Assessment of property sought - Article 34 redevelopment

Wow, a lot of trees have to be cut down first before anything can be done on the property. Make sure there is no tree protection ordinance or anything similar that prohibits cutting down trees.

No, unless you uncompromisingly dream of a "city villa"

No, just a normal single-family house with enough living space - 150-160 m^2. I want to fit in, just not on 60 m^2 as it is now.

If @Escroda agrees that in these extensions (outside this conceptual 34-border) living spaces are also allowed, then the plot has enough potential to settle on.

I also proposed that to the building authority. Both neighbors have definitely pushed it to the limit. I think everything has already been said about the one to the east. The extensions from the neighbor to the west are residential buildings from the outside -> curtains in the windows. Even on the property line. The only concession the authority wanted to make in direct contact without an application was: The current extension on the target plot - in which the oil tanks currently stand - could be taken as a starting point and a small room as an extension to the house could be planned.

Wow, a lot of trees will have to fall first before anything can be done on the plot. Make sure there is no tree protection ordinance or similar that prohibits felling.

There were two different opinions at the authority. One official pointed out that this could exactly be the case – of course, it must be checked. Another said it is a normal overgrown garden and should actually not be a problem. During an on-site inspection I saw: There are normal fruit and medium-sized coniferous trees on it. I have already experienced worse plots with more than 30 beeches and oaks standing on an overgrown plot of former forest land. And on call, the building authority knew every single one and said immediately: "The trees 1,5,7,12-30 outside the building window remain standing!!".

Hello,

so far I have been a silent reader, finished building almost 2 years ago.
Regarding topic 34, my experience (also demolition and new construction, houses in the immediate vicinity built in ’38 and older, as well as three from around ’70).
Demolition property built in ’38, gable roof, 1.5 stories, 0.5m knee wall, approx. 90m2 living space.
1st appointment on site with building authority: Asked what we were allowed to build? Answer: exactly what is already there, same height, same orientation, same knee wall, etc.
In our opinion this had nothing to do with 34, just copying everything exactly, although it’s about fitting in in terms of style and manner. We wanted two stories, everything else was still completely unclear, but different than before.
2nd hired an architect and commissioned planning (he only got a written list of wishes, budget and completely free hand in planning regarding roof, house shape, location on the plot, etc.). First draft fit perfectly and was slightly adjusted once in the basement, and that was what we built.
3rd preliminary draft submitted (previous conversation at the office with the architect to explain what we wanted to build was rejected for months). Then it was completely rejected, it would, quote, ‘impair the local image.’ We were told to plan everything differently again (build the same building as before...).
4th architect was full of incomprehension for the rejection. Then he tried for several weeks to get an on-site appointment with the head of the building authority and finally got it.
5th result was that we were suddenly allowed to build everything as we wanted... As said, at first unimaginable, but when you can no longer resist dealing with the reality on site, it suddenly worked.

And in almost two years, no one has complained that the building doesn't fit there; it was rather always the realization that whoever planned the house there had a reason for it.

The essence for us from this: As a layman, you get served the standard at the office. You need a professional who also stands up for you. Especially if you don’t just want to copy at 34, but something ‘different’ that still fits in. And you need more time and patience.

Buy land and get an architect for the planning who advocates for you.

Regards

Oli

Question what one was allowed to build? Answer: exactly what is already there,

Unless it was eliminated before the application

The result was that we were suddenly allowed to build everything however we wanted...

Nice that it worked out for you. But that depends on the building authority.

just a normal single-family house with enough living space - 150-160 m^2.

That is no problem for an experienced planner.

The only concession the office wanted to make during direct contact without an application was:

Without an application there is no basis for concessions. That would really be asking too much.

There are normal fruit and medium-sized coniferous trees on it.

Then check if there is a tree protection ordinance and whether the trees are covered by it. Fruit trees and conifers with a trunk circumference under 1m are usually not protected, but this varies locally. Otherwise, you'll be in the same situation as Oakland.

Thank you to all the commenters
That gave us courage. Especially to you .

Unfortunately, the purchase did not go through.
The creditor wanted a minimum bid that was too high.
We then withdrew.

Someday we will find something that suits us ...