Floor plan, building with tree, granny flat, and existing buildings

That no car is supposed to stand in the carport but maybe one day be charged there was something we had also communicated, so I would by no means base the quotation marks on THAT.

Staying overnight in the hotel because the charging car blocks the escape route is categorically an absolute no-go, and thus the opposite of an excusable minor listening error by the planner, who in my opinion has earned his quotation marks in gold and on a ribbon for that.

However, the beech tree is also the main reason for the setback: otherwise one would come very close to the crown and would have to prune annually, mainly because there would hardly be any space for the annual growth. We had said that for this an oriel (at least a projection not over the entire width of the house) could be quite practical. This has now become the more or less "clumsy chopping off of the upper floor" – which additionally does not work this way, because the southeast corner is too close to the trunk. We discussed this again yesterday with "our" tree caretaker, who assumes that it would not be approved like this or that the tree maintenance requirements would be exorbitantly elaborate.

Power-washing sticky flower pollen off the flat roof is also not great. As a reason for the ground floor overhang, I unfortunately can also imagine aspects of avoiding a full floor.

We had a case here some time ago where someone had to build a house around the oak. The plot was much smaller then.

Nevertheless, I remember the situation as less tricky.

What of course would be the most obvious, to reduce the attic, would be cutting back. That’s how it has always been done instead of creating an expensive flat roof: without knee walls or building small and setting knee walls inside or using the walls for built-in wardrobes.

In my opinion, knee walls would be recommended here at least because, given the roof pitch, I consider any kind of knee wall height to be fatal. Whether a knee wall with built-in wardrobes would help to avoid a full floor, I strongly doubt. I rather see knee walls here without used side spaces.

: please provide all the floor plans and a section of the existing building, as well as views of the design from post #39. I see a failure in performance phase 1 to include the examination of the strengthening of the existing building. From my point of view, the construction task presents itself like this: to create space for the offspring and possibilities to avoid each other or to be able to withdraw for the generations. Treating the existing building – which after all is inhabited and already the home of the future users – as a general demolition, seems not purposeful to me, and certainly not automatically justified by a cellar in need of renovation. Furthermore, it is an unnecessarily expensive game to drive up the fee assessment basis for the planner. The connection between demolition and fees almost reminds me of a dental procedure ;-)

(Where) were the framework conditions of the development plan already mentioned here?

So first of all, we are a bit love-shocked by the layout of the last draft by , from a gut-feeling perspective, the room layout and the stair position are a good approach - the feeling also says that it overall should be a bit smaller for the budget and possibly the front part even narrower, but I will try to inquire about that again.

Otherwise, correct me if I misunderstand, but in Hamburg a knee wall does not change the number of floors at all, the floor area higher than 2.3m may only account for two-thirds of the floor below. Whether the part below 2.3m consists of a lot of knee wall and shallow roof pitch (basically a city villa), or runs down to 0cm without knee wall and knee wall or "is not there at all" (stepped floor) does not matter.

The development plan is already in the first post (with the practically only important information "one full floor", that it is not only the damp basement I have also explained multiple times, it does not necessarily have to be a roof that requires high-pressure cleaning but a flat shed roof (more space for photovoltaics) or a balcony or a green roof.

I have attached the views, even though the measurements of the beech tree were available it is not drawn correctly - the tree is 16-18m tall and not about 12m as in the views. And the trunk diameter directly above the ground is about 1.5m (that is what I meant by "terrace in the beech" - it is drawn up to the trunk and not just to the crown drip line).

Otherwise, correct me if I misunderstand, but in Hamburg a knee wall does not change the number of stories at all; the floor area higher than 2.3m may only make up two thirds of the story below it. Whether the part lower than 2.3m consists of a high knee wall and shallow roof pitch (almost a city villa), or without a knee wall and knee wall tapering to 0cm, or "not there at all" (stepped story) makes no difference whatsoever.

In the case at hand (>45° roof pitch), however, any knee wall also increases the portion of the area above 2.30m.

So first of all, we are somewhat shock-struck in love with the layout of the last draft by @K a t j a ,

Yes, it’s nice! However, due to the repositioning of the entrance, the workshop will probably be lost?

Otherwise, correct me if I misunderstand, but in Hamburg a knee wall doesn’t change anything about the number of storeys, the room area higher than 2.3m may only account for two thirds of the storey below. Whether the part lower than 2.3m consists of a high knee wall and shallow roof pitch (basically a town villa), or runs out without knee wall and knee wall to 0cm or "is simply not there" (setback storey) makes no difference at all.

Then imagine the sections with the same roof but different knee wall height. The higher the roof is set, the more area above 2.30 you get. And you don’t need to compare with a town villa, setback storey, and hipped roof because you are planning an attic.

So first of all, we are a bit love-struck by the layout of the last draft from , from the builder’s feeling it is a good approach in terms of room layout and stair position

I’ll start finishing the calculation... ;)
By the way, the kitchen (sliding) door is missing, I just noticed.

- the feeling also says that overall it would still need to be a bit smaller for the budget and possibly even the front part narrower,

With the granny flat, you can definitely save a good half meter. The 10.60m at the top of the plan could probably be reduced by 20 to 30cm. It depends on the size of the wardrobe and especially on the space requirements in the utility room.

but I will try to inquire about that again.

From whom?

You can definitely save a good half meter on the granny flat.

How big is it? For official funding, at least 30sqm is required, as far as I know.

Space requirements in the utility room

And how big is that? At Hanghaus it was just barely 6.5sqm. I find that rather tight despite the pantry.