ᐅ Challenging Site Planning: Garage and Entrance Facing Southwest or Northeast?
Created on: 21 Feb 2019 18:31
B
Bambula
Hello everyone,
We have been following the forum for a while now, and finally it's our turn We are at the beginning of our house planning and have already spent some time fixing the floor plans in our heads. We arranged the garage and the house according to the development plan. Now we are unsure whether this arrangement really fits the plot well. So we are going back to the start and first considering where to best place the garage and entrance before continuing with the floor plan.
(We have an appointment with the architect in the next few weeks, but before that, we would like to decide on the location of the garage and entrance. Once we have some initial floor plans, we would like to discuss them here in the forum. Then I will also fill out the questionnaire.)
About our building project:
- Plot: 500 m² (approximately 24 m x 20 m (79 ft x 66 ft)), new development area, flat terrain, see development plan
- Detached house with 2 full floors plus basement
- External dimensions approximately 9 x 11.5 m (length must, according to the development plan, be 25% greater than the width)
- Garage must be located within the building envelope, at least 5 m and maximum 7 m (16 ft to 23 ft) from the street, only flat roof or shed roof allowed
Now to our question:
How would you arrange the house and garage on the plot to make the best use of the limited space?
The development plan suggests the house-garage layout “Option 1”. That is, the double garage is positioned in the southwest of the plot, and accordingly, we would place the entrance on the west side. This was our previous idea.
Advantages of Option 1:
- Double garage possible
- Space behind the garage for wood storage, garden shed, trash bins
- House can be placed up to 3 m (10 ft) from the northern property boundary
Disadvantages of Option 1:
- A large part of the already small garden is paved over with the garage, driveway, and path
- Usable garden (for a swing, trampoline, vegetable patch, etc.) is barely available
- Path from garage to house is not covered
- Garage is located in the nicer part of the plot
- Green strips north and east of the house (setback areas) will likely never be used
- Passage between garage and house is not particularly attractive
Our new idea is Option 2: instead of a double garage, we would build a comfortable single garage (about 3.5 – 4 m wide (11.5 ft – 13 ft)) on the northern boundary. The entrance would then be on the east side.
Advantages of Option 2:
- A small, well-usable garden remains on the south and west sides
- Living area oriented towards the southwest
- Short, possibly covered path from garage to front door
Disadvantages of Option 2:
- Only single garage possible
- Where to store bikes, trash bins, firewood?
- Stairwell / entrance hall on the ground floor might have poor lighting because the garage is on the north side of the house?
We are very curious to hear more opinions. Maybe there are other aspects we haven’t considered yet?
Thank you very much in advance for your help!
We have been following the forum for a while now, and finally it's our turn We are at the beginning of our house planning and have already spent some time fixing the floor plans in our heads. We arranged the garage and the house according to the development plan. Now we are unsure whether this arrangement really fits the plot well. So we are going back to the start and first considering where to best place the garage and entrance before continuing with the floor plan.
(We have an appointment with the architect in the next few weeks, but before that, we would like to decide on the location of the garage and entrance. Once we have some initial floor plans, we would like to discuss them here in the forum. Then I will also fill out the questionnaire.)
About our building project:
- Plot: 500 m² (approximately 24 m x 20 m (79 ft x 66 ft)), new development area, flat terrain, see development plan
- Detached house with 2 full floors plus basement
- External dimensions approximately 9 x 11.5 m (length must, according to the development plan, be 25% greater than the width)
- Garage must be located within the building envelope, at least 5 m and maximum 7 m (16 ft to 23 ft) from the street, only flat roof or shed roof allowed
Now to our question:
How would you arrange the house and garage on the plot to make the best use of the limited space?
The development plan suggests the house-garage layout “Option 1”. That is, the double garage is positioned in the southwest of the plot, and accordingly, we would place the entrance on the west side. This was our previous idea.
Advantages of Option 1:
- Double garage possible
- Space behind the garage for wood storage, garden shed, trash bins
- House can be placed up to 3 m (10 ft) from the northern property boundary
Disadvantages of Option 1:
- A large part of the already small garden is paved over with the garage, driveway, and path
- Usable garden (for a swing, trampoline, vegetable patch, etc.) is barely available
- Path from garage to house is not covered
- Garage is located in the nicer part of the plot
- Green strips north and east of the house (setback areas) will likely never be used
- Passage between garage and house is not particularly attractive
Our new idea is Option 2: instead of a double garage, we would build a comfortable single garage (about 3.5 – 4 m wide (11.5 ft – 13 ft)) on the northern boundary. The entrance would then be on the east side.
Advantages of Option 2:
- A small, well-usable garden remains on the south and west sides
- Living area oriented towards the southwest
- Short, possibly covered path from garage to front door
Disadvantages of Option 2:
- Only single garage possible
- Where to store bikes, trash bins, firewood?
- Stairwell / entrance hall on the ground floor might have poor lighting because the garage is on the north side of the house?
We are very curious to hear more opinions. Maybe there are other aspects we haven’t considered yet?
Thank you very much in advance for your help!
haydee schrieb:
I would plan a room behind the garage for bicycles and similar items. Possibly a carport with a storage room instead of a garage.Yes, a large carport where you can also park bicycles between the house and the car. It can be as wide as possible. Behind that (towards the garden), the storage room.
Bambula schrieb:
I also understand this development plan to mean that garages can be placed within the blue building zone and, for some plots, additionally in the special fields. I agree. However, the development plan is a mess. Why don’t you ask your architect about the simultaneous specification of floor area ratio and footprint? In my opinion, that’s not even possible:
§16 Land Use Ordinance
(2) The extent of structural use can be determined in the development plan by specifying
1. the floor area ratio or the size of the footprints of the buildings, ...
Completely confusing wording raises the question whether §19 (4) applies to the 130m² (1400 sq ft).
Bambula schrieb:
Is a garage with an internal width of 3.5 m (11.5 ft) wide enough to pass a bicycle past the car? You still have space within the building zone. Move the house back to the building line; then there’s enough room for a double garage. South-facing garden and terrace are overrated anyway.
Bambula schrieb:
A garage on the boundary line can be up to 9 m (30 ft) long, right? Yes.
Thank you for your contributions. It’s really fun to be part of this forum. I’m already looking forward to the floor plan discussions.
We would definitely prefer to have a garage. With a length of 9 m (30 feet), a 3 m (10 feet) storage room behind the car would be possible. The garage just needs to be wide enough to easily walk past the car with a bike.
I will do that. If I understand the text correctly, the floor plan refers to the maximum footprint of the house. This "may be exceeded by up to 30% due to the floor space of conservatories, terraces, and balconies." The floor space index probably refers to the total footprint including the garage? We won’t have any issues with either number since we want to leave as much green space undeveloped as possible and our budget is limited.
Yes, the building envelope would allow it. But we want to have as much distance as possible from the street on the south side, so that not every passerby can see into our dining area. We can also accept a "comfort single garage."
haydee schrieb:
I would plan a room behind the garage for bikes and such. Maybe a carport with a storage room instead of a garage.
We would definitely prefer to have a garage. With a length of 9 m (30 feet), a 3 m (10 feet) storage room behind the car would be possible. The garage just needs to be wide enough to easily walk past the car with a bike.
Escroda schrieb:
Ask your architect about the simultaneous specification of floor space index and floor plan. In my opinion, it’s not possible:
I will do that. If I understand the text correctly, the floor plan refers to the maximum footprint of the house. This "may be exceeded by up to 30% due to the floor space of conservatories, terraces, and balconies." The floor space index probably refers to the total footprint including the garage? We won’t have any issues with either number since we want to leave as much green space undeveloped as possible and our budget is limited.
Escroda schrieb:
You still have space within the building envelope. Move the house to the building line, then a double garage will fit. A south-facing garden and terrace are overrated anyway.
Yes, the building envelope would allow it. But we want to have as much distance as possible from the street on the south side, so that not every passerby can see into our dining area. We can also accept a "comfort single garage."
Bambula schrieb:
I'm already looking forward to the floor plan discussions. Yes, great! I didn't expect that at all; I thought they were already finished and kept secret.
Bambula schrieb:
We won't have any problems with either figure since we want to leave as much green space undeveloped as possible and our budget is limited. A specification that even "our specialist" finds unclear wouldn't make me feel that relaxed. 130 m² (1400 sq ft) for the building footprint, garage, and driveway would not be generous.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
Bambula schrieb:
Does the floor plan refer to the maximum footprint of the house Maybe the approvers have found a practical interpretation of the mysterious urban planners’ intentions. In any case, the regulations are contradictory and, in my opinion, invalid.
Section 3(1) still states "... the specified permissible footprint of the main structure ...", while in 3(4) the floor plan is defined only as the "permissible footprint per building plot". However, the permissible footprint is also set according to the land use ordinance by specifying a floor area ratio, except here it is not simply related to the building plot itself but rather the ratio to the area of the building plot. In 3(3), deviating from the land use ordinance, it is then stated that the floor area ratio may be exceeded by floor areas. This is of course nonsense, as areas cannot exceed a floor area ratio. Nitpicking? Yes, but since a development plan is essentially a local law, such shortcomings are, in my opinion, unacceptable.
One might think that the justification for the development plan could clarify this. But—no such luck. The floor area ratio is not even mentioned, at least not in the published version.
Bambula schrieb:
But we won’t have any problems with either number Based on the floor plan definition in section 3(4) of the development plan combined with §19(4) of the land use ordinance, it could become tight. But maybe I am the only one seeing problems with my narrow surveyor’s perspective that do not actually exist. Still, I don’t think it’s wrong to raise this with the architect.
Similar topics