ᐅ Maximize the allowable floor area ratio, build over the terrace

Hello, I have a plot of land (610 sqm (6566 sq ft)) and am now starting the planning for a single-family house with a granny flat. I have already looked into the building regulations a bit, especially the floor area ratio. In summary, I understand that in my case, a floor area ratio II of 0.45 and I of 0.3 applies.
This means I can build 225 sqm (2422 sq ft), but the main house with terrace may be a maximum of 183 sqm (1970 sq ft).

I am trying to maximize everything because I actually only want to build the two full floors and keep a roof conversion as the last option open.
In almost all examples, a house of, for example, 10x14 m (33x46 ft) already covers 140 sqm (1507 sq ft), and then the terrace(s) add another estimated 40 sqm (431 sq ft). But a main house of 140 sqm (1507 sq ft) is too small for me; ideally, I want around 180 sqm (1938 sq ft) per floor. However, I also do not want to give up two terraces.

My question now is whether it would make sense to build over the terrace with an overhang starting from the first floor. I find it hard to describe, but since the terrace is counted anyway, you could build 140 sqm (1507 sq ft) on the ground floor and 180 sqm (1938 sq ft) only on the upper floor.
I have seen this in very few pictures so far. Most of the time, it was called an urban villa, but I couldn’t find a specific term for the overbuilt terrace.

Can someone help me with this or refute my idea by showing me that it is a bad idea? ;-)

The Floor Area Ratio I of 0.3 applies to the residential building. In most zoning plans, you are allowed to exceed the Floor Area Ratio I by 50%, that is, from 0.3 to 0.45, for Floor Area Ratio II. This allowable exceedance applies to ancillary structures (garage, terrace, walkways, etc.).

Please check which Floor Space Index you have according to your zoning plan.

I suspect that you may have to revise your oversized plans (360 m² (3,875 sq ft) residential building) due to the Floor Space Index restrictions.

Hello. No floor area ratio is specified. Only the eave height of 6.5 m (21 feet) and the ridge height of 8.5 m (28 feet) are given.

This means that two full stories are definitely possible; an attic with dormers and a cross-gable would also be allowed, but as I said, I actually do not want that.

... the terrace is always considered part of the main building, so it counts towards the floor area ratio I.
That is precisely my "problem," which is why I am asking whether it might help to "extend" the house over the terrace to gain more living space. Since the terrace is already counted anyway, if there is living space above it, at least the area is not used just for the terrace.

Zubi123 schrieb:

I suspect you’ll have to scale back your excessive plans (360 sqm (3,875 sq ft) of residential space) due to the floor area ratio;-).

I probably should have explained my family situation, as in my opinion my plans are not that excessive.

We have five children, and the granny flat is meant to replace a 100 sqm (1,075 sq ft) 4-room apartment with kitchen and bathroom that was previously used by my parents. Accordingly, it should be at least 75 sqm (810 sq ft) with 3 rooms plus kitchen and bathroom.

I hope the gaudy design standards of the overly large house mentioned above were not just borrowed from here or are meant to be surpassed:
https://www.hausbau-forum.de/threads/modernes-bauhaus-viel-glas-170-qm-eg-og-derzeit-in-phase3.38031/
https://www.hausbau-forum.de/threads/architektenentwurf-planungskrise.38915/

---

https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/