kbt09
2023-02-26 18:30:59
- #1
Thank you ... I agree :)
Ok, we could really consider that then. Would we still have the possibility to have a "large" attic? At the moment it is 1.80 m high, which we like. Or does that change if we don't have a knee wall at the top?• maximum permissible eaves height = 7 m • maximum permissible ridge height = 12 m ...as far as I could read.
That should be comfortably sufficient for 2 stories.
Consciously yes, in the sense that it ultimately was a cost issue. We are already pretty much at our budget limit with the floor plan. Without the knee wall upstairs, it would probably be even more expensive. But we will ask how much the $$ difference is. Currently, the floor plan upstairs is designed so that we think the knee wall wouldn’t be disturbing. Only in the study is it a bit annoying, hence the roof window there.You can build as much as you can afford: Permitted roof shapes are gable, hip, clipped gable, and pyramid roofs with a pitch of 20° - 45°.
A knee wall of 1.80m is currently popular because it looks quite nice. But have you consciously decided on this? According to your development plan, you could also build on the second floor without sloping ceilings and from there have a gable roof at the height of your choice (ridge up to 12m!).
Sorry, we were given the name of an architect here in Stuttgart. Of course, I assume that he will deal with the development plan. As a layperson, you can assume that, can't you?
I’m terribly sorry, but I don’t understand half of it. What does all that mean concretely? [...] and yes, it’s the first house we’re building. I understand that the plot is awkward. But unfortunately, I don’t understand the other things above. Can you explain it differently?
I wonder if this simultaneously fixes the form of the main building? What if I want to build a 3-gable house or a dwarfer house? Will the 3rd gable then be interpreted as a setback?
@K a t j a, @11ant ... you have now dealt with the development plan. I’m bad at it. Can you plan now with 2 full stories? Or does it have to be a trick like over 180cm knee wall or something? Thanks :)
An architect located 130 km away from the construction site is rather not a good idea. Certainly, laypeople may assume that an architect has successfully completed their studies; otherwise, they wouldn’t even get a "Kassenzulassung" ;-) from their chamber. What does "being informed" mean in this context?
It’s not that the plot is stupid – you can definitely make something out of it. The problem lies with: 1. the municipality, 2. the architect, and 3. that you came with the development plan excerpt so late. 1. The municipality, in my opinion, significantly exceeds its competencies by refusing to adapt the development plan for you, which is inappropriate in this particular case. If I were you, I would force them to do so in administrative court. The architect should have told you this a long time ago instead of acting as uninformed as you are (and as you are allowed to be, but he is not). 3. To put it very simply, you can assume that every detail in your development plan excerpt that you do not understand or do not even notice contains information of considerable explosive power. Starting with the fact that your plot is enclosed by a "Knödellinie", those are the thick black dots. They mean that different rules apply to your plot – and in the shown excerpt, ONLY to your plot – than to all your neighbors. MI designates the area type "mixed-use area," whereby your plot and that of your neighbor are treated differently under planning law. WA is a general residential area, and even here, two plots directly behind yours are not subject to the same rules as those further behind them. The rear building boundary (blue) of your plot prohibits construction in the area where you dream of building your pool. Directly "to the left" of that, however, your neighbor is allowed to place a garage against the fence. Apparently, someone at the building authority had a round of cannabis cookies, but in a constitutional state you can even bring a building authority back to the principles of a liberal democratic order. I have also regretted several times that is missing here. I would like to call him here – but there are reasons for his abstinence from the temptation to log in here (and the reasons for the reasons lie elsewhere...). So unfortunately we must get by here without him – but that the building authority has gone too far here, I think I can say even from my risky standpoint. Furthermore, I see in the plan excerpt indications of a preliminary suspicion that you should also thoroughly study your land register sheet and/or the encumbrance register – naturally with someone who not only must be able to do it but also can and does. All these things make it pointless at present to analytically deal with the architectural floor plans presented here. At least after this bombshell, my appetite for that was gone at first, but Katja and Kerstin have a better knack for alternative proposal drawings anyway. You should definitely part ways with this architect – whether his incompetence or unwillingness predominates must be clarified by your lawyer if necessary – but we here and now certainly not.
Question 1: no; Question 2: I neither see a third gable nor a dwarf house excluded here; Question 3: is greatly missed.
I have not yet looked more closely at the development plan (and doing so in the depth sensibly required here would go beyond the pro bono scope). I can gladly take a look at basics like the number of floors if I find the plan and time. But as I said, I think the plan violates essential principles and should be overturned. In this respect, I see the OP as able to plan within the conditions of a §34 area as soon as the plan is successfully temporarily challenged. A municipal administration cannot simply derive self-authorization from cluelessness to disregard the principle of proportionality – this has to be legally intervened against.