The garage floor elevation change and consequences.
As the foundation rose from the footings in the garage an issue that required attention popped up. The plans called for a final elevation that seemed problematic given the grading plan approved by the natural resources department at the city. After careful consideration Paul Winters decided to adjust the garage floor height (and driveway elevation) making it easier to comply with the new plan. Both the problem and solution are difficult to understand and best illuminated with the aid of some sketches and diagrams (as luck would have it...a specialty of mine).
First the problem. The drawings called for a garage floor elevation that would have required the extreme rear corner of the driveway apron to be raised 41". Raising the grade to that elevation would negatively impact not only the strip of woods separating our house from the neighbors to the East but also the big maple tree right behind the garage (click on the sketches to see larger versions).
Next the solution. Paul chose to have the garage floor poured at a 16" lower elevation than called for in the plan. This change provides relief in the extreme rear corner requiring a more manageable 25" of additional fill. The reduced impact to the grades that comes with this change will provide many benefits including the preservation of the strip of woods between the properties and the big maple tree out back.
But...of course...there are some significant consequences that come with a change of this magnitude.
First; (and most important) is that the elevation change requires the stairways into the house to include at least two additional treads. This affects both the height and the length of all three stairways that rise to the house from this grade. The two sets of stairs inside the garage have already been extended and now both consume some additional floor space. The stairs to the (yet to be built) breezeway porch will need to be adjusted. The lower grade also requires the doors to be set lower in the front wall of the garage adding a space above the doors and exposing more of the cement blocks at the bottom. This results in a “not insignificant” change to the look of the front face of the garage.
Second; the ceiling height inside the garage has increased by the same 16". This means that the first three stalls will have a ceiling height of 12' 4" and the last stall will measure 11' 4". The two windows in the back wall of the garage will now stand 16" higher from the floor (a consequence of our desire to maintain a consistent look on the outside). Operating the windows will probably require a stool.
All of this raises some obvious questions. I've decided to pose and then answer these questions in an "interview" form here. Please feel free to add your own comments or questions below.
Question: What do you think of this change?
Answer: I honestly like it...a lot! The increased ceiling height in the garage is fantastic. It makes bringing my 4-post lift "home" from Loretto a more practical proposition and will provide more lift height for the jib-crane. The changes to the “look and Feel” of the garage face are not bothering me very much. We placed the garage at the back of the lot specifically to hide it from view as we made the front more approachable. Folks on Amy’s deck will be the only people to see the front of the garage and the changes here will ensure that the narrow strip of woods between the lots will continue to obscure even that limited view. Furthermore…I think the front face of the garage is going to look great!
Question: Don't the changes to the stairs cause problems?
Answer: Eliminating the ramp to the mudroom entrance is probably the most significant change, but I'm already convinced that a lifting mechanism inside the front service entrance will provide better accessibility and replacing the ramp with stairs frees up the back corner of the garage nicely.
Question: How in the world did this happen?
Answer: This is a natural consequence of a process that relies on information from at least three sources, includes changing requirements, and is under time pressures. The surveyors recorded the site contours on the survey, Mike took that data and placed the house on the grade in CAD, JLM then worked out the grading & landscaping plans. The changes the city required us to make to the original grading plan (before approving the building permit) came after nearly a month of discussions that included quite a few possibilities. We incorporated the changes they requested into the plans and quickly turned the demolition and excavating folks loose. It is very hard to keep everyone completely informed in a process that works like this and it is especially complicated to analyze all the possible consequences of changes to the grade. On top of all this I was tired of the delays and pushing everyone hard to get going on the project.
Question: Who's fault is it?
Answer: No one! Mike Kloti worked from a grading plan that we could not use in the end. The city has perfectly legitimate reasons for the changes required. Furthermore the changes result in fewer trees and less vegetation being removed (a good thing all around...I think). JLM's grading and landscaping plans served at least two masters and certainly bears no fault.
Question: Would you do things any differently next time?
Answer: Fortunately I hope to never have a "next time". I’m sure that I’ll be done participating in any house building after The "L" Shaped House is complete. I'm pretty sure that this experience will only strengthen the already strong JLM Design Build team.
Question: Ok…You say there are no villains. Are there any heroes?
Answer: I'm going to give Paul Winters a lot of credit! He stepped up and made a tough call right in the heat of battle. He presented it to me clearly & carefully in a timely fashion, and patiently helped me to understand both the disease and the cure. This is exactly why I wanted Paul to build our new home!
