ᐅ Floor plan of a detached single-family house approximately 200 square meters without a basement
Created on: 1 May 2024 15:31
B
Bobby007
Hello,
after several failed attempts, we have found a floor plan that at least meets our requirements. We would appreciate your opinions and ideas regarding the room layout and usage, especially on the ground floor. The missing mudroom still seems to be a major issue at the moment.
Please disregard the positioning of the interior doors.
Development plan / restrictions
Plot size: 463 sqm (4982 sq ft)
Site ratio / floor area ratio: no development plan available
Building envelope, building line, and boundaries: ---> see site plan
Number of parking spaces: 2
Number of floors: 2
Roof type: gable roof
Architectural style: traditional --> no specific requirements
Orientation: no specifications
Maximum heights / limits: no development plan --> §34
Client requirements
Style, roof type, building type: traditional single-family home, gable roof, monolithic construction
Basement, floors: 1.5 – 2 floors, additional cost for basement too high (approx. 130k)
Number of occupants, ages: still 4 (39 years, 37, 6, 4, 0)
Space requirements on ground floor (GF) and upper floor (UF):
- GF: gym with minimum 16 sqm (172 sq ft) mandatory, living room, dining area, kitchen, utility room, WC
- UF: sleeping area, 3 children’s rooms, bathroom, home office
Open or closed layout: open living and dining area
Conservative or modern: rather conservative
Open kitchen, kitchen island: yes
Number of seats at dining table: 8
Fireplace: yes
Balcony, roof terrace: no
Garage, carport: garage
Utility garden, greenhouse: play lawn
House design
Planner: architect following our specifications
What do you especially like? Why?
Large living and dining area on the ground floor; the space on the upper floor is, in our opinion, well used to accommodate 5 rooms.
What do you not like? Why?
We find the layout on the ground floor is not yet optimal, especially the missing mudroom at the entrance. That is why the entrance area is currently a bit awkward, trying to possibly locate the cloakroom there. We would like to rotate the staircase, but this would lead to a loss of space upstairs.
Price estimate according to architect/planner: 650k --> according to initial offers, it will be less, excluding exterior landscaping
Personal price limit for the house including fittings: 800k
Preferred heating system: air-source heat pump with additional water storage tank
If you had to give up something, which details or extensions
You cannot give up: large garage, gym on the ground floor, 5 rooms upstairs
Why does the design look the way it does? For example:
The architect implemented our specifications within the constraints of the plot shape. Ultimately, we would not want to change the "shell" anymore. We do not yet find the spatial layout, especially on the ground floor, optimal. We would appreciate suggestions or ideas for improvements.
after several failed attempts, we have found a floor plan that at least meets our requirements. We would appreciate your opinions and ideas regarding the room layout and usage, especially on the ground floor. The missing mudroom still seems to be a major issue at the moment.
Please disregard the positioning of the interior doors.
Development plan / restrictions
Plot size: 463 sqm (4982 sq ft)
Site ratio / floor area ratio: no development plan available
Building envelope, building line, and boundaries: ---> see site plan
Number of parking spaces: 2
Number of floors: 2
Roof type: gable roof
Architectural style: traditional --> no specific requirements
Orientation: no specifications
Maximum heights / limits: no development plan --> §34
Client requirements
Style, roof type, building type: traditional single-family home, gable roof, monolithic construction
Basement, floors: 1.5 – 2 floors, additional cost for basement too high (approx. 130k)
Number of occupants, ages: still 4 (39 years, 37, 6, 4, 0)
Space requirements on ground floor (GF) and upper floor (UF):
- GF: gym with minimum 16 sqm (172 sq ft) mandatory, living room, dining area, kitchen, utility room, WC
- UF: sleeping area, 3 children’s rooms, bathroom, home office
Open or closed layout: open living and dining area
Conservative or modern: rather conservative
Open kitchen, kitchen island: yes
Number of seats at dining table: 8
Fireplace: yes
Balcony, roof terrace: no
Garage, carport: garage
Utility garden, greenhouse: play lawn
House design
Planner: architect following our specifications
What do you especially like? Why?
Large living and dining area on the ground floor; the space on the upper floor is, in our opinion, well used to accommodate 5 rooms.
What do you not like? Why?
We find the layout on the ground floor is not yet optimal, especially the missing mudroom at the entrance. That is why the entrance area is currently a bit awkward, trying to possibly locate the cloakroom there. We would like to rotate the staircase, but this would lead to a loss of space upstairs.
Price estimate according to architect/planner: 650k --> according to initial offers, it will be less, excluding exterior landscaping
Personal price limit for the house including fittings: 800k
Preferred heating system: air-source heat pump with additional water storage tank
If you had to give up something, which details or extensions
You cannot give up: large garage, gym on the ground floor, 5 rooms upstairs
Why does the design look the way it does? For example:
The architect implemented our specifications within the constraints of the plot shape. Ultimately, we would not want to change the "shell" anymore. We do not yet find the spatial layout, especially on the ground floor, optimal. We would appreciate suggestions or ideas for improvements.
hanse987 schrieb:
The drawn garage is 9m (30 feet) long. Are bicycles and trash bins supposed to be stored at the back? If so, I would recommend adding about one meter (3 feet) in width to the garage to be able to move comfortably between the cars. You don’t want to have to move a car every time. Thank you for the comment. The garage is only intended to fit one car. That should be enough space for us to move around the car comfortably with the rest of the stuff. Unfortunately, we can’t make it any wider because the maximum allowed at the property boundary is 15m (50 feet).
H
hanghaus20232 May 2024 11:53Bobby007 schrieb:
Unfortunately, we are not allowed to make it any wider, as a maximum of 15m (49 feet) is permitted at the property boundary.I have already shown it. 8 + 7 = 15
H
hanghaus20232 May 2024 11:58Is there no parking space regulation from the municipality?
For the 34er, it makes sense to show a larger section from Google Maps. Consulting the regional building code or local authority can also be helpful.
Regarding the setback violations, I can only assume it’s because you didn’t consult a professional about the most practical building layout, or you just dictated something to them. Then the professional hopes that, since the next development is further away, it will be approved as is.
At first, I thought the yellow area at the bottom of the plan was a road – now I realize that there isn’t even a legend provided. Overall, so much information is missing to determine whether the tight location is still reasonable. And yes, instead of that, you skip the perimeter development of the garage, whatever the 1.55 meters (5 feet) might be for.
As far as I know, the setback rules also apply to the 34er.
The more I look at it, the more I think: let’s start over. The angled views, the room layout can’t be properly assessed without context, except for the odd fact that the utility room and bathroom face south.
Regarding the sizes: over 20 square meters (215 square feet) for the master bedroom, just under 14 (150 square feet), smaller than the bathroom, for the kids.
The kitchen wastes space and is also difficult to furnish. I believe that with @hanghaus2023’s suggestion, you could create a bit more breathing room where it’s needed, but you’ll face internal issues again. But we’ll see when we get there. Overall, it’s challenging with a “too small” plot for big desires.
Regarding the setback violations, I can only assume it’s because you didn’t consult a professional about the most practical building layout, or you just dictated something to them. Then the professional hopes that, since the next development is further away, it will be approved as is.
At first, I thought the yellow area at the bottom of the plan was a road – now I realize that there isn’t even a legend provided. Overall, so much information is missing to determine whether the tight location is still reasonable. And yes, instead of that, you skip the perimeter development of the garage, whatever the 1.55 meters (5 feet) might be for.
As far as I know, the setback rules also apply to the 34er.
Bobby007 schrieb:
Architect according to our specifications
Bobby007 schrieb:
That’s why there is this awkward entrance area, possibly to place the cloakroom.
The more I look at it, the more I think: let’s start over. The angled views, the room layout can’t be properly assessed without context, except for the odd fact that the utility room and bathroom face south.
Regarding the sizes: over 20 square meters (215 square feet) for the master bedroom, just under 14 (150 square feet), smaller than the bathroom, for the kids.
The kitchen wastes space and is also difficult to furnish. I believe that with @hanghaus2023’s suggestion, you could create a bit more breathing room where it’s needed, but you’ll face internal issues again. But we’ll see when we get there. Overall, it’s challenging with a “too small” plot for big desires.
hanghaus2023 schrieb:
I agree with @ypg. Building setback distances should not be violated, even if your architect thinks it can be approved. My suggestion:
Entrance on the east side. Garage 7 x 8 m (23 x 26 ft), house 9 x 13 m (30 x 43 ft). If you really want the third gable, it can be hinted at. Thanks for the feedback!
The option with the entrance on the east side is great, and we will implement it, even though it completely changes our current floor plan. We have actually already received preliminary approval for the setback distances and would only shorten the third gable slightly. We would prefer not to widen the garage, as that would reduce the already small garden space.
ypg schrieb:
For the 34er plan, it makes sense to show a larger section from Google Maps. The regional building code / local planning regulations can also help.
Regarding the distance violations, I can only assume this is because you didn’t consult a professional about the most practical layout or get proper advice, but instead just told them what you wanted.
Then they hope that since the other buildings are further away, it will be approved as is.
At first, I also thought the yellow area at the bottom of the plan was a road – now I realize there isn’t even a legend included. Overall, so much information is missing to determine whether this tight location can still be considered practical. And yes, instead, you forgo edge development around the garage, whatever the 1.55 meters (5 feet) are supposed to represent.
As far as I know, the setback rules also apply for the 34er plan.
The more I look at it, the more I think: here we go again. The angled views, the layout of the rooms can’t be properly assessed without the surroundings, except for the odd fact that the utility room and WC are on the south side.
Regarding sizes: over 20 sqm (215 sq ft) for the master bedroom, just under 14 sqm (150 sq ft), smaller than the bathroom, for the kids.
A space-wasting kitchen that is also difficult to furnish. I think that the suggestion from @hanghaus2023 could create a bit more breathing room where it’s needed, but internally you’ll face other challenges. But that can be looked at later. Overall, it’s difficult with a “too small” plot for big wishes. Unfortunately, much of what you write is correct. Apparently, we wanted too much and will now make a few changes. First and foremost, we will move the entrance area to the east. The current application will pass as is, but we will sit down again and see what the new floor plan can offer. The 1.55 meters (5 feet) at the back provide space for a narrow passage, which we want to keep open (this is not visible on the site plan). I will post the changes here as soon as we have something.
Similar topics