FINISHED IN 2020! Sharward's Partial Garage Conversion

[Sword9]

Thanks for the post. However, even that still doesn't have a firm answer. And even past that, I'm now aggravated that Varilight doesn't make those touch sensitive/remote controlled dimmers for a 120V AC system. Those are so cool looking.

[sharward]

Based on research I have done over the last 3 days, my floorplan has to change dramatically due to California Building Code requirements for landings at doorways with stairs behind them.

I do not have the CBC book in front of me. However, based on feedback from my city's building department (which I have corroborated with numerous sources on the 'Net), CBC §§1003.3.1.6 and 1003.3.1.7 require a door landing (or a floor) on each side of door. The landing must be a minimum of 36" in the direction of travel. There is an exception for doors at the top of interior stairways where the door opens away from the stairs.

In my original plan, my raised floor is about 15.5" off the concrete slab floor of the garage, requiring two steps up. I had planned to have one step between the doors, with the outer leaf door above the surface of the slab even with the first step, which would minimize square footage wasted between the doors. Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzt: Wrong answer.

I revised the plan, putting the outer leaf door at slab level, with a 38" deep unobstructed area inside of it, plus two steps up of equal height. The second step is the same height as the room. Fortunately, since the inner leaf door opens into the room, I need not have a landing at the top of the steps. Since I now have the room inside to swing the door inward, I changed that. (That's the one silver lining in this -- I no longer have to worry about hitting my car with the door if I park to close to the wall.)

Making these modifications causes me to lose 23 square feet -- down from about 133 to about 110. 110 feet? Criminey - that's just one linear foot larger than our dinky bedrooms.

This 1/6 reduction in square footage is really pissing me off. It's not like I had a lot of room to afford in the first place.

In light of this discovery, not floating my floor would give me back a great deal of floor space. I'm now stuck between a rock and a hard place: floating the floor gives me good isolation, but may make the room impracticably small.

I also placed the 8" HVAC vents, based on my HVAC bidder's recommendations.

I also was aware that a garage must have a minimum witdth of 10' and a minimum depth of 20'. In closely reviewing my plans and doing some careful measurements, I discovered I had inadvertently interfered with that area that must be kept clear by a few inches.

I could steal back about 20 square feet by encroaching on the space on the right, below the laundry room. However, that would result in an awkward zig-zag path to/from the house and cut out some prime storage room in the garage. Mrs. Sharward would not be pleased with such a prospect, and nor am I to be honest.

The other thing that sucks about this is that I have to redo all of my framing plans, my weight calculations, etc. It's almost like starting over.

Oh well... Better I learn this lesson now, on paper, than after construction began.

If anyone has any miracle ideas that I'm just missing, please share. Thanks.

[sharward]

Am I insane for considering this?

I get back almost all my lost square fotage, plus I eliminate the "rectangleness" of the room which would improve acoustics. It also makes the lower part of the room more usable by expanding the length of the perimeter walls.

[Dan Fitzpatrick]

would something along these lines work? it gives you a smooth path from house to studio, with a little jog to get to the cars ... plus, the potential weak link of the door points away from your neighbor.

dan

[sharward]

Dan, you rock. Thanks for the idea and for sketching it up for me.

Actually, my original "before I found this resource" drawings called for a similar plan in terms of door placements.

However, I have decided against putting the door in that area, for a couple of reasons.

First, makes loading and unloading gear a little more challenging, as opposed to the "straight shot" that having the door along the outer wall features. I also anticipate a certain amount of come-and-go traffic of fellow musicians through the garage's side exit. (This is not for commercial use, of course.

Second, my wife has already expressed concern about obstructing the path from the house to the cars. The 90-degree turns one must take from house to cars in your sketch will, I am sure, not pass the "wife test." (Figure that she often has her hands full with groceries or pet supplies or other awkward objects.) While I did not expect her to be especially thrilled with my "insane plan" proposal (which features the same type of zig-zag, but "softer" due to the 45-degree angle), she put up a much greater amount of resistance than I expected.

It's hard not to give the wife what she wants in this, given how supportive she has been throughout the whole process.

I am, however, toying around with a similar "raised landing outside the room" idea where the doors are currently planned. However, my challenge is that I have the vents on the exterior wall that I cannot block. Or, maybe I can block them and then install a vent register in the side exit door. However, that could present a problem fitting a car on the left side.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Thanks again for your idea, Dan.

[knightfly]

How 'bout just clipping the corner, like this? You'll never notice the floor space loss, the traffic flow around that corner will seem easier, you keep your air lock, etc...

However, is there also a requirement for a 10x20 area for the LEFT side of the garage? Not following this totally -

If you still need to discuss, I'm (barely) available from 8 to 9 tonite (Monday) - but you might wanna think about ramifications - if so, I also have the 8-9 hour open on Tuesday, and possibly Thu or Fri... Steve

[sharward]

How 'bout just clipping the corner, like this? You'll never notice the floor space loss, the traffic flow around that corner will seem easier, you keep your air lock, etc...

Clipping the corner does resolve the 10x20 encroachment issue. However, it doesn't make up for the square footage lost to the landing.

. . . is there also a requirement for a 10x20 area for the LEFT side of the garage? . . .

No. Technically, the garage must have a minimum area of 10x20, which I have marked off with a pink box. That area must be kept clear of construction materials -- no steps, no nothing. The area to the left of that is up for grabs, technically. However, I am choosing not to chew into that area too much, as a personal (not code) requirement is that I maintain space for two vehicles. (Space for two cars may be a CC&R requirement as well.) I also cannot block the vents (although I might be able to cut vents into the side exit door in lieu of the wall vents -- I'm not sure). Your illustration blocks one of my vents -- actually, it puts one of the vents inside the sound lock on the outer leaf.

If you still need to discuss, I'm (barely) available from 8 to 9 tonite (Monday) - but you might wanna think about ramifications - if so, I also have the 8-9 hour open on Tuesday, and possibly Thu or Fri...

Yeah, I've got some thinking to do. Maybe I'll do my "insane plan" minus the bulge on the right or something.

[Ballgame]

this place is gonna rock when its done.

[sharward]

I redid my plans to account for the landing and reconfigured all the framing specs. I thought long and hard about wood-vs.-steel framing, and chose wood (again) just because of familiarity (which is funny, because I've never done any framing before).

But the latest frustrating obstacle is the issue of the EPDM. Based on feedback I received from day one here, I moved forward with that as a foundation of my plans, literally and figuratively. However, my building department wants legitimate specs which appear impossible to come by. In fact, I'm finding out that the manufacturer of a particular EPDM floor floatation product doesn't even recommend that they be used to float concrete.

This means that my entire floating floor design either lacks sufficient documentation to prove its structural integrity, or the whole plan is worthless.

Disheartening is an understatement to describe how I'm feeling about this. I've spent months researching, studying, asking, detailing, posting, tweaking, posting, tweaking, posting, and in spite of it all, I feel like not only that I am at square one, but I'm not even allowed to roll the dice yet.

This is supposed to happen to people who rush into things, not to people who are diligent and careful and mindful and methodical. A less dedicated individual would throw up his hands and say, "F*%& IT!" At times I wish I could do that. Yet, I know deep down that would only hurt more. I know I need to move forward, but I'm so lost right now that I don't know which way is forward and which way is backward. So, I remain standing still.

Whereas in the past I've asked for feedback, I suppose now I ask for encouragement... And ideas would be welcome too.

[mikeklooster]

just a thought,but check this http://www.kineticsnoise.com/arch/rimconcrete.html and http://www.kineticsnoise.com/arch/flm.html. These floors might be expensive, but they are simple and might have the correct documentation. Dont worry, I'm exhausted too. The thing is you have to reach for the impossible, and then accept the acheivable. The closer you get to impossible, the higher the acheivable gets. Ive added lumber, increase costs, and complicated the plan, but, if I wouldve went with my origanal plan before everyones help, I would have used almost as much lumber for a system that doesnt work. Now even if I have to settle for some things I cant get, it will be far better than the origonal. Do what you can with what you got, and get those drums out of their bags and start remembering why you decided to spend your time reading about drywall.

[knightfly]

Keith, I know you're feeling down, completely understandable; not sure what I can do right now, so I'll just throw out some thoughts;

First, did you ask your BRA why it's OK to put flammable TAR under your floor, but not flammable EPDM?

Second, you've DONE the calculations for EPDM based on REAL testing; there is no difference between using U-boats for a WOOD floated floor and using them for a MASONRY floated floor, considering you would be adjusting spacing and contact surface area (puck size) to achieve the same amount of compression. I see no reason whatsoever that this would even enter into the equation. I get the impression that Auralex has done little (if any) actual testing on their floor floating materials; otherwise there would be more technical info available on their site - customer education is almost NEVER a BAD thing, unless you're selling "snake oil".

Third, consider this (I know you won't like it, but consider it please) -

For the isolation levels you're after, you could get better results by going with a more commercial method; i.e. using kinetics or mason ind. spring jacks under a 6" CONCRETE floated slab. Advantages; lower floor level overall, more mass, less BS trying to lay bricks and mortar evenly, full architectural specs available, adjustable for sag AFTER the fact, MUCH quicker install...

If I'd remembered just how obdurate most BRA's can be, I would have tried harder to talk you out of your brick floor - for one thing, brick isn't as high mass (usually) as concrete, for another once this is in place I doubt seriously whether you will EVER actually "dig up" a section - for another, being able to lower your floor level and still get maximum isolation HAS to be a plus.

That's about all I have for now; as you know, I'm kinda "in it" myself ATM... Steve

[Dan Fitzpatrick]

Keith,

Sorry to hear about this roadblock ... one idea (based on zero experience but hey it's free), talk to local contractors/architects. maybe they will have ideas on how to get the planner what he needs. you are doing something unusual yes, but buiding things using methods not in "the book" can't be uncharted territory. every builder has probably run into this at one time.

maybe it's as simple as hiring an engineer to test and certify your epdm as suitable for what you're doing ... then maybe your bureaucrat will have what he needs to cover his ass, which is probably all that is going on. he wanted documentation, give him documentation.

of course that will add $$ to your budget. there are probably (i hesitate to say) builders attorneys who know how to get through this stuff too.

basically, the guy isn't going to listen to your arguments, but you can maybe get someone he WILL listen to in your corner?

You've come very far, but let's face it, you only recently went to the planning commission and started to feel your way around. you didn't think they were just going to stamp OK on your plan did you?? you will find your way around this roadblock i'm sure.

One other idea ... get out your wallet and say, "maybe my friend mr. washington can persuade you ..."

Dan

[knightfly]

http://kineticsnoise.com/arch/tests/pdf/A15-b.pdf

See table 2, 80 hZ - this is wood floated on RIMs/KIPs -

http://kineticsnoise.com/arch/tests/pdf/A13-b.pdf

See table 6 - this is 4" concrete floated on RIM. Note the 9 dB improvement @ 80 hZ of the concrete vs. wood. Mass rules down here.

50 dB TL @ 80 hZ would equate to a room volume level (drums) of at least 95 dB in the room, before it would be even slightly audible outside.

Add background levels outside, and someone standing right beside your wall might be able to tell you were playing drums inside, but only barely... Steve

If you upped the concrete to 6" (with appropriate changes in RIM material) those figures would improve by about 3 dB at the low end -

[sharward]

Thanks for the ideas and encouragement, everyone. Much to digest here, and fortunately I have a weekend free to do just that.

Laptop battery dying; have to abanon the telecommute option today to go to the office to pick up my power cord.

Anticipate more thoughtful response this weekend.

Y'all rock.

[knightfly]

Keith, just got off phone with Kinetics guy, looks like 6" concrete/ply/RIM system would run you about $1200 (no labor, but includes cost of concrete + plywood) - resonance of system around 14 hZ. You would need to level the floor though; no practical way of putting "legs" under it. Don't know what self-leveling concrete would add to cost, you might check locally on that??!? Later... Steve