My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-06-10-PC
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
Commissions, Committees, and Boards
>
Planning Commission
>
Planning Commission Packets
>
2010-2019
>
PC Packets 2010
>
01-06-10-PC
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/16/2015 9:18:25 AM
Creation date
1/5/2010 1:26:28 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
134
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
To: City of Arden Hills <br />From: Christian T. Hansen, Owner & Pres. of HANSEN BROS. FENCE & CONSTRUCTION <br />Subject: Inspection of the Fence Construction along the Schneider's Property <br />The attached letter and photograph copies prove that the fence we are forced to live with is <br />poorly constructed, and does not meet the fence code. <br />1. Letter from Mr. Hansen, a 60 -year-old family owned and operated professional fence <br />business owner, a Better Business Bureau Reliability Rated business. <br />2. Photo 1 — Mr. Hansen points out the fence is arbitrary, willy nilly stepping, the bays are <br />not level. Over time as the fence settles and especially the use of inferior concrete instead <br />of a gravel footing the fence will continue to pull apart as the wood expands and <br />contracts. <br />3. Photo 2 — Supporting evidence that the face of the fence has a 1" rough sawn cedar <br />finishing trim. The back of the fence is made of an inferior wood and is a 2" x 4" framing <br />wood. <br />4. Photo 3 — Rough sawn cedar trim is 1 " on the front of the fence compared to the 2" x 4" <br />knotted wood used for the frame and back of the fence <br />5. Photo 4 — Front of the fence, facing the Mahoney's yard shows the high quality of the <br />rough sawn cedar which looks exactly like the type of cedar recommended for the front <br />of a fence. <br />(The wood is pink to orange -red with creamy yellow -white sapwood. Internet <br />description.) <br />6. Photo 5 — Back of the fence showing poor workmanship, nails instead of screws, inferior <br />wood posts and frame. <br />7. Photo 6 - Close-up of poor quality construction as described by Mr. Hansen, which <br />proves the unprofessional finishing on the back of the fence which should be facing the <br />Mahoney's, instead it, faces our yard. Over time, this will deteriorate. <br />8. Photo 7 — Back of the fence facing our property, clearly showing that the face boards are <br />attached to the frame. <br />9. Photo 8 — Back of the fence frame 2" x 4" with knots. <br />10. Photos labels 5, 9, 10 & 15 — Show poor workmanship in footings, footings and dirt over <br />the property line, problems that will continue to be an issue. The concrete has already <br />cracked; it is above ground which will make it difficult to cut the grass. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.