I say with 99% certainty that the developer’s plan is wrong. But completely independent of that, I consider the inclination to be wrong.
He is not making fun, but merely notes his amusement. And he would not position the house differently, but would just be able to better recognize from a more precisely depicted course of the curve that possibly another position would be better (or that a seemingly suitable one just apparently fits). Even a twenty-four-sided polygon is still not a circle; it can well be that a “straight” seemingly more fitting point still lies “in the penalty area” within the decimeter range.
Clear statements too – but like a rollercoaster ride between ups and downs – can confuse. I allowed myself to compare with StanSch’s post, because there too there was back and forth about fixed points, which alternately were sacred and at other times were allowed to be solved quite differently (and back).
But he considers the inclination to be wrong. I copied an old post above. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t want to split hairs here, I wouldn’t look good doing that myself. I just found the manner simply not okay.
I have to agree with you that sometimes I argue this way and other times that way. Unfortunately, I misjudge some things, please forgive me.
For example, we want a bungalow with a hip roof. But what we actually want is to have as many rooms as possible on the ground floor. That means living room, dining, kitchen, bedroom, children’s room, bathroom and guest WC. The last house from kaho674 is not a bungalow and does not have a hip roof and we like it.
somehow I find the design much better, you have a “public” and a “private” part and the way to the kitchen is nice and short (groceries)
We like the design too. I’m happy that someone here finally shares their opinion.
I would agree with you if dissatisfaction about the weed corner had not already been expressed at the start of the topic, minimum distance violations criticized, every extra meter of house connection lines caused the OP pain, the question about 3m or 5m carport distance was asked, and even the operating time of the washing machine was discussed, only to now plan a dirt triangle next to the carport again.
The plot is huge, the building window is huge, street frontage huge, floor area ratio sufficient (but please keep an eye on it), one or two full stories, no eave or ridge height limit – many freedoms that are not apparently restricted by the OP, his wife, or unclear cost factors.
Oh, so you want to position the house to the left so that the weed corner disappears. Then just say so. If you align a 16x11.5 house on the left side of the plot, the house has to move further back because of the 6x6 garage/carport. As far as I know, I have already written this here once. For me that disadvantage weighs more heavily. I also already have an idea how I could solve the weed corner. My idea would be to create a gravel surface with a weed protection fabric beneath the gravel layer. That dirt triangle next to the carport is therefore currently not so dirty... Maybe there are other and better solutions.
Where did I criticize minimum distance violations?
Regarding house connection costs, the planner said the following...
You have to reckon with about €2000 per medium, based on the usual 3m distance “house to street”.
Therefore, the topic was important to me in the meantime.
The discussion about the washing machine and dryer was unnecessary.
The street frontage is huge at 18.7m? After the 3 meter boundary, depending on how the house is aligned, we have about 19.5m to about 20.4m available. The plot becomes huge to the rear.
What else do we restrict that is not understandable?