Floor plan tube house L-shape triangular plot including oak tree

  • Erstellt am 2018-11-04 10:54:33

Oakland

2018-11-25 13:06:18
  • #1


Yes, the plum tree is unproblematic.

What other measurements do you need?
 

kbt09

2018-11-25 13:06:47
  • #2
.. exactly, it would be extremely useful to summarize all other boundary conditions, which are now spread over 36 pages, once again together with the drawing ... or should everyone have to search again? Always remember, you want help .
 

Mottenhausen

2018-11-25 22:36:22
  • #3
So everything remains roughly as already estimated.

The crown circle around the plum tree is r=4 or D=8m and illustrates the distance: oak tree crown to property boundary. Approx. 8.5m. Minus 3m minimum clearance area to the neighbor, minus 1.5m distance to the tree crown according to the authority. Leaving 4m house width in the northern wing.

Has the architect said anything about this yet? Radical pruning of the oak allowed to gain another 1 - 2m? Clearance area to the sidewalk in the south clarified? Is it permitted to build up to the boundary as intended here? Is the neighbor willing to approve a reduction of the clearance area... maybe to 2 instead of 3m?

This will ultimately determine whether it is reasonably buildable or not. But the building area assumed on the previous pages remains as is, it is either tiny or it becomes larger and more usable.
 

kaho674

2018-11-26 09:14:47
  • #4
Apparently, the authority follows DIN 18920. A Mr. Brudi was so kind as to summarize some key statements from it. However, it is only available as a PDF.

The requirements during the construction phase are no joke. In the root area, digging is only allowed by hand. The distance of 1.5m in the root area is clear. But what about the upper floor? Is it allowed to build an overhang right up to the crown? After all, 30% of the root area may be covered with paths.

The question remains whether it is all worth it. But the original poster is determined. I have not seen any property where § 4 g) of the tree protection ordinance fits better than here. The tree has an expropriating effect and prevents use beyond a reasonable measure. Did the previous owner already sue unsuccessfully?

As a nature lover, I am also against cutting down the oak. But then the land must not be designated as building land. The building law usage has been confirmed by the original poster and there is even a positive preliminary building inquiry (although it is unclear to me for what). So in my opinion, the tree would have to go.
 

haydee

2018-11-26 10:07:40
  • #5
Do you have an architect?
Nothing other than a narrow, long house with 2 or 3 floors will work.
Possibly slightly wider at the street side
 

Mottenhausen

2018-11-29 11:34:56
  • #6
The prescribed 1.5m distance to the current extent of the crown is still the main problem here. If building up to the street is allowed, it will get a little better. What is currently left is certainly a joke, 40m² (area of the yellow surface already minus the 36cm wall all around). ... interior walls & stairs are still deducted from that.
 

Similar topics
27.05.2015Front door made of natural oak?11
14.10.2019Looking for a solid table approximately 240 cm oak30
24.01.2021Additional costs for oak stair covering instead of beech – usury?16
14.08.2023Unclear clause in the development plan but authority does not answer questions23

Oben