New design of south GA pond-side house. Pond has not flooded banks since it was dug years ago, but could be/c the creek has before that. House will be on borderline of flood plain. The desire is to set the house two or three feet higher than the current ground level, and terrace the way to the pond. Which sounds better:
• Dig for footers in existing soil and build up stem wall to establish floor height, then fill w/ soil and gravel for slab base, and berm more soil around the outside to make the landscaping interesting; or
• Bring in fill to build up the height over a big area, set shallow footers in that (no frostline requirements), and build from there.
Owner has unlimited access to fill and equip to move it. I lean toward getting the footers on original soil rather than risking settling of the placed soil, and also not creating a situation where flooding could wash away the base under the footer, but I could be all wet. How would you do it, or do you need more info?
Replies
I'm a bit paranoid about flooding, especially after the 1993 floods and the recent heavy rains here. (We got over half our average annual rainfal in 12 days)
My first thought would be to move the dang thing back as far away from the pond as the owner will let you. No sense spending a fortune building it where there's a chance of it being damaged in a flood. If they won't go for that, make sure the pond has a huge spillway so it will be less likely to get real deep.
Have you checked with the EPA to make sure you're not screwing up one of their wetlands or somehting? That could be a serious problem if you get on the wrong side of them.
As for your original question - I'd also go with footers on the original soil. Seems like the best overall option.
Just when you think you've won the rat race along come faster rats
No wetlands. It's a man-made 1 acre pond 5 ft above creek level. They actually pump water up to it. Big spillway. Moving away won't do much, be/c the land is flat. Existing manuf house there that will be removed to make room for the dome.
Never heard of pumping water to fill a pond. Seems like that could get kinda expensive after a few years.
But whatever makes them happy...............
Forget about world peace. Visualize using your turn signal
Love the sig. Thanks for the laugh. Made my day.
Have lots of the signal impaired round here. Either they couldn't afford the accessory package that included them or they use them for 20 miles at a time. Usually the one opposite the direction they turn.
Boss hog What would it take to get you to share more of the one liners, I am getting tired of searching just for your posts. Mom always said to share you know.
Cloud it seems obvious to me that putting footings on fill is never the best solution, but I don't have much real experience in the footing business. What benefits would there be? Less concrete in the wall, or less framing is all that I can imagine. If flood threatens, can't they just shutoff that darn pump?
Sorry, no good jokes from me! Dan
Edited 5/24/2002 5:09:10 AM ET by handydan
Dan -
I could post all the one liners I have, but that would kinda kill the novelty of posting them, wouldn't it?
Trying to understand women is like trying to lick the beater while the mixer is still running.
That's right. Make us sweat it out! Some people would bitch even if they were hung with a new rope.
You building a house in S. GA on a 5 acre pond? They must be pumping water if there is still a pond there. The ponds on my place in S. GA are about dry. But when I was a little girl we had some wet years and our 75 acre pond broke the spillway. The two smaller ponds had chimney style spillways and they worked OK and didn't break their dams. Basically what I'm saying is in S. GA, all ponds are man made and they will sooner un-make themselves than flood the surrounding area. And if they do, it takes about one jab with a backhoe to make a spillway adequate to drain a 5 acre pond if you ever need to.
I agree with the other guys who prefer to build a foundation sitting on earth rather than soil. I would put it as close to the pond as you can. My dad has a little camphouse that sits right on a pond, maybe 50 yards back from a sandy beach (the property used to be a sand mine.) It's great fun to wake up in the morning and watch the herons fishing and the alligators cruising while the coffee brews. The house I grew up in was way up on a hill facing the 75 acre pond, but it was too far away to see any animal smaller than an elephant, and we didn't have any of those. Closer is much more captivating.
Good luck!
B
I'm designing a house to be built in Statesboro. 7 ac lot 1 ac pond. Creek behind. They pump when they need to. They want the house close to the pond, but also know that building inspector said he'd have to inform insurance co if they put footer w/in flood plain. They might anyway. It's coming down to...they'll have to make a choice and the engineer and I will help them understand options and consequences and costs.
You said the customer had access to unlimited dirt moving equipment, so maybe they could work the pond and get it close to the house with the house still above the flood plain. I assume the flood plain is determined by the creek. I would be real worried about building a slab in the flood plain. My dad's camphouse is less than a mile from the Ochlocknee River, so there is a distinct flood pattern to consider. He put his foundation above that. I think he built a metal building for the bulldozer man and took a lot of the profit in labor. He just had the pond shape changed until it was most appealing to him. He kind of made a bump into a genuine peninsula. It has steep banks and a dock in one place, a boat ramp in another, and the beachy place right in front for watching shore birds. He also rearranged the dam and the spillway to get it to never flood where his house it. As long as the river doesn't come that high, he's good to go. I would stick with the old rule of moving dirt around in the floodplain, but always maintaining the same volume.
If you want to build in that floodplain, just stick the thing on stilts and thumb your nose at the insurance guy. If you can do the front on a slab and then come out the back on stilts, that might work. I sort of like that hybrid thing, but I know a lot of people would think it was weird. I just built an addition on my house in Atlanta that is set up 8' in the air on pressure treated 6x6s. It comes off the second floor. I think it's neat looking. It's like a tree house. Maybe that's only because I have a really huge tree right next to it. Might just look dumb if it was built in a former cow pasture, though. Houses totally on stilts move perceptibly from the wind and walking, but this addition hooked onto the basement foundation house doesn't have that characteristic. I accept swaying in a summer place on a barrier island, but not so much in my every day house.
Good Luck!
B