ᐅ Single-family house of approximately 200 sqm with a double garage on a trapezoidal lot
Created on: 5 May 2023 15:45
M
Mucuc18
Hello dear house building forum community!
After carefully reading along for a while, I would now like to share our current design for constructive feedback.
Below are the usual details; south is at the bottom of the site plan:
Development Plan / Restrictions
Plot size | 512sqm (5509 sq ft)
Slope | No
Site coverage ratio | 160sqm (1722 sq ft) building footprint allowed for main building (+140sqm (1507 sq ft) overrun permitted for other structures)
Number of parking spaces | min. 1.5
Roof type | SD / WD or similar (mansard roofs are common in the area)
Maximum heights / limits | Ridge height 9.4m (31 ft) | Eaves height 6.5m (21 ft)
Additional requirements | Setbacks of 0.4 times the building height on two sides, 0.8 times the building height on other sides
Client Requirements
Architectural style, roof shape, building type | classic mansard-hipped roof, somewhat modern interpretation
Basement, floors | Ground floor, first floor, attic + basement
Number of occupants, ages | 2 (30 yrs, 33 yrs) + 1 (0 yrs) + occasional visitors
Space needs on ground floor, first floor | approx. 80–90sqm (860–970 sq ft) each for ground and first floors
Office | 1 office space needed for home office
Guest accommodation per year | to be determined, sometimes longer visits
Open or closed layout | rather open, but with adequate sound insulation and privacy
Conservative or modern construction | rather modern
Open kitchen, kitchen island | large open kitchen with island is important
Seating for dining | 4–6 seats regularly available, with option to extend
Fireplace | yes
Music / stereo wall | no, flexible hi-fi system
Balcony, roof terrace | no
Garage, carport | double garage
Utility garden, greenhouse | garden with beds and 2–3 trees, enclosed by hedge
House Design
Planner: architect & own ideas/drawings
What do you like most? Why? Separate parents’ floor, spacious open living area, straight staircase, number of rooms on first floor (flexibility), sufficient wardrobe space, staircase separated from living room
What do you dislike? Why? Location possibilities for heat pump outdoor unit, attic possibly has somewhat excessive space that might not be used efficiently (sloping ceilings)
Cost estimate by architect/planner: none so far
Budget for house including equipment: 1.4–1.5 million
Preferred heating technology: air-to-water heat pump
If you have to give up something, which details/features
- can be omitted: fireplace, pool, possibly double garage
- cannot be omitted: preferably a “large” garden
Why was the design developed this way? For example,
A mix of own ideas and architect’s input, along with several rounds of improvements over recent weeks. The main focus is on maintaining as much contiguous garden space as possible on a relatively small lot. Therefore, a setback on the east side is planned to comply with setbacks on the trapezoidal plot. The three floors plus basement help keep the house footprint small and separate the parents’ area from the children/guest area. We feel our wishes are well implemented in the current floor plan. Minor details such as window dimensions still need adjustment (e.g., equal-sized windows on the first floor west side, possibly a slightly larger sliding door on the ground floor, etc.).
What is the most important / basic question about the floor plan in 130 characters?
Do you see potential for improvement that we should consider or any no-gos we need to rethink? We are quite happy with the current status but appreciate input on aspects we may have overlooked or rationalized too optimistically.
Ground Floor
First Floor
Attic
Basement
Section
South Elevation
East Elevation
West Elevation
After carefully reading along for a while, I would now like to share our current design for constructive feedback.
Below are the usual details; south is at the bottom of the site plan:
Development Plan / Restrictions
Plot size | 512sqm (5509 sq ft)
Slope | No
Site coverage ratio | 160sqm (1722 sq ft) building footprint allowed for main building (+140sqm (1507 sq ft) overrun permitted for other structures)
Number of parking spaces | min. 1.5
Roof type | SD / WD or similar (mansard roofs are common in the area)
Maximum heights / limits | Ridge height 9.4m (31 ft) | Eaves height 6.5m (21 ft)
Additional requirements | Setbacks of 0.4 times the building height on two sides, 0.8 times the building height on other sides
Client Requirements
Architectural style, roof shape, building type | classic mansard-hipped roof, somewhat modern interpretation
Basement, floors | Ground floor, first floor, attic + basement
Number of occupants, ages | 2 (30 yrs, 33 yrs) + 1 (0 yrs) + occasional visitors
Space needs on ground floor, first floor | approx. 80–90sqm (860–970 sq ft) each for ground and first floors
Office | 1 office space needed for home office
Guest accommodation per year | to be determined, sometimes longer visits
Open or closed layout | rather open, but with adequate sound insulation and privacy
Conservative or modern construction | rather modern
Open kitchen, kitchen island | large open kitchen with island is important
Seating for dining | 4–6 seats regularly available, with option to extend
Fireplace | yes
Music / stereo wall | no, flexible hi-fi system
Balcony, roof terrace | no
Garage, carport | double garage
Utility garden, greenhouse | garden with beds and 2–3 trees, enclosed by hedge
House Design
Planner: architect & own ideas/drawings
What do you like most? Why? Separate parents’ floor, spacious open living area, straight staircase, number of rooms on first floor (flexibility), sufficient wardrobe space, staircase separated from living room
What do you dislike? Why? Location possibilities for heat pump outdoor unit, attic possibly has somewhat excessive space that might not be used efficiently (sloping ceilings)
Cost estimate by architect/planner: none so far
Budget for house including equipment: 1.4–1.5 million
Preferred heating technology: air-to-water heat pump
If you have to give up something, which details/features
- can be omitted: fireplace, pool, possibly double garage
- cannot be omitted: preferably a “large” garden
Why was the design developed this way? For example,
A mix of own ideas and architect’s input, along with several rounds of improvements over recent weeks. The main focus is on maintaining as much contiguous garden space as possible on a relatively small lot. Therefore, a setback on the east side is planned to comply with setbacks on the trapezoidal plot. The three floors plus basement help keep the house footprint small and separate the parents’ area from the children/guest area. We feel our wishes are well implemented in the current floor plan. Minor details such as window dimensions still need adjustment (e.g., equal-sized windows on the first floor west side, possibly a slightly larger sliding door on the ground floor, etc.).
What is the most important / basic question about the floor plan in 130 characters?
Do you see potential for improvement that we should consider or any no-gos we need to rethink? We are quite happy with the current status but appreciate input on aspects we may have overlooked or rationalized too optimistically.
Ground Floor
First Floor
Attic
Basement
Section
South Elevation
East Elevation
West Elevation
The drainage for the attic bathroom is located opposite the central heating manifold, as we couldn’t find a better position. Is this considered the "state of the art"? As far as I know, drain pipes are not supposed to run inside the walls either...
What do you mean by wall sections between the windows?
What do you mean by wall sections between the windows?
11ant schrieb:Your assumption is correct, at least for the planning stage – who will actually build is still undecided.
Am I correct in assuming that we are dealing with a general contractor who considers themselves "premium"?
Jasmin schrieb:
Hello, a simple question. What are "botched pockets"? Every bricklayer uses full 25cm (10 inches) or half 12.5cm (5 inches) bricks.
Anything else has to be cut, usually making them too small, and the resulting gaps (botched pockets) are filled with mortar/adhesive, whatever is available.
If the designer sticks to the 12.5cm (5 inches) modular grid, no cutting is necessary.
Our designer told us we can use any dimension based on the 12.5cm (5 inches) grid for walls.
P.S.: The details "Stair exit transition / living room door," "living room beam / window lintel," "wall top / living room door," "front door reveals differing," "front door lintel / chimney flue," ... (list without claim to completeness) hurt just by looking at them. These are all again "expert report triggers" ;-)
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
Jasmin schrieb:These are mortar-filled pockets in wall gaps that do not meet professional standards. They occur (and are avoidable!!! – otherwise, I wouldn’t be so upset about them) when planners ignore the size of bricks and design walls with imaginary dimensions. This inevitably leads to spots that the mason cannot compensate for by (still code-compliant) adjustments in brick bonding or by cutting bricks. These represent thermal weak points in the wall and also disturb the structural integrity of the wall assembly both directly and indirectly through their effect on overlap lengths. To address your follow-up question in advance: the overlap length refers to the offset of joints between adjacent brick courses, where these joints should be staggered rather than line up vertically, which would create “cross joints” (similar to tile laying patterns where cross joints occur more often than the typical stretcher bond). Visually, Pfuschertaschen look like “knots” of mortar. The explanation by @Nida35a in post #38 is, I’d say, “tolerably imprecise for practical purposes,” but probably easier to understand.
Hello, a simple question. What are "Pfuschertaschen"?
Mucuc18 schrieb:Oh dear, that doesn’t improve things. Certainly, the soil pipe could have gone inside the wall here, but unfortunately it would also conflict with the CHV in this case. This definitely calls for a set of detailed drawings.
The one opposite the central heating valve (CHV) is the drainage for the attic bathroom; we didn’t find a better position. Or how is this handled “state of the art”? As far as I know, they should not run inside the wall either...
Mucuc18 schrieb:146 / 146.5 / 240 / 177.5 means unnecessary cutting. But I can’t look at that for long, or the list just gets longer.
What do you mean by the wall sections between the windows?
Mucuc18 schrieb:I’m happy to take care of that, just get in touch. At least the route via gmx (de) is known; otherwise, check out my info blog ;-)
Your assumption is correct, initially for planning – who will actually build is still open.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
11ant schrieb:
146 / 146.5 / 240 / 177.5 all lead to unnecessary cutting. I apologize for the oversight:
146 and 146.5 cause unnecessary cutting, 240 and 177.5 result in poorly made gaps.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
Brief update. After a lot of trial and error with the floor plan, the building permit application was submitted a few months ago. The floor plan is as shown in #1 with some minor changes.
Result: The permit application in this form is not approvable. The architect miscalculated the setback distances and also used the wrong reference point for the building height. The latter issue might still be manageable.
However, the incorrect setback on the east side fundamentally undermines the planning.
So we are back to square one (but hopefully much wiser now).
Can anyone recommend an architect near Munich (preferably someone familiar with the BayBO regulations and capable of correctly interpreting development plans)?
Result: The permit application in this form is not approvable. The architect miscalculated the setback distances and also used the wrong reference point for the building height. The latter issue might still be manageable.
However, the incorrect setback on the east side fundamentally undermines the planning.
So we are back to square one (but hopefully much wiser now).
Can anyone recommend an architect near Munich (preferably someone familiar with the BayBO regulations and capable of correctly interpreting development plans)?
Mucuc22 schrieb:
Result: Building application in this form is not approvable. The architect incorrectly calculated the setback distances and also used the wrong reference point for the building height. The latter issue might still be manageable.
However, the incorrect setback on the east side completely ruins the design.
Oh my goodness. 😱
Is there no way to fix the design? How wrong were the calculations? Are you going to scrap it just because of this?
Similar topics