We were definitely planing changes to the windows. We'd be moving the fireplace to the interior wall since we can only do an electric out here and adding french doors and windows on the exterior family room wall. We also would change the front dining room to a double and hoped to add a sunroom on the back.

Change the gables to hipped roof. Eliminate the tiny top gable and little windows in the gables

Do yourself a favor and hire the architect. I see a number of issues with this house. A good architect could design it so the first floor is 9' and the second floor 8'. My actual 1898 victorian house had those ceiling heights and it worked for the house.

What I see wrong:

The kitchen is poorly laid out. All your work space is squished together and then you have lots of counter space that will wind up as junk landing space.

The powder bath is more for an old house that originally only had a single bath upstairs and the only space they could find was to make a narrow, skinny bath set next to the dining room. Trust me, no one will want to hear what's going on in the powder room while eating.

Your 10' x 10' breakfast area will only be 7' x 7' when you add the pathways and doorways.

Plus why would you want to go clear across the house and down the stairs to do laundry off the breakfast room?

Upstairs where will you put the bed in bedroom 2?

You walk into the master bedroom and you have that useless space right in front of you.

If you ever need a last minute thing out of your master closet, that's quite a walk.

Why would you want or need a 16 vaulted ceiling in the master or a 11' ceiling in the alcove?

Instead of trying to fix this plan, hire an architect who can give you exactly what you want. A custom house should work for your needs. You shouldn't need to adapt yourselves to the house.

Change the gables to hipped roof. Eliminate the tiny top gable and little windows in the gables

Once you change it to a hipped roof, you change the whole look.

BTW: No victorian builder would have put mutton chops on the cornice returns!

To change the height of the middle section you have to lower the slope of the roof to be flatter and to do so you will need to change the slope on the peaks as well since they are tied together and share the same slope on the sides see highlighted in yellow. Unfortunately the whole roof would need to change and it will change the look of the house. You would be better to take an inspiration picture to an architect and say I want this general look and feel, but need to meet these requirements and have them design something that works for you and give you the look you want. The whole roof plan can be changed, but it requires a rework of the floorplan to be less thick in the middle without loosing the slope of the roofs. An architect would really be your best bet to not bastardize it.

The other option would be going to the city and apply for a variance. Maybe argue that just a small portion would be above the limit and request a variance as the house style would fit really well in with the city or something like that. All depends on what your city cares about. Would it block anybody elses view? If so it isn't as likely to happen.

@lyfia thank you. I'm confused what you mean by less thicker in the middle of the home? They will not give height variances to anybody in our town for any reason. There has been an ongoing protest by local businesses who want to raise the limit so they can put living space above their stores or restaurants but so far nobody is budging. Maybe one day, but that is not likely going to happen any time soon. It's odd really, because so many people have 3 story homes out here but to do so they have to have pretty flat roofs. I was so shocked when I realized this 2 story roof was so much taller than some of the three story homes.

I was so shocked when I realized this 2 story roof was so much taller than some of the three story homes.

This is basically a three story home.

Find out, in writing, how the building height is determined. Sometimes it is an average. Sometimes it is left to the interpretation of the Zoning Administrator (don't ask me how I know).

Sometimes it is easier to change the zoning ordinance than get a variance.

"Peeks"..."Peaks...= Gabels

oops. I knew that... :-)

Not sure if this will help.

How are the measurements made?

Is that height measurement always made of the front of the home?

Do inspectors measure only the height visible from the curb/road or

Is the height measured from the highest ground point on the lot?

Is the height measured from the lowest ground point?

There are five steps up to the porch. If your land were terraced so your front yard was higher than most of your side and back yard, would that help or is the maximum 38' / 33' from the porch or ground floor of the house?

I'm guessing the height limitations have something to do with firetruck/ladder reach?

Or is it just about uniformity/confirmity?

I still think this is the easiest fix to your problem

Interesting questions. Will definitely have to speak with the building inspector/ zoning and code enforcer about it. We are a small beach town and I believe it's more about uniformity and conformity.

@grdnbeth that's definitely what I had in mind. Doing a bit lower pitch on the peaks and roof behind them, but just not sure if it will look right if structurally it actually can be done. The problem I have is that they want to charge quite a bit of money to revise the plan, but I don't want to pay to have that done if it's going to really compromise the look which was why I was looking for opinions.

Another thought If two peaks on the front would create the look you like, you might consider two front rooms with 7' ceilings upstairs and/or down so you could get the two peaks but behind those peaks put your hip roof over two eight foot ceilings with peaked dormers. A 7' ceiling could resolve the question of what to do with that 1' of space often left above overhead cabinets. The smaller 7' ceiling could be small study or nursery. Where you put the stairs and/or a sunken floor to accommodate the difference might make that possible.

You definitely need an architect.

Kat - I took a peak at your idea book. In your 'houses' photo album, all of those homes have one thing in common: they were designed by an architect for a specific person (family) and for a specific site. That is a huge reason they all have a certain lovliness that nearly all stock plans are lacking. Rather than pay a draftsman to make this home fit your wants and needs, pay an architect to design *your* home for *your* needs on *your* lot. I have a warm fuzzy feeling that once you see the result of going through that process, you will forever forget this house plan

@ suezbell we are a tall family. Have one member that is 6'6" so I would rather keep things at least at 8' and preferably 9' on the main floor.

Ceilings below 7'-6" become a code issue.

Your changed layout has problems too, including the garage blocking light into your living room.

Please do yourself a favor and hire an architect to design exactly what you need.

@cpartist I only pulled the garage out a couple of feet as you can see they did in the main photo of the house on the website to make the side covered porch. If you notice the main photos of the home they display on the site are actually quite different then the actual plan.

I also added the wall of windows as they did to increase light. It’s no different then having a porch behind a family room which many plans have often tucked one end behind another room.

My reason for wanting a corner lot was to be able to have a wrap around porch and side porches. I know that room will be darker but it will mostly be a media type room. The sunroom and front room will be more for sitting and reading or talking. I also moved the sink in the kitchen across from the widened living room door opening with a window above it to let in more light.

I will probably have to hire an architect to make the roof line and changes work properly, but it won’t likely change my having to accept a layout that’s not perfect to get everything I want in rooms.

I see some of the cons of it, but I’ve yet to find a perfect home plan that will fit on narrow lots when wanting multiple living spaces. You just tend to end up with a shotgun style home to fit it all in. It’s a trade off to where we live. High prices for tiny lots but the ability to walk to the beach in a couple of minutes.

edited to say I ended up shortening the side porch to make space for the golf cart when I was playing around with it. Not sure we’d actually do that:-)

Consult with an architect. Tell him/her what you like about that house, and have those features incorporated into the home. Trying to modify an already existing plan is difficult and time consuming, and it's not how architects work. They work by being onsite to take in the terrain, views, orientation, and other aspects of the land. Then they consider your wants and desires and design the home to fit your needs and the site requirements. Trying to design your home by an online committee of anonymous strangers is not efficient or effective. Designing homes in beach communities with lots of restrictions requires knowledge of the area and the process, so a local architect is your best bet. Good luck!

@Diana Bier Interiors I agree, but it's also my concern. We had an architect come in for this home we are in to help redesign it and I was not very happy with the attitude or suggestions. I didn't like that the Master bedroom bed could be seen from the dining room table. He told me to close our door. He then drew up a useless sketch. In the end I redesigned the layout of this home myself and we are very happy with what we did and people that come in our genuinely surprised to find out the home wasn't built this way from the start so I think we did an Okay job :-) We have made good use of the space.

I know it will require a lot of work to find an architect who really listens to what we want. I have no doubt that many can design a beautiful house that fits the lot and allows lots of light, but if it doesn't match my desires then I've spent a lot of money and won't be happy. There's many plans I could buy ready made that would allow more light and give more open spaces that most people crave. The problem is, that's not what I crave or what works for our family and finding somebody who really listens will be key.

I just wanted some opinions from the "pros" on the lowering of roof lines when I posted as I was frustrated with the answers I was getting from the house plan site. The rest is just discussion, which I do happen to enjoy.

A house in the Victorian style, which you seem to be wanting, would not have had roof pitches lower than what is presently designed for this house. Nor would a grandly styled house such as this have 8 foot ceilings on the first floor.

This plan is basically a square in the center with gabled extensions. If you reduce the size of the square, you lower the overall height.

Are there other original, historically styled homes in your neighborhood? If not, this house may look out of place. I have lived in a few communities where people build these new Victorians and even if done well, they can’t sell them. Context is very important in housing.

The Italianate or Greek Revival styles would lend themselves to lower pitched roofs, but not a wrap around porch.

@ulisdone, there are many things I like about the Victorian style and some things I don't, so I'm Okay if it's not period perfect or even close for that matter. The plan in it's original state would not have interested me at all. The changes that they have shown in the finished home is what caught my eye. The large porch, the peaked gables etc. As for homes similar, there is a huge selection of styles out here. Farmhouse, cape cod, cottage, traditional and some with peaks and gingerbread finishes, the majority though are square or rectangular boxes built two or three stories high to put the garage underneath because the lots are narrow.

This is like shopping in the petite’s department and for size 6 shoes when you really need to be shopping in the Plus dept and buying size 10 shoes. No amount of wishful thinking or sewing skills will make that size 4 petite fit a size 18 Plus. Not even if you buy two of them.

A bad home plan that doesn’t fit the site can never ever be cut and hacked to something that does fit. You have to start over. Start by assessing what about the plan you liked. It cannot be the super tall table peaks. Because that won’t fit the site. You have to learn when to let the unrealistic fantasy life go. And to work on the real life in front of you that you actually do live.

@live_wire_oak that can be true.

Actually I think I need to be shopping in the petites department, but have been shopping in the plus size :-) But you know sometimes the exact same shoe is available in both petite and plus size and looks just fine on both. Sometimes the real problem is that the heel is too high and while we can't just cut the heel off and wear the shoe, we could have a designer design a shoe with a lower heel that looks the same in nearly every other way. Sometimes that works, and sometimes the shoe would lose it's attractiveness and that's what I was trying to discern. It seems most think it will lose it's attractiveness.

I've found some home plans that have peaks under 33 feet tall but they are always missing something I like. Truthfully, homes for narrow lots with a garage in the back and a large front porch that extends a bit on both sides that aren't flat or low country looking, and that have the formal spaces I'm seeking are hard to find so yes an architect could be the way to go. Just adds another expense and is not a route I wanted to go because of past experiences, but we may have to consider it if we can't find a plan we like.

This one has been saved in my favorite's folder for quite some time and so I wasn't going to just toss it out without giving it a chance.

As mentioned above, check with the local zoning department as to what their definition of "building height" is. Sometimes it's to the highest ridge but often it's halfway between the eave and ridge, which is actually the better definition as with the former it creates shallow roof pitches so to maximize the "building cube" a house can be built in while the latter promotes steeper roof pitches. It's an intangible thing but I fear your "inspiration house", if modified to fit the "cube", will come off looking significantly different than your photos.

Just adds another expense and is not a route I wanted to go because of past experiences, but we may have to consider it if we can't find a plan we like

I understand that you've had a negative experience with an architect in the past - but not all are bad. In fact most I've encountered are pretty decent.

Regarding the expense, what if an architect designs you a home that is less expensive to build than your inspiration? It's an 'added' expense that (could) net you money in the long run.

but it won’t likely change my having to accept a layout that’s not perfect to get everything I want in rooms.

Work with a talented architect (not a draftsman) and yes you can get almost everything perfectly how you want it.

I see some of the cons of it, but I’ve yet to find a perfect home plan that will fit on narrow lots when wanting multiple living spaces. You just tend to end up with a shotgun style home to fit it all in. It’s a trade off to where we live. High prices for tiny lots but the ability to walk to the beach in a couple of minutes.

That's because you're looking at internet plans and not working with an architect. Big difference.

I didn't like that the Master bedroom bed could be seen from the dining room table. He told me to close our door. He then drew up a useless sketch.

Then you found the wrong architect. You want one who will work with you to design a home that works for you. BTW: Where are you in the country? Any chance you're in the NE near the Delaware area?

I agree with cpartist--not all architects are created equal. I worked with one on my vacation home, and he was GREAT! Worked with another on my primary residence and he was just meh. If you're building a home, it makes a lot of sense to do your due diligence and find a professional whom you feel comfortable with, who will listen to you, and give you what YOU need and want, not what he or she wants.

You can sometimes reduce the height by using a lower pitched section at the top. From the ground this would not be visible and read like a horizontal ridge.

Here is the definition of "Building Height" from a jurisdiction where I have had several project:

Building, Height Of: In the case of a principal building, the vertical distance measured
from the average grade in the yard with the greatest building height to the highest point
of the roof surface for flat roofs and A-frames, to the deck line of mansard roofs, and to
the average height between eaves and ridge for gable, hip and gambrel roofs (see
Figure 2-3). A cupola, widows watch or tower that extends above the roof line shall be
considered the highest point of the roof surface on roofs with such features. The
measurement of the height of an accessory building or structure shall be determined as
the greatest vertical distance from the average grade of any side to the highest point of
the roof surface.

That house is NOT a Victorian. A bit of $$$ trim and front facing gables with a main hipped mass does not make a Victorian. It makes for an expensive McMansion, with all of the typical internal light and flow issues that come with it. Bad kitchen, not accounting for humans in the traffic flow, and all the rest. It’s dressed up, but a new expensive prom dress does not make it into the homecoming queen.

@User if you read my post you’d see I said it had a Victorian flare to it not that it was a Victorian and I also said in subsequent posts that I didn’t care if it reflects the period of Victorian’s correctly. I have plans to change a bit of the floor plan. I also said it wasn’t everybody’s taste, which if it was what a boring world that would be! We are dealing with a narrow corner lot that the home would fit on if the roof height could be lowered. The look of the home is something I happen to like whatever your thoughts on it may be!

The Victorian period technically ended on January 22, 1901 (rip Vicki), so any home designed/built today would NOT be a Victorian anyway. Call it Victorian Revival, or Victorian Inspired, or whatever. Old Timey, Porchy, Gingerbready, Gabley, and in this case, too high-y.

Actually live_wire_oak, I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one. The form of this house is nearly perfect to some of the simpler or "free classic" Victorian houses around the country. The hipped roof mass with gabled wings is one of the most common late Victorian forms.

As far as this house plan, or any other house plan, summarizing what others have said, you will need to consider the following changes to get a Victorian appearance without going over the height limit (assuming it is measured to the peak fro the ground and not in any other fashion:

1. Reducing ceiling heights. With two of the second floor rooms already being vaulted, I would automatically switch to 8' ceilings upstairs. You won't miss the extra ceiling height in the smaller bedrooms and bathrooms and it will actually improve the exterior proportions, which has a bit of a tall forehead look. You should also look at reducing the first floor height and consider how that will feel. Our house has 9'-4" ceilings; they are plenty tall and spacious.

2. Reducing the height of the foundation. Study how high the house needs to be to look right. Can you get away with closer to one foot?

3. Reduce the height of the main roof with a double pitch as suggested by PPF. This was the solution taken by a house in my home town that was built then caught for being too tall. They chopped off the top of the roof and re-framed it so it was nearly flat and invisible from the street.

4. Consider a design where the second floor extends partially into the roof with lower eaves.This would need to be reworked with a different plan, as this house would probably lose too much usable space from the second floor.

Overall though, if you just did #1, I think you would be fine. 2' foundation plus 9' first floor plus 1' for the second floor thickness, plus 8' second floor is only 20'. That gives you 15' for a roof. The main roof appears to be about 34' wide, which means you could still have a roughly 11:12 roof pitch which is just slightly shallower than the pictures show,

#2 is out.

@L thomas

”and in this case too high-y”

This made me really LOL!😀

Good - was hoping to lighten the convo :)

Thank you to everybody who has replied with helpful suggestions and comments! It is much appreciated and gave me lots to think about. I believe there is probably a way to get it down if we go with this plan. I learned yesterday that it’s measurement is 37’4” so maybe we could lower the foundation to 1.5’ and then lower the 2 ceiling heights by a foot and do a slightly different pitch to make it work, but we may consider an architect as well!😀

If you ignore the builder-grade detailing, its a late Victorian Queen Anne style house. The only unusual feature is the second front facing gable.

Its impossible to say if it could meet the zoning height restriction without seeing a definition of "height", the topography of the site, the floor to floor heights and a scaled elevation drawing. With that information it would be a simple exercise to lower the slope of the roof until it meets the zoning restriction and see how it looks.

In the meantime, assuming the width of the house is about 36 ft, lowering the roof slope from 12 in 12 to 10 in 12 would decrease the ridge height by 3 ft. Lowering the slope to 8 in 12 would lower the ridge another 3 ft.

But the first thing I would do is lower the first floor ceiling to 9 ft and the second floor ceiling to 8 ft.

I would also consider truncating the top of the main roof. I don't think it would be very noticeable on this house.

One way or another it appears possible to build this house without corrupting the design.

A Field Guide to American Houses

Everyone should own this book. The old one is $6 used and the new one is $25.

I've owned the original version for 35 years.

@User thank you.

Looking at the plan more, I previously thought the front peaks were taller than I now think they are. Since the master bedroom vault is at 16' and the tiny windows is in the vaulted room, in doing the math of 10 + 1 + 16 plus whatever space is above the little window to the point at the roof I feel like the larger peek can't be taller than 30' at most.

If we lower the roof pitch to an 8:12 across 38 feet wouldn't that make the rise about 12.73', so topping out at 32.73' even in leaving the floors at the heights they are? What would that mean for the height of the peaks on the front two bedrooms?

Could you or anybody else that knows how to figure that out help me? It's the peaks that I love and I am hoping they won't go down too much because obviously that will impact the look of the roof.

Oh yes, do 10:12 gables on a 8:12 hip, the carpenters will love you! JK.

Why not have someone draw the house -- just the basics -- enough to put the roof on and provide some accurate measurements.

If the roof is too tall, it's easy to reduce the pitch and see how it would look.

12:12 I get 38' from the 1st floor subfloor. You will need to add to that the distance from the ground to the 1st floor subfloor.

10:12 is 35' 6"

8:12 is 33'

Reduced pitch. Ridge height measured from 1st floor subfloor.