Building height of 8.5 m with basement and 2 full floors

Using the base slab as a reference point is somehow nonsensical, unless you want to "disadvantage" buildings with basements. Or does OK Bodenplatte perhaps mean OK rough floor ground floor? Phew... this definition is something for an architect. Nothing for guessing with laypeople (experts explicitly excluded). Only nonsense can come out of it.

See Escroda.

That can only result in nonsense.

See Escroda.

Can you explain that in more detail?

I gave Escroda insight into the plans once via private message, with the conclusion that the formulations in the plans are unusual and not entirely clear.

He remains of the opinion that OK Bodenplatte Erdgeschoss is meant. Just a small summary for all later readers.

With the ridge height of 8.5 meters from OK Bodenplatte (assuming that the basement is meant), I also assumed that the builders are being faced with the decision of either having a basement or two full floors without a basement. My challenge over the last few days was to plan our house so that basement + ground floor + upper floor are possible => result: lower floor heights (but still acceptable) + flat roof.

If such restrictions for builders are not even provided for in the building code in terms of urban development, that is very good news for me and we can probably plan with a basement and two full floors + "normal" roof. But the discussion may gladly continue, since I will only have an expert (architect) available towards the end of the month and until then I would like to continue planning for myself.

Many thanks in advance for your quick help until then.

Addition: If I call the city planning office about this topic, am I possibly shooting myself in the foot? Along the lines of: "Let sleeping dogs lie" and "without my note about the unusual wording in the development plan, the architect would have pushed his plan through the building authority after the ground floor slab approval?"

Just asking so I don't make a mistake, since there are only humans at the other end of the chain, and if official A writes such wording and the architect pushes it through official B according to his own definition, that's fine with me.

Apart from the text fragment, there should also be a drawing that visually explains the eaves height again (which is probably provided separately, and the "building height" then applies to the ridge height for pitched roofs. As I read it, there are two reference points here: the floor slab is relevant for the ridge height, the street for the eaves height.

The terminology should probably be used more transparently, as the municipality does not exactly distinguish itself with glory here. Presumably, "floor slab" means that one assumes houses with floor slabs.
For houses with basements, the top edge of the basement ceiling should take this position; this should preferably be formulated more clearly.

The planner and a building inquiry create clarity; I would skip calls (not because of harmfulness, but because no reliable statements emerge from them).

Thank you . Now, there are various statements, also here in the thread. Since I am still in the preliminary planning and therefore do not yet have a planner, my question is: How do I get a somewhat binding statement? Or is the municipality allowed to keep a decision open in case of ambiguous formulations, when submitting a building application, by saying "For the Müller family, we approve the basement house OK basement slab because the dog has a beautiful coat" and "For the Schulz family, we approve the basement house OK ground floor slab because the dog barks constantly, and thus force them to have a flat roof"?

I mean, somewhere the municipality is also obliged to provide clarity, right, or do you just have to live with the fact that it is interpreted in its own way? What do you think?