ᐅ Floor area ratio; Section 19, Paragraph 4 of the land use ordinance – Any experiences?
Created on: 29 Jun 2018 11:56
G
Garlintor
Hello,
I have a few questions regarding Section 19, Paragraph 4 of the Land Use Ordinance.
[Facts:]
Plot size = 554.6 m² (5972 ft²)
Floor area ratio = 0.3
Buildable area = 166.38 m² (1792 ft²)
[My understanding of Section 19, Paragraph 4 of the Land Use Ordinance:]
Floor area ratio = 0.3 + 0.15 (50% of the specified floor area ratio) = 0.45
Buildable area = 249.57 m² (2686 ft²)
Is my understanding correct?
Which areas are included in this calculation?
Does Section 19, Paragraph 4 of the Land Use Ordinance have to be specifically mentioned in the zoning plan (building permit / planning permission) to be applied, or is it always applicable?
Or am I completely wrong?
Best regards
I have a few questions regarding Section 19, Paragraph 4 of the Land Use Ordinance.
[Facts:]
Plot size = 554.6 m² (5972 ft²)
Floor area ratio = 0.3
Buildable area = 166.38 m² (1792 ft²)
[My understanding of Section 19, Paragraph 4 of the Land Use Ordinance:]
Floor area ratio = 0.3 + 0.15 (50% of the specified floor area ratio) = 0.45
Buildable area = 249.57 m² (2686 ft²)
Is my understanding correct?
Which areas are included in this calculation?
Does Section 19, Paragraph 4 of the Land Use Ordinance have to be specifically mentioned in the zoning plan (building permit / planning permission) to be applied, or is it always applicable?
Or am I completely wrong?
Best regards
The exceptions are clearly defined here: in WA1 for “pfeifenkopf” (cul-de-sac) parcels, there is an allowance for exceeding the floor area ratio without any limit for driveways; in WA2 and WA4 for terraces, this is limited to an additional 0.1 on the floor area ratio.
An auxiliary building (garage or similar) is neither a driveway nor a terrace, and since the property in question is in WA1, that settles everything.
How do you come to the conclusion that the zoning plan has to either confirm or reject every single sentence of the land use ordinance?
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
An auxiliary building (garage or similar) is neither a driveway nor a terrace, and since the property in question is in WA1, that settles everything.
How do you come to the conclusion that the zoning plan has to either confirm or reject every single sentence of the land use ordinance?
Denis L. schrieb:The expert in this field would be @Escroda – I can only read and remember that planning law is not a wish list.
You seem to know a lot,
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
Of course, it’s important to take precautions. But honestly: if the development plan explicitly facilitates the construction of double garages for small plots, compared to the land use ordinance, why should it then make the construction of garages significantly more difficult elsewhere, compared to the land use ordinance?
G
Garlintor29 Jun 2018 22:00Thank you for the responses!
I didn’t find anything about a restriction...
Then try calling the city.
Denis L. schrieb:
Oh yes: If the land-use ordinance regulations are being restricted, this should also be explained in the appendix. The original poster should check that.
I didn’t find anything about a restriction...
Then try calling the city.
Denis L. schrieb:
If you want to deviate from the provisions of § 19, this must be done through specific regulations. The development plan does not need to list every possible relaxation it does not intend to use: by not listing them, they are effectively excluded. If terraces are mentioned but garages are not, it means only terraces are intended, period. There is no need to discuss garages separately in that case.
Denis L. schrieb:
If the development plan explicitly facilitates the construction of double garages for small plots compared to the land use ordinance, Where does it do that? – if you mean §7.2, it refers to the garage courtyards of housing groups, which also applies to other sections of the development plan area.
Denis L. schrieb:
If regulations of the land use ordinance are restricted, this would also have to be justified in the annex. The municipality does not need to justify its urban planning objectives. If these did not deviate from the maximum framework of the land use ordinance, a lack of a development plan would be entirely sufficient.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
Similar topics