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

Spoke with the land seller and the city today; the building boundary applies only to the house, not to the terrace.

Verbal statements against state laws?
I'm starting to find all this quite unbelievable... although the 1.5 meters to the path makes sense when you find the missing meter halfway along the footpath.
Does the municipality have a problem getting rid of the plots? [emoji848]
Maybe can shed some light?

although the 1.5 meters to the path become clear when you find the missing meter in the middle of the footpath.

But there is still half a meter missing to the middle of a two meter wide path, the neighbor's boundary distance must not overlap with that ... (?)

Although, as I said, I have no ambition here to slap the house so close to the boundary.

But up to the middle of a two-meter-wide path, there is still half a meter missing, so the neighbor's boundary distance must not overlap... (?)

Although, as I said, I have no ambition to slap the house so close to the boundary here.

There are also federal states where 2.5 meters is normal. Unfortunately, I cannot see the construction location via Tapatalk.

This is quite a funny thread. Why is everyone trying to discourage the OP from the design? Apart from the impractical rotated floor plans at the beginning, he has explained everything perfectly clearly. I think the solution is good, although expensive and perhaps containing a few pitfalls. So here is my two cents on it:

I think we are forced to build the footpath because it was planned that way in the development plan. I hadn’t clarified that point at all.

Oops.
The footpath is not a private road in the building law sense. It is part of the building plot that has to be burdened with easements. It neither reduces the area of the building plot for the floor area ratio calculation, nor does it have any relevance to setback distances, so the plot can be utilized better. And the municipality is out of maintenance since it does not become a public traffic area. You could say a win-win situation. After a few years, however, you will realize that the municipality gains more, because the costs for such a path are not insignificant over the years. In addition to the public-law security, there is also the necessity of a private-law agreement on who has to take on which duties. On the other hand, the south-western access road is a private road: own parcel, area does not count towards the building plot, setback distances must not intrude. However, it belongs to 6 co-owners who can argue over the costs of construction and maintenance.
If you now want to expand the "footpath" to a driveway at your own expense, that certainly carries even more potential for dispute, but if the south-west terrace is so important to you, why not?

Spoke with the property seller and the city today; the building boundary only applies to the house, not to the terrace.

The development plan is not yet legally binding, so no definitive statement can be made. But judging by the draft, this statement is false. Maybe you’re lucky and the clerk does not know the current legal situation.
I also recommend a thorough review of the purchase contract, because in inner-city densification measures a building obligation is often anchored, which might be violated if the second plot is not built on at all.

Unfortunately, I cannot see the building location over Tapatalk.

NRW

Why is everyone trying to talk the OP out of the design.

I am not.

I also recommend a thorough review of the purchase contract, because in inner-city densification measures there is often a building obligation anchored, which might be violated if the second plot is not built upon.

To your knowledge, could this be circumvented by officially merging the two plots? Or does the merging have to take place anyway in order to combine the total area of both parcels into one pot, as far as the floor area ratio and site occupancy index are concerned?

Why is everyone trying to talk the OP out of the draft.

I don't think so at all. Only the planned access via the "footpath" seems to be considered problematic by some.