Zoning Plan / Restrictions
Plot size: 598m² (6440 sq ft)
Slope: none
Floor area ratio (FAR): 0.4
Plot coverage ratio: 2
Building window, building line, and boundary: only on the south side
Edge development: garage only
Number of floors: 2
Roof type: hipped roof
Style: urban villa
Client Requirements
Style, roof type, building type: modern, hipped roof, urban villa
Basement, floors: no basement
Number of occupants, age: 2 adults (24, 27) 1 child (2)
Space requirements on ground floor: 95m² (1023 sq ft), upper floor: 95m² (1023 sq ft)
Office: workspace
Closed architecture
Modern construction
No open kitchen, no kitchen island
Number of dining seats in living room: 6; none in kitchen
Fireplace: yes
Music/stereo wall: no
Balcony, roof terrace: no
Garage, carport: garage (46m²/495 sq ft, must remain this size)
Utility garden, greenhouse: no
Additional wishes/ special features/ daily routine, including reasons for preferences or restrictions
House Design
Designer:
- Do-it-Yourself
What do you particularly like? Why? Straight staircase with storage room underneath possible
What do you dislike? Why? Kitchen is too small because no dining area is possible in the kitchen
Price estimate according to architect/planner:
Personal price limit for house, including equipment:
Preferred heating system:
If you have to give up certain details or expansions
- Can give up: garden area on the north side
- Cannot give up: office
Why is the design the way it is now? e.g.
The design was created by ourselves. The problem is: the garage is accessed from the south/west side, meaning the entrance is on the side and anyone can see into the garden, which is also on the south side. The north side is not an option (no sunlight there). West or east would be an option but unfortunately not possible as there is no space on the left or right sides of the house or garage (3m (10 ft) distance to neighbors must be maintained).
Since the house and garage already take up a large part of the plot, the garden is also relatively small (about 110m² (1184 sq ft) only in front by the terrace). We would still have a green area in the north, but this seems unnecessary. However, there is a playground nearby.
The office MUST remain because of self-employment. The kitchen could also be located in the north and be a bit larger.
A utility room connected to the garage is also essential.
Has anyone been in a similar situation and could offer some suggestions for changes?
Thank you in advance.
Plot size: 598m² (6440 sq ft)
Slope: none
Floor area ratio (FAR): 0.4
Plot coverage ratio: 2
Building window, building line, and boundary: only on the south side
Edge development: garage only
Number of floors: 2
Roof type: hipped roof
Style: urban villa
Client Requirements
Style, roof type, building type: modern, hipped roof, urban villa
Basement, floors: no basement
Number of occupants, age: 2 adults (24, 27) 1 child (2)
Space requirements on ground floor: 95m² (1023 sq ft), upper floor: 95m² (1023 sq ft)
Office: workspace
Closed architecture
Modern construction
No open kitchen, no kitchen island
Number of dining seats in living room: 6; none in kitchen
Fireplace: yes
Music/stereo wall: no
Balcony, roof terrace: no
Garage, carport: garage (46m²/495 sq ft, must remain this size)
Utility garden, greenhouse: no
Additional wishes/ special features/ daily routine, including reasons for preferences or restrictions
House Design
Designer:
- Do-it-Yourself
What do you particularly like? Why? Straight staircase with storage room underneath possible
What do you dislike? Why? Kitchen is too small because no dining area is possible in the kitchen
Price estimate according to architect/planner:
Personal price limit for house, including equipment:
Preferred heating system:
If you have to give up certain details or expansions
- Can give up: garden area on the north side
- Cannot give up: office
Why is the design the way it is now? e.g.
The design was created by ourselves. The problem is: the garage is accessed from the south/west side, meaning the entrance is on the side and anyone can see into the garden, which is also on the south side. The north side is not an option (no sunlight there). West or east would be an option but unfortunately not possible as there is no space on the left or right sides of the house or garage (3m (10 ft) distance to neighbors must be maintained).
Since the house and garage already take up a large part of the plot, the garden is also relatively small (about 110m² (1184 sq ft) only in front by the terrace). We would still have a green area in the north, but this seems unnecessary. However, there is a playground nearby.
The office MUST remain because of self-employment. The kitchen could also be located in the north and be a bit larger.
A utility room connected to the garage is also essential.
Has anyone been in a similar situation and could offer some suggestions for changes?
Thank you in advance.
Oguretz schrieb:
That's actually true.No, it’s not that bad.It says:
"II = number of full floors – as the maximum allowed" and "0.4 = floor area ratio, see textual regulation No. 2.2", and in 2.2 it then states: "The permissible 25% exceedance of the maximum floor area ratio according to § 19 (4) of the Building Use Ordinance for garages and parking spaces with their access routes, ancillary facilities within the meaning of § 14 Building Use Ordinance, and structural installations below ground level is only allowed up to 25%."
This means: the floor area ratio of 0.4 allows you to build a maximum of 239.2 sqm (square meters) (about 2,570 sq ft) on a 598 sqm (about 6,436 sq ft) plot, including the garage and driveway with an additional 25% permitted, totaling 299 sqm (about 3,219 sq ft); two full floors are allowed. The floor space index is not separately limited here, but only indirectly through the floor area ratio, number of floors, and building height. This is basically "consumer-friendly" the same as setting a maximum building mass.
In 2.1, it clarifies: "The street elevation heights are based on the manhole cover elevation of 75.80 m (about 248.7 ft) above the standard reference level NHN, at the intersection of Osthusener Street / entrance to the development area," indicating the absolute reference point considered as “zero” for the permitted building heights.
Oguretz schrieb:
I’m not very familiar with this *embarrassed*That’s totally understandable; as a legal administrator, you should indeed be able to read that on your own.https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
Oguretz schrieb:
I will try it out this evening and share the new idea here.Something along these lines.Kitzlinger House Dornhan
11ant schrieb:
No, it’s not that bad.
It says:
"II = number of full floors - as the maximum limit" and "0.4 = floor area ratio, see textual regulation no. 2.2," and in 2.2 it states: "The allowable exceedance of the maximum floor area ratio for garages and parking spaces with their access roads, ancillary facilities within the meaning of § 14 of the Land Use Ordinance, and structures below ground level according to § 19 (4) of the Land Use Ordinance is only permitted up to 25%."
That means: the floor area ratio of 0.4 lets you build on a plot of 598 sqm (6440 sq ft) up to a maximum of 239.2 sqm (2574 sq ft), including the garage and driveway with an additional 25%, so in total 299 sqm (3219 sq ft); the number of full floors can be two. The floor space index is not limited separately here, but only indirectly through the floor area ratio, the number of floors, and the building height. For the average person, this is basically equivalent to setting a maximum building volume. I haven’t opened the development plan, but if a floor space index of 0.4 is allowed there, then that is not the floor area ratio but actually the floor space index. For a two-story building, you’d divide the 239.2 sqm (2574 sq ft) by 2, resulting in a footprint including covered areas like terraces of 119.6 sqm (1287 sq ft), plus the additional 25%... something like that...
Or am I mistaken?
You’ll figure it out. Here’s another suggestion from Rensch-Haus with the Sydney model. It could include an additional door to the office from the outside, so visitors don’t have to go through the house.
Maybe a bit large and not perfect for you yet, but definitely useful for gathering ideas.
Maybe a bit large and not perfect for you yet, but definitely useful for gathering ideas.
haydee schrieb:
I think the entrance for the office/living area is well separated in the Rensch-Haus Orlando Yes, not bad either – I’ll take the liberty.
Similar topics