ᐅ Floor plan of a 200 m² single-family house, raised ground floor, existing plot, double garage
Created on: 6 Feb 2025 23:45
G
Gustav5789
Dear collective wisdom,
We would like to build our single-family home on the parents-in-law’s property. The target is about 200 m² (2,150 sq ft) with a double garage. Our architect is very creative, which we find somewhat unsettling, so I’m seeking advice here.
Plot size: 1200 m² (13,000 sq ft), our portion will be approximately 550 m² (5,920 sq ft) in the future
No slope present → farmland (1549) but lies 1 m (3 ft) below the plot
Floor area ratio unknown
Site coverage ratio unknown
Building envelope, building line, and boundary unknown
Surrounding development unknown
Number of parking spaces: 1.5
Number of floors: 2
Roof shape: no specifications
Architectural style: no specifications
Orientation: no specifications
Maximum height/restrictions unknown
Other conditions
Existing setback areas must be reapplied for
Owner requirements
Architectural style, roof type, building type
Classic single-family home with a pitched roof
Basement, floors
No basement, two full floors
Number of people, ages
5 people, 33, 31, 2, 0 (planned)
Space requirements on ground floor and upper floor
Office:
Home office P1 4 days + P2 2 days
Guest bedrooms per year
None
Open or closed layout
Open
Conservative or modern construction
Modern
Open kitchen, kitchen island
Open kitchen, U-shaped
Number of dining seats
Minimum 8, ideally 10
Fireplace
Wood stove (optional)
Music / stereo wall
Stereo wall (optional)
Balcony, roof terrace
No balcony, roof terrace (optional)
Garage, carport
Double garage, extra wide/deep (7.5 x 9 m (25 x 30 ft))
Utility garden, greenhouse
Utility garden
Additional wishes / special features / daily routine, including reasons for preferences
Due to flooding events, the house should be built 1 m (3 ft) above ground level; garages may remain at ground level
Existing building requires more parking than the existing double garage, at least 3 spaces
Garages on the east side because parcel 1560/6 has a continuous 10–12 m (33–39 ft) tall tree/bush line on the boundary
House design
Do-it-yourself
What do you particularly like? Why?
Ground floor: Open living and dining area; kitchen is directly integrated into life at the table
Ground floor: Pantry between work area and kitchen serves as an acoustic buffer
What do you dislike? Why?
Ground floor: TV with stereo should ideally face the table to fill the whole room with sound
Upper floor: Too convoluted; children’s rooms are under 15 m² (160 sq ft)
Upper floor: No space for drying/ironing laundry
Garage: Technical room would be flooded during high water
Estimated cost according to architect/planner:
750,000 euros
Preferred heating technology:
Heat pump
If you have to forego, which details or features could you do without?
- Roof terrace
- KfW 40 standard (energy efficiency standard)
- Wood stove
- Large garage
- Utility garden
- 15 m² (160 sq ft) per child’s room
Which features are indispensable?
- Three children’s bedrooms
- Home office
- Open living area
- Second bathroom
Why is the design as it is now?
A mix of many examples, trying to save square meters and fit everything into 180 m² (1,940 sq ft), but now we are happy to build larger since permission up to 272 m² (2,930 sq ft) was approved.
What wishes were fulfilled by the architect? None yet; he has only provided proposals we don’t necessarily like.
What do you consider particularly good or bad about it?
We like the ground floor layout; technical areas cause little noise inside as they are separated.
Original: https://www.hausbau-forum.de/threads/kombination-massivhaus-vs-holzrahmenbau.48745/
The plot plan originally anticipated reusing existing prefabricated garages; however, these have been sold, so we have a free hand.
We would like to build our single-family home on the parents-in-law’s property. The target is about 200 m² (2,150 sq ft) with a double garage. Our architect is very creative, which we find somewhat unsettling, so I’m seeking advice here.
Plot size: 1200 m² (13,000 sq ft), our portion will be approximately 550 m² (5,920 sq ft) in the future
No slope present → farmland (1549) but lies 1 m (3 ft) below the plot
Floor area ratio unknown
Site coverage ratio unknown
Building envelope, building line, and boundary unknown
Surrounding development unknown
Number of parking spaces: 1.5
Number of floors: 2
Roof shape: no specifications
Architectural style: no specifications
Orientation: no specifications
Maximum height/restrictions unknown
Other conditions
Existing setback areas must be reapplied for
Owner requirements
Architectural style, roof type, building type
Classic single-family home with a pitched roof
Basement, floors
No basement, two full floors
Number of people, ages
5 people, 33, 31, 2, 0 (planned)
Space requirements on ground floor and upper floor
Office:
Home office P1 4 days + P2 2 days
Guest bedrooms per year
None
Open or closed layout
Open
Conservative or modern construction
Modern
Open kitchen, kitchen island
Open kitchen, U-shaped
Number of dining seats
Minimum 8, ideally 10
Fireplace
Wood stove (optional)
Music / stereo wall
Stereo wall (optional)
Balcony, roof terrace
No balcony, roof terrace (optional)
Garage, carport
Double garage, extra wide/deep (7.5 x 9 m (25 x 30 ft))
Utility garden, greenhouse
Utility garden
Additional wishes / special features / daily routine, including reasons for preferences
Due to flooding events, the house should be built 1 m (3 ft) above ground level; garages may remain at ground level
Existing building requires more parking than the existing double garage, at least 3 spaces
Garages on the east side because parcel 1560/6 has a continuous 10–12 m (33–39 ft) tall tree/bush line on the boundary
House design
Do-it-yourself
What do you particularly like? Why?
Ground floor: Open living and dining area; kitchen is directly integrated into life at the table
Ground floor: Pantry between work area and kitchen serves as an acoustic buffer
What do you dislike? Why?
Ground floor: TV with stereo should ideally face the table to fill the whole room with sound
Upper floor: Too convoluted; children’s rooms are under 15 m² (160 sq ft)
Upper floor: No space for drying/ironing laundry
Garage: Technical room would be flooded during high water
Estimated cost according to architect/planner:
750,000 euros
Preferred heating technology:
Heat pump
If you have to forego, which details or features could you do without?
- Roof terrace
- KfW 40 standard (energy efficiency standard)
- Wood stove
- Large garage
- Utility garden
- 15 m² (160 sq ft) per child’s room
Which features are indispensable?
- Three children’s bedrooms
- Home office
- Open living area
- Second bathroom
Why is the design as it is now?
A mix of many examples, trying to save square meters and fit everything into 180 m² (1,940 sq ft), but now we are happy to build larger since permission up to 272 m² (2,930 sq ft) was approved.
What wishes were fulfilled by the architect? None yet; he has only provided proposals we don’t necessarily like.
What do you consider particularly good or bad about it?
We like the ground floor layout; technical areas cause little noise inside as they are separated.
Original: https://www.hausbau-forum.de/threads/kombination-massivhaus-vs-holzrahmenbau.48745/
The plot plan originally anticipated reusing existing prefabricated garages; however, these have been sold, so we have a free hand.
K a t j a schrieb:
With the existing garage, we already have about 6 meters (20 feet) of boundary construction.I had the impression that the northern neighbor might agree to an easement. Therefore, I don’t see the problem here, but rather that the width of the driveway, planned at a substantial 9 meters (30 feet), takes up too much of the lot’s depth compared to the existing situation.The advantage of building in the rear part of the lot is that you generally don’t have to include a front yard — you can even plan an open space to sit in front of the entrance, whereas properties facing a street need to be separated by a front yard.
But cutting 9 meters (30 feet) from a 26-meter (85 feet) deep lot is painful. That leaves little or no garden space. Additionally, a double garage stretches the allowed 19.5-meter (64 feet) lot width to its limit.
Phew... and all of that just for a large fleet of vehicles.
ypg schrieb:
I had the impression that the northern neighbor was willing to grant an easement. I missed that. It should be put in writing first before any further planning.
ypg schrieb:
But to take 9 meters (30 feet) from a 26-meter (85-foot) deep plot really hurts. That leaves little to no garden space. Besides, a double garage would stretch the 19.5-meter (64-foot) width of the lot to its limit.
Phew... and all this just for a large fleet of vehicles. But the street is already there. Are you planning to remove it? That wouldn’t be my biggest concern.
G
Gustav578919 Feb 2025 17:09ypg schrieb:
A dedicated space for closets and therefore additional usable area in front of the closets, separate and not integrated into the bedroom – just as you yourself have drawn it. That adds about 3m² (32 sq ft) more compared to conventional planning. I would tend to agree with that. A space for extra usable area in front of the closets, as I initially sketched. But we can also offer it as an optional feature 🙂
ypg schrieb:
But you didn’t really address that. Hmm, then I must have forgotten. I liked the idea, especially if it simplifies the room layout. Also, it would create guest parking spaces in front of the garage. The space behind the garage probably won’t be used much anyway.
ypg schrieb:
You are quite rigid with your parameters. Nothing seems open for discussion or compromise on your side. First it was the utility room that absolutely had to be half-height, then it was the roof pitches and house orientation, then the terrace positioning. I’ll leave out the part about the children’s rooms, which shows how inflexible the thinking is. Well, the children’s rooms are important to me because too often they feel like prison cells. Bed, desk, closet, a little space to turn around, that’s it. No room to change the layout much or areas where kids can play alone or retreat. But if I’m supposed to plan without square meter figures, then at least you now have a rough idea of how I envision children’s rooms.
ypg schrieb:
This rigidity, for example insisting on nice children’s rooms or the office with minimum square meters, is a big mistake. Either you can afford it or not. There are very nice and spacious 12m² (130 sq ft) children’s rooms that easily outperform some badly planned larger ones. A good plan, a good design, works without needing exact square meters; just 3 to 4 must-have dimensions are enough to make a house or room functional. But even those measures are not set in stone if a compromise leads to a nearly 90% perfect house design. If I seem too specific or inflexible with my ideas, I’ll try to explain it differently further down.
ypg schrieb:
I have another issue: The current property has a double garage/carport of 6 meters (20 ft) set back from the boundary. Then there is a garage in the middle, but it's unclear if it will be rebuilt or already exists.
As the preliminary planning currently stands, at least in the plans presented to us, the site width used here is 9 meters (30 ft). That leaves you approximately 17 meters (56 ft) for garden and house. For me, that’s another reason to try rotating the house layout. The garage in the middle can be disregarded; that was the architect’s suggestion to reuse the old garages. The garage length along the property boundary is indeed a problem. But there is an existing easement for setbacks on the east side; this was lost when the existing garages were removed. However, upon inquiry, the neighbor indicated willingness to re-grant this easement for the new building, as that area currently only has bushes and trees.
ypg schrieb:
Also, I don’t see that the roof is considered at all in the planning. I would probably look to minimize the footprint, have the utility room also on the main floor, children’s rooms with laundry room upstairs, and the parents’ area under the roof. Desires like a second bathroom, walk-in closet, pantry, minimum sizes, etc. either come together or not. And if an optimum with the terrace location or similar isn’t achieved, then accept a semi-optimum. That can be lived with quite well.
I’m just laughing because I found this fitting post just now. I can’t say much about the roof; our architect is unsure about the maximum building height. He would base it on the preliminary decision and not exceed that. This results in a building height of 8m (26 ft). With at least 50cm (20 inches) clearance from the ground, that leaves about 7.5m (25 ft) usable height. Is the roof really usable at that height?
K a t j a schrieb:
Wow – I hadn’t thought of that. We already have about 6 meters (20 ft) of boundary-built garages. If the second garage were built, it would be 12 meters (40 ft). The usual maximum is 15 meters (50 ft). Do we have an exception here? If the old building is demolished, the existing legal protection might be lost. Then you would have to plan a 3-meter (10 ft) setback from the east boundary. See above, we need to get that signed off by the neighbor.
I’ll try to summarize the wishes as ypg suggested. Let’s see if I understood them.
We would like a single-family house with three children’s rooms, which are similarly sized and serve not only as sleeping areas but also offer enough flexibility to allow the children some freedom in how they design their rooms.
A home office room is needed where work can be done despite family life.
To accommodate physical limitations, household travel distances should be efficient and short.
The living/dining/kitchen area should be designed so that the children can do homework under supervision or so that it serves as the central point of the home.
You need some space for the driveway curve alone to get from the entrance to the garage, but yes, 9 meters (30 ft) is tight. On the north side, you could gain some space, but I don’t know if the parents would agree because then they wouldn’t have a convenient approach to their garage.
Gustav5789 schrieb:
I can’t say much about the roof; our architect doesn’t know the maximum building height. Yes, maybe it wasn’t the best idea anyway, since you want/need to build on a raised ground floor.
Gustav5789 schrieb:
The room behind the garage probably won’t be used much anyway. At the moment, I see the space behind the garage almost exclusively as garden area.
Gustav5789 schrieb:
The central garage can be left out—that was our architect’s suggestion to reuse the old garages. The length of the garage along the property boundary is actually a problem. But there is an existing setback easement on the east side, which expired when the old garages were removed. When asked, the neighbor was willing to renew this easement for the new building, since he only has bushes and trees there anyway. Then it should be left out in the further planning for now.
Gustav5789 schrieb:
But I don’t know if the parents will agree because they won’t be able to drive nicely onto their garage anymore. Well, then you just don’t build. Otherwise, the lot would be more driveway than buildable land. In the end, you will probably be better off and have an easier time buying another plot where flooding is less of an issue.
Because your 507sqm (19.5 x 26) minus 117sqm (19.5 x 6) driveway leaves 390sqm. And you want to cover that with 100sqm ground floor area plus a double garage plus additional building area. That just doesn’t leave much. Sorry, almost nothing.
Gustav5789 schrieb:
I can't say much about the roof; our architect has no idea what the maximum building height is.Did I already ask what his profession is?Gustav5789 schrieb:
but I don't know if the parents will agree, since they can no longer easily drive to their garage.Even if you have no intention to subdivide, you should establish virtual boundaries indicating which parts of the property are assigned to which type of use. Physically, you might do without fences, but in theoretical planning, boundaries need to be set. Just as every building must be structurally stable on its own, it must also function properly. Usage restrictions can also negatively affect mortgage values.https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
G
Gustav578919 Feb 2025 20:40ypg schrieb:
Well, then you simply don’t build. Because in that case, the lot would be more driveway than building plot. Ultimately, you’ll probably be better off and it will be easier if you buy a different plot where flooding is less of an issue.
Your 507 sqm (19.5 x 26 m; 217 x 85 ft) minus 117 sqm (19.5 x 6 m; 217 x 20 ft) for the driveway leaves you 390 sqm. And you want to cover that with a 100 sqm building footprint plus a double garage plus an additional building. There simply isn’t much space left. Sorry, hardly any. If it were that simple, our architect probably would have nailed it. Unfortunately, it’s not. When I buy a plot, I won’t be able to build a house because I’d likely be paying off the land for the rest of my life. But maybe the kids can pool their resources and build a multi-family house there together.
11ant schrieb:
Did I already ask what he does for a living? Taking money from people
11ant schrieb:
Even without intentions to subdivide, you should mark out virtual claims as to which parts of the plot are intended for which types of use. Physically, you might want to avoid fences, but mentally you need to draw boundaries. Just as every building has to be structurally sound on its own, it also needs to function on its own. Usage restrictions can also harm mortgage valuations. Yes, we planned that. Once the building permit / planning permission has been granted, the plot will be subdivided according to those claims. I will have to take care of both plots anyway, so that gives us a good starting point. But that will only come into play once we have a plan for how it will look in the end.
Similar topics