ucsg1234
2021-09-02 10:06:58
- #1
No, the floor area ratio alone does not impose the restriction, the site coverage ratio and floor area ratio of 0.3 each are merely maximum values. If it were only based on these, a "city villa" would be possible with an actually utilized site coverage ratio of 0.15. There is no eaves height restriction here, so the only thing standing against 9.00 m building height is the "I" full floor, since a 30° gable roof could possibly start above the upper floor ceiling.
According to your image excerpt, the case is clear: the reference height is 7.99 meters, and thus the base height is a maximum of 8.49 meters and the ridge height at 16.99 meters. Height-wise, I see the biggest restriction here in the non-full floor. My bigger concern would be the trees and the two parking spaces.
Thanks for your super quick reply!!!!
As I understand you, a full floor would be possible due to the site coverage ratio and floor area ratio and the absence of an eaves height restriction, but not because of the "I". Accordingly, one could realize a solid knee wall, possibly 1.20 meters or more? What do you think?
What would be your concerns regarding the park and the trees? The wet area can of course cause quite a few mosquitoes in summer after rain. But otherwise, you are practically well situated in the green. The park ends there because there is a field to the west after the properties. So there should not be too many people there. Or do you mean the trees might cast too much shade? For the leaves I will get a monster leaf vacuum :-D