Solid board fencing on terrain with elevation changes
#1
06-04-07, 07:33 PM
Solid board fencing on terrain with elevation changes
I have a post on the legal forum regarding a fencing issue. I'm consulting with an attorney with architectural experience, and we're in agreement that my best course of action will involve making a detailed proposal to modify my fencing to follow better aesthetic design practices.
My property was built on property where the slope of the back yard probably makes it dogone near unusable. Hindsight aside, I need it to be fenced. I've built a fence based on following the contour of the land.
My lawyer advised me that for aesthetics, it would be better to use level top rails and step the top rail elevation. For the gates, they should be pure rectangles.
As for the gates, on the sides of the house (there's 11' and 13' to the property line from my house, and at the rear corner both sides are sloped down about 2'+ from the house to the edge of the property). In order to have rectangular gates, I need to run the fence further forward by 36' to reach land that is close enough to being level that a rectangular gate won't leave a 10" gap my dog can escape under.
My lawyer is preoccupied with another case until the end of the week, what I'd like to ask is if I could get some opinions about the images I'm developing for the proposal. At the following web site, you can see digital photos of my current fence, computer generated images showing a comparison between current and proposed layouts and details of typical panels of the current and proposed configurations.
Please review these photos, primarily I'm interested in whether the photos convey what I'm trying to propose. Do I need to model more detail into the fence? Would there be a better angle to view the house yard and fence from, such as directly from side or rear, higher or lower elevation? The fence, yard and house images are generated from 3D CAD models, so it's just a matter of repositioning the camera in the software and saving images.
http://new.photos.yahoo.com/album?c=klopfewr&aid=576460762403472275&pid=&wtok=eHYpGPFsKPttABWDzXsJCA--&ts=1180806984&.src=ph
My property was built on property where the slope of the back yard probably makes it dogone near unusable. Hindsight aside, I need it to be fenced. I've built a fence based on following the contour of the land.
My lawyer advised me that for aesthetics, it would be better to use level top rails and step the top rail elevation. For the gates, they should be pure rectangles.
As for the gates, on the sides of the house (there's 11' and 13' to the property line from my house, and at the rear corner both sides are sloped down about 2'+ from the house to the edge of the property). In order to have rectangular gates, I need to run the fence further forward by 36' to reach land that is close enough to being level that a rectangular gate won't leave a 10" gap my dog can escape under.
My lawyer is preoccupied with another case until the end of the week, what I'd like to ask is if I could get some opinions about the images I'm developing for the proposal. At the following web site, you can see digital photos of my current fence, computer generated images showing a comparison between current and proposed layouts and details of typical panels of the current and proposed configurations.
Please review these photos, primarily I'm interested in whether the photos convey what I'm trying to propose. Do I need to model more detail into the fence? Would there be a better angle to view the house yard and fence from, such as directly from side or rear, higher or lower elevation? The fence, yard and house images are generated from 3D CAD models, so it's just a matter of repositioning the camera in the software and saving images.
http://new.photos.yahoo.com/album?c=klopfewr&aid=576460762403472275&pid=&wtok=eHYpGPFsKPttABWDzXsJCA--&ts=1180806984&.src=ph
#2
06-05-07, 11:12 AM
Member
Fence
I do not understand why your attorney is involved in this project. Do you have restrictions in your neighborhood regarding fences?
If you want to contain your dog, the vertical boards need to go all the way down to the ground; otherwise the dog will crawl under. Personally I would lower the top rail by about one foot and let the vertical boards extend above the rail with the top ends rounded. I think your proposal of leveling the top of each panel magnifies the fact that the ground is not level. Gate posts must be plumb for the gate to work properly.
If you want to contain your dog, the vertical boards need to go all the way down to the ground; otherwise the dog will crawl under. Personally I would lower the top rail by about one foot and let the vertical boards extend above the rail with the top ends rounded. I think your proposal of leveling the top of each panel magnifies the fact that the ground is not level. Gate posts must be plumb for the gate to work properly.
#3
06-06-07, 03:05 AM
The attorney's involvement isn't that pertinent to what I was asking, but the short version is that I have a homeowner's association, there are fencing guidelines and there is a process for applying to install a fence, which I followed. My application went in on March 12, the HOA has 30 days to respond, they didn't, I built the fence, on day 68 the HOA responded by denying my application. See my post in the legal forum for more details.
The relevant bit is that the HOA claims that the fence looks bad and area residents have complained. I'm an engineer and my creedo is that form follows function, and I am aware that I lack a good sense of aesthetics. I think the fence looks fine and I'm assuming this is a matter of design because if it was a matter of quality of my work, I'd be able to find a flaw and correct it.
My attorney is dual degreed and experienced as an architect, so I count that as a qualification better than my own to judge what is appropriate to design for the aesthetics of the fence.
As far as the gap under the fence, that isn't a concern anywhere except at the gate. For the fixed portion of the fence, the covenants dictate a 3" gap to allow unimpeded drainage, I have that.
My dog is a big chicken. My dog is a retriever mix and he's not going to fit under a 3" gap. Before we got our other dog, which we gave to my parents because he was a little agressive towards our baby, we had a german shorthaired pointer that was a little more adventurous (same size as our mix, but a little less bulky) and he was able to squeeze through the gaps in standard steps on our deck! Before we had him, the mix was afraid to jump over a 12" high fence we had around some flowers and one time I had to walk out and carry him because he got himself to an area of our back yard where he was surrounded by ice.
As for the gates, plumb fence posts aren't part of the question. They are plumb, in the proposal they are plumb and nobody is suggesting otherwise. The problem is that with the gate located where it is right now, if the gates were rectangular, with a 3" bottom gap on one side, the other side would have enough gap for a horse to crawl under because of the slope of the land at that point.
With the gates built as they are right now, it meets the functional need by following the contour. The gap is roughly the same across the bottom of the gate. The gap has to be 6" so that when the gate is opened, the gate being a double gate so I minimize sag and better follow the changing contour, it doesn't need to be 6" underground at the bottom so that it can be openned 90 degrees.
In order to have land that is more nearly level, I have to go 36 feet further forward on my property. This is the only way to have gates attached to plumb posts that meet the functional requirements of maintaining a reasonable bottom gap and still being able to open to 90 degrees if the aesthetic requirement is to use pure rectangles.
The implication I got from my discussion on aesthetics with my lawyer was that while I could step the top rail for the fixed fence, this wasn't best practice for the gate and the bottom rail should be level as well as the top.
The relevant bit is that the HOA claims that the fence looks bad and area residents have complained. I'm an engineer and my creedo is that form follows function, and I am aware that I lack a good sense of aesthetics. I think the fence looks fine and I'm assuming this is a matter of design because if it was a matter of quality of my work, I'd be able to find a flaw and correct it.
My attorney is dual degreed and experienced as an architect, so I count that as a qualification better than my own to judge what is appropriate to design for the aesthetics of the fence.
As far as the gap under the fence, that isn't a concern anywhere except at the gate. For the fixed portion of the fence, the covenants dictate a 3" gap to allow unimpeded drainage, I have that.
My dog is a big chicken. My dog is a retriever mix and he's not going to fit under a 3" gap. Before we got our other dog, which we gave to my parents because he was a little agressive towards our baby, we had a german shorthaired pointer that was a little more adventurous (same size as our mix, but a little less bulky) and he was able to squeeze through the gaps in standard steps on our deck! Before we had him, the mix was afraid to jump over a 12" high fence we had around some flowers and one time I had to walk out and carry him because he got himself to an area of our back yard where he was surrounded by ice.
As for the gates, plumb fence posts aren't part of the question. They are plumb, in the proposal they are plumb and nobody is suggesting otherwise. The problem is that with the gate located where it is right now, if the gates were rectangular, with a 3" bottom gap on one side, the other side would have enough gap for a horse to crawl under because of the slope of the land at that point.
With the gates built as they are right now, it meets the functional need by following the contour. The gap is roughly the same across the bottom of the gate. The gap has to be 6" so that when the gate is opened, the gate being a double gate so I minimize sag and better follow the changing contour, it doesn't need to be 6" underground at the bottom so that it can be openned 90 degrees.
In order to have land that is more nearly level, I have to go 36 feet further forward on my property. This is the only way to have gates attached to plumb posts that meet the functional requirements of maintaining a reasonable bottom gap and still being able to open to 90 degrees if the aesthetic requirement is to use pure rectangles.
The implication I got from my discussion on aesthetics with my lawyer was that while I could step the top rail for the fixed fence, this wasn't best practice for the gate and the bottom rail should be level as well as the top.
#4
06-06-07, 05:41 AM
Member
Fence
If I were you, I would follow the advice of your attorney and the homeowners association. Look for other fences that have been approved to get some ideas on design. Good luck and thanks for the details. Others may have more suggestions.
One note: If you could hinge the gate on the downhill post, ground clearance when opening would not be a problem.
One note: If you could hinge the gate on the downhill post, ground clearance when opening would not be a problem.
#5
06-06-07, 06:11 AM
My choices in gate width, 5.5' on the north side and 7.5' on the south side, see 9" and 12" of elevation change over the width of the gate.
If I did keep the bottom rail of the gate where it follows the contour, a single 7.5' wide gate on the southern side of the house is a bit wider than I wanted to go. On the northern side, though, there is a slope change about half way through the gate, and I'd have an added 6" of gap due to that.
The only reason I hadn't originally planned to run the fence further forward on the property is because it adds 72 linear feet of fence, and even as a do-it-yourself job, that's another $620 in materials. My tax return covered the materials for what we have, until our house we moved out of sells (had to relocate out of Michigan due to job situation) we're pretty much nil on the disposable income.
For a wife at home all day with two babies, a fenced yard is a world easier to send an 80 lb dog into than a rope that gets him tangled around anything he can find, at which point he turns into a barking nuissance.
And the advice of the HOA is to remove the fence. That's the one option I'm not interested in.
If I did keep the bottom rail of the gate where it follows the contour, a single 7.5' wide gate on the southern side of the house is a bit wider than I wanted to go. On the northern side, though, there is a slope change about half way through the gate, and I'd have an added 6" of gap due to that.
The only reason I hadn't originally planned to run the fence further forward on the property is because it adds 72 linear feet of fence, and even as a do-it-yourself job, that's another $620 in materials. My tax return covered the materials for what we have, until our house we moved out of sells (had to relocate out of Michigan due to job situation) we're pretty much nil on the disposable income.
For a wife at home all day with two babies, a fenced yard is a world easier to send an 80 lb dog into than a rope that gets him tangled around anything he can find, at which point he turns into a barking nuissance.
And the advice of the HOA is to remove the fence. That's the one option I'm not interested in.
#6
06-13-07, 06:50 AM
few things...
I didn't check out your other post in the legal section but I'm guessing you have an uphill battle - since you built the fence without the HOA approval originally even though they it sounds like they didn't follow their own guide lines. No matter what you do they are still going to pick it apart. Did they give you specific feed back about what you can do to fix the fence?
I think aesthetics is relative, in my neighborhood myself and a few others would prefer your current fence design over the proposed stepped look.
2 things I would have done differently with your current design...
- framing and such should have been on the inside so you see it rather than on the outside for your neighbors to look at. By having the framing on the inside you could also frame the gate square but adjust the slats to follow the contour. From the outside it looks normal but when opened it looks fun but works - that's the way mine is.
-Move the top rail down 6" to 1' and use dog eared or rounded tops for the boards then let adjust the boards to make a visually smooth line along the top.
Good luck!
I think aesthetics is relative, in my neighborhood myself and a few others would prefer your current fence design over the proposed stepped look.
2 things I would have done differently with your current design...
- framing and such should have been on the inside so you see it rather than on the outside for your neighbors to look at. By having the framing on the inside you could also frame the gate square but adjust the slats to follow the contour. From the outside it looks normal but when opened it looks fun but works - that's the way mine is.
-Move the top rail down 6" to 1' and use dog eared or rounded tops for the boards then let adjust the boards to make a visually smooth line along the top.
Good luck!
#7
06-14-07, 09:25 AM
Update
My choice of building a fence of this design was based on the fact that it looks the same on both sides. I built a fence like this at our home at Michigan and I didn't put in a middle rail, which worked okay for there although a middle rail would have been more durable and helped prevent warpage and sag. In this case, the open area of the new subdivision meant it was an absolute necessity as the relatively high winds hastened warpage by causing one side to dry faster than the other and caused some boards to blow out of the framing.
The original intent was to have a middle rail on both side, I just chose to do the outside first so that I wouldn't have to enter the neighbor's property later when I added the middle rail to the second side.
Last night we had our second quarter association meeting and it seems all I have to do is move the center rail to the inside and stain the fence some time within the first year.
The HOA could well still not be satisfied with that, but at least it seems we're talking at this point and whatever it's going to take to get to a point where everyone is satsified, the communication channels are now open.
It sure would've saved a lot of heartburn if they'd just said that up front instead of telling me to remove the whole thing and escalating it every time I tried to figure out what the problem is so I can do something about it other than remove my fence. I guess better late than never.
The original intent was to have a middle rail on both side, I just chose to do the outside first so that I wouldn't have to enter the neighbor's property later when I added the middle rail to the second side.
Last night we had our second quarter association meeting and it seems all I have to do is move the center rail to the inside and stain the fence some time within the first year.
The HOA could well still not be satisfied with that, but at least it seems we're talking at this point and whatever it's going to take to get to a point where everyone is satsified, the communication channels are now open.
It sure would've saved a lot of heartburn if they'd just said that up front instead of telling me to remove the whole thing and escalating it every time I tried to figure out what the problem is so I can do something about it other than remove my fence. I guess better late than never.
