Is terrain modeling allowed on the property?

I didn't mean it like that either. However, the presentation allows the conclusion that at least in terms of planning law, terrain modeling is not restricted.

Yes, I also see the possibility legally unrestricted, technically of course every cubic meter of moved earth costs money, and every "step" compared to what the neighbor does somehow has to be secured as well.

I don't see it that way. Through publication on 28.09.2016, the plan has gained legal force. The absence of signatures is probably because the digital plan was put online and they saved themselves the scanning of the original with signatures.

It is quite possible that the plan has progressed further in the meantime and because it remained unchanged, it was not scanned again. "VORentwurf" is usually a designation for a plan in a procedure not yet fully completed.

.

By the way, here is a reference to a thread on a similar issue:

I am happy to take a look at the similar thread as well. Better too much information than too little. Although the "piling up" would basically be replaced by "digging out" for us.

The neighbors are still a bit of an issue. I think we will be among the first few builders to build there. Probably neighbors will only arrive on the left and right weeks (months?) later.

By the way: Don’t you also find the street height on the eastern side of the construction area a bit odd? Currently, the slope to the east has a gradient of about 3 meters over 25 meters (so about 12%). To the south, it’s roughly similar. Now it seems as if the municipality just goes ahead and lays the street 4 to 5 meters lower.....creating a kind of ditch or canyon in an otherwise fairly "normally" sloping hill?
Can you explain that?
My only explanation would be: To have a less steep street later. Against that speaks the fact that the elevation data of the street on the entire eastern part is almost permanently 4 to 5 meters below the terrain. That would mean it follows the slope of the terrain.....so why not 4 meters higher then? *pondering*

That would even mean that the valley-side plots are above street level....somehow that’s weird, or am I thinking wrong?

Sorry for the double post, but the edit function had already expired.

I have attached two terrain cross-sections as images. The height data is not from the surveyor, but it is sufficient for a rough preview. The black bar in picture 1 would be the street... that can't really be right, can it?

I noticed that immediately as well, it is at least very unusual. Just ask the building authority why it is being built that way or if it is correct.

However, it fits with the slope drawn on both sides of the road ...

Best regards
Dirk Grafe

I like to take a look at the similar thread as well. Better too much information than too little. [...]
The neighbors are still a bit of an issue. I think we will be among the first few builders to build there. Most likely neighbors will move in to the left and right only weeks (months?) later.

By the way: Don’t you also find the street height on the eastern side of the building area a bit strange? Currently, the slope to the east has a decline of about 3 meters over 25 meters (so about 12%).

By the way, there is also a fairly current thread about a 20 cm height difference between plan and reality of a house, where someone wanted a seamless transition of the paving with the neighbor. Maybe that’s an incentive regarding coordination.

The street seems to essentially follow the height profile, but roughly such that its centerline runs "straight" into the cut of the valley-side building plots. So a bit below the existing terrain. For road construction, excavation is presumably better than embankment. The street runs up to the right bend at a shallow angle to the contour lines, and afterwards must head towards the ingress to the plan-right side (significantly more crosswise to the slope). In this respect, it lies about 3 m below the average terrain height in this area (you can also see in the plan that the embankments become wider there).

Up to the right bend, its height is "more convenient" for the valley-side residents (for driveways with small height differences); from the bend onward it lies lower for both sides – however, this is taken into account in the privilege for eaves/ridge/gable heights.

Of which, however, I have the impression that competent people were at work

Do you stick to your opinion in view of the new facts? Quite a lot is going wrong in the planning.

It is quite possible that the plan has since progressed further and because it has not been rescanned unchanged.

One might believe that we have different plans. On "my" plan, nothing is said about a preliminary draft. Only in the title of the browser window does this term appear, which makes me doubt your first quoted statement even more.

The street seems to me to essentially follow the elevation profile, but roughly so that its centerline runs "straight" into the cut of the valley-facing building plots.

On "my" plan, the gradient elevation 265.5 is stated in front of the TE’s property. The 270 elevation line runs through this point, which means a planned cut of 4.5 m and about 5 m toward the middle of the building proposal.

So a bit below the existing terrain.

... a bit too much : I just wanted to write something to your last post when it suddenly disappeared. Go to the public display of the amendment and ask your questions there. The planning is, in my humble opinion, thoroughly botched.