ᐅ Floor Plan of a Narrow, Rectangular L-Shaped House on a Triangular Plot with an Oak Tree
Created on: 4 Nov 2018 10:54
O
Oakland
Hello everyone!
We have purchased a triangular plot of land. As if that weren’t complicated enough, there is also a large oak tree that must be considered during the planning. In our initial considerations, it quickly became clear that the floor plan will have an L-shape.
Does anyone here have experience with this type of plot and a correspondingly shaped floor plan? What additional information is needed to get meaningful advice?
Best regards
We have purchased a triangular plot of land. As if that weren’t complicated enough, there is also a large oak tree that must be considered during the planning. In our initial considerations, it quickly became clear that the floor plan will have an L-shape.
Does anyone here have experience with this type of plot and a correspondingly shaped floor plan? What additional information is needed to get meaningful advice?
Best regards
Escroda schrieb:
... and what if it wasn’t actually from the city? Then the city should have bought it to prevent anything from being built there.
It’s a bit ridiculous because densification is certainly sensible, but only where it makes sense. I don’t see that on this particular plot.
That’s what the tree preservation ordinance is for. Well, that’s your area of expertise, but as far as I know, keeping the tree crown drip line free has proven effective.Well, oaks have taproots, meaning the main root generally grows quite straight down. Still, it’s said that the roots usually spread underground at least as far as the crown extends above.
Sometimes even more. Normally, an oak won’t suffer immediate damage if some lateral roots are affected, as long as the taproot remains intact.
But you only really find out after the fact—and personally, I wouldn’t take the risk and dig around a tree like that for a basement. But I’m not the one deciding.
And in my opinion, what the original poster wants to build probably can’t be done there.
Let’s see if they come back with full measurements and requirements, etc.
M
Mottenhausen12 Nov 2018 14:53Escroda schrieb:
Believe me, it is inaccurate. It’s not a minor difference, since we’re not talking about 50cm (20 inches) but 2m (6.5 feet).Okay, we’ll wait for the correct site plan, in case the original poster provides it, and then we’ll overlay both graphics semi-transparently. I’m quite curious about the 2m (6.5 feet).
An architect also costs money, so I would only consult one if it really is necessary to proceed with that specific plot of land. The same applies to further surveying services.
I have already recommended applying for an exception regarding building setback requirements many posts ago.
Müllerin schrieb:
then the city should have bought it On what legal basis? And at what price? Pay the land development price and turn it into green space? Perhaps the 15% Green Party voters might understand that, but the rest will probably find it amusing on the "nonsense of the week" segment on extra3.
Müllerin schrieb:
Silly because densification makes sense, but only where it makes sense. I don’t see that on this plot right now. That’s very subjective, which is why I find "silly" inappropriate.
Müllerin schrieb:
...that the roots usually extend at least as far underground as the crown above. Sometimes even more. That aligns with the requirements the original poster mentioned: crown + 1.5m (5 feet).
Müllerin schrieb:
And what the original poster would like to build, in my opinion, cannot be realized there. I agree with you on that. Therefore, I am looking forward to seeing their plans.
Escroda schrieb:
Paying land prices and turning it into green space? Maybe the 15% Green Party voters would understand that,... Yep!Escroda schrieb:
Maybe 15% of Green Party voters would understand that *23% ... :'o