|
Would it be possible to obtain a contour lined map of the level of the road or the ensuing plots of the Local Plan distribution for the Guadalajara site? In the maps provided only the contour lines for the terrain appear. It has been be provided. You can find it in the documentation web area related to this place. On the map, certain infrastructure are marked in red. Should these provisions be on the ground floor? Or should the whole edifice be set back? These are power substations that are located in concealed units. They are plots to which the respective utility company will be granted ownership; clearly, they will not be occupied by the building. In bylaw 4, 1b, as well as in each Local Plan brief, the allowed compatible uses specified are commercial categories 1a and 2a. Could you advise us where such use is prohibited in plots that are not RC8, RC9, RC10 and RC11? In each of the plot briefs, set out in the buildable square metreage section, is the maximum commercial square metreage. Note that in the remainder of the plots this building potential is not available. Any excess buildable potential available, once the allowed maximum number of dwellings and requested percentages for each type is used up, is allotted other complementary or compatible uses as defined in the Local Plan brief. Such uses, which are clearly defined in article 62 onwards of the Plan General de Ordenación (Land Usage and Ruling Act), are the following: Characteristic use (apart from private residences in collective housing):
Complementary or compatible uses
Could such a use be submitted on the remainder of the plots, though not on the ground floor of the blocks of dwellings, rather reserving a complete structure for this? In principle, a proposal that should be submitted in the previously mentioned terms. With regard to being able to carry out a more complete study in urban and territorial terms, would it be possible to supply us with digital cartography that includes Guadalajara town centre, as well as the area nearest to the site (the Aguas Vivas)? If this is not possible, or indeed if it is, we would be grateful if you should advise us as to where it can be obtained. The information has been added. Could the building be planned - destined for residential or other use - by adjoining plots separated by thoroughfares, passing exactly above these without altering the passage of pedestrians and vehicles? And, instead of thoroughfares, in the case of public open spaces or communal areas can the structure cross over these? No. Without exception, the indicated setbacks should be strictly complied with - this applies both to the ground floor and to those above. When stated in the RC code that the objectives are "to obtain building forms that allow for the definition of public space", does this public space refer only to the interior of the plot or also to the adjoining EP plots? If this is not so, is there are project that has already been carried out? The plot interior space will also be of the public domain, though it could be for public or private use. As for the EP plots, they are of the public domain and use. The development of the area contemplates the handling of these spaces (landscaping plans are provided), though the bidder will be able to propose an alternative to these. When the RC code status "grade 1ºb" blocks … and including interior pedestrianised areas", do these estate thoroughfares (in the same sense as the resultant interior space of the plot) have to be public, private or either? The use given to these thoroughfares and internal areas - that could be public or private - is immaterial. Does the resultant space of the obliged setback area (with regard to the façade plan) have to be public, private or is it immaterial? In each case it will be private, though being of public use (this will occur always in the case of retail premises, general facilities, and so forth), collective private use (development communal garden areas) or private-use garden areas for ground floor dwellings. With regard to the outward projections of 0.8m, it is understood that they are the minimum façade setback (3m). If a larger setback were planned, would the outward projection increase by the same measurement? Yes. When reference is made to the "20m maximum dimension of the façade without vertical division", what is understood by vertical division? Is this separation between buildings, a setback, a composition? Does this division have to be throughout the story or can the ground floor be continuous? This maximum 20m dimension comes from the availability of expansion joints in the housing brick plants; it should not be taken into account in the building solution that guarantees the correct placing of the façades. With regard to dwelling formulae (40, 60, 80 or 120m2) are the balconies and terraces also included with the reduced factor? Yes, they are included at 50% of the floorspace. Does "three-bedroomed dwelling with a useable floorspace of 80m2" mean apartment with three bedrooms plus a living / dining room, or two bedrooms plus a living / dining room? In the number of bedrooms required the dining room is not included; when we speak of a three-bedroomed dwelling we refer to three bedrooms plus a living room. Besides, we have already indicated I previous enquiries that there will be a certain degree of typological choice regarding the elementary use of the dwellings. Concerning the prescribed 6m separation, is this from the building façade line or from the construction of the building? At what scale do the projects have to be submitted? In the setback stated for each case (6m at the La Garena site in Alcalá de Henares), reference is made to the minimum separation of the building from the plot boundary. The scale will be the one that most duly explains the proposal, being one that is comprehension-friendly to the Panel. The structure touches the prescribed 6m line. Can we go beyond it with a balcony? Yes. Can the underground car park overrun the plot limit, or should it be considered that it is affected by the 6m gap? Yes, it can overrun. The setbacks stated only apply to the ground floor and aboveground stories. In the alignment plan and bylaws for the Guadalajara site, the plot boundary is shown by a marked red line that, according to the caption, indicates "alignment". The doubt that we have involves whether this alignment indicates obligatory construction at all fronts at the plot perimeter, or whether it only indicates that in the case of building at this frontage, it should be aligned. Additionally, at this site we are also unsure how to make sense of the building depth being 24 ml. Indeed, this discontinued line could cause confusion. What it shows is that at this boundary construction could be available freely, with or without a setback. (Note that this always concerns plot boundaries with public open spaces). The maximum building depth of 24 metres refers to the maximum width of the construction. We are writing to clarify if the percentages of each dwelling type must be respected to the point on each of the plots, or if this is a general indication of the complete project. For example, if 5%, 30% y 65% are indicated for each dwelling type, do these percentages have to be complied with at each and every plot at the site, or at the site in general? The percentages at each dwelling type are a guide and refer to the total site, although it would be desirable if they were complied with at each plot. Could you provide article 16 of the rules and regulations for the general plan at the Guadalajara site? This refers to the built surface area. Article 16 of the Plan General de Ordenación Urbana de Guadalajara (Land Usage Planning and Urban Ruling Act, Guadalajara) defines some terms included in the planning laws and does not make reference to the built surface area. It does define the buildable surface area such as the maximum total surface area expressed in m² that can be constructed on a piece of land, by direct application of the decisions of the plan at this site. (Posting on the website of the mentioned article is not considered necessary). Are exterior surface areas such as balconies and laundry rooms counted in the useable surface areas given as 70 and 90m²? Or should they be counted separately? In such a case, to what exterior surface area? In the 70 or 90 useable m², half of the surface area of private use exterior spaces of the home, such as terraces, viewpoints and bay windows, and washing lines is included, or up to a maximum of 10% of the closed useable surface area. In the case of exceeding the fixed useable surface area of 70 of 90m², can a section that is not used as a bedroom, or for example, an office, be built? Obviously, yes. And perhaps we have left out an insufficient 'a priori' when we speak of two-bedroomed homes of 70 useable m²or three-bedroomed homes of 90 useable m². In fact, the competition conditions speak of this as a reflection space with regard to the adaptation of the housing typologies to new forms of life, as well as contemporary family homes, and a boost to innovative experiences as to the design and the completion of them. Nevertheless, the rules and regulations state that one-bedroomed homes must have a useable surface area of between 40 and 70m², two-bedroomed between 50 and 70m², three-bedroomed between 60 and 90m² and four-bedroomed between 70 and 90m². (Leaving aside affordable homes adapted for the disabled, which may exceed the limit of 90 useable m² up to a maximum of 20%, large-family homes that can have up to 120m² and rental homes designated to young person occupancy of between 30 and 45m²). Please confirm if the homes of 70m² and 90m² are for two- and three-bedroomed homes respectively. Question already answered. With the number of homes specified in the terms and conditions, the development potential is not exhausted. We understand that to take advantage of this, the entirety of the land must be used, and as the number of homes is specified as the maximum, there is a large quantity of square-metreage surplus to that assigned to homes. It could be that the figures for the use of the land are not correct, or perhaps that the maximum number of homes could vary. If this is not the case, we would like to know if the possibility exists to assign the surplus square metreage to complementary or compatible uses. In the case of this being the solution, what would these uses be? The total land use figure is correct and is that which features in each of the briefs of the residential plots. Indeed, a simple operation notes that an excess of development potential is produced, given that it would work out as 130m² per home. The mentioned excess, once occupied by the maximum number of homes, is assigned to another archetypal use and other complementary and compatible uses mentioned in the local plan development brief. These uses, which are clearly defined in the Plan General de Ordenacion (Land Usage Planning and Urban Ruling Act) (article 62 onwards), are the following: Characteristics (apart from private residential collective homes):
|