Building height - natural ground and terrace height

Hello everyone,

I have a question for clarification:

Excerpt from the development plan:

The (eaves-side) building height measured from the intersection of the exterior wall with the highest point of the natural ground must not exceed 4.0 m. The building height of ancillary buildings may be a maximum of 3.0 m.
For flat roofs - does the lateral masonry count here?

Question:
Is the highest point of the natural ground at which the exterior wall is located meant, or the adjacent terrain?

Text from the development plan:
Fillings for terraces are allowed up to a maximum of 1.0 m above the adjacent terrain. However, large-scale fillings are to be avoided.

Question: directly adjacent or the property boundary? Does it mean if one point is lower than the other, this one is decisive with 1 m?

Text from the development plan:
The lateral masonry of the roof floors (knee walls) is permitted up to a maximum height of 1.0 m.

Question: Can a roof terrace then be built and the fall protection exceed the 4 m from the highest point of the natural ground?

Thanks for your answers,
Best regards Harald

For a flat roof - does the lateral masonry count here?

Is that stated in the development plan or is that a question from you?

The highest point of the natural terrain where the exterior wall is located is meant

Yes.

directly adjacent

Yes.

Does that mean if one point is lower than the other, the one with 1m is decisive?

?

Can then ... the fall protection exceed the 4m from the highest point of the natural terrain?

No.

[QUOTE]
For a flat roof – does the lateral masonry count here?

Is that stated in the development plan or is that a question from you?
[/QUOTE]

That is a question from me – what is the decisive point here regarding the intersection of the outer wall (with a flat roof) --> but I think the entire outer wall including the lateral flat roof masonry should be relevant

[QUOTE]
The highest point of the natural terrain where the outer wall is located is meant

Yes.
[/QUOTE]

OK – once more for my understanding – is it to be interpreted as drawn?

[QUOTE]
Does it mean if one point is lower than the other, the one at 1m is decisive?

?
[/QUOTE]
Means to obtain a level terrace – I may raise the valley-side point with the lower adjacent height by a maximum of 1 meter – but not higher, for example to compensate a higher positioned hillside point which has a height difference of more than 1 meter.

Thank you, have a nice evening & best regards Harald

Embankments for terraces are allowed up to a maximum of 1.0 m above the adjacent terrain. However, large-scale embankments should be avoided. Question: directly adjacent or the property boundary?

Adjacent to the terrace and not large-scale up to the end of the property or something like that.

for my understanding

The term "(gable side) building height", the plan symbols in #3 and your federal state designation "OE" confuse me. Are we no longer in the Federal Republic of Germany here?

but I think the entire outer wall including the lateral flat roof parapet should be relevant here

Yes, that is usually the case.

is it to be interpreted as drawn?

Yes, at least according to my interpretation.

So to get a flat terrace – am I allowed to pile up the valley-side point with the lower adjacent height by max. 1 meter – but not higher, for example, to compensate for a higher hillside point that has more than 1 meter height difference.

I think I have an idea of what you mean, but I'm not sure. In the end, no point of your terrace may be more than 1m above the underlying point of the original level.

Hello,

No, this concerns Austria - but at least the terminology should be handled the same way.

Thank you for your answers. I wanted to know how high a future potential neighbor could build if I lay out my terrace.

Best regards, Harald