Can you say more about the passing by? What do the 272 sqm apply to? Just for the house?
Just for the house. We wanted to inquire about the maximum size. We are allowed to move up to 5m closer to the existing building and ignore setback areas, but after that it’s over due to fire protection.
I neither see six steps fitting properly in there nor you being able to slip through more than just bent over if the garage is not supposed to have a considerable height clearance.
Look for and show representations of the property’s elevations and a flood simulation on it. There must be better solutions for flood protection than the house on stilts. The elevation would also not be counted towards the allowed heights. And where exactly is your boat dock from which you enter the house or from where the fire department would have to rescue you?
I don’t have exact elevation data for the property yet. The survey engineers have been commissioned but due to overload it’s been dragging on for 6 weeks. I cannot provide you with a
flood simulation, only a description of the last flood from 2024.
During the last flood, water flowed through the three garages (approximate height 5cm) and the flow direction was down the driveway towards the north. On the west side of the driveway, a 20cm deep, 2m wide water patch formed. The existing building had 5 - 10cm of water standing in the basement, which had pushed through the floor slab. The field (1549, 1548) as well as the area north of Mühlweg were also all underwater. The rest of the garden was dry. The 1m elevation of the house follows the architect’s recommendation, as future floods should only be considered extreme.
We originally only wanted to raise the ground to the desired height, but after the soil report he recommended piles.
According to the previously described investigation results, it must be assumed that starting from the current ground surface, there are insufficiently load-bearing fills down to an average depth of 1 m. Therefore, it is necessary that the building loads are transferred down to the underlying medium-dense, and at greater depths dense, river deposits.
From a geotechnical perspective, a complete soil replacement would be conceivable. However, the high groundwater level must be taken into account here, which requires groundwater management and lowering of the groundwater. To compact both the excavation base in the river gravel and the soil replacement body carefully, the groundwater would have to be lowered at least 30 cm below the lowest excavation base. Due to the proximity to the pond, comparatively large amounts of water are to be expected, so that soil replacement is discouraged here.
It is therefore recommended to found the building on piles. With piles, shaft rings are driven into the ground as lost formwork until the load-bearing soil is reached and the soil inside the piles is excavated. Then the piles are concreted. Due to the high groundwater levels and the sensitivity to flow of the fine to medium sands present in the upper stratigraphic horizons, it will probably be necessary to construct the piles under a water load to prevent sand intrusion and thus loosening of the excavation base. The piles can then be dimensioned using a design value for the base resistance σR,d = 350 kN/m². The self-weight of the piles is already taken into account. The floor slab itself is then supported cantilevered on the piles without bedding.
Regarding the waterproofing of the building, appropriate coordination with the responsible water management authority must be carried out. From this coordination, it should also emerge to what extent the terrain in the building area must be raised and filled to avoid the risk of flooding. This embankment must be created in advance to avoid causing additional stresses on the piles due to the resulting settlements.
Due to the high groundwater levels, infiltration of rainwater on the property is not possible.
I see some difficulties here that prevent you from getting more input. The first: the driveway does not match the photo. On the site plan, the access is shown from the east. In the photo, it looks like you come from the north? You write the development is via
Is it a rear access property?
Even more difficult are the missing details on the exact size of the building envelope. How much space do you currently have exactly for building excluding driveway and existing property? What are the other dimensions of the new property (length of boundaries)?
We are actually in second row. Between 1549/3 and 1560/3 is the driveway to the property. You can also see it marked with a light line.
The property will only be newly subdivided once the new house is built to avoid problems with setback areas. Owner 1560/6 has already made it clear that we are allowed to build right up to the edge and he waives the setbacks. So we can decide relatively freely how we want to build in there.
In summary: set back to the north according to building regulations, to the east up to the boundary, we would only maintain distance to the boundary because of all the trees (root systems). To the south also free because of the field and towards the west up to 5m to the existing building.
Yes, yes... that fits.
For example, in the initial post I a) received too much input about something irrelevant to the planning and had to read it three times before it was even mentioned that the shown garages no longer exist.
b) this elevated idea did not reach me at all. I don’t even get how one could come up with that.
A lot of botched work and that right in the middle, and everything revolves around something that is incomprehensible to me. A 200 sqm house is planned and it’s not even possible at this size to plan a normal walk-in technical room. That stinks already at the head.
Why doesn’t one simply build the house one meter higher? Probably the other residents do exactly that – then there are 5-6 steps to the entrance and between terrace and garden area. That’s less bad than this construction.
I would first go to the basic substance and cut the pantry in half as well as the hallway areas. 13.5 sqm or 6 meters just to reach a staircase or the kitchen is incomprehensible to me.
The hallway upstairs confirms the nonsense. The bathroom upstairs takes it up and also consists only of corridors.
It seems that once again the direct connection between garage and house is the reason?!
And frankly, it’s stressful for me to deal with this focal point of the problem when so many knots have already formed in the builders.
Katja, you’ll manage.
Well, I’m an amateur and simply didn’t know better than to use these corridors. The fewer corridors the better, but how do you solve that? You don’t have to put the stairs in the garage, it’s just more comfortable to arrive dry in the rain. I’m here to untangle my knots and achieve better results than I was able to produce myself. Or am I misunderstanding something here?