§34 in relation to the development plan; Definition of the immediate surroundings

There is no need for a dogmatic hero who has to wake you up from the idea.

I also cannot understand why the floor plan absolutely must not be discussed or addressed. The criticisms read so far are at least worth considering, and what harm could it do to a house building project if other experienced people take a look beforehand? Why do you want to prevent that instead of being glad if someone recognizes and points out one or the other critical point? I have been around here for some time and repeatedly experience people who vigorously defend "their floor plan," which tends to harm the quality of the later result rather than approaching the plan with an open mind. I also see an unnecessary fixation here on the marketing trend "city villa," and I always recommend planning a residential house from the inside out according to one’s own needs. Of course, you can also plan an en-suite bathroom, but that should fit into a coherent overall concept and not be lavish on one side and scrimped on elsewhere for cost or space reasons. Based on experience, the square floor plan of a so-called "city villa" often causes problems, which is shown by the fact that these "carbuncles" were added on; it is simply not a villa, because such a villa often has 140 sqm per floor, and as a repeated inhabitant of such floors, I find these floor plans generally waste space and are not very user-friendly. In addition, at that time, the staff usually lived in the basement, or the lady of the house was not a real housewife messing around in the spacious kitchen. Is it the case that you saw such a house ("city villa") from the outside and liked it? Then I find the decision poorly reasoned, because you live inside, and therefore should not have any preliminary restriction by a house type developed solely for marketing reasons but rather have complete freedom in planning; to find a beautiful exterior for any floor plan. By the way, this also applies to houses in the supposed "Bauhaus style"; just because of the cube shape, it does not become a "Bauhaus." I really like consistently applied styles, but I seldom see them; instead, I see fleeting trends, including the so-called "city villa." Our neighbor has one, and today he is rather dissatisfied with the floor plan because it has some weaknesses in detail. You object to the term "carbuncles," but perhaps it is meant to emphasize that by this you do leave a previously self-imposed "style" (city villa) precisely because it raises these space problems. That is exactly where the question comes from why you do not just choose a shape in which your wishes would fit better. Actually, I do not particularly like the previous floor plan either, precisely because these "carbuncles" apparently were only added on because the "small villa" lacks the necessary space where needed, but on the other hand has too much elsewhere. I believe and hope that your living room will not really look like that; do you really have these pieces of furniture with these dimensions? Missing furniture dimensions alone present a high risk of error, which is why they should never be missing; the same applies to door widths and openings. There is no reasonable ground not to draw these things correctly and to scale on the plan from the outset. The entrance area is huge, as is the open-plan living area, yet there is no feeling of generosity; the storage room is a bad joke with those dimensions; the access to the open living area between the island and the sofa is neither nice nor spacious. Where is the tangible living comfort of this rather generous nearly 70 sqm open living area? What do those two small squares with each 0.06 sqm living space mean? How many doors does the utility room have?

Privacy then means that the children have to go through the entrance area, just under 3.5 meters from the street, to get to the toilet and will probably also return naked after showering.

You can just choose an opaque front door ;-)

As I said, the floor plan was neither up for discussion nor for evaluation here. There is no need for a dogmatic hero waking someone up from the idea.
It was about clarifying the bay windows.
Besides: the term “Anstattvilla” is a subjective evaluation, in this context a negative one. Of course, you can talk yourself into that, but with the references from the Insta link, I wouldn’t lean out the window too far either.

“Dogmatic hero,” hehe. That you only wanted to illustrate the bay windows with the floor plans, we perhaps partly didn’t recognize, but here you’ve come to a service-oriented community that does not just curtly answer the posed question and nothing more. People can be grateful for that in very different ways. However, I at least never answer only for the questioners, but always also with additional benefit for the readers. That is part of the deal in the open consultation for the pro bono treatment. If you don’t like that, you can pay extra for a single room. I have not posted any references on Insta; it is a photo story construction blog of an entire building area (in a way a block blog), see: – the pictures show a building area with about 80 building plots, of which 22 are eleven semi-detached houses of a Traumhaus/Hildmann project section I, and the “rest” are almost all self-managed single-family houses, but hardly any “city villas” and no Anstattvilla at all. I posted the photo documentation when the houses were occupied; at that time about a quarter of the area was still undeveloped. None of the advice seekers of mine live there, so you are wrong about “reference.” The pictures also have captions.

Comment usefulness and comment gratitude are often not congruent, but we already know that and live with it.

I only see a big difference between brainstorming and when someone dislikes city villas and badmouths the concept – solely out of personal aversion.

I have never said a single word against city villas. And even if Anstattvillen are sold as city villas, I do not criticize the victims, but the perpetrators. To misuse a handful of cheap pseudo-noble ingredients in purchasing to dazzle first-time homeowners is not an architectural but a marketing concept, and in my eyes “formally exempt from punishment fraud.” This is a gesture of Christian consumer protection to warn those souls not yet lost and open their eyes:

From experience, the square floor plan of a so-called “city villa” often causes problems, which shows itself in the fact that these “tumors” were planned on.

The “bay windows” are regularly not signs of a sense for clever variation, but simply marks of Cain, of unavoidable exceeding of a square frame into which the floor plan simply didn’t really fit – blood is in the shoe, the right bride is still sitting at home.

This also applies to houses in the alleged “Bauhaus style”; here alone the cube shape does not make a “Bauhaus.”

That’s why I call it “Hornbach style” when the “Bauhaus” style has nothing to do with the School of Design, but only with the store of the same name where you buy the Allibert. Just named after the largest competitor of this DIY chain.

I also cannot understand why the floor plan may absolutely not be discussed or addressed.
The criticism read so far is at least worth considering and what harm could it do to a house building pro project if other experienced people take a look beforehand? Why would you want to prevent that instead of being pleased if someone recognizes and names one or the other weak point.
I have also been around here for a while and repeatedly experience people who fiercely defend “their floor plan” and thereby harm the quality of the later result instead of approaching the plan openly.

The OP probably feels so affronted because the “PL” (= planning without knowledge) is based on a building proposal from the provider, which – this is also a popular bad game – was approved to make a different floor plan layout “size-equal price-equal.” Great: the client can never complain, because he himself is the father of the botch. He gets software to graphically prove his milkmaid calculation, which apparently works. And then come spiteful ignorants (who in my case cannot even show a nicer villa) and badmouth it – better to immediately file a complaint for injury to the soul!

Highly exciting thread.

Regarding the actual question, I think: pick up the phone, call the building authority. Both we and acquaintances who have built have encountered almost only friendly employees at various building authorities over the phone who really helped a lot. Such questions can often be clarified very well there - and then also assess whether a preliminary inquiry makes sense or not.

(By the way: I know 3 couples who have built in the 34 area. Different authorities. For one it was "neighbors" including facade design, for the second "visibility", for the third "do what you want as long as it's a single-family house and a maximum building height of 9m" <- but they also had no neighbors in sight, just a few farms behind the next hill.)

As sometimes happens, topics also appeared behind the questions. Or rather the further blind spots. Building is such a big investment. I find the discussions, also about other topics than the original questions, super helpful.

And sometimes, as here, the questions are also connected. Your own needs are one side of house planning. The other side is the plot with all its peculiarities (including zoning plan or as here the 34 zoning). From a possibly successful fusion of both the house then emerges. I would recommend thinking again about whether both have been optimally considered here.