House and garage - How best to place them on the properties?

However, the resident is indeed considered the owner here.

Why "considered"? We are not talking about a public path here, but about an area of the building plot that, according to the development plan, is to be burdened with walking, driving, and utility rights in favor of the neighbors and service providers. It is not necessarily required for the development of the building plots. For the disposal of garden waste for the northeastern properties, it is quite helpful but in character more comparable to a garage driveway. If children now play in front of my garage door, it will not disturb them in their mental development if I have to briefly interrupt their play for the driveway into my garage. More concerning with the solution sought by the OP is rather that an area developed as a footpath suffers from permanent use by cars, that an independent extension by one meter is quite expensive, that cost-sharing among the neighbors is difficult to regulate, especially with different uses, that a 2m area is burdened but 3m are developed, and that the OP owns and must maintain 2/6 of a street that he does not even use. But these are all questions of money, which does not seem to play a role here.

If I interpret that correctly, then the building boundary only applies to residential buildings, not to a terrace.

You do not interpret that correctly.

an official of the city

What matters does he handle?

You are not interpreting that correctly.

As I said, I am not familiar with that.

Which matters does he handle?

According to the City of Herne’s homepage, he is a contact person for the development plan.

If in the end it should actually be the clearly worse option, then we might have to rethink and make the driveway as originally planned from the back and then have the house entrance from the side. Hmm... difficult.

Terrace in connection with building boundary and floor area ratio divides the expert community into two camps:
Some see the terrace either out of ignorance of the current case law or out of tolerance of the opinion of the respective building permit applicant as a subordinate independent ancillary facility (such as a swimming pool), others as a subordinate component belonging to the main house (such as a balcony). Even if the official responsible for the building permit belongs to the first faction, you don't need to worry about the terrace any further.

Why "applies"? We are not talking about a public path here, but about an area of the building plot that is to be burdened with pedestrian, driving, and utility rights in favor of the neighbors and utility providers according to the development plan. It is not necessarily required for the development of the building plots. For the disposal of garden waste for the northeastern properties it is quite helpful, but in character rather comparable to a garage driveway. If children now play in front of my garage door, it will not disturb them in their emotional development if I have to briefly interrupt their play for the entrance to my garage. More concerning in the solution sought by the OP is rather that an area developed as a footpath suffers from permanent use by cars, that an independent extension by one meter is rather expensive, that the cost sharing among the neighbors is difficult to arrange,...?

Dear Escroda, I have deliberately brought you into this discussion by linking you here because I respect your expertise. Nevertheless, as someone who is part of a residential area, part of a community, I see that you cannot always get ahead with rules and laws, costs and benefits. If the OP wants to do what he likes with his part of the property — not only I point out moral aspects here, others here would probably also put the common good before their own advantage, because the house is one thing, the other is a neighborhood in which everyone should feel comfortable. Special exceptions are never welcomed. Certainly, children can move aside sometimes (with just 2-3 meters left planned, they probably have to), but woe if it is someone else’s car and it concerns one’s own children... surely, 2-3 traffic signs will be needed for this service path... parking will no longer be allowed opposite because the OP cannot maneuver, etc. Costs, costs are the lesser evil when you simply leave a field path or footpath to be a footpath.

It's not nice, however, when all paths for vehicles are being expanded

Yes, I also find that unfortunate. I don't understand the original poster either, since my house is then surrounded by roads on three sides. Two would already annoy me, and he's building a third one. *shakes head*

Yes, I also find that a pity. I also don't understand the OP insofar as my house is then surrounded by streets on 3 sides. Two would already be annoying, and he's building a third one. *shakes head*

Nothing is decided yet. I am simply looking for an optimal solution for us. The tendency at the moment is towards this variant. If in the end it turns out that the other variant offers more advantages, then we will prefer that one as well. Among other things, this topic is meant to work that out. Every argument and post can be helpful.