House on a slope with 2 granny flats

When developing from below, more than just squeezing in a garage is possible, or raising the house with a basement, whether as storage space or with a granny flat.

I am grateful to my ancestors every day that they painstakingly dug into the mountain step by step. Otherwise, we would have had the same problem as with exposed concrete. It simply adds up. You have to dig out here, fill in there, catch something elsewhere; everything is a bit more difficult and expensive (structural engineering) to make it usable almost like a flat plot.

I would build the house without a granny flat.

Basement entrance, wardrobe, study, building services, storage room
Ground floor cooking, eating, living, 1 children’s room
Direct garden access that opens the summer living and dining area with a small play corner for the little children.
Upper floor remaining bedrooms with access to the garden from the hallway
There then develop the slope with a shady play area
Next garden level with a south-facing terrace for the transitional period (too hot in summer). It should be high enough and no longer shaded by the house.
Garage and house can swap places.

If possible, I would plan 2 children’s rooms in the basement and house the two older ones there.

When developing from below, more is possible than just inserting a garage underneath, or raising the house with a basement, whether as storage space or with a granny flat

For the supposed "Columbus' egg" of creating a terrace on a double garage, see here:

You haven't done anything about the conceptual errors of the floor plan. Corridor in the children/parents area 275 cm wide ... for corridor and landing stairs ... that's already tight, so obsolete.

Hello kbt09, I just tried to understand that again, but unfortunately, I have no idea what you mean by that... ops: Could you please explain that once more?

With a knee wall of 200 cm, windows that are also supposed to have shutters end at max. 160 cm height, i.e. glass up to about 150 cm height. So you enter rooms and the view is rather towards the wall.

You are absolutely right about that. Therefore, I have increased the knee wall to 260 cm. The question is, though; is that allowed?

To me, it all looks like "amateur with heavy equipment."
I see a mega-box here that is apparently driven by the misconception that the property must be built up to the maximum. However, why is unclear. Do they want to avoid meadow or bushes at all costs? Does the million have to be spent no matter what? Is a representative hut needed to boost self-esteem? Or are they building two granny flats for a nanny and butler right away? What exactly?

Amateur is absolutely right. That's why I'm here, to gather information. Logically, I will still further plan everything with an architect. The rest of your statement is endlessly annoying and just sounds like jealousy! I can gladly do without that. Or was there really a serious question in there?

The slope only adds to the original poster's confusion, since as an amateur, of course, he lacks ideas for adequate use.

Well then, let’s hear your ideas! What constructive input is there, please?

In the dream houses of football referees, such mega knee walls do not appear - they know what "offside" means.

Okay, if I have understood the information correctly, high knee walls are rather out.
We were at the building authority this morning, who told us that there is a problem with the setback area. We calculated back and forth and came to the conclusion that the double garage must be narrower so that the house can slide a bit to the left. We tested this with 1.50 m and thereby have a distance of 441 cm to the neighboring property at the critical corner (see draft 7.0). Of course, the terrace and garden on the south side of the property will also become narrower.

There are 2 possible ways to calculate the setback area:
1. We make the upper floor a complete floor without a knee wall and introduce an attic with a knee wall of 50 cm. Since a floor with sloping ceilings is calculated as one-third in the setback area calculation, this calculation turns out unfavorable (see attached drawing "Setback Area Calculation") with a distance of 4.99 m. So we are missing 58 cm, which we would have to take, for example, again from the garage.
2. We do not make the knee wall on the upper floor 200 cm, but 260 cm, then we come to a distance of 3.91 m. That would of course be much better for us, then we could make the garage half a meter wider again. The question is only; is that allowed? And is it sensible? You say, such high knee walls are out. Is there a maximum knee wall height to be able to apply the one-third calculation?

And afterwards, a look to is recommended - in his thread you can not only commiserate current budget increases but also see an example of how, in severe hillside location, the dark rooms are accumulated on the uphill side. Here, too, there is (only one) granny flat upstairs, but the access is also from the uphill side – so you have to rethink accordingly.

I will have a look, thank you very much.

Layman is absolutely right. That’s why I’m here, to gather information.

Then remember the most important info: Architect is not your job.

Logically, I will still plan the whole thing further with an architect.

You’ll get much better results if you just let them do it alone. You can always add your own ideas afterward.

...just sounds like envy!... Or was there really a serious question in there?

My house is already built – so, no thanks. But sure, there was a question in there. Why do you need 2 granny flats? You can just say it. It’s anonymous here, so even if one of them is supposed to become a torture chamber, nobody here cares.

Well then, let’s hear your ideas! What constructive input do you have, please?

Man, I’ll take the liberty to claim that I probably make the most floor plan suggestions here. But by now I’m sorting out when it’s sensible or just wasted time. There’s still way too much nonsense mixed in here.