City Limits 3.0

The pressing issue is now identifying exactly the location of the garage foundation and walls. The original plan, approved after several rounds of review, called for the walls being set back 3-feet from the lot line. This seemed like a fine placement at the time, but some new information has surfaced.

First, the property corner marker, a steel pipe driven into the ground to provide a reference for lawyers and surveyors, was not at the neighbor’s fence line as expected. It was 2-1/2 feet away, removing that distance from my plan and shortening the net driveway space.

Second, the beautiful mature hackberry tree in our back yard (but now the neighbor’s back yard), whose trimming I had just invested in, was dangerously close to the proposed new garage. The excavation will compromise its future health.

Both of these problems could be reduced if we simply move the structure closer to the property line. The plan called for 3-feet, but the city ordinance only needed one-foot. A two foot gain in driveway space, and tree root clearance could be had.

Unfortunately, this is not my decision to make. The excavators want to follow the plan, because that is what the city building inspectors will be examining. If it is not right, it will have to be re-done, an expensive proposition when heavy equipment and concrete are involved.

So to avoid costly rework, the plan needs to be revised. Officially. And since I am the “general contractor” and project manager, it was up to me to get this authorization before the excavators arrived. This is my part in the choreography.

I marked up the changes to the plan. I showed the new property lines, took pictures of the corner stake, indicated the setbacks, annotated the changes, printed a revised site plan, and headed downtown.

I do not criticize government planning departments. They have a valuable role in the safety and quality of our city. And I wish they were adequately funded. I spent a half-day to get this change approved, first waiting to explain it to one zoning administrator, but then finding that it needed to be approved by the original planner who had signed off on the permit. Fortunately, that planner was not on vacation, and was scheduled to be in the office, but not until after noon.

I hate having to do it, but I killed time, knowing that this was the only possibility for getting my desired setback distances approved and avoiding additional expense or delay. I suffered a lunch at the “Court Café” and was back in the planning office by the afternoon shift.

My interview with the planner went well; he understood completely and re-authorized the plan with the new dimensions, provided that no part of the structure came within 6-inches of the property iine. A revision was filed and recorded against the property. He then sent me to another department. I didn’t understand, but followed his instructions and waited for my service number to be called again.

It turns out that there are several layers of city requirements. I had just passed the hurdles of the zoning department. Now I needed to pass the building codes. Zoning allowed me to build within a one-foot setback of the property line. But the building codes would not allow any “protrusions” (i.e. roof overhangs) to exceed four-inches if I did so.

In my usual manner of curiosity, I asked why this restriction existed. The building code manual was produced, and after some searching the relevant clause was identified. It provided no justification, but it was in a section that referred to fire protection. I infer that structures with overhangs of any size are an increased fire hazard, and that 4-inches was a tolerable compromise.

The garage design called for a 1-foot overhang. I had to decide if this could be compromised to 4-inches. It seemed pretty extreme; how could a roof provide a proper watershed if it was only 4 inches out from the wall? And what would this do to the aesthetics of my carefully designed building? My choices were to keep the original plan with its generous setbacks (and compromise the tree and driveway), or to accept a chopped short roofline with no margin for even a gutter.

It was a stressful moment. A decision was needed. Options would be eliminated. The plan would be updated. The choice would be recorded in the city records forever.

The agent tried to calm me. I didn’t have to decide right then; I could consult my builder and come back.   I contemplated this, but realized it would involve another full working day of navigating the city planning office, and in doing so would anything be different? I really DID have to decide now.

So I did. The overhang will be limited to 4-inches.

And then I was informed that this only applies to the property line adjacent with the neighbor. There is no such restriction for the alley! This was an immense relief. Only the backside of the garage would be restricted. There is no visual impact on anything else! I can live with this. Easily.

I was re-directed to another department, but it was mere protocol. The building permit had been amended and now needed to be re-printed. I waited for the new copy, took delivery, and headed home.

As an engineer, I understand the need for revision control. But with construction in the real world, a more dynamic mechanism for changes mandated by new information and discoveries would be beneficial.

Life is filled with tradeoffs.

 

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.