ᐅ Floor Plan Design for a Single-Family Home of Approximately 250 sqm with a Separate Granny Flat
Created on: 26 Jan 2025 21:52
C
CornforthWhite
I already feel a bit anxious writing this, anticipating the inevitable criticism of our design, but I’m posting it anyway. We struggled somewhat with the software, so much of the presentation is still quite provisional. Our main goal is to find out whether what we’ve basically planned could work. We’re primarily looking for feedback on functional planning errors. Style critique is sure to come since our design is unlikely to suit most people’s taste here—but that interests us less (we like what we like, and that probably won’t change). Although tastes vary, I’ve learned a lot from other threads recently and hope that “the usual suspects” might also take a look at our design. Thanks in advance!
Development Plan / Restrictions
Plot size: 960 m² (10,333 sq ft)
Slope: no
Floor area ratio: 0.2, maximum buildable footprint however <175 m² (1,883 sq ft)
BUT: the 1977 Building Use Ordinance applies
Floor space index: -
Building envelope, building line and boundary: 5 m (16 ft) from the road on the south and west, 3 m (10 ft) from neighbors on the north and east
Edge development: no
Number of parking spaces: 1.5 per dwelling unit
Number of storeys: 1 + attic
Roof style: no fixed style, but roof pitch regulation with 2 options
Option 1: 22–26 degrees
Option 2: 33–44 degrees
Architectural style: no specification
Orientation: flexible
Maximum heights / limits: in red the official restrictions of the development plan, in green the generously granted exceptions we are aware of (several times approved). The neighbors recently submitted a building application aiming for slightly higher eaves and knee wall heights—this will serve as a reference for us.
For roof option 1 (22–26 degrees pitch): ridge height max. 8 m (26 ft) (or 8.15 m / 27 ft), eaves height max. 4.0 m (13 ft) (or 5.20–5.30 m / 17–17.5 ft), knee wall max. 115 cm (45 in) (or 2.20–2.30 m / 7–7.5 ft)
For roof option 2 (33–44 degrees pitch): ridge height max. 10.5 m (34 ft), eaves height max. 3.5 m (11.5 ft), knee wall max. 40 cm (16 in) (exceptions probably possible but no figures known)
Definition of eaves height: Top of rough ground floor slab to intersection of exterior wall with the bottom edge of the rafters
Definition of knee wall: Top of rough attic floor slab to intersection of exterior wall with the bottom edge of the rafters
Client Requirements
Architectural style, roof shape, building type: a new build that does not look like a typical new build
Basement, floors: no basement (high groundwater level, no living space planned underground), two full stories (which are effectively possible due to generous exceptions from the development plan)
Number of people, age: my mother (70+), my husband and I (late 30s), 2 cats, 1 dog, 1 child planned
Space requirements on ground and upper floors: On the ground floor a self-contained apartment for my mother and kitchen / living / dining / utility for us;
Office: 2 offices (both approx. 50% and 80% remote work)
Guest stays per year: about 2–3 weeks
Open or closed layout: open on the ground floor
Conservative or modern building style: conservative
Open kitchen, kitchen island: yes to both
Number of dining seats: 6–8
Fireplace: yes (gas fireplace)
Music/sound system wall: no
Balcony, roof terrace: balcony would be nice
Garage, carport: spacious double garage
Utility garden, greenhouse: rather no
Other wishes / special features / daily routine, including reasons why some things are desired or not:
House Design
Who designed it: DIY
What do you like most and why?
- Style inspired by classic American Colonial architecture
- Living area centered around the fireplace
- Porch with insect protection, fireplace & privacy
- Kitchen island with plenty of workspace
- Small “secondary kitchen” to temporarily hide dirty dishes / cooking mess
What do you not like? Why?
I wouldn’t exactly say “dislike,” but we have doubts about the following points:
Personal price limit for the house, including fittings: we’re budgeting €3,000 per m² plus additional costs and landscaping, but have significant equity and thus some flexibility upwards; also plan a lot of personal work.
Preferred heating technology: heat pump with geothermal probe
If you have to give up something, which features/finishes
- Could be sacrificed: balcony
- Cannot be sacrificed: no compromises on the self-contained apartment
Why is the design like it is now?
We originally wanted to buy a house with old-style charm but found nothing suitable. Although we like modern, minimalist architecture, it’s not for us personally.
I’ll help a bit with the images.
Development Plan / Restrictions
Plot size: 960 m² (10,333 sq ft)
Slope: no
Floor area ratio: 0.2, maximum buildable footprint however <175 m² (1,883 sq ft)
BUT: the 1977 Building Use Ordinance applies
- § 19 IV: Ancillary structures according to § 14 are not counted towards the allowable footprint. The same applies to balconies, loggias, terraces, and structural elements as far as they are permitted within setback areas or distance zones under regional law (here: Bavaria) (…).
- § 21a III: Covered parking spaces and garages are not to be counted towards the allowable footprint as long as they are less than 0.1 of the plot area.
Floor space index: -
Building envelope, building line and boundary: 5 m (16 ft) from the road on the south and west, 3 m (10 ft) from neighbors on the north and east
Edge development: no
Number of parking spaces: 1.5 per dwelling unit
Number of storeys: 1 + attic
Roof style: no fixed style, but roof pitch regulation with 2 options
Option 1: 22–26 degrees
Option 2: 33–44 degrees
Architectural style: no specification
Orientation: flexible
Maximum heights / limits: in red the official restrictions of the development plan, in green the generously granted exceptions we are aware of (several times approved). The neighbors recently submitted a building application aiming for slightly higher eaves and knee wall heights—this will serve as a reference for us.
For roof option 1 (22–26 degrees pitch): ridge height max. 8 m (26 ft) (or 8.15 m / 27 ft), eaves height max. 4.0 m (13 ft) (or 5.20–5.30 m / 17–17.5 ft), knee wall max. 115 cm (45 in) (or 2.20–2.30 m / 7–7.5 ft)
For roof option 2 (33–44 degrees pitch): ridge height max. 10.5 m (34 ft), eaves height max. 3.5 m (11.5 ft), knee wall max. 40 cm (16 in) (exceptions probably possible but no figures known)
Definition of eaves height: Top of rough ground floor slab to intersection of exterior wall with the bottom edge of the rafters
Definition of knee wall: Top of rough attic floor slab to intersection of exterior wall with the bottom edge of the rafters
Client Requirements
Architectural style, roof shape, building type: a new build that does not look like a typical new build
Basement, floors: no basement (high groundwater level, no living space planned underground), two full stories (which are effectively possible due to generous exceptions from the development plan)
Number of people, age: my mother (70+), my husband and I (late 30s), 2 cats, 1 dog, 1 child planned
Space requirements on ground and upper floors: On the ground floor a self-contained apartment for my mother and kitchen / living / dining / utility for us;
Office: 2 offices (both approx. 50% and 80% remote work)
Guest stays per year: about 2–3 weeks
Open or closed layout: open on the ground floor
Conservative or modern building style: conservative
Open kitchen, kitchen island: yes to both
Number of dining seats: 6–8
Fireplace: yes (gas fireplace)
Music/sound system wall: no
Balcony, roof terrace: balcony would be nice
Garage, carport: spacious double garage
Utility garden, greenhouse: rather no
Other wishes / special features / daily routine, including reasons why some things are desired or not:
- Covered terrace / loggia / outdoor seating with reliable but as discreet as possible insect protection (lakeside location, regular mosquito issue) & fireplace (probably gas as well)
- A rather unpopular opinion here, but we explicitly do not want roller shutters or venetian blinds. We currently have them despite many south-facing windows and never use them (feels like a vault). Instead, we plan air conditioning (powered by photovoltaics) and larger trees.
- Gas stove (I just can’t get comfortable with induction)
- Washing machine & dryer on the upper floor
- In one office, a small niche for an exercise bike (turbo trainer)
House Design
Who designed it: DIY
What do you like most and why?
- Style inspired by classic American Colonial architecture
- Living area centered around the fireplace
- Porch with insect protection, fireplace & privacy
- Kitchen island with plenty of workspace
- Small “secondary kitchen” to temporarily hide dirty dishes / cooking mess
What do you not like? Why?
I wouldn’t exactly say “dislike,” but we have doubts about the following points:
- Passage between garage and house might be too narrow?
- Entrance and staircase possibly not spacious enough?
- Staircase: can’t properly design it in the software, but according to a stair calculation tool it should work. Is the space requirement adequate? Are the asymmetrical runs a problem?
- Bedroom in the self-contained apartment is borderline small
- Bathrooms: enough space?
- Utility/technical room: large enough?
- Could a mechanical ventilation system with heat recovery possibly be installed in the crawl space attic?
Personal price limit for the house, including fittings: we’re budgeting €3,000 per m² plus additional costs and landscaping, but have significant equity and thus some flexibility upwards; also plan a lot of personal work.
Preferred heating technology: heat pump with geothermal probe
If you have to give up something, which features/finishes
- Could be sacrificed: balcony
- Cannot be sacrificed: no compromises on the self-contained apartment
Why is the design like it is now?
We originally wanted to buy a house with old-style charm but found nothing suitable. Although we like modern, minimalist architecture, it’s not for us personally.
I’ll help a bit with the images.
C
CornforthWhite27 Jan 2025 21:56hanghaus2023 schrieb:
Not working for me anymore either. Now there are 8 attachments instead of 4.
Apparently someone fixed it, so my post disappeared along with it.I still don’t understand what I might have done wrong. From the very first attempt, I simply used the "attach files" function as usual. On my husband’s phone (not logged in here), the attachments opened immediately. I can only imagine that the files were too large (the original image quality was definitely much higher). But it doesn’t really matter....
CornforthWhite schrieb:
On the phone (not logged in here) the attachments could also be opened immediately.Yes, they could be opened as well. However, attachments that require opening in new windows are generally not preferred.C
CornforthWhite27 Jan 2025 22:11ypg schrieb:
No one here expects that. Nobody expects you to implement anything. You’re not building a house for any of the respondents. You’re building your house the way you like and want it.
But perhaps you should review everything again, focusing on your own responses. Psychologically trained people are gently telling you that the granny flat might be a bit narrow, and you come back with a counter-question “really?” comparing it to an old apartment. I mean: the granny flat is no wider than 4 meters (13 feet). A 4-meter (13-foot) wide room is not a problem in itself— I hope we agree that 4 m (13 ft) is not too narrow for a single room? I did not compare the entire apartment to an old one, only the bathroom size. I also never said we wouldn’t try to get more space, but anyway, I think we’re just talking past each other.
ypg schrieb:
Again, a contradiction and comparison. And yes: comparing is perfectly legitimate.
Exactly. If you approve everything as already experienced and sufficient, what else is there to explain? Then there’s no “Part 2” from me, your argument doesn’t allow it, and to answer more precisely, measurements are required, which haven’t been provided. I was only trying to explain personal priorities. For example, a large bedroom is more important to me (e.g., with space for a sofa as a cat sleeping spot or a child’s bed and a nice antique dresser) than a large bathroom. Neither my husband nor I ever use a bathtub, but it might be nice for a child. Therefore, we are willing to accept that the bathroom will be somewhat “neglected” in terms of space allocation, but of course, we don’t want to create problematic tight spots. Hence, the question about specific problem areas as well as explaining the priorities.
ypg schrieb:
I also save myself the time-consuming task of re-measuring via scaling. Where exactly are measurements missing? I will provide those, but probably not until tomorrow evening. As I mentioned, I prepared a vectorized PDF that allows clear zooming in to identify window dimensions and other details. Now I have to add larger measurements, but the software only runs on my husband’s Windows PC, and he was just working on that computer.
You said I implied I "didn’t want to change much anymore." I don’t recall saying anything like that, but okay.
C
CornforthWhite27 Jan 2025 22:14ypg schrieb:
Yes, they could also be opened. But systems that require opening first are not preferred because new windows have to be opened. Now we are approaching the core of the problem – although this is not mentioned in the rules. But then the files were probably just too large, which is why the preview didn’t work. I will pay attention to this in the future; it will probably be trial and error to see which size can be uploaded here.
CornforthWhite schrieb:
...provides enough heat to extend the "terrace season" or if it would just be an "atmosphere fire."
We have a consultation soon with a stove installer regarding this. Hmm, I wonder how objective the stove installer will be? I’m considering whether the closed front facing the garden is worth it for me. It feels like a big compromise.
CornforthWhite schrieb:
Because the door shouldn’t open inward due to the very limited space. 10 sqm (108 sq ft) isn’t so cramped that there wouldn’t be room for a door—even one that opens inward. You can definitely do that.
CornforthWhite schrieb:
I can’t quite understand that right now. Maybe a misunderstanding? I marked the parking space for the granny flat on the site plan. The path to the granny flat entrance would then run along the neighbor’s fence. What feels too tight to you upstairs, here seems too loose in my opinion. Without the dimensioned site plan, though, it’s hard to judge. To me, it looks like your mom and her guests would constantly be walking right past your terrace. Five meters (16 feet) is practically nothing in a garden.
CornforthWhite schrieb:
Site plan in 2D? Do you mean a satellite image? A site plan shows the house, paths, and outbuildings scaled accurately on the property. It also includes all measurements (for example, distances, boundary lengths, and sometimes elevation profiles). This is usually the first step to see if there is enough space at all.
Your last 3D image looks like the software already has all the information. Having that in 2D with measurements would be very helpful.
C
CornforthWhite27 Jan 2025 22:34Oh, I see. That feature is actually already included in the program and will be available tomorrow evening. Here is the potential parking area again (dimensions should be approximately correct) with some recognizable measurements taken from a PDF I have on hand. It was visible in one of the originally uploaded images but seems to have been lost due to resizing.
Similar topics