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!
Climbee schrieb:
Shower in the guest bathroom: it might initially only be planned as an option and a built-in closet could be installed instead. The idea behind this is that if someone becomes in need of care and unable to walk, the west side of the living room can be separated off, a door to the entrance area added, and a care room created on the ground floor, or at least it would be possible to live on one level in an emergency (which is why we will also discuss the door width to the guest bathroom again).That makes a lot of sense (of course, only both together: a 30-inch (76cm) door alone is less useful in a care situation).
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/