ᐅ Restrictive zoning plan – is buying the plot worth it?

Hello everyone,

I would appreciate some opinions, please.

I have the opportunity to purchase a 1,100 sqm (11,840 sq ft) plot within the area of a development plan. However, the development plan seems quite restrictive to me. Here are some key details:

Floor area ratio 0.1
Maximum ground floor area for the residential building (ground floor area I) is 110 sqm (1,184 sq ft)
Ground floor area II for access roads, parking spaces, garages, outbuildings, terraces may exceed ground floor area I by up to 100%
Maximum of 1 full story
Maximum ridge height 7.50 m (24.6 ft) (measured at the outer facade edge at the existing ground level) – with excavations, the lowest ground point applies

I am wondering if it is possible to build a large single-family house with about 200 sqm (2,153 sq ft) of living space under these conditions? With a maximum ground floor area of 110 sqm (1,184 sq ft) for the residential building, that seems difficult to achieve (without a basement). The plot is in Hesse, so the upper floor must be a stepped floor (max. three-quarters of the gross floor area of the ground floor) or have a height of 2.30 m (7.5 ft) on a maximum of three-quarters of the gross floor area.

Since I don’t find sloped roofs very attractive or practical, I am probably only considering a stepped floor – and due to the height restriction, a flat roof as well.

If you need any further information, I’m happy to provide it (as far as I can).

Thank you very much for your opinions!

Hm. 200 will probably be tight. Our building footprint is 133 square meters (1,430 square feet), with a living area of 108 square meters (1,163 square feet). If you consider 110 square meters (1,184 square feet), it will result in less than 100 square meters (1,076 square feet). On the half floor above, that would be around 50 to 60 square meters (538 to 645 square feet), so a total of approximately 150 square meters (1,615 square feet) or more.

That's roughly how I estimated it as well (although 3/4 on the upper floor, so just over 80 square meters (860 square feet) of total floor area and about 60 square meters (645 square feet) of living space) and feared. It probably won't work without a basement, which will likely make it expensive again...

BananaJoe schrieb:

Floor area ratio 0.1

I don’t think so. It must definitely be the site coverage ratio.

BananaJoe schrieb:

/Terraces

I don’t think so. That would mean a local ordinance overruling federal law.

BananaJoe schrieb:

If more information is needed, I’m happy to provide it (as far as I can).

Date of public display of the development plan
Complete drawing of the development plan
Complete text of the development plan
Site plan of the property including elevations
Given such a low intensity of land use, the justification for the development plan could also be informative.

It’s simple math that you cannot achieve 200m² (2,150 sq ft) of living space here.
Even if the allowed 110m² (1,184 sq ft) of ground floor area were entirely living space (which it is not!), the upper floor is only allowed to have 75% of that area — so 82.5m² (889 sq ft). That adds up to... 192.5m² (2,073 sq ft) total. At most, you might add some additional space under sloping ceilings below full-story ceiling height, but that was not desired by the original poster.
From this total, the space taken up by walls and other structures must still be subtracted. Also, due to the ridge height restriction, fitting in another non-full story is likely impossible.

Altai schrieb:

It's simply basic math that you can't achieve 200m² (2,150 sq ft) of living space here.
Even if the allowed 110m² (1,185 sq ft) ground floor footprint were counted as living space (which it obviously isn’t), the upper floor may only be 75% of that area—so 82.5m² (889 sq ft). That adds up to... 192.5m² (2,071 sq ft), less than 200m². You might possibly add some additional space under sloped ceilings below the full-story ceiling height, but that was not desired by the original poster.
From that total, the space taken up by walls and such must be subtracted as well. Also, fitting an additional partial story is unlikely due to the ridge height restrictions.

Without a basement, you’re probably right. With a basement, however, it could be feasible:
Allow the basement to extend as far out as the ridge height and the definition of a full versus partial story permit. Then have a ground floor as a full story, topped by an attic floor. If desired, and if the zoning plan allows for the roof style, you could design a flat roof section in the middle with pitched roof areas on the sides—again configured so that the full-story definition is just barely not exceeded.