Your house is too tall underground
Many jurisdictions will impose height limits on houses in order to keep densities the way the elected city councils want them. Many times, it's for the livability of neighborhoods so people don't build five story condos next to single story houses. Sometimes, it's for aesthetics so people don't build townhomes in a rural setting. Occasionally, it's for pragmatic reasons so someone doesn't, say, build a tall building in front of an airport runway.
Sometimes the code will measure from the finished grade to the top of a ridge or parapet wall. Other times, the code will set a limit to the midpoint between the eave and ridge. When the grades are sloped, the code often will prescribe an average or midpoint of the grades. Unfortunately, many times the code isn't perfectly clear or well defined.
One of my colleagues ran into this issue with a planner. The code specified a height limit, but although it wasn't specified, these height limits are pretty much universally to specify height limits above ground, because, well, why would the general public care what happens underneath the house?
This city planner was unconvinced. He was adamant that the drawings be revised to show the height limits to the bottom of the foundation.
Being in the schematic design phase of the house, my colleague says that there is no foundation design yet, and not even a geotechnical report, not to mention a structural engineer to specify foundation depths. Further, he argued that it made no sense to measure to the bottom because only the top eight inches of the foundation would be above grade and visible.
The planner said it didn't matter. It was part of the structure and must therefore be part of the height measurement.
"This is ridiculous," my colleague (must have) thought. He decided to play this game with the planner. He told the planner that if that's the case, then you must count the sand and gravel underneath a concrete slab, since that's all supportive of the structure.
"Oh yes, thank you for reminding me of that. Yes, you need to measure to the bottom of that too," replied the planner.
"And of course, there is the deepened footings at the structural areas."
"Yes, count that too."
"If it's a raised floor foundation, the concrete footings may be a few feet below grade."
At this point, the planner appeared to start getting nervous, but stayed the course. "Yes, count that as well."
Well, given the soils and the grade, we may have to do a pier and grade beam foundation. We could have piers that go thirty feet underground, so if it does need to go to the bottom of the structure, our thirty five foot height limit means we can't build a house above ground where the piers are located.
Checkmate. After some grumbling, he realized the fallacy of his ways and eventually let the height limit stay.
Thankfully, this didn't result in too much of an increased cost for the client, just some frustration and heartburn. But this lack of understanding by city planners of how houses are built is not an isolated incident.
One of my colleagues ran into this issue with a planner. The code specified a height limit, but although it wasn't specified, these height limits are pretty much universally to specify height limits above ground, because, well, why would the general public care what happens underneath the house?
This city planner was unconvinced. He was adamant that the drawings be revised to show the height limits to the bottom of the foundation.
Being in the schematic design phase of the house, my colleague says that there is no foundation design yet, and not even a geotechnical report, not to mention a structural engineer to specify foundation depths. Further, he argued that it made no sense to measure to the bottom because only the top eight inches of the foundation would be above grade and visible.
The planner said it didn't matter. It was part of the structure and must therefore be part of the height measurement.
"This is ridiculous," my colleague (must have) thought. He decided to play this game with the planner. He told the planner that if that's the case, then you must count the sand and gravel underneath a concrete slab, since that's all supportive of the structure.
"Oh yes, thank you for reminding me of that. Yes, you need to measure to the bottom of that too," replied the planner.
"And of course, there is the deepened footings at the structural areas."
"Yes, count that too."
"If it's a raised floor foundation, the concrete footings may be a few feet below grade."
At this point, the planner appeared to start getting nervous, but stayed the course. "Yes, count that as well."
Well, given the soils and the grade, we may have to do a pier and grade beam foundation. We could have piers that go thirty feet underground, so if it does need to go to the bottom of the structure, our thirty five foot height limit means we can't build a house above ground where the piers are located.
Checkmate. After some grumbling, he realized the fallacy of his ways and eventually let the height limit stay.
Thankfully, this didn't result in too much of an increased cost for the client, just some frustration and heartburn. But this lack of understanding by city planners of how houses are built is not an isolated incident.
Comments