ᐅ Building an End-Terrace House – What Technical Requirements Should Be Considered?

11ant schrieb:
Well, not the bid itself, of course, but the declaration of intent "I am applying for plot 10" should be supplemented with "... and I want to build with Huber" or "... and I join the choice of the executing team of my timber framers."

And what is the authority supposed to do with that? The criteria are clearly defined by the city before the start regarding how the selection is made. If you deviate even slightly from that (because then the result becomes contestable), there will always be someone who feels disadvantaged and will challenge it.

@11ant I respect your thoughts, but do you really think the original poster can just go to their local authority now and get them to change that? It’s more likely that the Pope will have twins and open the BER airport with them.

The plots will be allocated according to the process, and the issues will be dealt with afterward.

In practice, building permits will either only be granted if things roughly fit, or the municipality simply doesn’t care and some of the housing groups will end up being more heterogeneous than expected.

Technically, all of this is manageable. Just visit any old town and see how different buildings have been connected over time. Of course, it’s not always trivial and can cause some issues in the long run, but it certainly doesn’t make these projects impossible.

Apart from the vulnerability of the awarding system itself, I consider it legally highly questionable if the municipality now simply selects a few companies at short notice with which building is "allowed." As a company not chosen, I would be grateful and seriously consider legal action.

• Housing clusters built with open construction methods require adaptation in terms of the type and extent of extensions as well as design, similar to semi-detached houses; see the related explanations.

• For extensions located on the boundary, coordination with the neighboring property owners is necessary. Depending on the situation, there may even be a requirement for mandatory extension or an extension easement.
• Such regulations can give rise to a neighboring party’s right to object.

taken from the web... Bau-Rat de
In Plankstadt, there will be fine print to consider later:
Homeowners in housing clusters must adapt to the initial construction of a housing cluster in DN, WH, and GH

Köhler & Klett included recent case law on the topic of housing clusters and open construction methods in their December 2015 newsletter.

ypg schrieb:
In Plankstadt, there will later be fine print to read:
Homeowners of the housing groups must adapt to the first construction of a housing group in DN, WH, and GH

From a 2017 court ruling:

The overall appearance of a harmonious whole does not require that the individual houses be constructed identically. A unified overall structure can still be present even if it is broken up by smaller projections and recesses (BayVGH judgments dated 9.2.1999 – 14 B 96.2272; 11.12.2014 – 2 BV 13.789, confirmed by BVerwG judgment of 14.09.2014, 4 B 16/15). The individual buildings must be connected to each other quantitatively – to a significant extent – and qualitatively – in a mutually compatible and harmonious manner, which must be assessed based on the specific circumstances of each case. Quantitatively, this primarily concerns the number of floors, building height, building depth and width, as well as the gross above-ground volume largely determined by these dimensions. Qualitatively, aspects such as roof design and the overall building mass are relevant (BayVGH 11.12.2014 op. cit.). Considering the dimensions of the other terraced houses, the width difference of 2.00 m to 2.25 m (6.5 ft to 7.4 ft) or, only on the north side, 2.46 m to 2.96 m (8.1 ft to 9.7 ft) is quantitatively not significant enough to disrupt the unified overall structure, especially since the corner terraced house situation and the fact that the western end terrace on the south side has a width of 12 m (39.4 ft) due to an extension must be taken into account. Owners of the often considerably narrower middle terraced plots cannot demand that the same widths be realized in the larger end area as are only possible on the smaller plots. Rather, it is often precisely the wider end terraced houses that complete the overall appearance harmoniously. Regarding heights, there is only a marginal offset at the ridge, which is unproblematic considering the permissible projections mentioned above. The same applies to the objection that the southern exterior wall is 1.24 m (4.1 ft) lower than the adjacent one. An offset of this depth is inherently unproblematic when applying the above principles.

Climbee schrieb:
Or do you expect someone here to study YOUR zoning plan and explain it to you?

I have often complained in countless threads that fragments of zoning plans are hardly useful on their own, and that the overall context always needs to be considered. Now here comes the original poster providing complete information right from the start, and that’s too much? If you want to give a helpful answer, you need to read everything. Some wording is simply difficult to interpret for inexperienced readers (sometimes even for experts). And if he only quoted parts of the planning regulations, there might still be sections in the design-related building code part that are important for answering the original question.

apokolok schrieb:
Maybe @Escroda will find the decisive passage in the plan.

I cannot add anything new to the original question, but I can confirm that the municipality wants to restrict the individual builder’s freedom as little as possible.

ypg schrieb:
Well, I will NOT look into the zoning plan.

Then don’t. But you should also refrain from posts like this:

ypg schrieb:
In Plankstadt there will be fine print to read later:
Builders in the house clusters must conform to the first building of a cluster in DN, WH, and GH

Where exactly would that fine print be? There is a legally binding zoning plan with an integrated design statute. The approval authority cannot invent additional criteria that would prevent a building project complying with the regulations. To do that, a zoning plan amendment would have to be initiated with all its consequences (public consultation, public display, city council resolution). The justification for the zoning plan actually clarifies the idea of building freedom even more clearly, in my opinion:
6.3 ... The individual decision-making freedom of each builder is restricted to an acceptable degree in favor of an urban planning-desired mix of housing types. ...
6.11.1 ... By differentiating according to plot sizes, owners and prospective builders are offered the greatest possible design freedom on their own property. ...
7 ... The specifications for the structural design of the main buildings (roof shape, roof pitch, roof additions, roofing materials) are intended, with sufficient scope for individual solutions, to ensure an acceptable overall appearance of the new development area.
I understand the concerns regarding technical difficulties and the overall appearance, but I do not see any improper conduct by the municipality. The Legoland-like villages in the resettlement areas of the Rhineland lignite mining region are partly not exactly pearls of urban planning either, so I rather support a different urban planning approach.