ᐅ Challenging Site Planning: Garage and Entrance Facing Southwest or Northeast?
Created on: 21 Feb 2019 18:31
B
Bambula
Hello everyone,
We have been following the forum for a while now, and finally it's our turn We are at the beginning of our house planning and have already spent some time fixing the floor plans in our heads. We arranged the garage and the house according to the development plan. Now we are unsure whether this arrangement really fits the plot well. So we are going back to the start and first considering where to best place the garage and entrance before continuing with the floor plan.
(We have an appointment with the architect in the next few weeks, but before that, we would like to decide on the location of the garage and entrance. Once we have some initial floor plans, we would like to discuss them here in the forum. Then I will also fill out the questionnaire.)
About our building project:
- Plot: 500 m² (approximately 24 m x 20 m (79 ft x 66 ft)), new development area, flat terrain, see development plan
- Detached house with 2 full floors plus basement
- External dimensions approximately 9 x 11.5 m (length must, according to the development plan, be 25% greater than the width)
- Garage must be located within the building envelope, at least 5 m and maximum 7 m (16 ft to 23 ft) from the street, only flat roof or shed roof allowed
Now to our question:
How would you arrange the house and garage on the plot to make the best use of the limited space?
The development plan suggests the house-garage layout “Option 1”. That is, the double garage is positioned in the southwest of the plot, and accordingly, we would place the entrance on the west side. This was our previous idea.
Advantages of Option 1:
- Double garage possible
- Space behind the garage for wood storage, garden shed, trash bins
- House can be placed up to 3 m (10 ft) from the northern property boundary
Disadvantages of Option 1:
- A large part of the already small garden is paved over with the garage, driveway, and path
- Usable garden (for a swing, trampoline, vegetable patch, etc.) is barely available
- Path from garage to house is not covered
- Garage is located in the nicer part of the plot
- Green strips north and east of the house (setback areas) will likely never be used
- Passage between garage and house is not particularly attractive
Our new idea is Option 2: instead of a double garage, we would build a comfortable single garage (about 3.5 – 4 m wide (11.5 ft – 13 ft)) on the northern boundary. The entrance would then be on the east side.
Advantages of Option 2:
- A small, well-usable garden remains on the south and west sides
- Living area oriented towards the southwest
- Short, possibly covered path from garage to front door
Disadvantages of Option 2:
- Only single garage possible
- Where to store bikes, trash bins, firewood?
- Stairwell / entrance hall on the ground floor might have poor lighting because the garage is on the north side of the house?
We are very curious to hear more opinions. Maybe there are other aspects we haven’t considered yet?
Thank you very much in advance for your help!
We have been following the forum for a while now, and finally it's our turn We are at the beginning of our house planning and have already spent some time fixing the floor plans in our heads. We arranged the garage and the house according to the development plan. Now we are unsure whether this arrangement really fits the plot well. So we are going back to the start and first considering where to best place the garage and entrance before continuing with the floor plan.
(We have an appointment with the architect in the next few weeks, but before that, we would like to decide on the location of the garage and entrance. Once we have some initial floor plans, we would like to discuss them here in the forum. Then I will also fill out the questionnaire.)
About our building project:
- Plot: 500 m² (approximately 24 m x 20 m (79 ft x 66 ft)), new development area, flat terrain, see development plan
- Detached house with 2 full floors plus basement
- External dimensions approximately 9 x 11.5 m (length must, according to the development plan, be 25% greater than the width)
- Garage must be located within the building envelope, at least 5 m and maximum 7 m (16 ft to 23 ft) from the street, only flat roof or shed roof allowed
Now to our question:
How would you arrange the house and garage on the plot to make the best use of the limited space?
The development plan suggests the house-garage layout “Option 1”. That is, the double garage is positioned in the southwest of the plot, and accordingly, we would place the entrance on the west side. This was our previous idea.
Advantages of Option 1:
- Double garage possible
- Space behind the garage for wood storage, garden shed, trash bins
- House can be placed up to 3 m (10 ft) from the northern property boundary
Disadvantages of Option 1:
- A large part of the already small garden is paved over with the garage, driveway, and path
- Usable garden (for a swing, trampoline, vegetable patch, etc.) is barely available
- Path from garage to house is not covered
- Garage is located in the nicer part of the plot
- Green strips north and east of the house (setback areas) will likely never be used
- Passage between garage and house is not particularly attractive
Our new idea is Option 2: instead of a double garage, we would build a comfortable single garage (about 3.5 – 4 m wide (11.5 ft – 13 ft)) on the northern boundary. The entrance would then be on the east side.
Advantages of Option 2:
- A small, well-usable garden remains on the south and west sides
- Living area oriented towards the southwest
- Short, possibly covered path from garage to front door
Disadvantages of Option 2:
- Only single garage possible
- Where to store bikes, trash bins, firewood?
- Stairwell / entrance hall on the ground floor might have poor lighting because the garage is on the north side of the house?
We are very curious to hear more opinions. Maybe there are other aspects we haven’t considered yet?
Thank you very much in advance for your help!
11ant schrieb:
Yes, great! – I didn’t expect that at all, I thought they were already finished and kept secret. As mentioned at the beginning, we have only planned with “Option 1” so far. By now, we like “Option 2” more and more, so this is what we will be planning for. We have our first appointment with the architect the week after next. Once there are initial drafts, I will gladly share them here.
11ant schrieb:
130 m² (1,400 sq ft) for house footprint, garage, and driveways would not be generous. Escroda schrieb:
Based on the floor plan definition in section 3(4) of the development plan combined with §19(4) of the land use ordinance, it could already be tight. 130 m² (1,400 sq ft) would indeed be very tight. But since the plot ratio (floor area ratio) is defined as 0.4 in the plan, can I assume that applies? Can a development plan be worsened after the legally binding version is published, for example by removing the plot ratio of 0.4 so that only the 130 m² (1,400 sq ft) footprint applies?
Escroda schrieb:
Yes, but a development plan is essentially a municipal law, and such shortcomings are unacceptable in my opinion. Aren’t development plans created by professionals? If what you say is true, does that mean the development plan is invalid in this form, or can one choose the “more favorable option”?
Escroda schrieb:
But maybe I'm the only one who, with my surveyor's precise eye, sees problems that don’t actually exist. It’s good that surveyors look closely and precisely; otherwise, you might as well just hire a rough estimator.
Bambula schrieb:
The week after next, we have our first appointment with the architect. Once there are initial drafts, I’ll be happy to share them here. Oh, an architect too – this just keeps getting better. Now make my Sunday even sweeter and tell me they’re seriously going to create a first draft instead of just tracing a free design from some freeware house planning software.
Bambula schrieb:
Can a zoning plan (building permit/planning permission) be made more restrictive after the legally binding version has been published, for example by removing the floor area ratio of 0.4 so that only the building footprint of 130 m² (1,400 sq ft) applies? Later versions can certainly become more restrictive, but unfavorable reinterpretations of existing rules wouldn’t be lawful.
The information here is really unusually unclear. The interpretation “0.4, but in the worst case 130 m² (1,400 sq ft)” would be nice, but I don’t see any indication that this was the intention.
Bambula schrieb:
Aren’t zoning plans created by professionals? If what you say is true, is the zoning plan then invalid in this form, or can one pick the “more favorable option”? No, I definitely don’t see it as a matter of choice. These plans are created by professionals, but there are varying levels of quality. Increasingly, external planning firms are hired, and sometimes even student assistants – this usually shows in details like eave heights that only “work” on one side of a sloped street, for example. Behind this floor area ratio/building footprint rule there’s probably a concept, which unfortunately wasn’t properly explained (and, as @Escroda suspects, was likely inadequately aligned with the applicable standard).
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
Bambula schrieb:
So can I assume that? That’s exactly the question.
I still maintain that the regulations are confusing and invalid, but I think you have interpreted them as the planners intended. The floor plan applies to the main structures, which also include conservatories, terraces, and balconies, and the floor space index (FSI) applies to everything, including the permissible exceedances according to §19 (4) of the Land Use Ordinance. Therefore, your current design should not be a problem.
Bambula schrieb:
Can a development plan be worsened after the legally binding version has been published, for example by removing the floor space index = 0.4, so that only the floor plan = 130 applies? Only through an official amendment process, that is, a resolution by the municipal council, public display, public participation, and formal adoption. This is very time-consuming, which is why it is unpopular and unlikely—unless someone challenges the development plan in court. If a court finds significant defects, the development plan could be invalid.
By now, I tend to think that I am seeing problems that don’t actually exist.
Bambula schrieb:
Hello everyone,
we have been reading the forum for a while now, and finally it’s our turn We are at the beginning of our house planning and have already gotten a bit stuck on the floor plans. We arranged the garage and the house according to the building development plan. Now we’re not so sure if this layout really suits the plot. So we’re going back to the start and first considering where to best position the garage and entrance, then we’ll continue with the floor plan.
(We have an appointment with the architect in the next few weeks, but until then we would like to decide on the location of the garage and the entrance. Once we have some initial floor plans, we’d also like to discuss them here in the forum. At that point, I will fill out the questionnaire.)
About our construction project:
- Plot size: 500 m² (approx. 24 m x 20 m (approx. 79 ft x 66 ft)), new development area, flat terrain, see development plan
- Single-family house with 2 full stories plus basement
- External dimensions approx. 9 x 11.5 m (approx. 30 ft x 38 ft) (length must be at least 25% greater than width according to building regulations)
- Garage must be located within the building envelope, minimum 5 m (16 ft) and maximum 7 m (23 ft) from the street, only flat or shed roof allowed
Now to our question:
How would you arrange the house and garage on the plot to make the best use of this rather limited space?
The development plan suggests the house-garage layout “Option 1”. This means a double garage located in the southwest of the plot, with the entrance accordingly placed on the west side. This was our previous idea.
Advantages of Option 1:
- Double garage possible
- Space behind the garage for wood storage, garden shed, garbage bins
- House can be positioned up to 3 m (10 ft) from the northern property boundary
Disadvantages of Option 1:
- A large part of the already very small garden is paved over by the garage, driveway, and path
- Usable garden area (for a swing, trampoline, vegetable bed, etc.) is barely available
- Path from garage to house is not covered
- Garage is located in the nicest part of the plot
- Green strips north and east of the house (setback areas) will likely never be used
- Passage between garage and house is not very attractive
Our new idea is Option 2: instead of a double garage, we would build a comfortable single garage (approx. 3.5 – 4 m wide (11.5 – 13 ft)) as a boundary structure on the north side. The entrance would then be on the east side.
Advantages of Option 2:
- A small, well-usable garden remains on the south and west sides
- Living area faces southwest
- Short, possibly covered path from garage to front door
Disadvantages of Option 2:
- Only a single garage is possible
- Where to put bicycles, garbage bins, firewood?
- Staircase / hallway on the ground floor may be poorly lit since the garage is on the north side of the house?
We are now very curious to hear some more opinions. Maybe there are other aspects we haven’t considered yet?
Many thanks in advance for your help! Hi,
I also came across your post because our situation is almost the same.
May I ask if/how you have since resolved the garage width and the space behind it?
Thank you!
Similar topics