ᐅ Location of a city villa or detached single-family house on a 500 m² rectangular plot
Created on: 17 Jan 2020 18:03
T
Tolentino
Dear all,
after sharing the floor plans of my possible hamster cage with you in the other thread , here comes the next thread (thanks again for all the constructive suggestions there).
Just so you know, the semi-detached house is not off the table yet, as this plot of land is highly sought after and it’s not clear whether it will work out. But this one would be my favorite.
Now to this plot. For now, I’m mainly concerned with where and roughly how the house should be positioned on this plot.
Development plan / restrictions
Plot size: 500 m² (5400 sq ft)
Slope: none
Site coverage ratio: 0.2
Floor area ratio: 0.4
Building envelope, building line and boundary: 5 m (16 ft) from the street, 3 m (10 ft) from neighbors
Edge development: allowed for garages and sheds, none existing on the plot
Number of parking spaces: 1-2
Number of floors: 1.5–2.5
Roof shape: no preference
Architectural style: no preference
Orientation: aligned parallel to the street
Maximum heights / limits: ridge height max. 9 m (30 ft)
Below are the site plans I created myself based on the details from the listing.
This is a rough overview of the plot with building boundaries and dimensions.
My question is: where to put the house?
The broker suggests placing it towards the back, since you already have the 5 m (16 ft) setback at the front and would “gain” about 3 m (10 ft) of garden. My partner doesn’t like this because of the visibility from the street. I say: privacy screen! But I also think, a fence too high might create a prison-yard feel.
But even if you follow this suggestion, I wonder if a more square floor plan (-> town villa style) would be better?
Like this, for example:
Then parking space might be tricky, right?
Or upright like this?
I really want as much of a west-facing view and garden as possible. I tend to be an evening person and that side is less built up, due to the road. So I think more light comes through.
But the narrow floor plan caused lots of problems with the semi-detached house already. Well, here you could build longer instead.
What do you think?
Best regards
Tolentino
after sharing the floor plans of my possible hamster cage with you in the other thread , here comes the next thread (thanks again for all the constructive suggestions there).
Just so you know, the semi-detached house is not off the table yet, as this plot of land is highly sought after and it’s not clear whether it will work out. But this one would be my favorite.
Now to this plot. For now, I’m mainly concerned with where and roughly how the house should be positioned on this plot.
Development plan / restrictions
Plot size: 500 m² (5400 sq ft)
Slope: none
Site coverage ratio: 0.2
Floor area ratio: 0.4
Building envelope, building line and boundary: 5 m (16 ft) from the street, 3 m (10 ft) from neighbors
Edge development: allowed for garages and sheds, none existing on the plot
Number of parking spaces: 1-2
Number of floors: 1.5–2.5
Roof shape: no preference
Architectural style: no preference
Orientation: aligned parallel to the street
Maximum heights / limits: ridge height max. 9 m (30 ft)
Below are the site plans I created myself based on the details from the listing.
This is a rough overview of the plot with building boundaries and dimensions.
My question is: where to put the house?
The broker suggests placing it towards the back, since you already have the 5 m (16 ft) setback at the front and would “gain” about 3 m (10 ft) of garden. My partner doesn’t like this because of the visibility from the street. I say: privacy screen! But I also think, a fence too high might create a prison-yard feel.
But even if you follow this suggestion, I wonder if a more square floor plan (-> town villa style) would be better?
Like this, for example:
Then parking space might be tricky, right?
Or upright like this?
I really want as much of a west-facing view and garden as possible. I tend to be an evening person and that side is less built up, due to the road. So I think more light comes through.
But the narrow floor plan caused lots of problems with the semi-detached house already. Well, here you could build longer instead.
What do you think?
Best regards
Tolentino
Sorry, I made a mistake, the post wasn’t supposed to be published yet.
So, the semi-detached house is more of a fallback option, that part is still missing up there.
And then there was also this:
You’re right.
I’ve illustrated it here. The area isn’t exactly correct because Sweethome 3D doesn’t support fully flexible angles (or there’s a setting I don’t know about). So the measurements are more for orientation purposes.
The division proposal comes from the real estate agent, and there are already potential buyers reserving the rear property.
The entire lot is about 950 m² (10,230 sq ft).
There are adjacent plots at the top and bottom of the plan as well, but those are not available.
Honestly, I don’t see a more practical way to divide this, except that the co-owners would need to agree somehow on the rights and obligations under the common property law (GFL).
The existing building for demolition is almost entirely on the rear lot, so there was already a suggestion to split the demolition costs 50/50 and have a slight price adjustment in my favor, since in a proper demolition I would have much lower costs.
That could be taken into account within a neighborly division of the GFL strip...
Just now I read @kaho674’s post.
Why floor area ratio? How would that strip count as covered area?
So, the semi-detached house is more of a fallback option, that part is still missing up there.
And then there was also this:
11ant schrieb:
Also, a helpful note for post #37. Maybe—especially since @Escroda has already been invited—there could be better suggestions if you included the surrounding parcels of land :-(
You’re right.
I’ve illustrated it here. The area isn’t exactly correct because Sweethome 3D doesn’t support fully flexible angles (or there’s a setting I don’t know about). So the measurements are more for orientation purposes.
The division proposal comes from the real estate agent, and there are already potential buyers reserving the rear property.
The entire lot is about 950 m² (10,230 sq ft).
There are adjacent plots at the top and bottom of the plan as well, but those are not available.
Honestly, I don’t see a more practical way to divide this, except that the co-owners would need to agree somehow on the rights and obligations under the common property law (GFL).
The existing building for demolition is almost entirely on the rear lot, so there was already a suggestion to split the demolition costs 50/50 and have a slight price adjustment in my favor, since in a proper demolition I would have much lower costs.
That could be taken into account within a neighborly division of the GFL strip...
Just now I read @kaho674’s post.
Why floor area ratio? How would that strip count as covered area?
kaho674 schrieb:
Exactly my question! Who pays for this, and whose square meters are then deducted from the floor area ratio?It is always the property owner's responsibility. You can reach an internal agreement, but the owner is the one legally responsible and obligated. This also applies to the annual property tax.
kaho674 schrieb:
So to speak, floor area ratio II – the area would definitely be designated as a street/path and should then be deducted from the allowable floor area, right?Arrgh. The way you put it, that’s absolutely plausible, but I hadn't thought about it. I assumed it would just be a fixed strip. I never considered that it would count against my floor area ratio. Then there would indeed need to be a different regulation.
I just recalculated. Actually, that’s almost 64 m² (690 sq ft) that we more or less share. It might make sense to split this strip in two and grant each other mutual right of way easements. That would be the fair way. And as things stand now, I’d still be willing to pay more...
Tolentino schrieb:
Arrgh. The way you describe it makes perfect sense, but I hadn’t thought of it. I assumed it was just a fixed strip. I never considered that it would count against my floor area ratio. Then indeed, a different regulation would be needed.
I just recalculated. It’s actually almost 64 m² (690 sq ft) that we’re more or less sharing. You could come up with the idea to really split this strip into two and grant each other reciprocal rights of use.
That would at least be fair. And I would pay even more…However:
100 m² (1,076 sq ft) for the house with a terrace, 100 m² (1,076 sq ft) for outbuildings…
65 m² (700 sq ft) are taken up by this driveway, leaving 35 m² (377 sq ft).
In the north corner, where you planned the cars, there will be a shed for the kids’ ride-on toys and garden tools, and in front, a parking space at the start of the driveway with a maneuvering area… access to the entrance… that fits just about.
You don’t really need anything else or make a big deal out of it. You don’t need a permit for paving slabs around the house.
But: I wouldn’t want to pay for the driveway. Nor buy it.
ypg schrieb:
But: I wouldn’t want to pay for the driveway, nor buy it. Well, that brings us back to what you want versus what you can afford.
However, you’re right to some extent, as there is quite an imbalance regarding the prices. The other party pays significantly less according to the proposal (about 15-20%) but effectively doesn’t get less land. If I really split the strip equally, they would have 482 and I 468.
They are only allowed to build 1.5 stories, while I can build 2 stories, but is that really worth 35,000 euros?
I will definitely discuss this again with the real estate agent, even if that might make me seem difficult and reduce my chances of getting the property…
Similar topics