ᐅ According to the floor area ratio, only 138 m² are allowed for a two-story building – need help :)
Created on: 31 Mar 2019 05:20
A
Aloha1896
Hello, I have the opportunity to purchase a plot of land in the Hannover region with an old Okal prefabricated house. We would remove the existing house and potentially use the existing basement (which is dry). Now the challenge – the development plan specifies the following: II, floor area ratio 0.15 in the WR zone – the plot is 926 m2 (9,965 sq ft) and faces west – which results in 139 m2 (1,495 sq ft) – is that correct?
We are a young modern family of three and can imagine living in a small house. However, I currently have no idea how much net living space would remain, nor how the house could be designed.
Can I get some ideas here? Are there similar cases? I am attaching the current basement plan.
What we like:
cubist architectural styles
covered terraces
open living concepts
We are a young modern family of three and can imagine living in a small house. However, I currently have no idea how much net living space would remain, nor how the house could be designed.
Can I get some ideas here? Are there similar cases? I am attaching the current basement plan.
What we like:
cubist architectural styles
covered terraces
open living concepts
kbt09 schrieb:
How is the house currently positioned on the plot? Is the entrance facing east or south (which I would assume based on the site plan and the indicated building shape)? Is the driveway definitely coming from the east? Do you have an answer to that as well?
Aloha1896 schrieb:
So it is 0.15 after all – I wasn’t mistaken Yes, 0.15 is correct.
<Exaggeration> Since the development plan was created after the implementation of the building symbols regulation, which requires the floor area ratio to be represented as a decimal number inside a solid circle, there is a conflict between the legend and the plan depiction that could invalidate at least this specification, if not the entire plan.</Exaggeration>
Unfortunately, neither the textual part nor the justification for the development plan has been published. Perhaps there would be some clues there regarding the, at least from today’s perspective, absurdly low floor area ratio. You might want to ask the local authority if this is really still being enforced. If the answer is inadequate, you could point out the conflict mentioned above.
You can also leave this to your authorized building consultant. They should be able to come up with reasonable arguments for an exemption if you only slightly exceed the limit. Depending on your willingness to take risks, you might even submit a preliminary building inquiry first.
But if you are considering a small house anyway, that should be feasible. Kerstin, Yvonne, you are brilliant at designing floor plans. Just try planning a single-story house with a recessed upper floor based on the cellar’s dimensions and staircase (the bathroom and dressing room wouldn’t count as living spaces) in a Bauhaus style.
M
Mottenhausen31 Mar 2019 19:49Even if I’m completely wrong here:
On the left side of the plan, there is only the "legend," which explains that the small number in the table represents the floor area ratio. So, there is no contradiction after all? The 0.2 applies. The 0.15 on the left is just a placeholder for the legend.
On the left side of the plan, there is only the "legend," which explains that the small number in the table represents the floor area ratio. So, there is no contradiction after all? The 0.2 applies. The 0.15 on the left is just a placeholder for the legend.
A
Aloha189631 Mar 2019 19:49So 😉 now things are finally moving – thanks
See post 48... there is a usage line... and I’m afraid the official value here is 0.15. However, I would follow Escrodas’ strategies.
Also, please refer again to the repeated question in post 61.
Also, please refer again to the repeated question in post 61.
Mottenhausen schrieb:
So, no contradiction after all? Yes, okay, it’s geodetic nitpicking, which is why it was marked as an exaggeration, but it’s not entirely correct. The 1965 building code offers two options for representing the floor area ratio:
The legend for the symbols deviates from this. So what is wrong? The representation or the legend?