Floor plan for 4 people, predetermined volume

Was the basement also prohibited or do you not want one? In small houses, the basement often provides relief. Any significant height differences on the property?

Um, the measurements of the building window would be quite nice, because of the 6m distance...

The house has to go exactly where the old one stands. It may be a little bit bigger, about 25cm more… etc.

However, only under the compromise of building the new construction on the current location of an old barn (keyword exemplary effect when building in open countryside) and also maintaining the volume of the barn.

and therefore have very strict specifications regarding the floor plan design.

This requirement that the house must/may only be built exactly there with the same volume has nothing to do with the floor plan.

Space requirements on the ground floor, upper floor: specified

And the building authority also does not specify how many little rooms or which rooms you need,

Ultimately, dimensions of everything count, including the plot. If you negotiate with the building authority for 5 years, I could draw the site plan of the plot with all dimensions and distances in my sleep.
Because what is interesting is whether you can place windows at all on the south side, for example.

And an access route could, that is you, also already be drawn in – wherever it is possible.

There is some light shed somewhere with the Google plan here in the middle of the 5 pages, but it’s really not all that clear.
And what about the crossed area in the north?

The internet is full of standard floor plans in compact size. has already mentioned Danwood, but Google will also spit out a lot if you enter “floor plan 120 sqm.” Even DH can inspire, as they are planned for optimum.
Timber frame construction promises thinner walls and thus more floor area.

The house must be placed exactly where the old one stands.

I am not so sure whether the OP actually meant the footprint of the current building. Perhaps the entire part of his property designated as residential building area is meant. That would, in my opinion, also make more sense, since one would not expect the municipality to approve a new building that violates all setback rules. But who knows...

I see it the same way as .. because I also understood the OP to mean that a plot subdivision is to take place, so that the setback areas should actually apply. Ideally, the plot subdivision then takes place along the line that is 3 m away from the parent house.

Wow, thank you very much for your numerous replies, I will try to answer everything open.

I suspect that the yellow is your building window? You can move freely there? Or would it also be possible to move to the right side?
How about the lines? Can you extend from the parents?
Can you also rotate the little house or is the ridge direction fixed?


[ATTACH alt="baufenster.jpg"]78395[/ATTACH]

What kind of building is that standing on your land? Looks like from the neighbor? Does the plot (plot) have a bend there? How high is it?

No, we are really only allowed to build where the barn currently stands or shifted by 3 meters along the longitudinal axis to the north. There are different plans. For example, the land use plan designates the entire parcel 1/4 as residential building area, but it is not valid due to the lack of a statute. The building authority refers to the fact that this map here is also not valid as is; they draw the outer area boundary with a 3-meter distance around the parents’ house (HN 14), so for them the barn is already in the outer area anyway.

Would it not be more sensible here to consider the overall need systemically and to plan the new building rather as a retirement house for the parents?

We thought about that too, unfortunately it’s not financially possible. The parents’ house is also not in a good condition, the renovation costs and new building costs would exceed our budget. Especially since the parents’ house is quite a mixed bag (straw ceilings etc).

Was the basement also prohibited or do you not want one? For small houses the basement often relaxes things.
Any significant height differences on the plot?

Yes, no basement either, no bay window... nothing that deviates from the current building in this form. No, there are no real height differences.

Okay, I'll put one forward so we can get a feel for the matter.
First, as a reminder: This is a small house! Every centimeter counts here and compromises should be possible. I made the following assumptions: foundation slab recessed to 10cm above ground level. Ceiling height 2.40m on every floor. Ceiling + floor construction 30cm, knee wall 145cm, 45° roof pitch. Built-up ridge! I hope I didn’t miscalculate. ;)

I initially wanted to put the technology in the roof, but as far as I know, that only makes sense with gas heating. Gas is out, says Putin, so we have to swallow the bitter pill here and access the technical room through the living room.

Advantages:
- The roof ridge provides only 2 small but important rooms. Office and laundry room just fit up there.
- Living room / kitchen and dining area shine with 46.7 sqm, which is remarkable for the house size.
- Enclosed construction ensures quiet in the house.

Disadvantages:
- Access to technical room via living room – can perhaps be a bit disguised by neatly covering pipes and cables and hiding the large equipment around the corner with a shelf in front. Or someone might have an idea how to get it upstairs after all.
- Ceiling height only 2.40m minimum.
- The walls are not aligned vertically so for structural reasons you can probably only work with lightweight construction.

Bottom of plan is east, terrace in the west: