Arrangement house and parking spaces - small plot - house with a granny flat

I find the plot completely unsuitable for the project, as it is far too small.

That is also my feeling.

Currently still the idea/fanciful notion to keep bedrooms downstairs and living and dining area on the upper floor

One has to understand the thoughts.

Site coverage ratio - 0.4

The site coverage ratio is not the maximum floor area, but the area that may be sealed in total including terraces, garages, and access paths. Of course, this also includes the house, and if the roof overhang is 50 cm or more, that area also counts toward the sealed area.
I will leave aside that many development plans also offer a second site coverage ratio for driveways and garages.
It is simply a squeezing of the house onto a fairly modest plot.

also gladly improvised

should be possible but solutions can be found here

In this respect, not only do functions inside the house have to be improvised, but overall it has to be ensured whether and if the granny flat and the main apartment can be built adequately so that all main needs can actually be met.

The parents are 60 and thus in the middle of life with their space requirements and lifestyle expectations. If it is otherwise, explain it to us. Otherwise, I count minimum room sizes as 35 sqm for the main room, 15 sqm for the bedroom, 8 sqm bathroom, 6 sqm hallway, and 8 sqm utility room, 2 sqm storage room, so 75 sqm, where barrier-free cannot yet be spoken of. There is also no office or multipurpose room. Walls come on top of that.
And then you squeeze yourselves four people on the plot with the remaining floor area ratio on the rest of the sqm from a total of 200: 35 sqm main room, 15 sqm bedroom, 3 sqm WC, 8 sqm bathroom, 2 children's rooms totaling 25 sqm, hallway with stairs swallowing another 16-20 sqm...

Of course, in theory, you can build upwards: if the attic is not a full floor, you could have space there for the children or parents. To what extent this affects the setback distances to the property boundary would have to be checked by an architect.

In the planned idea, terraces are not planned at all. One could be created on the south side, but where should the access, even as a balcony for the second unit, be?

Style, roof shape, building type - flat roof and loggia currently still interesting. Solid construction
, floors - basement, ground floor, upper floor

I do not currently see a basement and flat roof, unless you have serious money available for a basement.

As a thought: two-family house, with the granny flat and technical room for both on the ground floor, main apartment on the upper floor, and sleeping area in the pitched roof attic that is not a full floor.
Balcony over the terrace of the ground floor apartment.

Whether anyone wants all that for a lot of money and without a real "single-family house with garden" feeling? ... I rather not. A terraced house or a 130 sqm apartment for 600,000€ would probably offer more quality of life than everything planned so tight and without some hedge greenery.

Such sweeping statements are, in my opinion, nonsense, because apparently you can build upwards here. Then you could just call it a two-family house, I agree with you there. But I wouldn’t say it’s impossible. The question remains whether that is desirable.

Perhaps my statement was misunderstood. And what’s the point of building upwards? Either the 90-year-old parents will eventually walk up to the apartment on the upper floor or the 60-year-old "children". In any case, someone will sooner or later curse this planning when climbing stairs becomes a torment. Not to mention the roughly 40% of the windows on the ground floor that only look out onto the car. And who actually uses the garden then? 50/50 split will be funny with maybe 50 sqm of lawn. So my idea of living in a single-family house is really something different. That’s how my post should be understood – that everything might be possible from a building/permit perspective, I no longer doubt since the amendment on densification of living space in metropolitan areas.

At the position of the OP, I would rather look for a multi-generational house in the existing stock. For me, there are far too many lazy/uncomfortable compromises for a new build, no matter how great the relationship with my parents is. There are always alternatives.

Maybe my statement was misunderstood.

Probably

And what’s the point of building upwards? Either the 90-year-old parents end up walking up to their apartment on the upper floor or the 60-year-old “children.” In any case, someone will sooner or later curse this plan when climbing the stairs becomes a torment.

Elevator – everything’s possible. Then you could even consider locking grandma and grandpa under the roof with a balcony and giving the young family “garden” access for the children.

Not to mention about 40% of the windows on the ground floor only look out onto the car. And who actually uses the garden then? 50/50 will be funny with maybe 50 sqm of lawn.

Some hardly look outside (on this plot you can only look at the fence anyway) and many find the garden totally stupid.

So my idea of living in a single-family house is really something different. That’s how my post was meant – that everything might be possible from a construction/approval perspective I no longer doubt since the amendment on densifying living space in metropolitan areas.

It wouldn’t be mine either, but you shouldn’t just assume your own perspective.

Thank you for the partly controversial discussion!

We are here in the commuter belt of a car city, land prices on the open market are about 800€/sqm, here in the local resident model at just over 450€, therefore attractive. Plots on the “free” market are usually around 450-500sqm, which means that the additional cost in this thought experiment would easily be €150k, so not an option.

Why include the parents-in-law? We would have to support them with the apartment search and monthly rent anyway (they are currently 200km away). Rental apartments are scarce, so priority 1 is to try to accommodate them with us. We will quickly see if the compromises to be made become too big. The need for the parents-in-law to move arose relatively suddenly and has several reasons. The parents-in-law, just like us, never really had expansive space conditions and definitely did not have the need for it. We take your remarks seriously.

Of course, we are fully aware that no significant garden will result from this, which wouldn’t have been much different with a detached single-family house either. A terrace is not planned either. Here - if feasible - the loggia (with the advantage of 50% credit towards the floor space index) is intended to serve as an outdoor retreat on the upper floor. There are plenty of playgrounds in the immediate vicinity; the children attend forest kindergarten or school during the day.

Parking spaces in the west will not really be used but that goes too far here.

The thread was intentionally started with the arrangement of parking spaces first. Details about the floor plan/room layout will follow as soon as the first drafts are available. So thanks already for the input.

Supplement: Whether the parking spaces are even allowed to be directly on the street still needs to be clarified.

It has been under written clarification since shortly before Christmas after it was assured to me by the municipality over the phone

What I do not see is carport and garage one behind the other, because you will quickly exceed 9m of boundary development. That is the generally accepted maximum size for 1 boundary - unless your development plan states otherwise?

True, thanks for opening my eyes!