Property the Second - Please Assess

Possibly not a multi-family house either, I think these will be individual terraced houses and regarding the plot there will be some kind of partition declaration or usage right, where each owner is assigned the land under their house + garden. The heights are clearly defined: 13.5 m at about 16 m distance from your terrace. Hmm, they are building with an underground garage, so the railing will tend to be higher rather than lower. There probably won’t be much sun left in the evening :-(

So. We just got back from the appointment at the municipality. They took a lot of time for all our questions and spoke with us in detail. We will now receive the written offer by mail where we have the option to choose between the two aforementioned plots and can decide by the beginning of April. So we still have plenty of time to clarify the financing and think things through.

Now about the new insights. The municipality has already sold the lower plot and received the design from the developer. It will definitely be a continuous multi-family house (block) with rental apartments. Accordingly, no condominiums are planned and the building standard will correspond to that. So, no upscale condominiums that would win the architecture prize 2020. It is a block with a flat roof that is relatively sober. Since there are supposed to be more affordable rental apartments, for cost reasons no underground garage is planned (as the development plan basically also stipulates), but parking spaces will be on the lower level in front of the building on the south side. This, in turn, has the advantage that the possible residential units will not so easily meet the parking space requirement per unit. Ergo, the design now only includes a residential building with 3 full floors with a total height of about 9 – 9.5 m. Of course, it cannot be guaranteed that the design will remain as it is. But the probability that, for example, an extra setback floor with penthouse apartments will be built is relatively low. Because first, an expensive large penthouse apartment does not make sense in the rental concept and second, the fact that with the current design the requirements had to be exceptionally reduced from 2 parking spaces to 1.5 parking spaces per residential unit. With a continuous underground garage that would not be a problem, but it is not planned for the reasons mentioned above. The balconies are supposed to face south. The house entrances, which are accessible by foot, are each planned at the turning areas on the north side. The question is how much this affects you? There are no apartments with garden shares.

Although nothing changes because of this, I’m still wondering what is better? A building with affordable rental apartments that is in the end 4 m lower or a top styled multi-family house with fancy condominiums and penthouses and all the bells and whistles that fully exploit the development plan.

We also briefly went to the new development area as far as time allowed. Attached is a photo in which the plot can at least be vaguely recognized. For orientation, I am now standing on the winding road and take the picture upwards towards the plot from the southwest.



You can see that there is a slight slope and I estimate roughly 1.5 – 2 m height difference from the front to the back edge of the plot? Of course, this will lead to additional costs for us, but possibly also more options to deal with the “problem” of the row development?

Regards

Now to the new findings. The community has already sold the lower property .... ....u

Is there a different draft than the one I can take from #1? Or is it a bit more precise? Which lower property do you mean? And why shouldn't a developer push everything to the limit?

Is there another draft besides the one I can take from #1? Or can it be a bit more precise? Which lower property do you mean? And why shouldn't a developer exploit everything?

Do you mean by draft an excerpt from the drawing part? Or the draft of the house. We were allowed to see it but of course not to photograph it yet. Here is the excerpt from the drawing part:



Usage stencil 3 --> by the lower property/construction project I mean the Riegek with the hatched underground parking area.



Regarding the question why the developer shouldn’t fully exploit it. The building law expert at the municipality explained to us with the draft that the developer does not want or cannot build an underground garage (for financial/economic reasons), since the building is completely held by the investor because it exclusively consists of rental apartments for social housing that are eligible for subsidies. Accordingly, there were already problems during the application phase to prove parking spaces for a house with 3 full floors. According to the development plan, that is 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit. They agreed on 1.5 parking spaces. But since this should already be the lower limit, it is unlikely that a stepped story will be built. Moreover, penthouses are not the primary premise for social housing purposes. The parking spaces are to be quasi half covered and housed on the ground floor. Therefore, I could imagine that it will ultimately be 11 m. But no more. And a height difference of about 2 m must still be taken into account. Too naive?

Here also from memory how the house is supposed to look or appear roughly. The half-protruding parking spaces and then the full floors I-III. Balconies are also installed on the facade facing south (even if that is the noise-exposed side). GOK 1 (private property) is drawn elevated compared to GOK 2 at the bottom of the house.

Hello again,

I would like to follow up with a question, as I did not want to start a new topic for this.

Unfortunately, I am not quite sure about the Bachbargesetz BW and the Landesbauordnung BW. Regardless of whether it is economically viable or if the implementation is not so trivial from a construction and structural standpoint. If the development plan refers to the application of the neighbor law between private properties, is it possible to build a 2 m retaining wall directly on the boundary and fill it up, provided that the terrain is to be leveled? Or do I have to maintain a distance for such a project? Or is it possibly not permitted in this form at all?

The increases are described in the Neighboring Rights Act (NRG) in Section 3, §§ 9 and 10. Furthermore, §§ 5 and 6 of the State Building Code must be observed.
...
3. structures that are not buildings, provided they are not higher than 2.5 m or their wall surface does not exceed 25 m², ...
Accordingly, I see nothing that stands in the way of your project. Unless your 2m high retaining wall is to be longer than 12.50m. If the garage is also to be placed there, point 5.4 of the textual provisions must additionally be observed.

The increases are described in the Neighbor Rights Act (NRG) in section 3, §§ 9 and 10. Furthermore, §§ 5 and 6 of the state building code must be observed.
...
3. structural facilities that are not buildings, provided they are not higher than 2.5 m or their wall surface does not exceed 25 m², ...

Accordingly, I see nothing that contradicts your project. Unless your 2m high retaining wall is to be longer than 12.50m. If the garage is also to be placed there, point 5.4 of the textual provisions must also be observed.

Thanks for the info. Unfortunately, that does not apply in this case. The property boundary amounts to 22 m. Does that mean you have to keep a distance or model the terrain in steps?