ᐅ Single-family house floor plan with basement, 150 sqm, only one single-story level permitted
Created on: 24 Nov 2024 13:20
G
GeraldG
Hello everyone,
we are approaching the final stage of the floor plan design and thought someone might take a look and provide some feedback.
What we wanted:
The house should be about 150-160 sqm (1,615-1,722 sq ft). Also, the attic level (according to the old development plan, i.e. the 2/3 rule in BW) must not count as a full story.
We actually like these Nordic-style houses with a central gable and also brick cladding, although we had to give up on the brick cladding because apparently no one here does it, and if they do, it’s incredibly expensive.
The architect advised us against a central bay window facing the garden because that would place one side of the terrace almost facing north.
Otherwise, we wanted a fairly classic layout:
An open living/kitchen/dining area, plus a shower restroom and an office on the ground floor. The attic should have two children’s bedrooms and a master bedroom. If there is space, also a walk-in closet and a large bathroom. I also wanted the knee wall to be as high as possible.
In the current round, the attached floor plans were developed. We only want to make minor adjustments now, so I thought this would be a good time for others to take a look.
There are several proposals for a laundry chute on WhatsApp.
I would appreciate your feedback.
Plot:
Ground floor:
Attic:
Basement:
3D views:
we are approaching the final stage of the floor plan design and thought someone might take a look and provide some feedback.
What we wanted:
The house should be about 150-160 sqm (1,615-1,722 sq ft). Also, the attic level (according to the old development plan, i.e. the 2/3 rule in BW) must not count as a full story.
We actually like these Nordic-style houses with a central gable and also brick cladding, although we had to give up on the brick cladding because apparently no one here does it, and if they do, it’s incredibly expensive.
The architect advised us against a central bay window facing the garden because that would place one side of the terrace almost facing north.
Otherwise, we wanted a fairly classic layout:
An open living/kitchen/dining area, plus a shower restroom and an office on the ground floor. The attic should have two children’s bedrooms and a master bedroom. If there is space, also a walk-in closet and a large bathroom. I also wanted the knee wall to be as high as possible.
In the current round, the attached floor plans were developed. We only want to make minor adjustments now, so I thought this would be a good time for others to take a look.
There are several proposals for a laundry chute on WhatsApp.
I would appreciate your feedback.
Plot:
Ground floor:
Attic:
Basement:
3D views:
GeraldG schrieb:
The bay window is allowed to infringe the 2.5 m (8 feet) mandatory setback (currently it is 3.5 m (11.5 feet) without the bay window) down to 2 m (6.5 feet). It does not matter whether you call it a bay window or under what conditions a bay window falls. A habitable room will not be approved right on the property boundary.
GeraldG schrieb:
That was the explanation for why this wall is being planned. The wall separates the bay window (and thus the house) from the bicycle shed. Therefore, this part of the bay window counts towards the ground floor footprint. This allows the knee wall to be higher than if the bay window is omitted and the whole “extension” is designated as a bicycle shed. You are doing it again and mixing your bicycle shed with the knee wall.
I think you are mixing too many issues together to try and calculate anything.
Has anyone already had this structure, together with the bike garage, officially approved by an architect? I doubt that this construction complies with the required setback distances.
And I still don’t understand:
And I still don’t understand:
GeraldG schrieb:
The wall between the pantry and bike garage will not be built later.
kbt09 schrieb:
Has this structure, together with the bike garage, already been approved by an architect? Yes.
My parents did the exact same thing in the same village. The room will later be unheated (or only heated down to the frost protection level). So it really is not considered living space.
Leave out the bay window. The bike garage, where beverage crates are also stored, will be located directly next to the kitchen. No bay window and no partition wall.
So, a bike shed combined with a pantry, separated by a virtual partition wall with the thickness of an external wall, is supposed to count as a pantry up to the marked partition wall, be labeled as a bay window, be considered living space for the ground floor, and use this as the basis for calculating the non-full-floor attic, inflating the attic’s height with a higher knee wall so that it does not technically exceed the limit for a full floor. At the same time, the virtual partition wall is intended to allow the bike shed to be declared as such up to that line in order to fraudulently gain a boundary privilege. A slightly reduced setback for the bay window is also being fraudulently obtained. This is a fairly complex, multiple, and blatant violation of building regulations, done just to achieve a somewhat higher knee wall without any straightforward method. Who exactly is this supposed to fool successfully?
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
11ant schrieb:
So a bike shed pantry divided by a virtual partition wall with the thickness of an exterior wall is supposed to be a pantry up to the simply drawn partition wall, be called a bay window, count as living space for the ground floor, and use this as the basis for calculating the partial attic floor so the attic with a higher knee wall does not exceed the threshold for a full floor.That is correct. The rest is less so, because the boundary privilege is neither faked nor fraudulently obtained.
Similar topics