After having annoyed some of you with my clever advice before, here is the ultimate chance for revenge!
Our story has been a bit complicated from the start. There is still space for a smaller single-family house on my parents’ property. We wanted to take advantage of that opportunity.
So last April, I went to the local planning department to ask what we needed to consider, whether it was even possible, and so on.
The answer was: no problem, it fits perfectly with our municipality’s current infill development concept. We just need to respect the required setback distances and Section 34, the compatibility requirement.
That sounded encouraging!
From the beginning, we were set on building a wooden house (solid wood or timber frame, a final decision will come later), so we started looking around to find a suitable builder. After several meetings with different providers, we chose a timber house builder from the Allgäu region. It just felt right personally, and a friend of mine had already built with him and was very satisfied. He then recommended his trusted in-house architect, because they work well together. We thought, “never change a winning team,” and he was nice, so the planning started.
Unfortunately, that was our first mistake because when building under Section 34 and if you don’t want to exactly replicate a 1970s-style house (like the surrounding development), it’s wise not to choose just any architect. You need one who’s willing to engage with the planning office.
That’s a good tip for everyone building under Section 34!
After two rejected preliminary building applications (the first one already had incorrect setback distances, something an architect really should know...), we ended the cooperation with the architect. The result of this six-month ordeal: we can build there, but not the way currently proposed to us (the knee wall height is too low, and the pitched roof too steep).
For us, the project was shelved for the time being. We didn’t want to spend money on a house design we didn’t like at all.
Then we met another architect at a topping-out ceremony, who is well known for getting the maximum out of the planning office and who just shook his head when we told him our story (this is just the very short version!).
Long story short: we decided to give it another try with this architect.
My partner and I had already developed a fairly precise layout concept; but the new architect didn’t want to look at it. He asked us what our must-haves were, what was necessary, what would be nice, and what could be, and then took a look at the site.
A few weeks later, he presented his layout – and, surprise! – it was very similar to ours! A great idea from him was to share my mother’s driveway, which reduces traffic paths on the property. We hadn’t thought of that, of course, and it’s fantastic!
Basically, he mirrored our design 180°, added an open space (which I had marked as a nice-to-have) above the dining area, and now we are in the concept planning phase.
Before submitting another (possibly unsuccessful) preliminary application, our new architect will work closely with the planning office in advance, so things like setback distances will be settled prior to submission.
So I can’t say anything final yet about the knee wall height we will achieve, nor which roof style it will ultimately be (the planning office currently wants a 31° gable roof, but we would prefer a flat or shed roof – so we still have to find a compromise *smile*).
But we are allowed to build there, and the setback distances are mostly fixed (the architect thinks we can move the house a bit further back, let’s see... I’m not fully convinced yet, but that would be great).
What I would like to discuss here is the layout concept.
Our main challenges were our large bed (2.30 x 2.30 meters [7 ft 6 in x 7 ft 6 in] with nightstands each 0.45 x 0.45 meters [1 ft 6 in x 1 ft 6 in]) and our vision of a beautiful large bathroom with a sauna, plus a practical utility room on the upper floor.
Otherwise, here are our answers to the standard questionnaire:
Zoning/Restrictions
Plot size: approx. 312 sqm (3355 sq ft) for our house; the total property is 1200 sqm (12,917 sq ft) and will not be subdivided
Slope: slight from north to south, elevation difference approx. 1 m (3 ft)
Site coverage ratio: none, only Section 34 applies (surrounding development ranges from 0.28 to 0.35)
Floor area ratio: none, only Section 34
Building envelope, building line, boundary line: only limited by mandatory setback distances
Boundary development: allowed up to 15 m (49 ft), max. 12 m (39 ft) on one side (need to verify this more precisely)
Number of parking spaces: 2 (as required by the municipality)
Number of floors: ground floor and upper floor without attic space, visible roof structure
Roof form: still open; we don’t want a classic gable roof, at least we want an offset gable roof
Style: modern
Orientation: southeast
Maximum height/limits: ?
Other requirements: Section 34
Homeowner requirements
Style, roof form, building type: modern single-family house, roof form doesn’t matter as long as it’s not a classic gable roof
Basement, floors: basement yes!
Number of occupants, ages: 2 adults, no children
Room needs on ground/upper floor:
Ground floor: guest toilet, kitchen, dining, living, entrance area, pantry
Upper floor: sleeping, multifunctional room (office, guest, music), utility room for washer/dryer, walk-in closet, bathroom
Office: family use or home office? Home office; used irregularly
Number of overnight guests per year: well... probably more if we have the opportunity for guests (currently difficult), but probably less than 10
Open or closed architecture: open!!!
Traditional or modern construction: modern
Open kitchen, kitchen island: kitchen island
Number of dining seats: large dining table 3 x 1.30 m (10 ft x 4 ft 3 in) planned, for 8–12 seats
Fireplace: wood stove
Music/stereo wall: no, stereo system is integrated in living room cabinet
Balcony, rooftop terrace: no
Garage, carport: carport; fortunately no room for a garage
Utility garden, greenhouse: small greenhouse shared with my mother, but it might end up on her side (her garden must give way to our building project), raised bed, also probably together with my mother
Other wishes/special features/daily routine/explanations for preferences: it is important for us that the house is bright and filled with light everywhere.
House design
Who designed it: architect and us
What do you like most? Why?: We basically like almost everything
What don’t you like? Why?: The bathroom gave us a lot of headaches; below you will see two layouts for the upper floor with different bathroom variants. In one, the utility room is located in the southeast, which isn’t necessary to give it such a nice spot. In the second layout, the utility room is in the northwest, but you have to go through it from the walk-in closet and don’t get to the bathroom directly. We find that acceptable because we prefer the bathroom layout of this variant better. If anyone has the ultimate bathroom idea, i.e. the all-in-one perfect bathroom, please share!
Price estimate according to architect/planner: 2,500 €/sqm (232 $/sq ft)
Personal price limit for the house, including fittings: 500,000 € (without land, which we already own)
Preferred heating technology: photovoltaic with water tank (we prefer underfloor heating with water, not electric), heat exchanger. Not final yet. Our architect is also an energy consultant, so we will work on this in more detail.
If you had to give up certain details/extensions, which ones?
- Can give up: open space over the dining area
- Cannot give up: large kitchen, large bathroom with sauna (and for the shower, NO glass that always has to be cleaned)
Why did the design turn out like it did?
Our building envelope is relatively limited due to the small lot, so there wasn’t much room for variation. Our room requirements were also clear; the rest was: where do I want bright rooms, where can it be darker?
What do you think makes it particularly good or bad?
We like the open spatial concept and the gallery.
A few more remarks:
There is no detailed basement plan yet, only a very vague sketch. The technical room will probably be located under the kitchen. Alternatively, under the guest toilet.
The main terrace is planned on the southeast side, i.e. from the dining area. In front of the living room, there will also be a small side terrace for relaxing.
Parking spaces will likely be in the southeast corner, one parallel to the street and one leading into the property.
On the site plan, you see the entire property outlined in yellow, including the existing buildings. It consists of two cadastral parcels.
I also added two pictures of the property to give an impression of the slope.
For those who made it this far: RESPECT!!!!
And many thanks!
If you have any questions: just ask!
Our story has been a bit complicated from the start. There is still space for a smaller single-family house on my parents’ property. We wanted to take advantage of that opportunity.
So last April, I went to the local planning department to ask what we needed to consider, whether it was even possible, and so on.
The answer was: no problem, it fits perfectly with our municipality’s current infill development concept. We just need to respect the required setback distances and Section 34, the compatibility requirement.
That sounded encouraging!
From the beginning, we were set on building a wooden house (solid wood or timber frame, a final decision will come later), so we started looking around to find a suitable builder. After several meetings with different providers, we chose a timber house builder from the Allgäu region. It just felt right personally, and a friend of mine had already built with him and was very satisfied. He then recommended his trusted in-house architect, because they work well together. We thought, “never change a winning team,” and he was nice, so the planning started.
Unfortunately, that was our first mistake because when building under Section 34 and if you don’t want to exactly replicate a 1970s-style house (like the surrounding development), it’s wise not to choose just any architect. You need one who’s willing to engage with the planning office.
That’s a good tip for everyone building under Section 34!
After two rejected preliminary building applications (the first one already had incorrect setback distances, something an architect really should know...), we ended the cooperation with the architect. The result of this six-month ordeal: we can build there, but not the way currently proposed to us (the knee wall height is too low, and the pitched roof too steep).
For us, the project was shelved for the time being. We didn’t want to spend money on a house design we didn’t like at all.
Then we met another architect at a topping-out ceremony, who is well known for getting the maximum out of the planning office and who just shook his head when we told him our story (this is just the very short version!).
Long story short: we decided to give it another try with this architect.
My partner and I had already developed a fairly precise layout concept; but the new architect didn’t want to look at it. He asked us what our must-haves were, what was necessary, what would be nice, and what could be, and then took a look at the site.
A few weeks later, he presented his layout – and, surprise! – it was very similar to ours! A great idea from him was to share my mother’s driveway, which reduces traffic paths on the property. We hadn’t thought of that, of course, and it’s fantastic!
Basically, he mirrored our design 180°, added an open space (which I had marked as a nice-to-have) above the dining area, and now we are in the concept planning phase.
Before submitting another (possibly unsuccessful) preliminary application, our new architect will work closely with the planning office in advance, so things like setback distances will be settled prior to submission.
So I can’t say anything final yet about the knee wall height we will achieve, nor which roof style it will ultimately be (the planning office currently wants a 31° gable roof, but we would prefer a flat or shed roof – so we still have to find a compromise *smile*).
But we are allowed to build there, and the setback distances are mostly fixed (the architect thinks we can move the house a bit further back, let’s see... I’m not fully convinced yet, but that would be great).
What I would like to discuss here is the layout concept.
Our main challenges were our large bed (2.30 x 2.30 meters [7 ft 6 in x 7 ft 6 in] with nightstands each 0.45 x 0.45 meters [1 ft 6 in x 1 ft 6 in]) and our vision of a beautiful large bathroom with a sauna, plus a practical utility room on the upper floor.
Otherwise, here are our answers to the standard questionnaire:
Zoning/Restrictions
Plot size: approx. 312 sqm (3355 sq ft) for our house; the total property is 1200 sqm (12,917 sq ft) and will not be subdivided
Slope: slight from north to south, elevation difference approx. 1 m (3 ft)
Site coverage ratio: none, only Section 34 applies (surrounding development ranges from 0.28 to 0.35)
Floor area ratio: none, only Section 34
Building envelope, building line, boundary line: only limited by mandatory setback distances
Boundary development: allowed up to 15 m (49 ft), max. 12 m (39 ft) on one side (need to verify this more precisely)
Number of parking spaces: 2 (as required by the municipality)
Number of floors: ground floor and upper floor without attic space, visible roof structure
Roof form: still open; we don’t want a classic gable roof, at least we want an offset gable roof
Style: modern
Orientation: southeast
Maximum height/limits: ?
Other requirements: Section 34
Homeowner requirements
Style, roof form, building type: modern single-family house, roof form doesn’t matter as long as it’s not a classic gable roof
Basement, floors: basement yes!
Number of occupants, ages: 2 adults, no children
Room needs on ground/upper floor:
Ground floor: guest toilet, kitchen, dining, living, entrance area, pantry
Upper floor: sleeping, multifunctional room (office, guest, music), utility room for washer/dryer, walk-in closet, bathroom
Office: family use or home office? Home office; used irregularly
Number of overnight guests per year: well... probably more if we have the opportunity for guests (currently difficult), but probably less than 10
Open or closed architecture: open!!!
Traditional or modern construction: modern
Open kitchen, kitchen island: kitchen island
Number of dining seats: large dining table 3 x 1.30 m (10 ft x 4 ft 3 in) planned, for 8–12 seats
Fireplace: wood stove
Music/stereo wall: no, stereo system is integrated in living room cabinet
Balcony, rooftop terrace: no
Garage, carport: carport; fortunately no room for a garage
Utility garden, greenhouse: small greenhouse shared with my mother, but it might end up on her side (her garden must give way to our building project), raised bed, also probably together with my mother
Other wishes/special features/daily routine/explanations for preferences: it is important for us that the house is bright and filled with light everywhere.
House design
Who designed it: architect and us
What do you like most? Why?: We basically like almost everything
What don’t you like? Why?: The bathroom gave us a lot of headaches; below you will see two layouts for the upper floor with different bathroom variants. In one, the utility room is located in the southeast, which isn’t necessary to give it such a nice spot. In the second layout, the utility room is in the northwest, but you have to go through it from the walk-in closet and don’t get to the bathroom directly. We find that acceptable because we prefer the bathroom layout of this variant better. If anyone has the ultimate bathroom idea, i.e. the all-in-one perfect bathroom, please share!
Price estimate according to architect/planner: 2,500 €/sqm (232 $/sq ft)
Personal price limit for the house, including fittings: 500,000 € (without land, which we already own)
Preferred heating technology: photovoltaic with water tank (we prefer underfloor heating with water, not electric), heat exchanger. Not final yet. Our architect is also an energy consultant, so we will work on this in more detail.
If you had to give up certain details/extensions, which ones?
- Can give up: open space over the dining area
- Cannot give up: large kitchen, large bathroom with sauna (and for the shower, NO glass that always has to be cleaned)
Why did the design turn out like it did?
Our building envelope is relatively limited due to the small lot, so there wasn’t much room for variation. Our room requirements were also clear; the rest was: where do I want bright rooms, where can it be darker?
What do you think makes it particularly good or bad?
We like the open spatial concept and the gallery.
A few more remarks:
There is no detailed basement plan yet, only a very vague sketch. The technical room will probably be located under the kitchen. Alternatively, under the guest toilet.
The main terrace is planned on the southeast side, i.e. from the dining area. In front of the living room, there will also be a small side terrace for relaxing.
Parking spaces will likely be in the southeast corner, one parallel to the street and one leading into the property.
On the site plan, you see the entire property outlined in yellow, including the existing buildings. It consists of two cadastral parcels.
I also added two pictures of the property to give an impression of the slope.
For those who made it this far: RESPECT!!!!
And many thanks!
If you have any questions: just ask!
So, I’m revisiting my old topic now.
I have received the first plans from our architect (properly drafted plans).
In between, there was a lot of planning work, ideas added and partly discarded, etc.
Currently, there is already a preliminary agreement with the building authority / planning permission; the house will be approved as planned. Now, we are focusing on the interior layout and, in a second step, on the exterior design.
But one thing at a time. Since we weren’t entirely happy with the walk-in closet, we eventually came up with the idea of adding a return corridor on both sides. Here is a rough sketch to give an approximate idea:
This would create enough space in the walk-in closet and expand the dining area as well as the open space towards the front.
I have received the first plans from our architect (properly drafted plans).
In between, there was a lot of planning work, ideas added and partly discarded, etc.
Currently, there is already a preliminary agreement with the building authority / planning permission; the house will be approved as planned. Now, we are focusing on the interior layout and, in a second step, on the exterior design.
But one thing at a time. Since we weren’t entirely happy with the walk-in closet, we eventually came up with the idea of adding a return corridor on both sides. Here is a rough sketch to give an approximate idea:
This would create enough space in the walk-in closet and expand the dining area as well as the open space towards the front.
After the initial cost estimate, we reluctantly decided to remove the dormer on the west side (intended for the walk-in closet), even though that was basically the reason we wanted it in the first place. Well, currently we only have the dormer facing southeast, in the dining area/open space.
I’m attaching the architect’s plans. North is in the top left corner—exactly where the house has the corner in the top left, as indicated in the plans from the first post.
We have reduced the planned basement. This is partly due to the rapidly rising costs of excavating the entire house for a basement. This is because of the existing garage, which doesn’t have a basement; excavating there would require extensive shoring work. We considered possibly demolishing and rebuilding the garage, as that might be cheaper. So, we decided to scale back the basement.
However, we are still not completely satisfied with the plans:
1. Overall, the facades are too plain and boring. There is a lot of potential to improve them.
2. The walk-in closet currently has no window; at least a roof window (skylight) must be added.
3. The draftsman enlarged the dining area at the expense of the entrance area. Whereas in my plan the center of the house aligned with the middle of the stairs, the staircase and corresponding walls are shifted left (west). This is not a bad idea; we don’t need a large foyer, but it also reduces the size of the walk-in closet. The closet currently drawn there no longer has a 60cm (24 inches) depth and is basically unusable. This makes us reconsider adding the dormer again. As it stands, it doesn’t work. We need a 60cm (24 inches) deep closet where longer items can be hung. The knee wall is only 1.07m (3.5 ft), so a closet of the necessary height won’t fit there.
4. The kitchen is incorrectly planned. We’re sticking to our layout with a patio door between the kitchen units, but this is not a major issue at the moment.
5. Basement: it still extends too far into the garage and could be reduced further. Basically, it can start at the stairs, which should be sufficient and better structurally for the garage.
6. Regarding the basement layout: we don’t like it at all. Both rooms have skylights facing forward, but we don’t want the utility room there. We want the stairs to match the upper floor, exiting to the right (east), with the hallway there, two rooms at the front, and the utility room behind the stairs (currently the hallway).
7. Utility room on the upper floor: we want to enlarge it by a few centimeters at the expense of the sauna, and add a sink (I don’t want to carry the dryer’s condensate water all the way to the bathroom).
8. The roof window above the toilet/bidet will be enlarged. This will provide not just more light but also more headroom.
9. The ground floor staircase is open to the entrance area but has a wall on the living room side. We actually want the opposite: open to the living area and walled on the entrance side. Then the staircase wall would run continuously from basement to upper floor.
10. Window layout in the living room is unacceptable. Besides looking very dull and uninspiring from the outside, we don’t know where to place the TV, for example. The row of windows on the right (east) side will definitely be removed and replaced with shelving. We’re also considering removing the window on the left side facing south—replacing it with a wall (not extending fully to the middle), where a stove and TV could be placed. A larger window, possibly wrapping around the corner, could then be installed to the left.
11. The bathroom windows are boring, too. I like to have a nice view when I’m bathing, so we will definitely change something there. At the moment, it just looks plain.
I’m attaching the architect’s plans. North is in the top left corner—exactly where the house has the corner in the top left, as indicated in the plans from the first post.
We have reduced the planned basement. This is partly due to the rapidly rising costs of excavating the entire house for a basement. This is because of the existing garage, which doesn’t have a basement; excavating there would require extensive shoring work. We considered possibly demolishing and rebuilding the garage, as that might be cheaper. So, we decided to scale back the basement.
However, we are still not completely satisfied with the plans:
1. Overall, the facades are too plain and boring. There is a lot of potential to improve them.
2. The walk-in closet currently has no window; at least a roof window (skylight) must be added.
3. The draftsman enlarged the dining area at the expense of the entrance area. Whereas in my plan the center of the house aligned with the middle of the stairs, the staircase and corresponding walls are shifted left (west). This is not a bad idea; we don’t need a large foyer, but it also reduces the size of the walk-in closet. The closet currently drawn there no longer has a 60cm (24 inches) depth and is basically unusable. This makes us reconsider adding the dormer again. As it stands, it doesn’t work. We need a 60cm (24 inches) deep closet where longer items can be hung. The knee wall is only 1.07m (3.5 ft), so a closet of the necessary height won’t fit there.
4. The kitchen is incorrectly planned. We’re sticking to our layout with a patio door between the kitchen units, but this is not a major issue at the moment.
5. Basement: it still extends too far into the garage and could be reduced further. Basically, it can start at the stairs, which should be sufficient and better structurally for the garage.
6. Regarding the basement layout: we don’t like it at all. Both rooms have skylights facing forward, but we don’t want the utility room there. We want the stairs to match the upper floor, exiting to the right (east), with the hallway there, two rooms at the front, and the utility room behind the stairs (currently the hallway).
7. Utility room on the upper floor: we want to enlarge it by a few centimeters at the expense of the sauna, and add a sink (I don’t want to carry the dryer’s condensate water all the way to the bathroom).
8. The roof window above the toilet/bidet will be enlarged. This will provide not just more light but also more headroom.
9. The ground floor staircase is open to the entrance area but has a wall on the living room side. We actually want the opposite: open to the living area and walled on the entrance side. Then the staircase wall would run continuously from basement to upper floor.
10. Window layout in the living room is unacceptable. Besides looking very dull and uninspiring from the outside, we don’t know where to place the TV, for example. The row of windows on the right (east) side will definitely be removed and replaced with shelving. We’re also considering removing the window on the left side facing south—replacing it with a wall (not extending fully to the middle), where a stove and TV could be placed. A larger window, possibly wrapping around the corner, could then be installed to the left.
11. The bathroom windows are boring, too. I like to have a nice view when I’m bathing, so we will definitely change something there. At the moment, it just looks plain.
No, nothing like a wart: a beam that runs through the entire house. Our nod to the Bauhaus style, which we would have loved to build.
No, it really came about this way because the dressing room couldn’t be arranged differently. And if it’s double-sided, it has a certain something. That’s why I’m not entirely happy with the current design either...
Eliminating the wart failed here due to the low knee wall.
Otherwise, we have an appointment with the architect on Friday, and I’ve already thought of quite a few ideas (even more than what I’ve shared here; these are the main points), but maybe I’ll get some useful input here for our meeting.
No, it really came about this way because the dressing room couldn’t be arranged differently. And if it’s double-sided, it has a certain something. That’s why I’m not entirely happy with the current design either...
Eliminating the wart failed here due to the low knee wall.
Otherwise, we have an appointment with the architect on Friday, and I’ve already thought of quite a few ideas (even more than what I’ve shared here; these are the main points), but maybe I’ll get some useful input here for our meeting.
Climbee schrieb:
a beam that runs through the house. Our tribute to the Bauhaus style, which we would have loved to build Where do you see "Bauhaus" in a dormer with a shallow pitched lean-to roof (or even a cross beam made of two of these)?
If the list of requested changes is so long and the fitting of the rooms can only be achieved by disturbing the roofscape (and even then only moderately satisfactorily), I would take that as a signal to scrap the plans.
The list of details to "preserve" should be kept as short as possible, otherwise the next design will get stuck at the same point.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
Similar topics