ᐅ L-shaped bungalow with 120 sqm – layout and details?

haydee schrieb:

Furnish the floor plan to scale.
The building systems don’t work for pantry, storage, utility room, and laundry.

I would plan with an interior staircase and use the attic floor as well.

Thank you.

I also suspect that the gable roof with at least a 30-degree pitch might still allow for some extra space.

A storage room is not a luxury either
You don’t have space for suitcases, decorations, etc.

allstar83 schrieb:

Regarding the current (own) design (picture 1).
This is based on the Town & Country Perfect 111 bungalow (see picture 2).
Due to the given roof pitch and shape, there would probably be an attic space – I’m still unsure what to do with it.

Considering the redesign of the original floor plan, I would suggest using another model for inspiration. By attic space, do you mean a loft? Or a mezzanine?

kbt09 schrieb:

There is an example floor plan from Ytong (117 K) that I have rotated here to fit your plot accordingly.

That could already be an example of a more suitable base model.

allstar83 schrieb:

The orientation of the main gable is unfortunately fixed (long side, see building plan, picture 3).

Do you mean the ridge? Are you interpreting the arrows on the plot boundaries 2880/2881 and 2904/2905 as such a requirement?
Does the entire plot area count toward the floor area ratio, or is the planting restriction zone excluded?

---

https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/

allstar83 schrieb:

This is based on the Town & Country Perfect 111 bungalows (see image 2)

Danwood is sorted out... are you just using the idea and planning to build with a different contractor/general builder, or do you want to build the house with Danwood, only with minor changes?

allstar83 schrieb:

Due to the specified roof pitch and roof shape, a mezzanine level would likely result

It would be a large roof because the house width of nearly 13/14 meters (43/46 feet) determines the roof size.

allstar83 schrieb:

Utility room and pantry combined – accessible from both sides

allstar83 schrieb:

From the kitchen, the door might open inward or possibly be a sliding door.

The issue is that a room with two doors loses usable wall space.
By swapping the utility room and the toilet, you get a setback at the entrance (line of sight from front door to living room access) and an extra corridor between the hall and kitchen. Since this corridor already exists, a second door is completely unnecessary.

However, the design is flawed by placing the door on the side if you have to walk past a garage. It will be very difficult to bring any furniture or even a ladder into your house. This hallway will be extremely drafty; it’s far from ideal, especially in terms of the front door situation.
Check if it is allowed to build the garage outside the building envelope/planning permission area. Otherwise, the front door should be located at the front facade.
The utility room also needs a short route into the house—so it should be at the front as well.
These are basic planning principles that have been overlooked here.

The plot is not suitable for a bungalow: roof pitch and ridge height are significant factors.
Although this doesn’t affect your bungalow directly, the house designed for this development plan is a real cost and space waster.
The roof area(s) will be disproportionately large; nearly two-thirds of the attic space is fully usable without sloping walls, but this space is not intended to be used. From an ecological perspective, this should be forbidden (in my opinion).
You have a gross house volume larger than a typical gable roof house...

I can’t imagine you have money to spare, so consider why you want to build a bungalow. A bungalow is not automatically barrier-free. Overall, you get more practical space if you move the hobby/guest room, storage, and child’s bedroom with bathroom upstairs.

And the feeling: even two residential units are allowed. Neighbors will face quite imposing buildings if they fully use the permitted ridge height of 10 meters (33 feet).

Edit: I got the house width wrong: it’s actually only about 12 meters (39 feet) wide in the Danwood Perfect.

11ant schrieb:

Considering the redesign of the original floor plan, I would suggest using a different model for inspiration. By stage, do you mean an attic or a loft?

That would already be an example of a more suitable base model.

Do you mean the ridge? Are you interpreting the arrows on the property boundaries 2880/2881 and 2904/2905 as such a regulation?
Does the entire property area apply to the floor area ratio, or is the planting requirement zone excluded?

Thank you.
We have now used a different floor plan. We still do not want a basement, so an attic under the main roof with the gable roof and a 30-degree pitch would be a good option.

I haven’t found any information yet indicating that the planting requirement zone would be excluded from the floor area ratio. I am assuming a floor area ratio of 540 * 0.4 = 216.

Thank you very much for the detailed response!

ypg schrieb:

Danwood is settled... are you only using the idea and want to build with a different builder/general contractor, or do you want to build the house with Danwood with just minor modifications?

We just want to use it as a basis. We actually plan to build with a local general contractor using traditional masonry.

ypg schrieb:

The plot is not intended for a bungalow: roof pitch and ridge height are already clear indicators. Although this may not affect your bungalow, the house in this development area and zoning plan is a real cost and space waster. The roof (roof surfaces) will be uneconomically large, and the nearly two-thirds fully usable attic without sloped ceilings is there and is not supposed to be used. Ecologically, this should be forbidden (my opinion). You have a gross building volume larger than a typical gable roof house...

I can’t imagine you’re throwing money away, so think about why you want to build a bungalow. It’s not automatically barrier-free. In total, you gain added value if you move hobby/guest rooms, storage, and kids’ bedrooms with bathrooms upstairs.

We talked a lot. The fact is that all of our parents live in huge detached houses where the attic is no longer used and stands empty. Furthermore, we want to sleep on the ground floor, avoid doubling rooms, keep maintenance low, and not have bedrooms upstairs with small children; the master bedroom should be on the ground floor. We don’t want all that, so the bungalow option kept coming up.

The roof (most likely a pitched roof) will then be a stage and storage space, since we want to forgo a basement. I don’t think this would be significantly better ecologically.

The main roof would probably be about 14.5m by 9m (48 feet by 30 feet).

ypg schrieb:

It’s about the fact that a room with two doors loses usable floor space. By swapping the technical room and toilet, you create a misalignment in the entrance (line of sight from main door to living room access) and an additional corridor between hallway and kitchen. Since the latter already exists, a second door is absolutely unnecessary.

But: the design is already wrong by putting the door on the side if you have to walk past the garage. You will hardly get any furniture into the house or even carry in a ladder. That hallway will be extremely drafty, and this front door situation is far from ideal. Check whether the garage can be built outside the building boundary. Otherwise: front door at the front facade. The technical room also needs to be easily accessible from inside the house, so it should also be placed at the front. These are basic principles that are planned incorrectly here.

In the new design, the utility room/technical room is separate from the pantry. The technical room makes sense in the new design as it is close to the entrance and next to the bathroom (for laundry, etc.).

The garage is a sticking point – unfortunately, I don’t think it will fit. Therefore, there is now a design with a carport and a covered entrance area.

Attached is the revised design based on the Danwood Perfect 131.

Tomorrow we are meeting the planner. I hope we are not completely off track.