ᐅ Floor area ratio; Section 19, Paragraph 4 of the land use ordinance – Any experiences?

Thank you @Escroda

Escroda schrieb:
She made use of §3 for this, for your area WA1 under point 3. Specifically, this means: you do not need to include the access path to your house in the plot ratio (Grundflächenzahl I).

Does this only apply to “cul-de-sac plots”? Do all other plots not benefit from this?

Escroda schrieb:
If you fully utilize the plot ratio I with house and terrace, you still have 83.25m² (896 sq ft) left for garages, parking spaces, driveways, and auxiliary structures (garden shed, greenhouse, etc.)

Does this also only apply to cul-de-sac plots?

Escroda schrieb:
The original poster didn’t elaborate further on their thoughts

Facts:
Plot size: 555m² (5973 sq ft) * 0.3 = 166.5m² (1793 sq ft) built-up area
Plot ratio (Grundflächenzahl): 0.3
Floor space index (Geschossflächenzahl): 0.45
Not a cul-de-sac plot

My thought was:
House: 11.5m * 13m = 149.5m² (1610 sq ft)
166.5m² (1793 sq ft) – 149.5m² (1610 sq ft) = 17m² (183 sq ft)

Then only 17m² (183 sq ft) would remain for garage, terrace, paving? … that would not be feasible.

Escroda schrieb:
Apart from the restriction of "state," I agree with that. And there isn’t really any consensus on the access roads either, which still leaves some room for interpretation.

Thank you, Escroda, for the clarification. At what level is it decided what counts towards the floor area ratio (FAR)? Can this vary from municipality to municipality?

Garlintor schrieb:
Does this only apply to "pipehead plots"? All other plots don’t have this?

Yes.

Garlintor schrieb:
So only 17m² (180 sq ft) remain for the garage, terrace, and paving?

No. 17m² (180 sq ft) is allowed for the terrace, as it counts towards the main development area, i.e., the site coverage ratio I.
The areas of garages, parking spaces, and driveways are permitted to exceed the site coverage ratio by 50%, up to 0.45, which corresponds to a buildable area of 249.75m² (2686 sq ft) on a 555m² (5972 sq ft) plot.
Example: House set back 3m (10 ft) from the street, double garage set back 5m (16 ft)
Floor plan I: House + terrace = 11.5m * 13m + 4m * 4.25m = 149.5m² (1,610 sq ft) + 17m² (180 sq ft) = 166.5m² (1,791 sq ft)
Site coverage ratio I: 166.5 / 555 = 0.3 → permitted
Floor plan II: Floor plan I + garage + driveway + access path = 166.5 + 9*6 + 5*6 + 3*1 = 253.5m² (2,730 sq ft)
Site coverage ratio II: 253.5 / 555 = 0.457 > 0.45 → not permitted, meaning the garage must be shortened by about 0.5m (1.6 ft) to 8.5m * 6.0m (28 ft * 20 ft), for example.
A second full story is then not possible due to the floor space ratio. The garden shed is also no longer allowed.

Denis L. schrieb:
At what level is it decided what counts towards the site coverage ratio (I)?

At the federal level.

Denis L. schrieb:
Can this vary from municipality to municipality?

Generally not, though sometimes it is interpreted differently. In my example above, I count the footpath to the house towards site coverage ratio II (see the city of Frankfurt). In Munich, a front step is considered part of the main development area, thus counting towards site coverage ratio I. The privilege depends on the classification under the land use ordinance §14 for ancillary structures. Is the access path (driveways are explicitly mentioned as privileged in §19 (4)) considered a minor ancillary structure, or does it belong to the main development area like the terrace?
In practical terms, it rarely comes down to a strict dispute. In very few cases is this actually contested.