. All homeowners have been advised to contact a soils engineer to test and report their findings and to suggest the method of correction. 6. All of the hones were built in the mid 1950's. The cost of repair will depend upon the extent of the failures. We estimate the cost of such repair to range between a minimum of $500.00 to a maximum of $20,000.00 or possibly higher. One home repaired in June, 1987 paid an estimated $3,000.00 to a contractor to replace the back wall (32 feet) of their basement. That repair consisted of the following: temporarily supporting the structure on post and timbers; removing the back foundation wall and footing; digging down through approximately six feet of clay or silt to granular gravel at three locations (each hole was about 4'x 2') ; pouring each hole full of concrete; pouring a reinforced concrete grade beam over the top of the new pads to form a new footing; laying up a new block wall; and setting the house back down. A camposit map is being maintained that shows the reported dates and addresses of all reported prcblems. If anyone wants more information on this subject, please contact our department and we will be happy to review our files. We do have individual records on each reported problem. Its possible that there could be more failures that have not been called in for our review. DGC/mh ATTACH: Map Cc: Mr. John Flora, Public Works Director -t•�3 9s 51 '2'1~ 7Al•vm I MIG -WAY NO lOQ %g'9Bi 4� -�m a 1� 1 • SS 13� h:� i? JJ tri., /4$ zap 63ea poo-, o4j) H lZ-�v•4l (<� CRawa i tZc� Lb'}t � i� S SIRoQ "MSr `v. �jpl,•�n R. AQ r, a. .3'�. -t•�3 9s 51 '2'1~ 7Al•vm I MIG -WAY NO lOQ %g'9Bi 4� -�m 01 SUBJECT PER NO. City of Fridley 19756 AT THE TOP OF THE TWINS BUILDING PERMIT _ r RE O. L. _ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIV. PROTECTIVE INSPECTION SEC. ®� V,7r 1 CITY HALL FRIDLEY 55432 NUMBER REV. DATE PAGE OF APPROVED BY j 612-571-3450 910-F15 11/15/88 JOB ADDRESS 4539 - 21-2 Street N.E. 1 LEGALLOT NO. BLOCK TRACT OR ADDITION SEE ATTACHED DESCR. 11 1 Rearrangement of Plymouth Bl. 13,14,15 SHEET 2 PROPERTY OWNER MAIL ADDRESS ZIP PHONE Steven/Vicki Renk.ert 4539 - 211 Street N.E. 572-1625 3 CONTRACTOR MAIL ADDRESS ZIP PHONE LICENSE NO. Panel Craft of Minnesota, lhc. 3118 Snelling Ave So., Mpls. 55406 721-6628 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 8 DESCRIBE WORK Reside Dwelling; add sgffit, fascia, gutters & downspouts, trim. 9 CHANGE OF USE FROM TO STIPULATIONS 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 ANY TIME AFTER WORK IS COMMENCED. NO. DWLG. UNITS OFFSTREET PARKING I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ AND EXAMINED THIS APPLICATION 1 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 $6, 000 $3.00 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- $81.00 STRUCTION OR THE PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTION. PLAN CHECK FEE TOTALFEE $84.00 SIGNATURE OF CONTRACTOR OR AUTHORIZED AGENT (DATE) WHEN PROPERLY VALIDATED THIS IS YOUR PERMIT ` 19 BLDG INSP DAT SIGNATURE OF OWNER IIF OWNER BUILDERI (DATE) 01 ON I ] CiiAl ca. - Effective 5/1/88 I I R-1 AMID R-2 AMM I I Co ruction Address: �� I Legyl Description: Owm r Name & Address: Contractor: tAN1 L-dmFr Building Permit Application . G wF "2APOLIS, MN 55406721-0828 - 1 -- A Attach to this application, a Certificate of Survey of the lot, with the proposoed construction dram on it to scale. Length Width. Height Sg. Ft. Length Width Height Sg. Ft. Length Width Hgt/Ground Sg. Ft. r Lot I l Inside Lot I I Ft. Yd Setback Side Yard Setbacks of Construction: �,�o w SfEst, ated st: tw =C x. Completion Date: 1 Driveway Width If New Opening Is Desired: Width + 6' APPLICANT: C_L12. QTY USE ONLY s Alt. A Alt. B 5 See Back Page Tel. # 7a i� 69� Permit Fee 5 31r0_0 Fee Schedule on Reverse Side State Surcharge $ - -no $.50/$1,000 Valuation SAC Chard $ $550 per SAC Unit Driveway Escrow 5 Alt. "A" or Alt. "B" Above Park Fee Fee Determined by Engineering Sewer Main Charge $ Agreement Necessary I I Not Necessary I ] TOTAL $ t 0© ADVANCE SURVEYING 5811 Cedar Lake Road, Minneapolis, MN 55416 Februa 16, 1989 Ms. Vicki Renkert 4539 2 1/2 Street Fridley, MN 55421 Dear Vicki: & ENGINEERING CO. Phone 541 0500 In. June of 19 .88, you asked that we monitor settling in the foundation of your home at the above address. On June 24, 1988 and again on January 16, 1989 we measured the relative elevations of points on your foundation to see if any settlement was detectable. The following is a tabulation of the results: Description 6/24/88 Bench mark, spike in oak tree: 100.000' Chisel mark in West wall NW cor. 99.344 Hardened masonry nail NW cor. 99.268 Chisel mark in North wall NW cor.,99.761 Chisel mark in North wall NE cor 99.834 Chisel mark in West wall SW cor.100.540 1116/89 Settled 100.000 Level 99.320 Down 3/811 99.250 Down 1/4" 99.734 Down 3/811• 99.843 Up 1/811. 100.567 Up 3/8" While the amounts of settlement are small, they may or may not reflect a large settlement taking place over a long period. You may wish to monitor the settlement over a longer period to determine whether these settlements are significant. Sincerely, ADVANCE S J mes H. P INEERING CO. P.E. & L.S., Pres 1. October 1,'1973 Mr. Gerald P. Mueller 1J Old? S-rELAA) 4539 2} Street Northeast Fridley, Minnesota 55421. Attention: Mr. Gerald P. Mueller S.M.E'. Job No. 902508 Re: Subsurface Investigation for Single Family Residence ,.- 4539 3J Street Northeast Fridley, Minnesota Gentlemen: We are submitting herewith the results of the subsurface investigation for the above project. If there are any questions with regard to this report, or if we can be of further service to you in any way, Please do not hesitate to contact us. Yours very truly, SOIL S MATERIALS ENGINEERS, INC. t NERfOY aawy TmT Tm KAK SPEG1f1 "OK OR REPAST WAS PREPARED •1I Mi oR UP4" MY DIRECT SWERbtSt0H AND TWIT i AM A MAT Dennis M. Anderson, P.E. REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL tWA*11k UHM Thi Senior Project Engineer LAWS OF TME sun of mmaSOTA. Michael L. Larson, P.E. pI►tEo Chief Engineer Engineer Dist: 3 cc: Mr. Gerald P. Mueller 1 cc: S.T.S., Inc., Northbrook 1 cc: Files - /cab. SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION SINGLE FAMILY RES I DENCt 453 21 STREET NORTHEAST FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA We were retained by Mr. Gerald C.,Mueller to conduct a soil investigation for this project. The purposes of the work were to determine the soil and ground water conditions at the existing building site, and to report thereon making recommendations for remedial construction measures of the existing building foundation. PROCEDURE A total of 2 (two) soil test holes were drilled on September 6, 1973. One hole (boring 1) was drilled by using a truck mounted auger drill unit, whereas the other hole (boring 2) inside the basement was hand augered. Boring 1 was advanced without casing and without use of wash water. by drilling with 6 inch diameter continuous flight augers. At 2 foot intervals of depth in the top 10 feet and at S foot or. less intervals thereafter in boring 1, soil samples were obtained by the standard split barrel sampling procedure and by the Shelby tube sampling procedure. In the split barrel procedure, a standard 2 inch o.d. split barrel sampling spoon was driven into the ground with a 140 pound weight free falling a distance of 30 inches. The number of blows required to advance the spoon one foot is termed the Standard Penetration Resistance and may be taken as an indication of the relative density in-place of granular soils, and a very approximate indication of the consistency in-place of cohesive soils. The procedure is in accordance with A.S.T.I1. 0 1586-64T (see Appendix 0. In the Shelby tube sampling procedure, thin wall steel seamless tubes with sharp cutting edges are pushed hydraulically into the soil and relatively undisturbed samples are taken. The Shelby tube sampling procedure is in M. ':7 2 accordance with A.S.T.M. 0 1587-63T (see Appendix 2). At the location of boring 2, soil samples were obtained by a modification of the Shelby sampling + procedure where the steel seamless tubes were manually Dashed or driven into the soil. Shelby tube samples were obtained at 2 fact intervals in boring 2 in conjunction with intermediate hand auger samples. In addition. at an ' offset location near boring 2, the S.M.-E. dynamic cons haaaer was driven cOn- tinuously to detect any very soft or very loose soil zones. in this method, a cone pointed probe is driven into the soil by a 14 pound hammer free fai 1 i ng. a distance of 24 inches; and the number of hammer bicws caquired for each foot of probe penetration was recorded and plotted on the log sheet of boring 2.� All soil samples were brought to our laboratory for examination, classi- fication and testing. They will be retained for a period of at least 90 days from date of issue of this report after which they will be discarded unless we are otherwise notified. Drawing No. 1 Is a site plan showing the soil test hole locations in relation to the outline of the existing building. Detailed soil descriptions together with a plot of the laboratory test date are shay► the log Sheets. Following the regular written soil descriptions ars capital letters in paren- theses which represent the appropriate group symbols of the Unified Soil classification System. A chart explaining this system is also appended• All shown elevations were obtained by using the bench aeric sem"" on the attached Drawing No. I. ` 1.A80RATORY TESTING The testing program consisted of performing water content. unconfined comp ressIve strength and density tests on samples of cohesive_or,semi -cohesive materials optained from the Shelby tubes. In the unconfined compression test. y 3, - k✓ +;4 't :: an• a ar aa9y° 3 the shear strength of the soil is .determined by axially loading a soil sample under a slow constant strain rate until failure is obtained. The failure stress is defined as a maximum stress but not greater than the stress at 202 axial strain. When the amount of soil recovered was small or when cohesive soil was recovered from a split spoon sample, water content and the penetrometer test were performed. In the penetrometer test, the unconfined coagressive strength of the soil is estimated by noting its resistance to penetration of a small spring calibrated plunger. In addition, Atterberg Limit tests were conducted on a specific cohesive soil sample and included determination of the liquid limit and plastic limit. gy comparing the natural moisture content of the same sample with its Atterberg Limits, it is possible to qualitatively estimate the compressibility of the clay soils and the state of consistency. A loss-on-ignition test was also performed on one sample. In this test the samrle is burned at several hundred degrees Centigrade for several hours to determine the organic matter content of the soil. SITE AND GEOLOGY The existing residence site is within the city limits of Fridley. Minnesota bounded on the west by 21 Street Northeast. A visual inspection of the site revealed the house to be located 'close to the bottom of a gently sloping hill leading to a depression in a residential neighborhood. The lot is covered by a growth of grass and a number of trees are located on the site, including one tree located just west of the northwest house corner. A driveway is located just south of the existing house. and the front yard slopes toward the street with a vertical difference in elevation of perhaps 5 or 6 feet. Other houses are located on the surrounding properly and 4 are of sinilar construction, consisting of concrete aloek basement walls and one story wood frame structures. We understand this residence was built in 1956 and that the present owners were not the original owners. We understand no aoparent cracks in the founda- tion concrete block walls were observed in the house until one year ago. We also understand that diagonal cracking up to 3/8 inch in width of the exterior north basement wall, particularly in the west corner. apparently increased during August, 1973• Another obvious concrete block wall crack 3/8 inches wide was observed at the top location of a basement window in the north end of the west wall. We understand that other basement wall cracking developed on the west wall in a window well located just north of the front door steps. Numerous diagonal mortar cracks were also observed on the interior of the central part of the west wall. Some settlement of the front sidewalk (outside of west wall) south of the front steps was also observed, but no significant wall cracking was observed on the inside west wall, although some of the wall was covered by paneling, etc. Some apparent settlement of the basement floor slab has also occurred in the northwest corner of the house. At the time of our investigation, another house was investigated located immediately north of this residence. Similar settlement cracks were also ob- served in the :west and south walls of that house. We understand that a water main in the street just south of the site brokd in July, 1973. Based on the one inside boring taken during our investigation. the thickness of the footing is about 9 inches and th* footing width is estimated to be approximately 18 inches. The measured thickness of the concrete floor slab was 2 inches. Natural soils at the site are predominantly valley train sand and gravel deposits related�to the lies Moines Ice Lobe and the subsidiary Grantsburg Suhlobe (glacier) of the Wisconsin glaciation. Till is deposited directly by glacier S ice. According to information published by the State of Minnesota Geological Survey, bedrock under the property is believed to be white fine to medium grained well sorted friable sandstone of the St. Peter SandstOns formation and it probably occurs at a depth of about 60 to 80 feet below existing ground surface. SOIL CONDITIONS Inside the basement at the location of boring 2, underlying the concrete floor slab, is a 11 foot thick layer of clean crushed rock ranging in size from 1/2 to 2 inches. This rock drain ran in a northwesterly direction under the footing at the northwest corner of the house where a 4 inch diameter asbestos pipe, apparently used for water drainage, was observed. Some live roots, 1/4 to 3/8 inch in diameter, were also observed near the pipe. Underlying the crushed rc: fill is a i} foot thick layer of slightly organic silty clay. classified as,' possible fill; It is generally very tough in consistency. Occurring directly below the- ------------------ possible clay fill are layers of highly plastic silty clay which was <.. mottled in the upper portion and varvedin the lower portion Tfie varvred clay;", condit"ion indicated the a ---- = _- olcgi_ca_1 origin of this material to be a lake deposit. 4Re na�sttrra content of the plastic clay increases from about 20;- (based on th;a dry weight) -Frith respect to depth to over 50% at the bottom of the clay layer; It----Is-Eough_to ve_r-_toygh in con.�istency and decreases in strength with an /Increase in the depth./Aloss -on-ignition test performed on a similar plastic Clay sample obtained at the residence immediately north of this site indicates the organic content is 12%, based on the dry weight of the sample. This indi- r Cates the sample was slightly organic. The. _bor_i-ng-e tended--tv--a--de-ptti of: 9.1 ,c -feet-be`low-p-rasent--fl-oor--s-hab--e-lava-t-ion-into_tha�carv�d. Lty--c�a�,J F' At the -location of boring 1 located outside of the structure. a layer or a sand fill, loose in density, was underlain by a layer of probably cough fill or possible fill which extended to a depth of 5 feet below present ground surface. Occurring directly below the fill in boring 1 are layers of mottled to varved silty clay which extended to a depth of it feet below present ground surface. 1t is very tough to tough in consistency. Underlying the layers of plastic silty clay in boring 1 was a layer of possible decomposed wood encountered at elevation 83.9. This elevation corres- ponds to a similar layer of material encountered under the house immediately north of this house; where elevations ranged from 83..3 to 84.5 feet. This layer of possible decomposed wood was 5 inches thick, and the moisture content was 36a; and the organic content of this layer was 12%. This indicates the sample was slightly organic. Another similar mixed layer of sand and fibers was en-, countered from a depth of 11.4 to 1,1.6 feet below present ground surface, but contained much more sand. Underlying the layer of mixed sand and wood is a layer of fine to medium sand which extended to the terminal depth of 25 feet below present ground surface. It is medium dense in density since standard penetration test resistances were in the range of 12 to 17 blows per foot. Specific soil conditions encountered at the boring locations are indicated on the boring legs. The boring logs show subsurface conditions at the dates and locations Indicated, and It is not warranted that they are representative of subsurface conditions at other locations end times. 6ROIR10 WATER CONDITIONS Ulster level readings were taken in the borings both during and after the drilling operations. The readings obtained are shown on the boring logs. As can be seen, all holes were dry while drilling and Immediately upon completion. Based on examination of the soil samples and the above data. it is our opinion 7 the water level at -the site was located at an elevation below the depth of the borings. Seasonal fluctuations in ground water level should be anticipated. STRUCTURAL INFORMATION We understand the existing single family residence is one story in height with a basement floor slab measured elevation of 92.2 feet. The exterior base - went walls are constructed of concrete block placed on footings that were measured to be 9 inches thick at the location of boring 2. We assume that the floor and wall loads are relatively light, which is typical of the house of this size. Typical wall loads of the house my be in the order of. 1.5 to 2 kips (1 kip is 1,000 pounds) per lineal foot. Therefore if the footings width is about 1.5 feet, the estimated footing pressure is about 1,000 to 1,500 pounds per square foot (P.'s.f.). The approximate dimensions of the existing building are 46 by 22 feet in plan. ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The footings are situated on highly plastic silty clay at elevation 91.3 feet. For footings so situated, a maximum net allowable soil bearing pressure . of 3,000 p.s.f. (pounds per square foot) is recommended. Therefore., the actual bearing pressure is apparently less than the allowable bearing pressure, and would indicate an adequate foundation soil to support the footing with respect to shear failure. however, settlement of the footing and wails is another consideration. The apparent settlement has been caused by one or a combination of several reasons as discussed below. `7 The moisture content of the plastic clay generally increases from about 20% at the footing level to 502 in the lower portions. Therefore it is our opinion that the upper portions of the clay layer have dryad out. known as -` desiccation. One of the primary causes of desiccation is the proximity of a the tree root system to the foundation. For aaamale, one large tree was located clone to the northwest corner of the existing Dawe. The large quantities of actor required by trees are obtained thrwao their root systems% begrtive pone pressures are created within the root system by physiological warns within the tree system. in the process of obtaining water in the soil, the root system of the tree extends laterally and vertically into the soil. Traces of roots were observed in some of the silty clay soil encountered underneath the footings and also by the asbestos drain pipe. It is usually accepted that losses of soil moisture will cause soil shrinkage as a result of the pulling together of the soils particles, caused by the negative pore pressures. Such large negative pore pressures will cause consolidation of the soil, with the root itself acting as a convenient drainage layer. Periods of for rainfall way also create soil moisture deficiencies such that the tree will transpire more water than is restored to the soil, thus causing a loss in moisture. According to published U.S. Department of Commerce climatological data obtained at the Minneapolis International Airport. the precipitation at various times in 1973 was as follows. Period Rainfall - Inches Deoarture - Inches. Month of June, 1973 1.06 -2.9; Month of July, 1973 2.90 -4-37 Month of August, 1973 3.05 -0.13 Jan. 1 to Sept. 2S, 1973 15.72 -4.89 Therefore, the rainfall for the month of June, 1973 was almost 3 incises less than the average rainfall; and to date for 1973 was almost 5 inches less than the average. The months of July and August were close to normal but the dry month of June possibly had a ties. delay effect of drying Out the upper ;x3rtiw+a of clay to date. Therefore. it is our opinion that a portion of the settlement 9 � recently observed was due to accelerated dessication caused by low rainfall in June and for the year to date. At the 1•,cation of boring 2, Atterberg Limit tests were conducted on sample number 1 with a natural moisture content of about 24%, and a liquid limit of 60% and a Plastic limit of 24%. Although shrinkage limit tests were not conducted on the sample, it would be less than the Plastic limit of 24$. It is obvious that the shrinkage limit has not been reached in this case, and further desicca- tion would result in further settlement. One possible way of minimising the settlement due to desiccation is to restore water to the soil and the tree root system to the extent that the soil moisture is not reduced. The judicious work of the owner is important to insure that water is being made available to the root systems, especially during periods of high transpiration rate which coincides with hot dry days. Another method of minimizing desiccation is to completely remove the trees. As a ruse of thumb, it has been found that the minimum lateral distance between the footing and the tree should equal the height of the.tree. to prevent desiccation. For example, if the tree was 20 feet in height, a minimum distance of 20 feet laterally from the foundation wall should be maintained. Another cause of settlement, besides desiccation as discussed above, is from compression of the silty plastic clay materials encountered below the footings. This compression of the clay was caused by an increase in loading from the out- side fill and the footing load. For example, if the actual footing pressure is about 1,200 p.s.f. on the existing footings, it is our opinion that the total settlement for a footing 1J feet wide would be approximately 3 to 4 inches. assuming a compression index Cc=0.3 for the plastic clay layers. The settlement Is based on a very approximate relationship. if the settlement and rate is to be determined more accurately, additional samples will have to be obtained and Q. 4 C to an actual laboratory consolidation test be conducted. Furthermore, due to the slow rate of compression of fat slightly organic clays (with a measured organic content of 12%), the settlement of the structure would probably occur over a number of years, in our opinion. A third source of possible settlement is the compression of.the underlying layer of possible deconOosed wood just below the plastic clay encountered in boring 1. Based on the laboratory tests, it Is our opinion that settlement from this would not be as significant as the desiccation and coispression of the plastic clays. In summary, the settlement has been caused mostly by the desiccation and compression of the plastic clays, with perhaps a minor taus* by the compression of the thin layer of possibia decommed wood. In our opinion, if complete reme- dial measures are not taken, additional -settlement will occur. It is assumed, if a water table does. occur below the depth of the borings, that the water table has not been lowered in the area. This could also be a Potential cause of settlement, but would probably affect many houses in the area If the drop in water level was over.a large area. If this is to be considered, a minimum of one deep boring and plexometer would have to be installed and long term water level readings taken and reviewed. Saxe on the available Information and depending upon econo.:c 1�6 6`0P considerations, tf rtlfi nettssary to extend the wall that has settled into the ++ �irly Mg-nada-densrfin�-tom0 sum sands antoMat below the clay layers. 1� or�e�=to.extend'th footings, to this depth it may be desirable to_undsrpi-n- the sting waTr-footings. In this procedure, a wall footing is replaced by another footing -at-greeter-depth-. A pit is first excavated and lagged beneath _- -- -- -- ----_ the -Misting footing for -a 1ongtA__of _say;b.to S -feet, and to construct a short 11 section of t new M-6- oiln- this Asset. ' Aftar-Ibis-aectJ.oa-ls--cowplste, another sezri-o can a done. Tie spacing and construction of this system rill depend on temporary tolerable bridglag_of the existing footling, wnfi'shroytd�i-shacked -by a Strrrt�iraT Engineer.' %he transfer of load from the existing foundation to hs_o_ew foundation milt gause.eatslsment of the new foundation which mai/ crack - tie structure:' This will be minimized by dry packing the last (upper) 2 inches of so,,o the newfoundationwith dry lament In our opinion, the footinm�ate only 9 , =inches - th iand i nd11cat a a; velf l_ex i_b 1 e footing, and for that reason i t will he-a-Lltar di ffitt to and p n the existinggwal l without some additional walIng cracks may be tuck pointed. Consideration may be-gli"ros t derpinning and-then-repYaca the existing trail'with a -poured rain- ' forced concrete fact Tag�* Vy-wt lFw%Tmwi--cant�hvaus�ri�nt� e��-n orcie►g._steal at both -W a� bot tom of the _w�si l .- The—use usa of re-i-nforcmL ncrete as opposed `to abiosis wai 1 wi 1 lr- gcaatly improve the .walls- abi li ty to� wi`ths-ran�mieor_soft __orLoose.--areasF-whl-ch- could cause majorifferintte-- 1 settT6ient. - For underpinned footings situated on the medium dense fine to medium sand, a maximum not allowable soil bearing pressure of 1,500 p.s.f. is recommended. It is important that the underpinned footings not be placed on the thin layer of possible decomposed wood encountered just below the fat clay. Regarding the distance of footings for which the underpinning is to be made. this will depend on the soil conditions in the remainder of the structure which could bie determined with additional borings and analysis. Regarding the support of the floor slab in the existing structure, additional future settlement is also anticipated. If this condition is not tolerable by the owner, it is recommended that the floor be designed and reconstructed with reinforced concrete so that floor loads are transmitted to the new underpinned footing wal_11. iZ CONSTRUCTION DIFFICULTIES Serious problems. arising from ground water infiltration are not anticipated With the construction of the proposed underpinned footing foundation since the water table is at a depth below the bottom of the excavations. Any surface water that may accumulate at the bottom of the excavation could easily be reeoved by means of standard sump pit and.pump procedures Some sloughing of the excavation sides may occur in the deposits encountered. This condition may necessitate sloping back the excavation sides to maintain stability. All loose. materials resulting from sloughing or wind blown accumula- tion or disturbance due to normal construction activity should be removed prior to placement of concrete for the footings. One possible solution considered was the installation of transload piles, which are piles installed downward through the compressible soil into the under- lying sandy materials. By jacking the transload pile against a wail section, the structural support is transmitted from the house into the underlying sandy materials. In this case, this is riot feasible since a stiff structural unit in the wall is not available. SAFETY OURING CONSTRUCTION In accordance with generally accepted construction practices the Contractor will be solely and completely responsible for conditions of the job site, in- cluding safety of all persons and property during the performance of the work. This requirement will apply continuously and will not be limited to normal working hours. The duty of the Soil Engineer to conduct construction review of the Contrac- tor's performance is not intended to include review of the adequacy of the Con- tractor's safety measures, in. on or near the construction site. 13 GENERAL It is recommended that the stripping operation and the placement. of all fill be inspected by a Sall Engineer in order to ensure sufficient removal of all unsuitable materials in conformance to the above recommendations. Analysis and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon available information derived from the soil borings performed at the Indicated locations. Since it is L possible that variations in soil conditions may exist between boring locations, It is recommended that the material at the base of each of the foundation excava- tions be inspected by an experienced Soil Engineer In order to observe that the foundations are placed upon suitable material as anticipated in this dasiyn. a. If you wish, we would welcome the opportunity to perform any of the herein t: recommended inspection services for you during construction. In addition, we would be pleased to review any of the pians and specifications after they have been prepared for the project, so that we might have an opportunity of commenting upon the effects of the soil conditions on the design and specifications. This report has been prepared in order to aid in the evaluation of this property and to assist the Architect and Engineer in the design of the project, based on our understanding of the basic ass;mptions regarding the design and utilisation of the structure as outlined therein. It is intended for use with regard to the specific project, as discussed herein and any changes In the conception of the project should be brought to our attention so that we may determine how these changes may affect our recommendations. /cab . 77 i � 1) C- l'::�� _�:�2. a � +,� '� ' a.K Y• '� � +'��• �i'He � lr � .'�`f h 4 � ,�,� �•;+'✓h n � } tri v, ,tet }. f I NC SAV C:,OPNE;? CC- 46 AVE. N.E. AND Zyz-.ST. 2 1& STREET N. L. o-1 SOIL MATCq!.,-N-LS ENGINEERS. IN e -Ac 60:)0; N .w ..� .. HCUSE AT 4539 2'/a S -r. N- E: MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESO ar Aew-- MR. GERALD C. MUELLEP W.0" I a T �Jc,# R.A.H.1 40 1 M. L. L. oft"* 9 twwrso APWG . •� 1hA9�YS9���a+1��i1�.��i�m�c as®.�� -'dCiCCi� �1�i'�r 'c ' wti � ar�xa��' �eua�[Hsiidll_A=-�a.:a.s•_ Imcm or BORING NO. a- i OWNER Mr. 'Gerald P. Mueller A/iGNITtG'!- iNO1MEtR s"rE 4539 g} Street AA. Fridlev. Minnesota Pewter"m^wc Single Family Residence DOMINION _ ►• . a W w 4 19 N W i W 0... I �� �I u: �!r w s b ' '� Oi L I Gt ' i - _t .� • �' UNCOUP min cewwseem aimpan R • � • O • • MASTIC aT" - �souse LIMIT COM/tMT LnMTIII ATAMQAAO "1�" RM� AT10M tf►Or11�/�'►I IS 20 "IWAea 94.91 n s1, s n ps . 1 SS �. ; ': 4* V4 8 Org.s y sand with tic seams o tan mottled silty cl,y."Bk.(OL-Snn-Fill . Loose.- an� ve to. h. 1 ! S i 3 SS ,.j i•' ST silty C ay,molt !' with �n ustb6k.CL-CH-Possible ' r Silty clay with thin seams Of white silt, trace roots. ; Gray mottled with brawn. (CH). Very tough. 1L 1*� `1 4 ss �j !� b SS t Yarvad silty clay with thin pockets of brown fine sand, trace black, roots. Gray. (CH). Tough. 77 4 6 ' ST , , me an"d; t r.and j 4b r 5P f fine to medium sand, trace Silt. Light brown to tan. (SP). Medium dense. *Fins to mediu+r sand with pockets brown silty sand, .trace fine to coarse gravel and roots. Bran. (SP -Fill). +Moist. Loose. _ Varved possibly 'decomposed wood fibers, !probably compressible. Tana I (OL hood) , 1 j + 1i I t ; - IL � i 17 l ! 8 9 SS SS :��,. 0 _SS111111 End of Boring Glib ated enetrgmeter I Iiiiiiimmmwohm_K� wa► Lttvct ►: S01 L i MATER I EEW,1>rEEllS IHC.. 7900 77th Avenue NorthRAH Minneapol:s, Minnesota srtta -3-o- 7 W. t - D artsc�oenr. n. mos CONPUTau9-6-73 8-50 r D9 Ory AS oiurw ♦rMovtfl PILL 9050® sw No s waw SLirSGlllCEiLlG7li 11TiQ•7 avgrs.+.aa+a..r •..... a�rr—•••���•�_•• soil types; in situ, the trsasit3on may be gradual. J CG' ,iii., .n IME No 1�� gee ®e i sm�e mwrwcs.sUWw"ow-%_ � 2.2 - Concrete floor slab. ill Crushed rock, 3" to 2" size. LOG OF DCRWG NO. B-2 OWNER bottom of footing -0.9'.. Silty clay, trace of roots. ANCiwI'TSCT-iMOa�lR [. Mr. Gerald P. Mueller J— (CM). Tough to very tough. SITE 4519 21 ttreet N.E. ONW& POCACT' HAA 75.1 Fridley, Minnesota,- CIq Single Family Residence Varved silty .clay with thin wh i to seams of s i l t, t r. roots . 75.3 wao�wua nwa ommwiwTwMwV Gr. . Tough to very tough. * W 1 End of Boring • 1 a aCj I i x i . OiICU PaoN W MATZO"1*�� hsrT+e wiRw ►+wr a 4W AL w'`r�,y,-> r a ,+, G t SME Hawser aatwi.a4as�.:.� IME No 1�� gee ®e i sm�e wwyete ICVtt• OslltRVi w. �. Crytp�t�4 Dry AB �,. .e .s ra i soil types; 4L SOIL t MATER 1 ALS ENG t 1EER 000". conn+nt INC. mg MA 7903 77th AvenueNorth owww» RAH Ainnetapo . Minnesota j" Q0210 40250E 1 n - d a ii- rox za e situ, the tr9u3ition may bei gradual. ter ` Q -6-7i an= JE$ �rrwovt� „L L p�crr mwrwcs.sUWw"ow-%_ � 2.2 - Concrete floor slab. ill Crushed rock, 3" to 2" size. SI t trs.a its a mutt a . w (h bn. CH iiass�b�0 bottom of footing -0.9'.. Silty clay, trace of roots. 90.1 [. Gray mottled with brawn. J— (CM). Tough to very tough. ONW& 75.1 CIq Varved silty .clay with thin wh i to seams of s i l t, t r. roots . 75.3 Gr. . Tough to very tough. 1 End of Boring I i t.r al ib wwyete ICVtt• OslltRVi w. �. Crytp�t�4 Dry AB �,. .e .s ra i soil types; 4L SOIL t MATER 1 ALS ENG t 1EER 000". conn+nt INC. mg MA 7903 77th AvenueNorth owww» RAH Ainnetapo . Minnesota j" Q0210 40250E 1 n - d a ii- rox za e situ, the tr9u3ition may bei gradual. ter ` Q -6-7i an= JE$ �rrwovt� „L L p�crr SUBJECT P City of Fridley 20917 AT THE TOP OF THE TWINS BUILDING PERMIT i? RECEIPT NO. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIV. r PROTECTIVE INSPECTION SEC. I `CITY HALL FRIDLEY 55432 NUMBER REV. DATE PAGE OF APPROVED BY `� L ---- 612-571-3450 910-F15 7/3/91 JOB ADDRESS 4539 - 22 Street NE 1 LEGAL LOT NO. BLOCK TRACT OR ADDITION SEE ATTACHED DESCR. 11 1 Rearrangement of Blocks. 13,14,15, PlyMoutl§HEET 2 PROPERTY OWNER MAIL ADDRESS ZIP PHONE Steven/Vicki Renkert 4539 - 22 Street NE 572-1625 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. 6 USE OF BUILDING 't Residential 7 CLASS OF WORK ❑ NEW Q ADDITION ❑ ALTERATION ❑ REPAIR ; ❑ MOVE ❑ REMOVE 8 DESCRIBE WORK Construct a 10' x W Deck 9 CHANGE OF USE FROM TO STIPULATIONS See notations on plan. Footings must bear on solid soil, WARNING Wore digging call for all utility locations 454-0002 REQUIRE® BY LAW TYPE OF CONST. OCCUPANCY GROUP OCCUPANCY LOAD SEPARATE PERMITS ARE REQUIRED FOR ELECTRICAL. PLUMBING, HEATING, VENTILATING OR AIR CONDITIONING. ZONING SQ. FT. CU. FT. THIS PERMIT BECOMES NULL AND VOID IF WORK OR CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZED IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN 60 DAYS, OR IF CONSTRUCTION OR WORK IS SUSPENDED OR ABANDONED FOR A PERIOD OF 120 DAYS AT NO. DWLG. UNITS OFFSTREET PARKING ANY TIME AFTER WORK IS COMMENCED. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ AND EXAMINED THIS APPLICATION STALLS GARAGES VALUATION SURTAX AND KNOW THE SAME TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT. ALL PROVISIONS OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES GOVERNING THIS TYPE OF WORK WILL BE COMPLIED $1820Q $,60 WITH WHETHER SPECIFIED HEREIN OR NOT. THE GRANTING OF A PERMIT PERMIT FEE SAC CHARGE DOES NOT PRESUME TO GIVE AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE OR CANCEL THE PROVISIONS OF ANY OTHER STATE OR LOCAL LAW REGULATING CON- ' $29.00 Fire SC $1.20 STRUCTION OR THE PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTION. PLAN CHECK FEE TOTAL FEE y , 80 SIGN TURE OFCONTRACT RAUTHORIZEDAGENT (DATE) WHEN PRkPERLY AWIS YOUR PERMIT SIGNATURE OF ERO OWNE BUILDERI ���� IOATEI IN P MATE MW [ ] ADEN [ ] ALTER [ ] R-1 AND R-2 Building Permit Application Effective 1,/1/91 Construction Address: � J S �' 2 �(, Ln E Legal Zo / �3 /OCA e(--AMa4j o-U�&ZC/C Owner Name & Address: Q,� 4 0 \ cC k i C Pe 4eo tz+ Tel. Attach to this application, a Certificate of Survey of the lot, with the proposed cmistn=tion drawn on it to scale. CF II�ROVH�TZ' LIV M AREA: length Width Height Sq. Ft. GNRAM AREA: Length Width Height Sq. Ft. DECK AREA: length ,)0/ Width /L, ' Hgt/Grm- i �W' Sq. Ft. /6C) 07HER• Corner Int [ ] Inside Lot Ft. Yd Setback Side Yard Setbacks Type of Construction: Estimated Oost: $ �Q n C) . On l7 Approx. Ccmpletion Date: Proposed Driveway Width If New Opening Is Desired: Ft. $ $ Width + 6' See Back Page DATE: AWLICANT: ���/L )oma Tel. # CITY USE QNLY Permit Fee $��' Fee Schedule on Reverse Side Fire Surcharge . 001 x Permit Valuation (1/10th $) State Surcharge $ fo c $.50/$1,000 Valuation SAC Marge $ $650 per SAC Unit Driveway Escrow $ Alt. "A" or Alt. "B" Above Park Fee $ Fee Determined by nVineering Sewer Main Charge $ Agreement Necessary [ ] Not Necessary [ ] TvrAI, $ p sTIPUTATIMS: G p- 31 a " M4,4 A LS 1�a QAC.. 2 2xg `3r -8w. I�Y `� Qiw� 6;u (Z�,-L- �� ✓n �3C" (41G ►.- i ay.o ue- ,�`,4s . a, SuejEtT MIT N City of Fridley 2 � 5 7 5 AT THE TOP OF THE TWINS � � I � D � � I i� PERMIT �j r Ef ' v v R O UNITY DEVELOPMENT DIV. ___ _ � `L ------ r e PROTECTIVE INSPECTION SEC. � p & I GG i, 1 "1 CITY HALL FRIDLEY 55432 �'' NUMBER DATE PAGE OF APPROVED BY 612-571-3450 910-F15 IREV 11/13/98 JOB ADDRESS 4539 2 1/2 Street NE I LEGAL LOT NO. BLOCK TRACT OR ADDITION SEE ATTACHED DEscR. 11 1 Rearrangement of Plymouth Bl. 13,14,15 SHEET 2 PROPERTY OWNER MAIL ADDRESS ZIP PHONE Joe Awe 571-0130 3 CONTRACTOR MAIL ADDRESS ZIP PHONE LICENSE NO Viking Hm. Improv. Co. 4832 2 1/2 St NE M 1s 55421 572-1820 4772 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 O ADDITION ❑ ALTERATION Ox REPAIR O MOVE O REMOVE 8 DESCRIBE WORK Reroof house and garage (21 Sq) Tear -off; Fascia cover & wood wrap 9 CHANGEOFUSEFROM TO STIPULATIONS Underlayment must comply with the State Building Code. 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 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 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 WITH WHETHER SPECIFIED HEREIN OR NOT. THE GRANTING OF A PERMIT $2299 $1.15 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- STR ION OR THE P FIFO ANCE OF C ASTRUCTION $74.75 1 F SC $2.30 PLAN CHECK FEEL FEE Licens 5 .20 SIG ATUREOFCON7 ACTORORAUTHORIZED AGENT iDATEP N R LID T THIS IS Y U P IT Bl0 iN SP PATE S-GNATURE OF OWNER,IF OWNER SU0.DERi iDATE, y NEW .[ ] Effective 1/1/98 ADDN (] CITY OF FRIDLEY ALTER [ ] SINGLE FAMILY AND DUPLEXES R-1 AND R-2 BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION ConstructionAdiress: �) J Legal Description: Owner Name "ddress:, Tel. # Contractor: I % ` .per/ MN LICENSE # 7 7 �- Address: 2— Al E ! Tel. # Attach to this application, a Certificate of Survey of the lot, with the proposed construction drawn on it to scale. DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENT LIVING AREA: Length Width Height Sq. Ft. GARAGE AREA: Length Width Height Sq. Ft. DECK AREA: Length Width Hgt/Ground Sq. Ft. OTHER: t -'V _ _ nil Construction Type: - yl Or -e ..)Estimated Cost: $ (Fee Schedule on Back) 77 Driveway Curb Cut Width Needed: Ft. + 6 Ft = Ft x $ = $ DATE: 3 ` APPLICANT -X 6� Tel. # S72 It 2--0 TOTAL $ STIPULATIONS: CITY USE ONLY Permit Fee $ Fee Schedule on Reverse Side Fire Surcharge $_ 3 (D .001 of Permit Valuation (1 / 10th %) State Surcharge $ /, /� $.50/$1,000 Valuation SAC Charge $ $1000 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 $ STIPULATIONS: 04/02/2004 FRI 13;21 FAX ELDER JONES 01001/001 NEW l CITY OF FRIDLEY Effective 4/1/2004 ADDN 13 -$431 University Ave NE, Fridley, MN 55432' (763) 572-3604 Bldg lnsp ALTER 11 SINGLE FAMILY AND DUPLEXES R-1 AND R-2 (763) 571-1287 Fax BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION Construction Address: y 5, Legal Description: _ Owner Name & Address: C, �{,�N a -S� Contractor_ _ RMA HOME SER CES, INC. Address: Home Deopt Installed Sales 3200 Cobb Galleria Pkwy. Ste. #200 Atlanta, GA 30339 763-542-8826 BC -20268257 TeL# TU'5•5fl -b1W MN LICENSE# Tel. ## r Certificate of Survey of the [ruction drawn on it to scale. DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENT LIVING AREA; Length Width � Height Sq. Ft GARAGE AREA: Length Width HeightSq. Ft. DECK AREA: Length Width Hgt/Ground Sq. Ft OTHER: �a c� 1�9 �'a�rl1 -?C4. �oo� �rcl-e. 1y0�Y�Q Construction Type: Estimated Cost: $j Driveway Curti Cut Width Needed: _Ft + e Ft = Ft x DATE: 0 APPLICANT: Tel. 0 c a .344s, aoq-� Call (763) 672-3604 for Permit Fees if maTng In application. Fax to 763-571.1287 if using credit card and we vrrill call you for card number. CITY USE ONLY - Permit Fee $ �-, G Fee Schedule on Reverse Side Plan Review $ 65% of Permit Fee Fire Surcharge .001 of Permit Valuation (1110th%) State Surcharge $ ct. 1'01- $.50/$1,000 Valuation SAC Charge $ $1350 per SAC Unit License Surcharge $ ® $5.00 (State licensed Residential Contractors) Curb Cut 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 $ ��° , STIPULATICaNS: