Hello everyone,
we are currently planning an extension on top of our garage. This addition will be connected to the first floor of the existing building and is intended to provide enough space for my soon-to-be family of five on one level. We were actually ready to submit the plans. However, some neighbors have given me their “expert advice” during the signature collection, which made me reconsider. The background is that in the new construction we will have a knee wall height of 2.07m (6 ft 9½ in), resulting from a similar gable height and a 22° roof pitch like the existing house. The orientation will also remain north/south as in the existing building.
Now to the “problem”:
After subtracting the ring beam/joist, I think the windows facing north/south will have a maximum height of 1.70–1.80m (5 ft 7 in – 5 ft 11 in) below the eaves. Together with the roof overhang, I fear the view will basically be directed downward, which would be a pity given the otherwise magnificent distant view. To overcome the roof overhang at the terrace door, our draftsman has drawn in a dormer at the hallway height. Access to the garden was important to us.
I am now wondering if it might be sensible to:
1. Extend the dormer along the entire north side to gain window height?
2. Raise the wall construction by about 2–3 courses of bricks in general in order to gain window height and possibly manage entirely without a dormer.
3. Combine options 1 and 2 in the plan to maintain flexibility during construction, if this is approved.
(There is no zoning plan, and the setback distances should not pose any further issues in these scenarios.)
What do you think about this? Are these scenarios even feasible?
Thank you!
we are currently planning an extension on top of our garage. This addition will be connected to the first floor of the existing building and is intended to provide enough space for my soon-to-be family of five on one level. We were actually ready to submit the plans. However, some neighbors have given me their “expert advice” during the signature collection, which made me reconsider. The background is that in the new construction we will have a knee wall height of 2.07m (6 ft 9½ in), resulting from a similar gable height and a 22° roof pitch like the existing house. The orientation will also remain north/south as in the existing building.
Now to the “problem”:
After subtracting the ring beam/joist, I think the windows facing north/south will have a maximum height of 1.70–1.80m (5 ft 7 in – 5 ft 11 in) below the eaves. Together with the roof overhang, I fear the view will basically be directed downward, which would be a pity given the otherwise magnificent distant view. To overcome the roof overhang at the terrace door, our draftsman has drawn in a dormer at the hallway height. Access to the garden was important to us.
I am now wondering if it might be sensible to:
1. Extend the dormer along the entire north side to gain window height?
2. Raise the wall construction by about 2–3 courses of bricks in general in order to gain window height and possibly manage entirely without a dormer.
3. Combine options 1 and 2 in the plan to maintain flexibility during construction, if this is approved.
(There is no zoning plan, and the setback distances should not pose any further issues in these scenarios.)
What do you think about this? Are these scenarios even feasible?
Thank you!
H
hanghaus202317 May 2024 14:20If you respond to inquiries with "cadastral extract is available," you should consider why no further answers are coming.
I would have expected a cadastral extract here, preferably with at least one reference measurement.
Have the planner present the different options, and then show us the ones available for selection.
I would not want to see different slopes here.
I would have expected a cadastral extract here, preferably with at least one reference measurement.
Have the planner present the different options, and then show us the ones available for selection.
I would not want to see different slopes here.
@hanghaus2023
I am not an expert, sorry. I was simply responding to your question. If the excerpt is helpful, then you’re very welcome. I hope I didn’t cut out too much.
I wasn’t aware it would be useful.
Before I spend more money on the planner, I wanted to get a second opinion from people with experience.
I am not an expert, sorry. I was simply responding to your question. If the excerpt is helpful, then you’re very welcome. I hope I didn’t cut out too much.
I wasn’t aware it would be useful.
Before I spend more money on the planner, I wanted to get a second opinion from people with experience.
H
hanghaus202317 May 2024 14:52Here in BY, the setback distance is 1/2 of the building height. With a wall height of 7.25 m (24 feet), this means a setback of 3.625 m (12 feet). You will have to use a hipped roof to comply with the setback requirements. In my opinion, the actual distance is already being undershot somehow.
@hanghaus2023 it is actually already slightly exceeded. The neighbors have also signed a setback area waiver of 17cm (7 inches) for me. It seems to me that, in general, a 3m (10 feet) line at the property boundary is simply allowed. And in this case, the height of the house can be disregarded. Our municipality has its own local ordinance for this (screen)
H
hanghaus202317 May 2024 15:550.7 is even worse then. 7.25 * 0.7 equals 5.075 m (16.65 feet) distance. The 3 m (10 feet) are minimum dimensions, not maximum dimensions. Unless the development plan states otherwise.