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!
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!
B
BananaJoe31 Jan 2020 10:37Escroda schrieb:
I don’t think so. It must definitely be the floor area ratio.Escroda schrieb:
I don’t think so. That would mean a local ordinance overruling federal law.I have attached the regulation from the development plan so you can see it for yourself. I will try to upload the entire development plan later, but I’ve read in other threads here that PDFs are not accepted as attachments...
The development plan is from August 2016. Before that, the area was apparently only used for weekend houses. The plots are more or less “in the middle of the forest,” and the plot that was offered to me is still completely covered with trees. This might explain the restrictions. I haven’t found the reasoning for the development plan yet; I will have to request it from the city. I don’t have the site plan with elevations yet, but the land is relatively flat, slightly sloping towards the southwest.
quisel schrieb:
You could achieve something with a basement:
Have the basement extend as far as the ridge height and the definition of (non-)full storey allow. Then a ground floor as a full storey and a roof storey on top. If you want, and if the development plan allows the roof shape, you could use a flat roof section in the middle and pitched roof areas on the sides—again designed so that the definition of a full storey is just barely not exceeded.That sounds interesting—but since this would likely be a habitable basement rather than just storage, it probably wouldn’t be very cheap...
By the way, is there a rough guideline on what percentage of the plot area typically remains as living space? Of course, I understand this always depends on wall thickness and how many walls there are (in addition to the exterior walls), but a rough estimate or range would help me initially.
apokolok schrieb:
As I understand the excerpt, you are allowed to build a TOTAL of 110m² (1,184 sq ft) on the property.
Including all ancillary structures.
Therefore, the plot is unsuitable for your project.Yes, the floor area ratio of 0.1 probably doesn't allow for more.B
BananaJoe31 Jan 2020 12:01Are you sure about that? I understand it like this:
2.1 Residential buildings have a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.1, but a maximum ground floor area of 110 sqm (1184 sq ft). This means that for lots larger than 1,100 sqm (11,840 sq ft), the ground floor area is limited to 110 sqm (1184 sq ft), even if the FAR would allow more—for example, on a 1,500 sqm (16,145 sq ft) lot, an FAR of 0.1 would allow 150 sqm (1615 sq ft). The ground floor area of the house refers to Ground Floor Area I.
2.2 Ground Floor Area II (driveways, terraces, etc.) may exceed Ground Floor Area I by up to 100%. From my perspective, the term "feasible building ground area depending on the allowable FAR" is only relevant for lots smaller than 1,100 sqm (11,840 sq ft). For example, on a 900 sqm (9,688 sq ft) lot, the feasible building ground area is only 90 sqm (969 sq ft), so Ground Floor Area II may exceed this 90 sqm (969 sq ft) by up to 100%.
According to regulation 2.4, depending on the materials used, even more than 100% is allowed in practice, because, for example, access paths with paving stones and joints greater than 15% are only counted at 60%.
2.1 Residential buildings have a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.1, but a maximum ground floor area of 110 sqm (1184 sq ft). This means that for lots larger than 1,100 sqm (11,840 sq ft), the ground floor area is limited to 110 sqm (1184 sq ft), even if the FAR would allow more—for example, on a 1,500 sqm (16,145 sq ft) lot, an FAR of 0.1 would allow 150 sqm (1615 sq ft). The ground floor area of the house refers to Ground Floor Area I.
2.2 Ground Floor Area II (driveways, terraces, etc.) may exceed Ground Floor Area I by up to 100%. From my perspective, the term "feasible building ground area depending on the allowable FAR" is only relevant for lots smaller than 1,100 sqm (11,840 sq ft). For example, on a 900 sqm (9,688 sq ft) lot, the feasible building ground area is only 90 sqm (969 sq ft), so Ground Floor Area II may exceed this 90 sqm (969 sq ft) by up to 100%.
According to regulation 2.4, depending on the materials used, even more than 100% is allowed in practice, because, for example, access paths with paving stones and joints greater than 15% are only counted at 60%.
BananaJoe schrieb:
I’ve attached the regulation from the development plan. Well, once again, professionals were at work here. Apart from the fact that I don’t see these regulations covered by the land use ordinance (but that would require a legal expert to review in detail), the term “floor space index (building footprint I)” is definitely incorrect, since floor space index means floor space index, so it has nothing to do with driveways, etc., and it is also a ratio, not an area.
Whatever the urban planners intended to regulate here, the wording has gone seriously wrong. However, since nobody wants to argue with the permitting authority, especially not legally, you will probably have to ask locally what is allowed.
B
BananaJoe31 Jan 2020 14:22Escroda schrieb:
Well, once again, professionals at work. Aside from the fact that I don’t see the regulations covered by the land use ordinance (but legal experts would have to take a closer look), the term “floor area ratio (footprint I)” is definitely wrong, since floor area ratio means floor area ratio, so it has nothing to do with driveways, etc., and it is also a ratio figure, not an area.
Whatever the urban planners intended to regulate, the wording went seriously wrong. Since people generally avoid disputes with the permitting authority, especially legal ones, you’ll probably have to ask locally what is allowed. I agree with you, this is all unnecessarily complicated wording. But which specific regulation do you think violates the land use ordinance (so I know which points I should ask the permitting authority about)? The floor area is regulated in § 20, and according to that, “ancillary structures as defined in § 14, balconies, loggias, terraces, as well as structural installations, insofar as they are permitted or can be permitted under state law within the building setback areas (side boundary distance and other setback areas),” are excluded from the calculation of floor area. I understand this to mean that, in the end, only the ground floor footprint (as the only full storey) counts as floor area?!
Similar topics