ᐅ Planning a Gable Roof House on a 600 m² Plot – What Does a Preliminary Building Inquiry Allow in a Section 34 Zone?

Development Plan / Restrictions
Section 34 Building Code area, preliminary building inquiry submitted, especially regarding ridge height, eave height, and gable orientation.
Plot size: 600 sqm (6458 sq ft)
Slope: none, flat
Site coverage ratio: >0.4
Floor area ratio: not relevant
Building envelope: approx. 10.3 x 14 m (34 x 46 ft)
Number of parking spaces: 2
Number of floors: 1.5
Roof type: gable roof
Orientation: gable end facing east-west
Maximum heights / limits: ridge height 9.1 m (30 ft), eave height per inquiry (4.5 m / 15 ft)

Homeowners’ Requirements
We enjoy following the discussions here and, after receiving the approved preliminary building inquiry, are now entering the crunch phase of planning.

The facts:

• 600 sqm (6458 sq ft) plot, relatively narrow (about 17 m / 56 ft), oriented east-west, low traffic nearby, helicopter view and west-facing outlook attached.
• Section 34 area; we are allowed 1.5 m (5 ft) knee wall on the first floor with 40-degree roof pitch, within a ridge height of 9.1 m (30 ft). Due to narrow plot, we want to build with the gable end facing the street.
• Wood frame construction; exterior walls are excluded on the floor plans.
• Notes about floors included in the images.
• We need two separate offices (lawyers, extensive home office).
• Two adults, two small children.
• No basement planned; the plot is nearly level – 0.6 m (2 ft) fall over 35 m (115 ft).
• More roof windows on the upper floor would be nice, but this is the south side with photovoltaic panels. With the high knee wall, outlook will be limited anyway.
• We want a hallway on the upper floor since we both loved having a “neutral” play area there as kids.
• The pantry size is sufficient for us; we currently have a smaller one, and the technical room is not far away.
• Guest room 1 and guest bathroom might be converted with two walls into a separate apartment for KfW297/298 funding, house itself is KfW300.
• Soil survey is underway.
• The architect has so far handled the preliminary building inquiry and knows the floor plan; we have not yet taken the plans to the architect/interior designer in person.
• The guest room on the ground floor is relatively small; it is sufficient as an office, and just about acceptable as a guest bedroom. Overnight guests about 6–8 times per year.
• An interior toilet in the upper floor bathroom is my wife’s wish; I understand the arguments against it but won’t fight that battle.
• We want the staircase from the upper floor to the attic to be permanent as the attic might be used as an office. Also, there is no basement.

Why is the design like it is now?
We started about 8 months ago based on the Medley 410 by Fingerhaus, as it provides a fairly good starting floor plan for us. Since then, my wife has rebuilt it in 3D over many hours and repeatedly adjusted it following input from planners/architects, etc. We also have proper plan drawings already but did not want to share them yet unless it makes sense.

We have made some compromises, especially the small, somewhat awkward office/guest room downstairs – we can’t become wider, but it works as an office. According to two construction companies, it might even be possible to use the guest room and bathroom downstairs as a separate apartment with two doors from the hallway later in life (then a KfW297 scheme could be considered). We’ve requested the extra costs for this in offers as a contingency item – I know some members here don’t support this, but we would only do it if it can be done without major extra effort.

Regarding costs: we already purchased the plot. We currently estimate the house to cost about 650,000 (offers from Isowood, Büdenbender, and Nordhaus received). Garage and landscaping are separate.

Hmm, hm, hm, it seems the architect responsible for execution planning hasn’t reviewed the floor plan yet—right?

Everything appears to be planned very tightly, down to the exact centimeter.

• Basement apartment – a questionable idea given the space; it would also need some kind of cooking facility, yet the room at the bottom of the plan is not even 2 meters (6.5 feet) wide. And where would the external entrance be located?
• Utility/housekeeping room – is the technical equipment fully planned there? Are there clear areas in front of electrical connection panels, etc.? What I see is an ironing board and a cabinet in the middle of the room, making it impossible to move around in that space.
• Stairs – the section shows a story height of about 317 cm (10 ft 5 in). The staircase could be quite narrow. It should have at least 17 steps, preferably 18 for comfort. In my opinion, it would need to be somewhat longer (meaning wider in the drawing view, extending more into the hallway).
• Kitchen and so-called pantry – the storage space lost by the “invisible 2025 mm (6 ft 8 in)” pantry doorway in the kitchen is just made up for by the small cupboard. The planning of a freezer cabinet clearly shows how poorly the space is utilized. The measurements are unreadable. I would, however, consider designing it with access from the hallway. Although that would only be a partial solution.
• Nice cloakroom area.
• Upper floor seems generally okay. Due to the ceiling height, the staircase would likely be located further to the left in the room. Personally, I am not a fan of floor-to-ceiling windows in children’s/bedrooms and don’t like knee walls of 150 cm (5 ft). So the question here is, why this limitation?

Overall, I would consider how to organize the layout to plan the staircase from the upper floor to the attic as a continuation.

Unfortunately, the knee wall height is the maximum that can be easily approved by the local authority in the 34 zone. Building regulations would allow more, but then we wouldn’t be able to build within three years. We settled on 150cm (59 inches) so that we can achieve the ceiling height at 40 degrees. With a lower knee wall, the attic wouldn’t be usable as planned. Two full floors were initially considered (without an attic), but the local authority does not approve this, even though a reference building in the 34 zone is less than 100 meters (328 feet) away. We are even two lawyers ourselves, but we probably won’t pursue this, even though it’s frustrating.

The detailed construction planning is still missing. The basement apartment is only an option if it makes sense (water connections are already in the wall for the kitchen). Entrance doors are planned in red as shown here, and the utility room is shared. The wall above may need to be constructed differently for the building permit / planning permission, and soundproofing must be installed on the upper floor. So, this is really just a nice-to-have option.

The staircase must be finalized during detailed planning. Isowood and Büdenbender use thicker floor slabs than in the preliminary building enquiry, so it might work out (and everyone is rather tall at 190cm+ (6'3"+), so higher steps are preferable).

Pantry – we debated for a long time whether access should be only from the hallway (also for groceries), but we currently have a pantry like this in our present home, even slightly smaller, and we really love it in daily use. However, I understand your point.

Well, ceiling height is ceiling height 😉 ... and with 317 cm (125 inches) and 17 risers, the step height comes to 18.64 cm (7.34 inches). That would be acceptable; personally, despite being tall, I would prefer a more comfortable dimension of 18 risers at 17.61 cm (6.93 inches). However, a staircase also depends on the tread depth, and here I would aim for 27 cm (10.63 inches) if possible. When you’re tall, feet are usually larger as well.

Well, regarding the kitchen, if it is as planned, then I wonder where, for example, a raised oven would be placed, and so on.

I still don’t understand the options for the granny flat, but I don’t even find them worth considering.

An important point is still the utility room/laundry room, which I find overloaded.

Good point about the staircase, thanks! I’ll keep that in mind.

Regarding the kitchen: we really dislike elevated ovens 😀 so far, we have always placed them inside the island, which prevents the kitchen fronts from being visually interrupted by a black oven.

Optional granny flat: not important to us, we would never insist on it but would consider it if it makes sense financially and the opportunity arises.

Utility room briefly tidied up; blue indicates the meter cabinet and server cabinet (behind the door, with enough clearance when the door is closed), red marks an optional cabinet. We currently have some concerns about the air-to-water heat pump and whether the clearances will be sufficient – but that depends greatly on the technology used, and meeting the DIN standard will hardly be possible anyway.

Lsawesome schrieb:

Homeowner Requirements
We always enjoy reading along here and, after the approved building permit / planning permission inquiry, we are now entering the critical phase of planning.

Lsawesome schrieb:

Two adults, two small children.

I am missing some information about the residents here.

Lsawesome schrieb:

We want a hallway on the upper floor because, as kids, we both loved it as a “neutral” play area.

Probably not the parents.

I have to say, I am somewhat speechless that such detailed furniture layouts are being squeezed into the house plan. On top of that, with so much enthusiasm explaining some components as if they were set in stone. I can already see a lot without dimensions, but if you are passionately working on your own design, something like this (just as an example) should stand out as NOT working as expected.

Unfortunately, I can only guess the measurements since screenshots of screenshots often become unreadable on screens, but the 9.28 m (30 ft 5 in) interior dimension is usable. Also noticeable here is the contradictory thickness of the partition wall, as the wall lining is actually located not there, but on the vertically oriented wall in the plan.

And these “errors” run through the entire floor plan. My scaling is already quite generous (I am even adding a few centimeters inside), but it reveals many bottlenecks like the staircase with 2.80 m (9 ft 2 in) depth, kitchen furniture similarly, then the sofa, etc. By the time you get to the ironing board, it should be clear that some things are not functional.
It may be very commendable to think about household appliances right away, but is a closet with a door really necessary just for the floor cleaning robot?
The staircase to the attic would probably have to exit below standing height in the attic? I think it’s more practical to plan the staircase above the main stairs; this way, the space gained in the hallway could be assigned to the office.

Personally, I only use my home desk for private work, but I wouldn’t like it nor be productive in a small attic room with my back to the door. But obviously, that’s a personal decision. I’m not trying to convince anyone here; ultimately, you have to work with the available space, but a bit more sense of space can’t hurt in house design.

The idea of an additional room in the attic is good, but in that case, the staircase should come out of the crawl space. The fact that the technical room is not a utility room has already been mentioned by @kbt09.