Preliminary planning of house and garage BEFORE land purchase

I see no special features except for the usual restrictions. If you like it, go for it!

What about parcel 831, which I interpret in the drawing as being between the road and the property access you suspect? That should presumably be allowed to be crossed to reach your property.

To me, it looks like a road parcel, which should then be publicly designated. There would be no problem with the access. (That's how I would have done it, and yes, that's my professional field )

Wow, first of all, thank you very much for the feedback and thank you for the work you put into this absolutely great!

Here are a few pieces of information:

What about plot 831, which I interpret in the drawing as being between the road and the driveway you assumed?

After consulting with the city, it is assumed that this has some historical reasons. At least it belongs to the city and is designated as a road/traffic route. The authorities do not see any problem placing the entrance there.

For 2 full floors (keyword city villa) this will be tight, or you will have to accept a low ceiling height (estimated about 2.40-2.50m)

That would not be a problem, as we are not planning a city villa. We would like the house with a gable roof and bay windows extending all the way up (see photo). Can someone estimate, depending on the development plan, whether this would be allowed here? For the roof, a nice ratio of roof pitch and knee wall height would be desirable so that the upper floor can be used as well as possible.

Do you want to build with a basement? I don’t see a residential basement at first glance, as the slope is mainly on the slanted part of the property.

Yes, we want a basement for sauna, utility room, possibly party and guest rooms. Does residential basement in this context mean that the basement is exposed on the slope side??

Due to the shape of the property, I would orient the gable perpendicular to the slope, even if the direct neighbors don’t have that.

Doesn’t the development plan specify the ridge direction? So far, I have assumed that is not allowed. Is there a sensible arrangement of house and (double) garage while complying with the ridge direction?

Is there a view in one direction that should be used?

Yes, the west direction offers a beautiful view over the Weser Uplands, but rather from the upper end of the property (or from the upper floor), since the row of houses opposite somewhat obstructs the view.

Can anyone assess depending on the development plan whether this would be permissible?

No, I cannot: firstly because of the contradictions, II says roof structures are not permissible, III 2.1 says roof structures on the mountain side up to one third of the eave length; secondly because I cannot clearly assign the parcel in the development plan, but I hardly see any ridge direction specifications there – from the aforementioned restriction of valley side no and mountain side partially, one might possibly derive such a thing.

Can someone assess, depending on the development plan, whether this would be permitted here?

Yes. The photo shows a cross gable that is less than half the width of the building. It would be possible on the mountain side, not on the valley side.

For the roof, a nice ratio of roof pitch and knee wall height would be desirable, so that the upper floor can be used as well as possible.

No problem with two permitted full floors and 6m eave height.

Does “residential basement” mean in this context that the basement stands free on the slope side??

Yes, but in my opinion the height difference of the plot does not allow that.

Doesn’t the development plan specify the ridge direction?

Yes. Hardly recognizable, because the contour line lies exactly over the ridge line.

I had assumed so far that this is not permitted.

Agreed

II says roof extensions are not permitted

Those were the stipulations of the original plan from 1978.

III 2.1 says roof extensions on the mountain side up to one third of the eave length

That was the now also obsolete stipulation of the first amendment.
Furthermore, these are excerpts from the reasoning. Legally binding are the stipulations on the development plan document of the second amendment (4_b_plan_9_11b_2ae_noerdlich_der_allenbergstrasse_2ae_planzeichnung_sp.jpg).

because I cannot clearly assign the parcel in the development plan

[ATTACH alt="BPlan.png" type="full"]49391[/ATTACH]

I have attached the development plan including all revisions for you

Unfortunately not. The mixture of plan drawings, textual stipulations, and justifications of different versions confuses more than it helps. The first amendment is apparently fully superseded and therefore meaningless.

Yes. The photo shows a dwarf gable that is less than half the width of the building. It would be possible on the mountain side, not on the valley side.

In the neighborhood, there are a few houses that also seem to have some kind of structures on the valley side. I would take a look at that on site. Perhaps there is still a chance, if one of the neighbors already has that?

No problem with two permitted full floors and 6m eaves height.

Although, as I understand it, the eaves height is defined here as the intersection between the outer wall and the roof covering – not the height of the gutter.

I have done some sketches and looked at what might be possible here. What do you think of this proposal?
On one hand, I would find the terrace facing southwest nice because of the view and the evening sun. On the other hand, that would be towards the street and might be easily visible -> Hence the hedge all around. Garage with space for trash bins and garden tools. Perhaps a door into the house could be realized here too. What do you think?