Location of city villa or single-family house on 500 m2 plot - rectangular

Just such clarification would have been a significant advantage of an original cadastral screenshot.

Futile effort, because this way you do not recognize any connection beyond the two parts of the property themselves; i.e. you have no chance of possibly finding a better proposal.

There is no influenceable connection beyond the two properties and the street. Around them are only other properties with single-family houses, bungalows, or city villas.

But I have gladly snipped the corresponding cadastral map from ALKIS.

It concerns the 1874.
The 1875, by the way, has another building not listed here, which definitely does not comply with the 5m limit to the street.



I would claim there is quite a bit that either was not approved as such or is indeed more than 0.2 floor area ratio.

I join the faction that recommends the path as a third parcel, which is jointly owned by both neighbors. : could a clearance area be allocated there without excluding a (non-sealing) reinforcement of the driveway?

According to the house builder, this is not possible in Berlin. The Berlin building code requires a real division into parcels here, each of which alone allows residential development. Access to the street must then be granted to the rear property via a right of way. Whether that is really true, I do not know.

Therefore, one idea would be that the strip is allocated half to one, half to the other property in real division. The only problem is that then, in case of doubt, I would also have to keep a total of 6m clearance from the north.

@Escroda:

Well, where should I start? First of all, Berlin’s planning law is extremely complicated, as in some areas plans from 1862 are still legally effective.
[ATTACH alt="BerlinerPlanungsrecht.png" type="full"]42104[/ATTACH]
When the original poster speaks of this or that needing to be complied with, the question arises: who was spoken to? All statements seem to be based on hearsay from a salesperson.
The next question would be, what influence possibilities on the planning and parcel formation still exist at all.
The following assumptions do not describe the worst case, but they form a basis for discussion that, according to my interpretation of the original poster’s description of the situation, is probable:
Let’s simply ignore all possible Berlin-specific peculiarities and start from the normal §34 Building Code and a de facto building boundary with a 5m distance from the street boundary line, whereby the original poster would have to be granted the same distance as the new building at 1875. We also accept that no parking spaces are allowed within these 5 meters. This would inevitably exclude all ancillary facilities in this area (except for an unavoidable driveway, of course).
In §34 areas, the building project must fit in according to the type and extent of structural use. The extent of structural use can be a roughly determined floor area ratio of the surrounding development. Here, the strict rules of the Land Utilization Ordinance do not apply. We can forget everything we know about Floor Area Ratio I and Floor Area Ratio II. Hence also the rough permission to exceed the floor area ratio of 0.2 by 15% in whatever way it was determined. With a few clever arguments, a planner could probably push out even more. Thus the floor area ratio also makes sense, even if the area is fully sealed. Since a shared driveway is, by experience, a constant source of neighborly discord, I do advise against it but do not believe the seller will withdraw from it.

I would claim there is quite a bit that either was not approved that way or exceeds a floor area ratio of 0.2.

You would have to question very precisely where the 0.2 comes from, who determined it how and on what basis. I think a house of your size requirement is approvable. Whether such detailed questions need to be asked at this time depends on the sales promise.

Whether that really is true, I don’t know.

I don’t think so, but I’m not familiar with Berlin.

The problem is that then, in doubt, I also have to stay 6m away from the north in total.

No, there could be a building setback obligation on the strip.
I consider your plan from #24 the most reasonable solution, although with the outbuilding on the other side of the house. I would prefer my own driveway, i.e. assign the path entirely to the rear neighbor, but I see difficulties with the floor area ratio and the seller.

Access to the street must then be granted for the rear property through GFL rights.

At the very least, it would also be possible as a flag lot - with all the advantages and disadvantages, of course.

The Berlin Building Code requires here a real division into plots, each of which individually allows residential development.

1973...1976 /3, 2023/3 and 891 are apparently also purely development parcels (for the street). I would therefore also see a private road as possible; at least your setback area should be allowed to extend into it up to the middle.

For the neighbor, the problem is in my opinion even more serious. My program shows 430m² for his land. 430 x 0.23 = 98.9m². If we subtract the minimum (15 parking spaces + 12 terrace), he ends up with 71.9m² for the 1.5-story house. So a tiny house with 10*7 - that is not particularly attractive and somehow he still has to get to the front door, so it will probably be even less.

Apart from the skills of a project planner to get even more floor area ratio space out based on the neighboring development, would there be a possibility to exclude the access road from the floor area ratio?

would there be a possibility to exclude the access road from the floor space index?

Since there is no development plan, ancillary facilities and sealed surfaces do not play a role for the floor space index. Under §34, the floor space index is roughly determined based on neighboring buildings, mostly from aerial photographs or the cadastral map, provided a local comparison has taken place (see new construction on neighboring property).
Given the stated political will for increased density, a floor space index of 0.2 is nonsense anyway. According to the images, it is probably at least 0.3 on average here.

The entire factual situation should be verified with the approval authority.