Regarding the garages, we want to be able to reach everything on one level, i.e. drive the car into the garage and then enter the house on the same level. In front of the garage there is 8 meters of space lengthwise, so you can easily park in front of it,
... but only crosswise. In depth, I estimate only about four meters in front. Then a car does not stand in front of its own parking spot without hanging over the sidewalk with the bumper, completely on its own property, and you just raise the gate in the evening to roll it straight in; instead, it stands crosswise in front of its spot and that of another car.
That’s why I’m posting this here. [...] It’s not like we built the floor plan together in an hour and now say, please improve it. It cost us HOURS of work...
If you lack a feeling for the dimensions, you won’t develop it through a hundred drafting considerations. That’s exactly what bothers me about this design:
We are obviously not architects and in any case do not want to build a 120 m² house.
... namely, that you actually did exactly that: you did build a 120 sqm house – just much larger. In some places, disproportionate expanses have developed, but they are not consistently maintained. The result is a 19 sqm bathroom, while rightly criticizes that there is (in my opinion, in a house this size a no-go, especially in contrast to four garage spaces) no children's bathroom. By the way: in the event of an auction, this alone reduces the value of a property of this category by easily twenty thousand.
That the defects lie so fundamentally at the conceptual level (without meaning that the district administrator and the kitchen planner don’t notice it) is my main reason for not commenting on this design at the detailed level so far.
But maybe detailed criticism will open your access to the conceptual flaws – so I’ll give it a try:
The height differences – especially with the surrounding street – would almost invite me to stack the two double garages. As I said, the short path between car and front door is quite sufficient when it relates "only" to everyday cars. What I would definitely consider is to reduce the building masses by separating into two double garages, for example, classically on both sides of the main building.
The level exit can simultaneously only apply to the window door on the left-hand side in the dining room or to the granny flat bedroom.
I would never plan a granny flat with the perspective of an apartment for elderly family members on the ground floor, never with the bathroom so far from the bedroom, and never without access to the staircase of the young family.
I would turn the direction of the staircase. I would not surround the study with children's rooms but rather include it in the master suite.
The chimney pierces the ridge beam and requires beams for at least two ceiling slabs.
I hope it is now clear why I have not even addressed the dressing room, which is only closet-sized and inappropriate for such a house, the guest room, the guest bathroom, the storage room, etc.
By the way, windows should correspond in number and size to what is actually ordered so that they can serve as a basis for the offer. They do not do so here in the slightest.
Four cars are the only unusual aspect in your situation. The combination "two adults (who sometimes work from home) – two kids – grandparents – no dog – creditworthiness for a villa" occurs often enough that you can include real buildings of similarly situated people in your working basis.