Hi everyone,
Until last night (when we visited a home builder), my husband and I were sure we wanted to build a house with 2 dormers...
We finally secured a plot of land in a residential development here (which is not easy due to high demand)! Unfortunately, the area specifies a maximum terrace house height of 4 meters (13 feet) and a detached house height of 9 meters (30 feet). Our dream has always been a Mediterranean-style house, planned as a single-story building. We both find sloped ceilings on the upper floor impractical. But when we received the development plan, we had to consider an alternative.
We decided on two dormers since that helps avoid too many sloped ceilings.
Yesterday, we visited the builder, and he said it was a pity to build a house (which is not exactly cheap) and then have to make such compromises. He also mentioned (something we hadn’t realized before) that the Mediterranean style is actually simpler to build than dormers and therefore significantly less expensive. The bottom line: we would have to spend even more money on a house that we like but not as much as the Mediterranean style.
We felt quite frustrated... And to make matters worse, he said we probably wouldn’t finish the building permit/planning permission application this year anyway, so we would lose out on the KfW70 subsidy, since that will become standard next year. Is that correct?
Do you have any ideas for other house types that would look nice and be feasible with a terrace house height of 4 meters (13 feet) and a detached house height of 9 meters (30 feet)? Our plot is 706 square meters (7,600 square feet), so a bungalow is not an option for us.
Thanks in advance and best regards!
Until last night (when we visited a home builder), my husband and I were sure we wanted to build a house with 2 dormers...
We finally secured a plot of land in a residential development here (which is not easy due to high demand)! Unfortunately, the area specifies a maximum terrace house height of 4 meters (13 feet) and a detached house height of 9 meters (30 feet). Our dream has always been a Mediterranean-style house, planned as a single-story building. We both find sloped ceilings on the upper floor impractical. But when we received the development plan, we had to consider an alternative.
We decided on two dormers since that helps avoid too many sloped ceilings.
Yesterday, we visited the builder, and he said it was a pity to build a house (which is not exactly cheap) and then have to make such compromises. He also mentioned (something we hadn’t realized before) that the Mediterranean style is actually simpler to build than dormers and therefore significantly less expensive. The bottom line: we would have to spend even more money on a house that we like but not as much as the Mediterranean style.
We felt quite frustrated... And to make matters worse, he said we probably wouldn’t finish the building permit/planning permission application this year anyway, so we would lose out on the KfW70 subsidy, since that will become standard next year. Is that correct?
Do you have any ideas for other house types that would look nice and be feasible with a terrace house height of 4 meters (13 feet) and a detached house height of 9 meters (30 feet)? Our plot is 706 square meters (7,600 square feet), so a bungalow is not an option for us.
Thanks in advance and best regards!
The eaves height is defined as the intersection between the outer edge of the masonry and the upper surface of the roof covering; in the case of setback floors, this can also be the top of the parapet, although additional railings added to achieve the required guardrail height are generally not included. It is crucial whether setback floors are permitted in the zoning plan, which roof types are allowed, and which floor area ratio/building coverage ratio apply. Municipalities or cities may define the “eaves height” themselves within the zoning plan.
The setback area for the setback floor can then, if applicable, also be related to this intersection at the roof of the setback floor; accordingly, the building must be planned at a sufficient distance from the property boundary. This results in the minimum distance between the parapet and the outer edge of the masonry of the setback floor.
I would recommend consulting an architect for a preliminary design and to clarify all these construction and planning law issues. Alternatively, at least commission a certified surveyor to provide a legally compliant interpretation of the zoning plan.
The setback area for the setback floor can then, if applicable, also be related to this intersection at the roof of the setback floor; accordingly, the building must be planned at a sufficient distance from the property boundary. This results in the minimum distance between the parapet and the outer edge of the masonry of the setback floor.
I would recommend consulting an architect for a preliminary design and to clarify all these construction and planning law issues. Alternatively, at least commission a certified surveyor to provide a legally compliant interpretation of the zoning plan.
B
Bauexperte19 Nov 2015 20:17nordanney schrieb:
Honestly Bauexperte, you are wrong here (also confirmed by courts). Eaves height is calculated separately for each floor, so your example would not be approved. Unless, of course, you are dealing with very low ceiling heights This is contradicted, among others, by a Higher Administrative Court ruling, 3 S 201/99 dated 04.03.1999:
If a building project exceeds the eaves height found in the surrounding development but does not exceed the ridge height, this does not automatically exclude its integration with regard to the extent of building use.
For my area, I can say that so far we have had no problems getting approval for an additional half-story (attic floor) in areas where only single-story buildings are permitted; sometimes with a gable roof or also a pitched roof, but still as an attic floor. Perhaps it also depends on the head of the local building authority; based on your response, this cannot be ruled out. Also, court rulings tend to go back and forth on this issue.
Regards, Bauexperte
I can say for my area that we have not had any problems so far getting approval for a basement in areas where only single-story buildings are allowed. This is also not an issue with the 2/3 rule, but not in combination with the maximum ceiling height of 4 to 4.5 meters (13 to 15 feet), right?
One idea is, of course, to simply talk to the city (building regulations department). In our project, we violated the following regulations:
1. Eaves height exceeded by 20cm (8 inches) – approved with a fee of 250€
2. Hip roof instead of flat, shed, or gable roof – approved with a fee of 250€
3. Reduced setback from the property boundary – approved with a fee of 250€
I discussed everything in advance with the case officer, and it was no problem at all. The neighbors, who were informed about this, didn’t mind either. My immediate neighbor also needed two permits. It just costs a few extra euros.
Therefore, I would also recommend contacting the city administration / building regulations office. It might not work, but it’s worth trying.
1. Eaves height exceeded by 20cm (8 inches) – approved with a fee of 250€
2. Hip roof instead of flat, shed, or gable roof – approved with a fee of 250€
3. Reduced setback from the property boundary – approved with a fee of 250€
I discussed everything in advance with the case officer, and it was no problem at all. The neighbors, who were informed about this, didn’t mind either. My immediate neighbor also needed two permits. It just costs a few extra euros.
Therefore, I would also recommend contacting the city administration / building regulations office. It might not work, but it’s worth trying.
M
Milanni12319 Nov 2015 21:15Stefan G. schrieb:
One option is, of course, to simply talk to the city (building regulations department). For our project, we technically "violated" the following requirements:
1. Eaves height exceeded by 20cm (8 inches) – approved with a fee of 250€
2. Hipped roof instead of flat, shed, or gable roof – approved with a fee of 250€
3. Reduced setback from the property boundary – approved with a fee of 250€
I discussed everything in advance with the case officer, and it wasn’t an issue at all. The neighbors, who were informed about this, didn’t mind either. My immediate neighbor also needed two permits. It just costs a bit more.
Therefore, I would also recommend approaching the city administration / building regulations office.I forgot to mention this:
Unfortunately, our local council is quite resistant... The building area is only just being developed, and the plots are in high demand. The polite gentleman from the building authority just told me: If you don’t like it, then don’t build!
But thanks anyway for the tip! It’s funny how it works differently in various councils—some allow it with an extra fee, some don’t care, and others don’t allow it at all. :-/
Well, there’s not much that can be done. But honestly, "then just don’t do it" is actually good advice. You spend so much money on building a house, so it should definitely match your expectations.
We had another plot in mind before. Roof shape / house color / roof pitch / number of collectors on the roof, orientation, tile color, etc. were all regulated. I then told the city, you might as well build the house yourselves and I’ll pay when I move in.
We had another plot in mind before. Roof shape / house color / roof pitch / number of collectors on the roof, orientation, tile color, etc. were all regulated. I then told the city, you might as well build the house yourselves and I’ll pay when I move in.
Similar topics