ᐅ Initial Floor Plan Draft – Backyard Development – 1.5 Stories
Created on: 15 Oct 2025 14:31
S
Steiger
Hello everyone,
we would like to present our first floor plan draft and kindly ask for your honest feedback.
The house is designed for 2 adults plus potentially 2 children in the future and will be built on a rural plot of land. We are currently in the design phase and welcome all constructive comments and suggestions for improvement.
The plot is a backyard development, which means there are some restrictions. For example, we are not allowed to exceed a length of 7.0 m (23 feet) and an eave height of 3.7 m (12 feet). In addition, the assigned plots are not yet developed, so we will need to build a road access here.
On the site plan we were allocated plot number 4.
More details are included in the notes..
Building Plan / Restrictions
Homeowner Requirements
House Design
Why the design looks like this
We wanted a home that is family-friendly, functional, and suitable for aging in place, while complying with the building plan.
The basic idea: parents live fully on the ground floor, children live upstairs.
We are still optimizing and would appreciate feedback on:
We look forward to your honest feedback!
What would you improve or arrange differently?
Thank you very much in advance for your time and suggestions.
we would like to present our first floor plan draft and kindly ask for your honest feedback.
The house is designed for 2 adults plus potentially 2 children in the future and will be built on a rural plot of land. We are currently in the design phase and welcome all constructive comments and suggestions for improvement.
The plot is a backyard development, which means there are some restrictions. For example, we are not allowed to exceed a length of 7.0 m (23 feet) and an eave height of 3.7 m (12 feet). In addition, the assigned plots are not yet developed, so we will need to build a road access here.
On the site plan we were allocated plot number 4.
More details are included in the notes..
Building Plan / Restrictions
- Plot size: approximately 27.5 m (90 feet) wide × 41 m (135 feet) deep (~1,100 m² (12,000 sq ft))
- Terrain: flat, no slope
- Site coverage ratio (floor area ratio): 0.4
- Floor space index (floor area ratio): 0.4
- Building envelope / setbacks: 3 m (10 feet) boundary setback, house positioned on the right side, garage may be built on the boundary
- Number of floors: 1.5 stories (maximum ridge height 7 m (23 feet), eave height approx. 3.7 m (12 feet))
- Roof type: gable roof, minimum 25° pitch
- Architectural style: modern country house style
- Orientation: south is at the top of the plan
- Maximum heights: 7 m (23 feet) ridge, 3.7 m (12 feet) eave
- Additional requirements: the plot must be accessed via a new road. The style must blend with the neighborhood.
Homeowner Requirements
- Building type: single-family home, 1.5 stories, no basement
- Occupants: 2 adults, later 2 children
- Ground floor needs: parents’ area fully on the ground floor (bedroom, dressing room, bathroom), living/dining/kitchen area (living area preferably separate), utility room with access to the garage, guest toilet
- Upper floor needs: 2 children’s bedrooms, 1 office, 1 bathroom, storage room
- Office: for home office and flexible use
- Guest accommodation: rare (max. 2–3 times per year)
- Architecture: open, welcoming, with clear sightlines
- Construction method: rather conservative-modern (no flat roof, but light materials, clean lines)
- Kitchen: open kitchen with island
- Dining area: spacious, table for 6–8 people
- Fireplace: optional, mainly for design/coziness, probably no
- Music/stereo: no specific plans yet
- Balcony/roof terrace: no
- Garage/carport: double garage, direct access to utility room, cars might be parked under a covered entrance to keep the garage space free since there will be no attic
- Garden: usable garden area, south-facing terrace → I would like to plan a conservatory here for the future or optionally build it right away. Since we will have a south-facing garden with farmland behind, a conservatory is desired as a separated area to be used all year round.
- Special features:
- Smart home planned
- Parents’ area deliberately on the ground floor
- Conservatory desired either in the future or built-in from the start
House Design
- Designed by: architect
- What we particularly like:
- South orientation with bright rooms
- Functional floor plan and parents’ area
- What we don’t like (yet):
- Children’s bathroom upstairs might be too large
- Bedroom too small
- Pantry/storage room has a door to the utility room; maybe reduce utility room size to enlarge pantry
- Children’s bedroom closets block windows and might reduce lighting
- Driveway to garage is not ideal. The garage may need to be moved further back
- Price estimate from architect: not available yet
- Personal price limit (house + fittings): around 500,000 € (approximately), completely self-built, land already purchased
- Heating system: ground source heat pump with borehole, underfloor heating, technical room probably in the garage equipment room
Why the design looks like this
We wanted a home that is family-friendly, functional, and suitable for aging in place, while complying with the building plan.
The basic idea: parents live fully on the ground floor, children live upstairs.
We are still optimizing and would appreciate feedback on:
- Room layout on the ground floor (hallway, sleeping area)
- Living/dining/kitchen area: solution with an adjacent conservatory. Living area preferably separate, so children or adults can use different paths when guests visit.
- Garage size
- Children’s bathroom: size and whether the storage room could be bigger and the bathroom smaller. Possibly separate the toilet from the children’s bathroom?
We look forward to your honest feedback!
What would you improve or arrange differently?
Thank you very much in advance for your time and suggestions.
Steiger schrieb:
One must also consider that there is generally no house on the plot yet. Well, backyard development usually implies a neighborhood in the "front row," which typically has a higher floor area ratio than the denser area. Is this area classified as "o" or "g" (closed block development), or possibly even III+D?
Steiger schrieb:
We also spent a long time thinking about the garage and going round in circles before finally consulting the architect. Why go around in circles alone beforehand if you are going to see an architect anyway?
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
Steiger schrieb:
I find it hard to imagine and would like to see a design. I did have one… I’ll check tonight if I still have it.
Steiger schrieb:
But when driving out, you have to reverse quite a distance and then maneuver around the house. It’s not so big that you have to reverse a long way. I think it’s completely normal to back out onto the street. We all do that 😉
@11ant
Ah, okay – my plot is located in the WA-4 area, which is the rear, more open development zone (so, the "o" zone). In front, the WA-3 area is more densely built with a floor area ratio of 0.8, whereas on my lot, only 0.4 is allowed (single-family houses, max. 1 full story).
That’s why I think the term "backyard development behind the first row" fits quite well.
We went around in circles because we initially had a clear idea for the architect about our preferred and more practical location for the garage. We also sketched floor plans and ideas beforehand. But our opinions kept changing, so in the end, we decided to leave the design to the architect, who of course has much more experience and expertise. We definitely needed a draft to have something tangible to work from. At least our ideas led nowhere 😀
Ah, okay – my plot is located in the WA-4 area, which is the rear, more open development zone (so, the "o" zone). In front, the WA-3 area is more densely built with a floor area ratio of 0.8, whereas on my lot, only 0.4 is allowed (single-family houses, max. 1 full story).
That’s why I think the term "backyard development behind the first row" fits quite well.
We went around in circles because we initially had a clear idea for the architect about our preferred and more practical location for the garage. We also sketched floor plans and ideas beforehand. But our opinions kept changing, so in the end, we decided to leave the design to the architect, who of course has much more experience and expertise. We definitely needed a draft to have something tangible to work from. At least our ideas led nowhere 😀
Steiger schrieb:
We kept going in circles because we already had a preconceived idea for the architect about where we preferred and considered it more practical to place the garage. We also drew floor plans and ideas beforehand. But our opinions kept changing, so we decided to leave the design to the architect, who naturally has much more experience and expertise. We definitely needed a draft first to have something tangible to work from. At least our ideas led nowhere. Thanks for this hopefully timely confession for other readers, as this approach regularly leads to exactly that result. It’s even worse for those who plan everything themselves and whose initial draft and final design are almost identical and/or who don’t express any dissatisfaction with the outcome: these people then take their rough sketches to a general contractor, whose draftsman only removes obstacles related to building permit / planning permission without correcting any mistakes. The best approach for laypersons is to make their own planning attempts only for the purpose of later being able to laugh about them—and to strictly separate those from the professional planning, which should be guided solely by brief keywords.
The most sensible first step here would have been to simulate the surroundings (and how shadows fall on the property). This is completely the opposite of “excluding it because it largely does not yet exist.” This is the biggest problem for homeowners building their own house: their personal bias (a lack of distance and neutrality). Combined with persistent ideas and an overactive imagination, this at best leads to the professional having to make painful budget cuts.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
You’re probably right – the whole concept of “head cinema” and those nagging ideas fits pretty well.. 😀
I take this as a valuable reminder to create more distance and involve the professional planning earlier.
It’s also not that easy to filter out all the ideas, especially the genuinely good feedback, and present them to the architect in a valid and meaningful way. I don’t want to call him for every little thing I want changed or that doesn’t fit yet.
Well, I’ll try to gather over the next days/weeks what can reasonably be discarded and what should be changed. Good thing we have enough time..
I take this as a valuable reminder to create more distance and involve the professional planning earlier.
It’s also not that easy to filter out all the ideas, especially the genuinely good feedback, and present them to the architect in a valid and meaningful way. I don’t want to call him for every little thing I want changed or that doesn’t fit yet.
Well, I’ll try to gather over the next days/weeks what can reasonably be discarded and what should be changed. Good thing we have enough time..
Similar topics