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
Tolentino schrieb:
My wife has already said that she would never drive there. My aunt can park forward more quickly than I can reverse – is your wife the same type?
Tolentino schrieb:
I suspect it refers to the actual road. The common term is “road boundary line,” not “road parcel boundary.”
Tolentino schrieb:
If I manage to at least tamp it down next spring, I can test how well it works with the Volvo and will then report back. Which Volvo do you have; one with height control like most T-model station wagons used for construction work?
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
11ant schrieb:
Is your wife also this type? No, she is rather very anxious to panicked when it gets tight and confusing. Reversing is always confusing, and the driveway is definitely too narrow for her to drive forward.
11ant schrieb:
Usually it’s called a "road boundary line," not "road parcel boundary." What I mean is that the public road land consists of two rows of parcels. My idea was that the road lies on one row of parcels, and between my house and these parcels there is another row. But I checked again with online maps, and the buffer parcels are exactly on the opposite side of the road. So I have no idea where the building authority clerk got the 5 meters from back then; they don’t seem to be mandatory. Or maybe they refer to another line (e.g., the paved or concreted road surface or something like that).
11ant schrieb:
What kind of car do you have; also with level control like most station wagons used for construction sites? A V70 I. So technically the last 850 model, but already with the newer 20-valve engine that is supposedly indestructible (not true, it did break down but there was a clear reason and now it runs again). It doesn’t have level control, but it has already served me well as a construction vehicle and even more as a travel vehicle.
Speaking of @ypg
The parking space is still not finished, but due to the expiring vehicle inspection I had to park my V70 there anyway (it's basically compacted gravel).
The car is almost 4.73m (15.5 ft) long. You can back in without having to maneuver if you approach correctly, even though the full 5m (16.4 ft) width isn’t entirely usable right now (there’s some old wood stored there at the moment). At first, of course, I had to maneuver a few times, but it’s possible without doing so. How it will be once there are posts from the carport standing or possibly 50cm (20 inches) taken up by garage walls, I’ll have to see, but I’m optimistic that it can be managed.
As I said, I backed in.
Tolentino schrieb:
I’m still quite confident that it’s doable. At least for me.
The parking space is still not finished, but due to the expiring vehicle inspection I had to park my V70 there anyway (it's basically compacted gravel).
The car is almost 4.73m (15.5 ft) long. You can back in without having to maneuver if you approach correctly, even though the full 5m (16.4 ft) width isn’t entirely usable right now (there’s some old wood stored there at the moment). At first, of course, I had to maneuver a few times, but it’s possible without doing so. How it will be once there are posts from the carport standing or possibly 50cm (20 inches) taken up by garage walls, I’ll have to see, but I’m optimistic that it can be managed.
As I said, I backed in.
Similar topics