Single-family house ~200 sqm with double garage on a trapezoidal plot

For good reason, I recommend as the only fully valid option to always search for and commission an architectural firm without mediation through a general contractor.

This means specifically:
1. I find an architect suitable for me and my project.
2. What exactly does he create for me? Are we talking about these service phases? I haven't dealt with them before (at least not consciously).
3. Where do I go with this? To the general contractor? And how do I find a general contractor who simply says: "Sure, give me the plan, I'll build that"?

I am still not clear about this interaction between me, the architect, and the executing construction company, and I want to avoid actual problems (the architect planned something that cannot be sensibly built) or excuses ("the other side is to blame").

The posts show me how unusual and also hard for you to imagine it is that an architect simply makes a serious mistake in the planning of a simple single-family house. I wasn’t able to quote everything here, so first a more detailed explanation of exactly what went wrong here. The development plan is standard, nothing wild and nothing that leaves much room for interpretation. A building with a footprint of 150 sqm is permitted. The planned house is (without looking exactly again) somewhere around 100-110 sqm. So definitely no squeezing here.

Now what exactly went wrong:
The setback areas were not calculated correctly according to BayBO. These are 0.8H on two sides and 0.4H on the other two sides. The dimension H is determined according to the Bavarian building code by the wall height of the house (intersection of the wall with the roof covering) + 1/3 of the roof height. The underlined part was simply unknown to the architect. So the roof was simply ignored in the calculation. The setback area calculated by the architect was thus 5.2 meters instead of the approximately 5.9 meters that actually had to be maintained. Mind you, I had to look this up in the BayBO myself because the architect, even after feedback from the building authorities, did not really understand where exactly the problem came from.

The second point, which in itself wouldn’t have immediately sent the floor plan into the trash but further illustrates why we no longer want to work with this planner:
The development plan clearly states that the reference point for the maximum ridge height of 9.5m is the middle of the street in front of the property. However, our planner uses the natural ground level on the property as the reference point – thus 12 cm are missing.

These two things are simply incompetence (as a Bavarian architect you should know BayBO) as well as laziness to read the development plan. There were a few other mistakes in the planning process that I was able to detect myself in time. The instruction thereafter that everything must be absolutely correct and checked multiple times for the building application apparently didn’t help.

Can’t the design be somehow salvaged? How wrong were the calculations? Do you want to throw it straight in the trash because of that?

Unfortunately, the design is not salvageable for us as it is. The cure option suggested by the architect was to shift the building body to the center of the plot. At the cost of the garden, which is very important to us. Although this would create a north garden, it wouldn’t deserve the name (it is not only on the north side, which in itself is not necessarily bad, but for other reasons it is quite unattractive). Also, under these conditions, we could have planned very differently – one of the most important points in the planning was to preserve as large a garden area as possible on the nicer side of the plot. A crude shifting of the building body would have all the disadvantages due to compromises in the current plan plus all potential disadvantages of a new plan.

Is it so bad that you need a new architect right away?
Without reading all posts now: wasn’t it so that you exactly knew what you wanted to get out of the plot (I mean, who voluntarily builds 4 stories?) and the architect was your extended arm?

Even though from the floor plan it might look that way, we didn’t want to squeeze anything out ;)
We love gardens, but a bigger plot was financially not feasible, so a more compact footprint was chosen. It would have definitely been allowed to build even bigger.

The situation here is that the clients are pursuing a building intention that involves a volumetrically tall building compared to the existing situation (and the neighborhood). Something like this is (as the Bavarians nicely say) “never ever never” done without a building inquiry to ensure you’re on an approvable course. This obviously wasn’t done here – pushing the planning all the way to the execution level was a waste of time for all involved. Here the notorious “starting in third gear” typical of general contractor planning shows and bites back – if done correctly, the insight would have come in “Module A” already. The disastrous disappointment is a “sure” consequence of unprofessional handling (for which of course the client isn’t entirely blameless). A self-critical adjustment of expectations within a realistic framework is necessary here before a new broom can sweep better.

As said, we didn’t plan anything crazy here. A building inquiry was made for completely uncritical things (e.g. positioning of the garage) and was approved by the community as "completely uncritical." The community is cooperative, friendly, and helpful. Nothing even remotely critical caused the failure of the application, it was merely mistakes of the architect. I now claim to know a bit about the relevant regulations in the development plan and BayBO. The only fault I see in ourselves is having trusted the planner to correctly calculate the setback areas as valid throughout Bavaria. But if I analyze every single dimension including the corresponding legal text myself, then I could quit my own job and become an architect directly.

What the layman client imagines is usually not really bad, and even a naive focus on the (in terms of their relevance) wrong details is the bigger but not really bad problem. Number one is the “Fear of missing out,” which causes clients, combined with the toxic belief “you only build once,” to try to cram too many wishes into their little house.

In defense of the general contractor “architects,” I must say that not few first drafts (before the clients wanted to squeeze in a children’s bathroom or similar) were better than the final botched version, and very often permits stumble and fail on overdone knee walls, dormers, and the like. Not everything the draftsman draws is rubbish – he just must not talk the client out of such things. The “black Peter” is better placed with the evil building authority.

Probably completely true, but not quite applicable to us in that extent.
We commissioned a university-educated architect, with a fee that is not exactly according to HOAI – but also far from the 2k-5k that you sometimes pay for “draftsman” planning.
We also did not want to plan the Swiss Army knife of houses. We had a spatial program that fits the plot completely uncritically. Additionally, the requirement to retain as much undeveloped area for garden and kids on the nicer side of the plot.
We neither wanted a granny flat in case the grandaunt should temporarily move in in 20 years. We didn’t want “age-appropriate” building for in 40 years. We wanted features like a shower that doesn’t require a shower door or curtain – which we did not include and thus left out. In summary, nothing crazy except a single-family house with as much garden as possible.

Of course, we are a bit “down” mood-wise now, as we already imagined ourselves in that house. For example, the kitchen was planned and offers were obtained from 3 kitchen studios, etc. We had expected the building application approval these days (submitted in June).

About the next steps:
Dealing with the past:
We are now demanding the already paid fee back (75% has already been paid upon submission of the building application) as well as damages for the costs of the surveying commissioned by the architect. Also damages for the costs of the building application (probably mid four-figure range).

Future planning:
There are two trees on the plot that must be felled. This has been clarified and will be approved. However, felling is only allowed after the building permit is granted, which is only possible between March and the end of September.
We are now somewhat under time pressure because we need the building permit before March 2024 to be able to fell the trees in time.
As mentioned, I now know the plot very well myself (not least because I never really fully trusted the architect). Therefore, we currently see two options:

1. Commission a “real” architect according to for the restart; we spoke with several last year before the decision was made. One of them would definitely be an option and is located only 1-2 km from the plot – questionable whether he would also be available for construction management, etc. The downside is the price. The permit planning would be billed here according to HOAI and would be over 30k – just for the building application.

2. Hire a “cheaper” planner/architect and be heavily involved in the design myself (by now might raise an eyebrow – sorry about that). As said, I now think I very precisely know what is possible and what is not on the plot. After a year of planning etc., I also know a bit about sight lines, botched areas (thanks ) and so on. I have someone recommended by acquaintances from northern Germany at hand who would do this via online planning. Costs here would be 4k-5k. Alternatively, one of the online intermediaries like “A-better-place architects” could be contacted.

What do you think? ;)

...The processing time for posts is really too short...

The good thing is, the new plan will hopefully be even better than the failed one! :)
The new plan I have in mind is two-story + basement. The ground floor will be planned larger than the upper floor so that the building body can be placed relatively far north again despite a somewhat larger footprint (and still comply with the setback areas, because a simple ground floor triggers shorter setback distances). The garage will then be a single garage and will be placed somewhat closer to the street.

Mir am not yet clear about this interplay between me, the architect, and the construction company realizing the project, and I want to avoid actual (the architect planned something that cannot be reasonably built) or feigned ("the other side is to blame") problems.

I have already explained this here in several posts (for almost all of them you need to look back less than a year), which you can find via the forum search mainly with keywords like Hausbau-Fahrplan and Gerddieter (who, unfortunately, continues to ignore my PM, but to whom I am nevertheless very grateful ). By the way, I owe you this also, among other things for this template, on which I can nicely hang a useful answer for many readers here, which is why I am going over it again despite resulting duplications:

This means concretely:
1. I look for an architect suitable for me and my project
2. What exactly does he prepare for me? Are we talking about these service phases? I have had nothing to do with them so far (at least not consciously).
3. Where do I go with that? To the general contractor? And how do I find a general contractor who just says: "Sure, give me the plan, I'll build it"?

1. You look for an architect (or have one found for you, I am active nationwide and there are several advisors like me). "Suitable for your project" means for most users of this forum that the architect has a focus of activity and experience in single-family house construction. If it is about a conversion and you come from NRW, you can already find here in the forum (other architects from the local community have at least not made themselves known to me yet, and I gladly recommend this one). For couchsurfing information gatherers it gets a bit tricky here: the typical suitable single-family house architect not only has an office in which he is the only professional, but often also a dusty "Hohmpäidsch" – sometimes even creepy retro at T-online – and almost always stays under the radar if you want to find him via "reviews". A fun fact on the side: I also coach architects in search engine pessimization if, for heaven’s sake, they don’t want to be found by every Tom, Dick and Harry ;-)

2. The architect prepares exactly what you need – with one exception: service phases 1 and 2 (which I call "Module A" in my "Hausbau-Fahrplan, auch für Sie: das Phasenmodell der HOAI!") will be omitted by a serious architect only if they have already been carried out by a diligently working colleague. A good architect for you always offers all service phases (1 to 8, service phase 9 is highly dispensable for owner-occupied single-family houses). Sometimes he has a specialized colleague for service phase 8, but at least up to phase 5 he still does it himself. Architects of the kind " warns against" regularly offer only service phases 1 to 4 – this is by no means proof, but a strong indication of novices in the field of detailed planning and incompetent people regarding realistic cost estimates.

3. With the results of your work with the architect you do not immediately go to a general contractor (GC) to commission him. Rather, you first work with the architect on "Module A" only; at the end of this step, you have a preliminary design. At this point comes the most important step, which I call the "dough rest": it is a period of about six to eight weeks of contemplation and reflection. Here you distract yourself from your fixated construction wish in order to break the tunnel vision. At the end of this phase, you can spontaneously answer from the gut whether you want to continue with this architect. And you have unconsciously done mourning work, i.e. you have peacefully said goodbye to those ideas that were not processed in the preliminary design. This is extremely important; otherwise, these ideas will haunt you, keep bubbling up, and you will constantly be itching to integrate them. A frightening textbook example can be found here in the thread by Princess (staircase turned back and forth, downpipe moved back and forth, kids’ bathroom squeezed in and wall layout to the parents’ bathroom debated to death, wall between cloakroom and pantry shifted seventy-seven times and balanced with the façade symmetry – really nothing left out to drive the poor draftsman insane). Inner peace with the status alea iacta is an important basis for structured further work with the architect for the benefit of a house design that can be implemented with few complications.

The dough rest phase is a break for you and your architect, but not wasted time: at its beginning you both have sent out the preliminary design: the architect as a preliminary building request to the building authority, and you to four or five (no more!) general contractors of both factions (wood and masonry). The latter initially serves only for early detection of which construction method is more cost-effectively feasible in the concrete case and still leads only to a non-binding orientation price-wise. At the end of the dough rest, you have received answers that provide useful hints for adjusting course in your further work. I do not want to run through all possibilities here – so let’s assume at this point the picture has emerged that you would implement the house design more cheaply in timber construction: then you would not make the next contract with your architect for the full "Module B" but only for service phase 3 in his own performance and through his cooperation with a house provider who then already comes in at service phase 4. In this regard, I agree with the "prefab house expert" on many points, one should avoid double completion of service phase 4. In the other case (i.e. if the result is that masonry construction is cheaper) you now go with the architect to the full "Module B" up to and including service phase 5 and will usually connect "Module C" directly thereafter. As a clever builder, you never, ever, never, ever ask a GC instead of a tender, but merely allow bidders on your tender to apply for an award for several or all lots as GC. Whoever cannot print his own money NEVER commissions "a piece of house without prior proper quantity and measurement determination and/or sampling only after signing". If you want to build a shell house or almost-prefab house, you possibly bundle with your architect already in the tender, for example, the entire shell construction as a package lot. If there were only one road to Rome, there would be no need for advisors like me and inflexible architects could also be taken. The builder – whether GC, shell construction GC or otherwise – builds your house as a mason according to the architect’s detailed planning and as a carpenter more often according to his own detailed planning. A stingy do-it-yourself type who would go to a GC with the drawing set from the building application instead is likely to be pleased with raw structural guts boxed in drywall warts*, in a free country everyone may be the blacksmith of his own bad luck (and often lose a lot of money in the process). The GC you would come to with this stamped sheet would build any planning error without batting an eye (the building authority only criticizes violations of regulations; permissible bottlenecks slip through).

*) which is very subterranean "decorative" and thus really tasty from the Wife Acceptance Factor *LOL*
(This answer took a little longer now so I still have to read what the OP has meanwhile written).

I do not find your development plan situation at all run-of-the-mill: firstly, because if I remember correctly it is already a fairly densely built-up (and probably older than the plan) area and therefore, despite the development plan, there is an insertion situation similar to a §34-area, which in my opinion is a clear indication for a preliminary inquiry; and secondly, because you don’t build a standard case with a mansard roof. A mansard roof is structurally predisposed to always having a potential conflict with modern development plans, which in this respect are "culturally racist," so to speak, by their parametric definitions not "including" mansard, barrel, and even half-hipped roofs. The sore point with a mansard roof is that it does not have singular clear eaves and ridge heights. In this context, a dispute potential over heights arises almost automatically, and unfortunately distances and heights are interconnected. Even the steepness of the lower slope carries potential for debate regarding the weighting when including the roof in the height calculation. Depending on the construction, the lower slope is treated somewhat like a knee wall. As culturally valuable as I find this roof shape, which I also personally like very much, I can still well understand why builders and their architects are wary of it.

As mentioned, I actually know the property quite well myself (not least because I never really trusted the architect fully). Therefore, we currently see two options:

1. Commission a "real" architect for the fresh start according to @11ant, we spoke with some last year before the decision was made. One of them would actually be a possibility and is located only 1-2 km from the property – but it is questionable whether he would also be available for construction supervision etc. The disadvantage would be the price. The approval planning would be billed here according to HOAI and exceed 30k – just for the building permit application.

2. Hire a "cheaper" planner/architect and be heavily involved in the design yourself (by now @11ant raises an eyebrow for this – sorry for that). As I said, I now believe I know very precisely what is possible on the property and what is not. After one year of planning etc., I also know a bit about sightlines, botched job hot spots (thanks @11ant) and co. I would have someone recommended by acquaintances from northern Germany at hand who would take over this via online planning. Costs here would be around 4k-5k. Alternatively, one of the online intermediaries like "A-better-place Architects" could be asked.

1. Building in Munich, you find here (where I am not sure whether your construction would not be peanuts for their, in my opinion, recommendable architecture firm) and (whose architect personally is not on my must-meet list). At the full HOAI rate, I wouldn’t take anyone who does not conform to my motto "3+5=8."
2. "A better Place," in my perception, are not intermediaries, but a cooperative of architects (although I have not yet fully figured out whether and how they are legally connected to each other). How well they can do stone construction, I do not know – I only ever hear about them in connection with the "prefab house expert," who in my perception specializes in wooden prefab builders.

I do not find your zoning plan situation at all run-of-the-mill: firstly, because if I remember correctly it is an already quite densely built-up area (and probably also older than the plan) and therefore, despite the zoning plan, an integration situation similar to a §34 area exists, which in my opinion is a clear indication for a preliminary inquiry; and secondly, because you do not build a standard case with a mansard roof. [...]

Certainly correct, in fact the construction of the mansard roof was also clarified by preliminary inquiry and was one of the "completely uncritical" things, since there are several such buildings in the immediate vicinity. In the BayBO such "more special" roof shapes and their triggering clearance areas are now also quite clearly regulated (wall height +1/3 roof height on the eaves sides with <70 degree pitch). The general contractor from the architect also builds mostly mansard roofs. If the problem had been due to such a "special request" situation caused by us, I would indeed have some understanding.