Restrictive development plan - is buying land worth it?

Hello everyone,

I would like to get a few opinions please

I have the opportunity to purchase a 1,100 sqm plot within the scope of a development plan. However, from my point of view, the development plan is quite restrictive, here are a few key data points:

Floor area ratio 0.1
Ground floor area residential building (Ground floor I) max. 110 sqm
Ground floor II for access/parking spaces/garages/outbuildings/terraces may exceed Ground floor I by up to 100%
Max. 1 full floor
Max. ridge height 7.50 m (outer edge of facade with top of existing terrain) - for excavations the lowest point of the terrain applies

I wonder if it is possible to realize a large single-family house with approx. 200 sqm of living space under these conditions? With a max. ground floor area of the residential building of 110 sqm, this seems difficult to me (without a basement). The plot is located in Hesse, meaning the upper floor must be a setback floor (max. 3/4 of the gross floor area of the ground floor) or have a height of 2.30 m on max. 3/4 of the gross floor area.

Since I don’t find pitched roofs very nice/practical, probably only a setback floor – and due to the height restriction a flat roof – is an option...

If more information is needed, I will gladly provide it (as far as I can).

Thanks a lot for your opinions!

Hm. 200 will probably be tight. We have a floor area of 133 living space. 108. If you take 110, then it comes out under 100. In the half floor above, so 50-60. Makes 150 plus roughly.

That’s roughly how I estimated it too (but 3/4 on the upper floor, so just over 80 square meters of floor space and about 60 square meters of living space) and feared. Without a basement, it probably won’t work, and that will likely be expensive again...

Floor area ratio 0.1

I don't think so. It must certainly be the plot ratio.

/Terraces

I don't think so. That would override federal law with a municipal statute.

If further information is needed, I am happy to provide it (as far as I can).

Date of public display of the development plan
Complete development plan drawing
Complete development plan text
Site plan of the property with elevations
Given the very low degree of structural use, the reasoning for the development plan could also be enlightening.

It is simple math that you cannot realize 200m² of living space there. Even if the permitted 110m² ground floor area below were also living space (which of course it is not!), the upper floor may only have 75% of that area – so 82.5m². That makes a total of... 192.5m² < 200m². At most, you could add more area under the full-story ceiling height due to sloping roofs, but that was not desired by the OP. From that, everything taken up by walls etc. must be deducted separately. And you probably cannot have another non-full floor due to the limitation on the ridge height.

It's simple mathematics that you can't realize 200m² of living space there. Even if the allowed 110m² footprint downstairs were living space (which it obviously isn't!), the upper floor may only have 75% of that area – so 82.5m². That totals... 192.5m² < 200m². At best, you could add more space beneath the full-story ceiling height under sloping roofs, but that was not desired by the OP. From that, everything occupied by walls etc. must still be subtracted separately. And you probably can't fit another non-full-story floor due to the ridge height limitation.

Without a basement, you'd be right. With a basement, you could actually achieve something: Let the basement protrude as far as the ridge height and the definition for (non-)full stories allow. Then have a ground floor as a full story and an attic on top of that. If you wanted, and if the development plan allows it regarding the roof shape, you could work with a flat roof section in the middle and sloping roof areas on the sides – again designed so that the definition for the full story is just barely not exceeded.