ᐅ Site usage for semi-detached houses or duplex units

mwinkelm schrieb:

I assume that we are not allowed to build two full stories, but only 1 or 1.5, since none of the neighboring buildings have 2 full stories.

Compare the planned building with the existing one in terms of building volume. If the observer then gets the impression that the term “semi-detached house” has been interpreted as a doubled house, it will in any case appear significantly less discreet. An example of what I consider a questionable case can be found just around the corner here in the forum: https://www.hausbau-forum.de/threads/Neubau-dh-Hanglage-in-Hessen-Feedback-zum-Grundriss.34729/

---

https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/

Escroda schrieb:

The requirement for insertion is precisely defined in the law.

I got the hint, you can stop waving now. Thanks for the summary, that’s very helpful!

Escroda schrieb:

What do you want to do differently from the neighbors?

For us, it’s mainly about giving the attic as high a knee wall as possible to gain usable space and reduce the impact of the sloping ceilings inside the rooms.

Steven schrieb:

For me, that’s a no-go!

In our first consultation with a prefab home provider, we also had a plan including an integrated garage. With a semi-detached house width of 6.76m (22 ft 2 in), that didn’t seem very practical to me. However, at that point, we hadn’t yet thought to ask about widening the house. With a later provider, we brought up the idea of widening the house, which added 90cm (35 inches) and cost an extra 26,000. It could definitely be an option if we don’t need much space in the basement anyway. We still need to research and think about what we really want and what’s important to us.

11ant schrieb:

Compare the planned building with the existing one in terms of building volume.

OK, let’s do that:

Here, I’m assuming a footprint of 7 meters (23 ft) wide by 10 meters (33 ft) deep for one of the new semi-detached units, which could be increased if needed, since the lot size allows it. So regarding the house size, there won’t be a big difference in the streetscape.

To illustrate the situation, here is a photo of the existing house:

The current basement or lower ground floor has a very low ceiling height; at my height of 1.86m (6 ft 1 in), I almost hit my head on the ceiling. So that would be raised somewhat. What clear ceiling height would be appropriate there if the entrance area is also planned for that level—around 2.35m (7 ft 8 in)?

The existing attic is also rather low. Overall, the house would probably be about 1 meter (3 ft 3 in) taller than it is now. Since the plot lies in a slight dip (the street slopes gently upward on both sides), raising the building might align its height more closely with the neighboring houses but not necessarily exceed them.

From my subjective perspective, a reduced roof pitch would also fit in nicely.

Escroda schrieb:



... is not subject to the integration requirement

Do I understand this correctly? If someone builds according to Section 34 and all the surrounding houses have red gable roofs, can I still assume that I am allowed to build a black hipped roof since it is not subject to the integration requirement?

mwinkelm schrieb:

To give some context with pictures, this is the existing house:

Yes, pictures definitely help to get an idea.
I took a look around the area. The planning regulations are quite disorganized, which actually works in your favor. You can pretty much do whatever you want, as long as you don’t exceed the eave and ridge heights of the neighboring houses.

mwinkelm schrieb:

Around 2.35 m (7 ft 9 in)?

No. For a new build, it should be at least 2.50 m (8 ft 2 in), or 2.40 m (7 ft 10 in) in exceptional cases, which I don’t see here.

mwinkelm schrieb:

From my subjective point of view, a shallower roof pitch would fit in nicely as well.

Roof pitch is not a direct criterion under §34, but it is indirectly determined by the maximum eave and ridge heights. Since these are maximum limits, there is room for variation, and from a preliminary assessment, quite a lot of flexibility here.

kaho674 schrieb:

Do I understand correctly? If someone builds under §34 and all the surrounding houses have red gabled roofs, can I still assume that I am allowed to build a black hipped roof because it is not subject to the integration requirement?

Yes. If the municipality wants to enforce design requirements, it must adopt a design or townscape ordinance (building permit / planning permission).

Your neighbor on the left appears taller in the pictures. Or is that just an illusion?

Escroda schrieb:

You can almost do whatever you want, as long as you don’t exceed the eave and ridge heights of the immediate neighbors.

From where are you taking the measurements? The street seems to rise slightly to the left, doesn’t it?

I hadn't realized it was such a sloped terrain.

kaho674 schrieb:

From where are you measuring?

Yes, there is room for debate whether to compare absolute heights above sea level (NHN) or relative heights based on a reference point. In the latter case, it could also be argued whether to use the terrain at the house, the street level, or the midpoint of the property boundary. Since §34 is only a rough guideline, the building authority is unlikely to reject a reasonable plan with a coherent proof of integration.
If you look at the buildings on the parallel street, such a rejection is not expected here. Even in the immediate surroundings—with the recessed house on the adjacent property, a two-story building two lots away, several houses about 100 meters (330 feet) away with shallow roof pitches, extensions with flat roofs, and various types of roof structures everywhere—I would not expect significant restrictions.