Tricky land planning: Garage + entrance towards SW or NE?

Would plan a room behind the garage for bicycles and such. Possibly a carport with storage room instead of a garage.

Would plan a room behind the garage for bicycles and such. Possibly a carport with storage room instead of a garage.

Yes, a large carport where you can also park bicycles between the house and the car. It can be as wide as possible. Behind it (towards the garden), the storage room.

I also understand this development plan to mean that the garages can be placed within the blue building window and, for some plots, additionally in the special fields.

I see it the same way. But the development plan is a disaster. Ask your architect what the simultaneous determination of floor area ratio and ground plan means. In my opinion, it's not possible at all: §16 Land Use Ordinance (2) In the development plan, the measure of structural use can be determined by setting 1. the floor area ratio or the size of the ground surfaces of the structural facilities, ... Completely confusing wording raises the question of whether §19 (4) applies to the 130 m².

Is a garage with an interior width of 3.5 m sufficient to pass by the car with a bicycle?

You still have space in the building window. Move the house back to the building boundary; then it will be enough for a double garage. The south garden and terrace are overrated anyway.

A garage on the boundary may be up to 9 m long, right?

Yes.

Thank you very much for your contributions. This forum is really fun. I’m already looking forward to the floor plan discussions.

I would plan a room behind the garage for bicycles and the like. Maybe instead of a garage a carport with a storage room.

We would like to have a garage. With 9 m length, a 3 m storage room behind the car would still be possible. The garage would just have to be wide enough to comfortably get past the car with a bike.

Ask your architect what the simultaneous specification of floor area ratio and floor plan means. It is IMHO not possible at all:

I will do that. If I understand the text correctly, floor plan refers to the maximum floor area of the house. This "may be exceeded by up to 30% by the floor area of conservatories, terraces, and balconies." Floor area ratio then apparently refers to the total floor area including the garage? However, we won’t have any problem with either number, since we want to leave as much green space undeveloped as possible and our budget is limited.

You still have space in the building envelope. Move the house to the building boundary, then that will also be enough for a double garage. South garden and terrace are overrated anyway.

Yes, the building envelope would be enough. But we want as much distance as possible to the street on the south side so that not every passerby can look onto our plate. We can also live with a "comfort single garage."

I'm already looking forward to the floor plan discussions.

Yes, great! - I didn't expect that at all, I thought they were already finished and secret.

But we won't have any problem with either number, since we want to leave as much green space undeveloped as possible and our budget is limited.

A statement that even "our specialist" finds unclear wouldn't make me so relaxed. 130 sqm for the house footprint, garage, and driveways wouldn't be much.

does the floor plan refer to the max. floor area of the house

Yes, perhaps the approvers have found a practical interpretation of the mysterious urban planners’ thoughts. In any case, the stipulations are contradictory and IMHO inadmissible. In 3(1) it still says "... the specified allowable floor area of the main facility ...", in 3(4) floor plan is only defined as "allowable floor area per building plot". The allowable floor area is also determined according to the land use ordinance by specifying a floor area ratio, only here it is not generally based on the building plot but on the ratio to the area of the building plot. In 3(3), deviating from the land use ordinance, it is then formulated that the floor area ratio may be exceeded by floor areas. Of course, this is nonsense, since areas cannot exceed a floor area ratio. Nitpicking? Yes, but since a development plan is basically a municipal law, such inadequacies are IMHO untenable. Now one might think that the justification for the development plan could shed light on this. But – no sign. The stipulation of the floor area ratio is not even mentioned, at least not in the published version.

We won’t have a problem with either number

Based on the floor plan definition in 3(4) of the development plan in conjunction with §19(4) of the land use ordinance, it could get tight. But maybe only I, with my narrow surveyor’s perspective, see problems that don’t really exist. Still, I do not consider it wrong to raise this with the architect.