Closed construction design through walkable carports

Hello everyone,

we have purchased a rather complicated building gap in the existing structures. Originally, the plan was to divide the plot and build 2 "terraced houses" on it – but that doesn’t work because, due to rejections from the building authority, the ground floor area is not sufficient for barrier-free living. Now the solution is a two-family house with later rental of the upper apartment.

Challenge: it involves closed construction. However, the ground area is too large for us to completely close the gap (14.5m wide) AND, according to the building authority, we are supposed to secure a passage to the garden to ensure the 2 parking spaces.

Therefore, the idea came up to rearrange a carport as the main use so that according to various rulings no setback area is required. See below. Now we asked the building authority how this is handled and received the following "suggestion" which we now want to implement somehow, as it is a cost-effective alternative to closing the building gap.
“To close the building gap, it is not enough to build a ‘simple concrete slab’ as a carport. (As we requested as an idea, see picture.)

One proposed solution is: to build a roof terrace each on the first AND second floor: double-storey with concrete parapets. This could be a solution, still to be finally examined, from an urban planning perspective to ensure the closed construction method. Firewalls on the property boundary. For example, 3x3 meters.
One can then, so to speak, access the upper terrace from the attic. And the one from the first floor as I drew in my first sketch from the first floor.

Unfortunately, our friendly architect who is helping us is on vacation and in 2 weeks the building authority contact person will be…
Has anyone implemented something like this and have a tip for us?
We are actually not so concerned about the appearance at this point. We just need an affordable solution...

Thanks for constructive ideas and exchange that help us with our problem.

Ruling: “The current setback regulations are decisive. Even according to these, the garage with the roof terrace is not allowed or permissible in the setback areas, particularly it is not a privileged boundary garage according to § 6 para. 11 sentence 1 Building Code NRW. This is already evident here because the average wall height exceeds 3 m. Furthermore, a privileged boundary garage loses this status with the construction of a terrace on its roof,..”

You are stuffing a bag full of individual pieces of information into your post, which basically only leaves me understanding "Bahnhof" (completely bewildered). Is it a development plan area, and is a closed development (with groups of houses or terraced houses?) prescribed for the plot? - I can't quite reconcile "closed development" with "lateral boundary clearance." Without significantly more information (development plan, cadastral excerpt, aerial photo, ...) I see you having to wait a long time for help. Especially the experts then lack essential basics.

da durch absagen vom Bauamt dann die Grundfläche des Erdgeschosses für ein barrierefreies Wohnen nicht ausreicht.

... also overwhelms me mentally.

Therefore, the idea came up to rearrange a carport as the main use so that, according to various rulings, no setback area is required. See below.
We have now inquired at the building authority about how this is handled and received the following "suggestion," which we would now like to implement somehow, as it is a cost-effective alternative to closing the building gap.
“To close the building gap, it is not sufficient to build a ‘simple concrete slab’ as a carport. (As we requested as an idea, see picture.)

One solution idea is: to build a roof terrace on both the first AND second floors: double-story with concrete parapet walls. This could be a solution, to be finalized and reviewed, from an urban planning perspective to ensure a closed development. Firewalls on the property boundary. For example, 3x3 meters.
One can then basically access the upper terrace from the attic floor. And the one from the first floor as drawn in my first sketch from the first floor.

You are stuffing a sack full of individual pieces of information into your post, which essentially only makes me “Bahnhof” (completely incomprehensible; literally "train station," meaning "I don’t understand a word"). Is this a development plan area, and is closed development (with house groups or terraced houses?) prescribed for the property? – I can’t quite reconcile “closed development” with “side boundary setback.” Without significantly more info (development plan, cadastral excerpt, aerial photo, ...) you’ll likely wait a long time for help. Fundamental basics are missing, especially for the experts.

... mentally overwhelms me as well.

Thank you for your message. Maybe you are not the one who can answer my question. If someone has already dealt with the topic, I imagine it should be understandable. Closed development is already very concretely defined. Building attached to the neighbors on the left and right... without setbacks. How do I build the walkable carport with roof terrace attached directly to the neighbor’s house double-story on the first and upper floors with concrete parapet?
See sketch – where the simple carport is drawn. What must be considered? Does anyone have experience / tips that go beyond the ruling?
What information is missing? Perhaps that the building line at the front street frontage must be observed. But even that, in my view, is not relevant to the question...

If someone has already dealt with the topic, I imagine it is comprehensible.

I fear that your assumptions are wrong.

Closed construction method is already very specifically defined. Building attached to the neighbor on the left and right… without border distances.

Yeah. And why do you then plan the main building body with a border distance?

How do I build the walkable carport with roof terrace directly attached to the neighboring house, double-storied on the first and upper floor with concrete railing?

And exactly to answer this question, you need to know the entire development plan, if there is one. Otherwise, information about the surrounding buildings is necessary.

What must be considered?

... that the entire building is erected on the border.

Does anyone have experience / tips that go beyond the ruling?

The ruling has nothing to do with your problem.

Which data is missing?

- The development plan - The neighboring buildings - The building class - A site plan (excerpt from cadastral map) of the entire property with area information

However, the footprint is too large for us to completely close the gap (14.5m wide).

Why?

According to the building authority, we are supposed to secure a passage to the garden to secure about 2 parking spaces.

Only because of the parking spaces or due to a second rescue route?

to rearrange a carport as the main use

How am I to imagine that?

One proposed solution is:

Is that the proposal from the building authority?

Good morning,

all right, then I thank you for your time. Yes, that is the proposal from the building authority. Therefore, I thought focusing on this point would be sufficient and someone familiar with the topic would be found. The ruling is the reverse conclusion for our case. A garage with a rooftop terrace is a primary use (instead of a normal ancillary building since people stay there) of the building and may not be built on the boundary in the case of open construction. We have to build on the boundary (closed construction) and would make use of this ruling. I am waiting until our architect is back. I probably underestimated it. I will delete the topic – if I find out how to do it – so that no more people invest time. Best regards and all the best.

Therefore, I thought focusing on this point would be sufficient and someone familiar with the topic would be found.

You have found someone who is familiar with the topic. And they have basically written you a shopping list of the points they still need to know in order to be able to help you competently. It's a shame if so much service is still not paradise enough for you :-(

The ruling is the inverse for our case.

"Minus times minus equals plus" won't get you anywhere here—except to reversed false conclusions. You can't fulfill a closed construction simply by building "prohibited items in open construction." Why don't you answer the simplest follow-up questions that can make significant differences: for the terraced house the garage would suffice even without a terrace (or workshop room), but not for the house group.
You can't make use of court rulings here—but you can use a surveyor, who not only can feed you "ready" competent proposals based merely on facts, but can even take the thinking off your hands regarding which facts he would need for that.
With some people, I get the impression they like their blonde self-image...