ᐅ Floor plan design shortly before submitting the building permit application
Created on: 2 Oct 2017 23:25
R
R.Hotzenplotz
Hello everyone!
As some users have requested before, I’m now starting a new thread with the current planning of our detached house, which is about to be finalized.
These are the preliminary drawings for the building permit / planning permission application, and I have one last chance to review them and point out any issues.
It still seems to me that there is less than 1.20m (4 feet) of space between the two wardrobes in the dressing room. Or am I seeing this wrong? Apparently, the rooms on the left and right were overlooked and not adjusted accordingly.
Two Velux ceiling spotlights are still planned to illuminate the upper floor hallway.
In the basement, on the right side in the upper room, a window similar to the one on the left basement side is an option.
We still haven’t decided on the T30 fire-rated door to the garage, even though it is shown in the plans. Most likely, for safety reasons and the limited use of the kitchen at the other end of the house, we will eventually forgo it.
User 11ant pointed out that the right window in child’s room 2 is suboptimally positioned. However, this could still be changed after submitting the building permit / planning permission application. Our architect thinks moving the window to the left would negatively affect the house’s exterior appearance. We’ll have to see about that.
As some users have requested before, I’m now starting a new thread with the current planning of our detached house, which is about to be finalized.
These are the preliminary drawings for the building permit / planning permission application, and I have one last chance to review them and point out any issues.
It still seems to me that there is less than 1.20m (4 feet) of space between the two wardrobes in the dressing room. Or am I seeing this wrong? Apparently, the rooms on the left and right were overlooked and not adjusted accordingly.
Two Velux ceiling spotlights are still planned to illuminate the upper floor hallway.
In the basement, on the right side in the upper room, a window similar to the one on the left basement side is an option.
We still haven’t decided on the T30 fire-rated door to the garage, even though it is shown in the plans. Most likely, for safety reasons and the limited use of the kitchen at the other end of the house, we will eventually forgo it.
User 11ant pointed out that the right window in child’s room 2 is suboptimally positioned. However, this could still be changed after submitting the building permit / planning permission application. Our architect thinks moving the window to the left would negatively affect the house’s exterior appearance. We’ll have to see about that.
R
R.Hotzenplotz30 Jun 2018 18:26Snowy36 schrieb:
If at all, I think someone should have told you that this would happen and that you needed to explicitly approve it.It's actually quite simple. Wherever I have approved such work by signing, I have to accept it; where I haven't, I will request a version matching the execution plans, which has already been done. If they then refuse to do this, they should provide objective reasons why, and someone will need to assess the situation. If necessary, compensation should be determined if it can't be realized without demolishing the entire house. It now seems to be just about drilling a hole into the precast concrete ceiling.
Alex85 schrieb:
So if it doesn't work inside the interior wall, a duct box will be installed. I don't find that particularly dramatic.It means a loss of symmetry, a loss of floor space, and frankly, it just looks awful. And if that hasn’t been ordered, then it hasn't been ordered. Someone must have had a reason to plan it with ceiling recesses and routing down through the sand-lime brick wall. So they should do it exactly like that, for heaven’s sake. I won't rest until that annoying pipe is out of my sight or until experts or lawyers tell me to accept it otherwise.
11ant schrieb:
And that was how it was planned, only the meaning of execution plans seems to be unclear to the workers here.On the other hand, if you look back at the first post in the thread, when we only had a floor plan and no execution plans yet, even then a lengthwise duct box was indicated—though later no longer. But initially, it was apparently within the realm of possibility.
The drywall contractor is now offering to remove the entire L-shaped section in the master bathroom and rebuild it in drywall so that a flush-mounted mirror cabinet with a built-in frame can be installed there. As it is now, it can't stay that way. I'm curious how expensive this will be. He says, “not too expensive.” That can mean a lot of things. The general contractor does not offer this; I have to arrange it myself with the drywall contractor.
R
R.Hotzenplotz1 Jul 2018 19:01Are there tolerance limits for the sill height to be executed at doors and windows? I have measured significant deviations.
For example, in the kitchen. One window has a sill height of 1.25m (5 feet) above the finished floor level, another one 1.00m (3 feet 3 inches). When I measure from the rough floor level, there is a deviation of 4cm (1.6 inches) between the two windows. I measured 1.25m (5 feet) plus 17cm (7 inches), and 1.00m (3 feet 3 inches) plus 21cm (8 inches) (measured at the bottom edge of the window sill).
Upstairs in the children’s rooms there is a 1cm (0.4 inch) deviation. The same applies between the kids’ bathroom and the utility room.
Choosing a sill height of 87.5cm (2 feet 10.8 inches) was a mistake in combination with the selected windows. I simply assumed the sill height we have at home, which we like, but I didn’t consider that here I ordered much smaller windows. I just realized this earlier today in the shell construction. With that sill height and 1.26m (4 feet 1.5 inches) high windows, it’s certainly not a great experience for a 1.89m (6 feet 2 inches) tall man. Definitely made for the enemy… a pity.
The inspector is coming tomorrow at 9 am. Let’s see what comes of it.
For example, in the kitchen. One window has a sill height of 1.25m (5 feet) above the finished floor level, another one 1.00m (3 feet 3 inches). When I measure from the rough floor level, there is a deviation of 4cm (1.6 inches) between the two windows. I measured 1.25m (5 feet) plus 17cm (7 inches), and 1.00m (3 feet 3 inches) plus 21cm (8 inches) (measured at the bottom edge of the window sill).
Upstairs in the children’s rooms there is a 1cm (0.4 inch) deviation. The same applies between the kids’ bathroom and the utility room.
Choosing a sill height of 87.5cm (2 feet 10.8 inches) was a mistake in combination with the selected windows. I simply assumed the sill height we have at home, which we like, but I didn’t consider that here I ordered much smaller windows. I just realized this earlier today in the shell construction. With that sill height and 1.26m (4 feet 1.5 inches) high windows, it’s certainly not a great experience for a 1.89m (6 feet 2 inches) tall man. Definitely made for the enemy… a pity.
The inspector is coming tomorrow at 9 am. Let’s see what comes of it.
R
R.Hotzenplotz2 Jul 2018 13:28So the insulation does indeed seem to need revision. It is not compliant with DIN standards, and the site manager admitted this. He mentioned that 90% of houses are built this way.
I was assured that the pipe in the office will be completely concealed within the ceiling and the sand-lime brick wall. The precast concrete ceiling will be drilled accordingly. There will be no reinforcement issues caused by this.
The other pipe in the office is drawn as planned and acceptable.
Regarding the pipe in the children’s room, where only a ceiling opening is shown on the plan, the expert suggested solving the ventilation in the guest bathroom independently and installing an access shaft accordingly. How this will be agreed upon with the general contractor remains to be seen. My position is that no pipe was visible in the construction drawings. Many ceiling openings are shown, mostly for concealed ventilation ducts, etc. — why one should now assume that a pipe runs vertically through the room at this point is unclear to me.
According to the new expert, the crack in the basement is not problematic. No moisture issues have been detected either.
As outlined in the last expert report, the builder has now admitted that the exterior masonry was not executed within specified tolerances (see photo with the straightedge in the last report). The tolerances were significantly exceeded. Initially, they denied this accusation in writing. Now they intend to compensate by adding insulation material.
Windows and patio doors were, of course, a major topic. According to the construction drawings, the windows were installed as planned, and the expert only regrets that we were not informed that everything had been raised — ceilings, interior doors, front door... however, no one pointed out regarding the windows that these are standard dimensions that actually do not fit. He says this is, however, correct according to the construction plans. Especially frustrating! The supplier’s representative visited our home and we showed him our existing windows, explaining that we imagined something similar. Unfortunately, we failed to follow up on this in the plans.
Regarding the patio doors, things may get complicated. The expert said he estimates the height of 201cm (79 inches) in the contract could at least be interpreted ambiguously by the client. He is not a lawyer, so he cannot answer this definitively. However, he did find that the door (he only measured one in detail) actually measures only 199cm (78 inches) in total and thus does not comply with the contract. From his point of view, there are no acceptable tolerance deviations for this. He also doubted that the threshold would end up being only 15cm (6 inches) high. He quickly suggested a solution for almost threshold-free installation and larger windows. He was surprised this was not offered to me from the start. But handling this information is no longer his responsibility, as it now enters the legal domain. If it really is the case that the doors must be replaced solely because of the 2cm (about 0.8 inches) difference, the roller shutter boxes would also have to be newly manufactured. THEN it could even be an option for me to commission wider, premium versions for all doors, not just the utility room door. One could even take this as far as needing a uniform window height throughout the entire floor. Certainly a challenge that would take several weeks to resolve.
I assume only a lawyer will be able to solve this definitively. The expert mentioned that courts tend to be sympathetic to homeowners and sees a strong chance in my favor given my height of 189cm (6 ft 2 in), the fact that everything else was raised, and that I was not offered corresponding doors (windows).
For now, I am waiting another week for the expert’s report. Nothing substantial will happen at the construction site until then.
There are no objections to the drywall partition in the master bathroom. However, that will likely be the lesser issue.
At least no new problems have arisen apart from the out-of-tolerance masonry.
I was assured that the pipe in the office will be completely concealed within the ceiling and the sand-lime brick wall. The precast concrete ceiling will be drilled accordingly. There will be no reinforcement issues caused by this.
The other pipe in the office is drawn as planned and acceptable.
Regarding the pipe in the children’s room, where only a ceiling opening is shown on the plan, the expert suggested solving the ventilation in the guest bathroom independently and installing an access shaft accordingly. How this will be agreed upon with the general contractor remains to be seen. My position is that no pipe was visible in the construction drawings. Many ceiling openings are shown, mostly for concealed ventilation ducts, etc. — why one should now assume that a pipe runs vertically through the room at this point is unclear to me.
According to the new expert, the crack in the basement is not problematic. No moisture issues have been detected either.
As outlined in the last expert report, the builder has now admitted that the exterior masonry was not executed within specified tolerances (see photo with the straightedge in the last report). The tolerances were significantly exceeded. Initially, they denied this accusation in writing. Now they intend to compensate by adding insulation material.
Windows and patio doors were, of course, a major topic. According to the construction drawings, the windows were installed as planned, and the expert only regrets that we were not informed that everything had been raised — ceilings, interior doors, front door... however, no one pointed out regarding the windows that these are standard dimensions that actually do not fit. He says this is, however, correct according to the construction plans. Especially frustrating! The supplier’s representative visited our home and we showed him our existing windows, explaining that we imagined something similar. Unfortunately, we failed to follow up on this in the plans.
Regarding the patio doors, things may get complicated. The expert said he estimates the height of 201cm (79 inches) in the contract could at least be interpreted ambiguously by the client. He is not a lawyer, so he cannot answer this definitively. However, he did find that the door (he only measured one in detail) actually measures only 199cm (78 inches) in total and thus does not comply with the contract. From his point of view, there are no acceptable tolerance deviations for this. He also doubted that the threshold would end up being only 15cm (6 inches) high. He quickly suggested a solution for almost threshold-free installation and larger windows. He was surprised this was not offered to me from the start. But handling this information is no longer his responsibility, as it now enters the legal domain. If it really is the case that the doors must be replaced solely because of the 2cm (about 0.8 inches) difference, the roller shutter boxes would also have to be newly manufactured. THEN it could even be an option for me to commission wider, premium versions for all doors, not just the utility room door. One could even take this as far as needing a uniform window height throughout the entire floor. Certainly a challenge that would take several weeks to resolve.
I assume only a lawyer will be able to solve this definitively. The expert mentioned that courts tend to be sympathetic to homeowners and sees a strong chance in my favor given my height of 189cm (6 ft 2 in), the fact that everything else was raised, and that I was not offered corresponding doors (windows).
For now, I am waiting another week for the expert’s report. Nothing substantial will happen at the construction site until then.
There are no objections to the drywall partition in the master bathroom. However, that will likely be the lesser issue.
At least no new problems have arisen apart from the out-of-tolerance masonry.
R.Hotzenplotz schrieb:
If it really is the case that the doors all need to be replaced just because of the 2cm (0.8 inch) I don't really think so, but
R.Hotzenplotz schrieb:
He quickly presented a solution on how to achieve a more or less threshold-free design and have larger windows. sounds interesting.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
Keeping my fingers crossed that things continue to go well. The expert seems to know his trade, and the general contractor (GC) has already given in and might still make some concessions on certain points. I assume that pursuing legal action is not in his interest, especially if it’s true that the judges tend to be more favorable towards homeowners.
R
R.Hotzenplotz2 Jul 2018 15:25I now have to wait for the report. @11ant; are you aware of the acceptable tolerance levels for windows?
The expert also mentioned that the contractually agreed 15cm (6 inches) threshold will not be met with the current installation.
The expert also mentioned that the contractually agreed 15cm (6 inches) threshold will not be met with the current installation.
Similar topics