Increase knee wall height - exceed eaves height?

So much space is simply lost in the rooms and I also find the layout of the bathroom more than unfortunate.

I think your walk-in closet wastes the most space.
What do you have there? About 7 sqm for a 2-meter wardrobe. Great...

A bathtub also fits well under the slope.

Is there a chance for an exemption (without a development plan)? After all, it's not about 2 meters...

I wouldn't be in the mood for calculations now either, your architect gets paid for that.
But the roof pitch could, for example, also become shallower if the knee wall is a bit higher.
Otherwise, there have already been tips: I too would always consider placing the wardrobe about 1.5 meters deep under the slope.
Children's rooms can handle the slope as well.
Your problem is also the dormers – they make the upper floor almost reach the full story, right?
If necessary, build a bit bigger downstairs.

But the roof pitch could also be lower, for example, if the knee wall becomes a bit higher.

It probably would have to be, since one would likely achieve the exception for the eaves height alone more easily than an additional one for the ridge height.

On what legal basis are these information based? To me, that sounds like extracts from a development plan and a design statute. Where else should the reference to the Baunutzungsverordnung 68 come from?
Did you receive the information specifically for your property, or are they just of a general nature?

Who determined the surface level of the site? Where is the determination documented?
Who planned for you? A local architect? Have the planning law basics thoroughly explained to you by the draft creator.

I received the information directly on site at the building authority’s consultation hours, both verbally and subsequently in writing via email.
It says the following about the front property:

“The aforementioned property lies, according to the designations of the land use plan in the version of 12/28/1960, which continues to apply here in conjunction with the urban development regulations of the Building Code for Berlin (Bauordnung Bln) from 1958, the development plan XIV-A from 1971, and the formally established (f. f.) street and building setback lines as a transferred (qualified) development plan, in the ‘general residential area’ according to § 7 No. 8 of the Bauordnung Bln 1958. The measure of use is the construction stage II/2: floor space ratio (Grundflächenzahl): 0.2; floor area ratio (Geschossflächenzahl): 0.4; and number of full floors: 2. The building depth is 20.0 m, measured from the formally established building setback line. Open building construction applies. A 6.0 m deep front garden area measured from the formally established street line must be kept free from construction.”

The planned floor heights in our design are 2.75 m in the shell construction, which means we should probably end up at 2.52 m.

The planning is by a general contractor, accordingly we have not yet seen an architect and if we hadn’t already had these requirements beforehand, the whole thing would probably catch us out during the building application.

The rear buildings in the vicinity are characterized by half-hipped roofs and regular gable roofs. The front row actually offers everything the heart desires: gable roofs, multi-family houses (including directly next door), bungalows, etc.

I will go again to the consultation hours today and inquire in more detail.

So, the consultation was pretty sobering.
Regarding the eaves height, there is no leeway. It is also measured at the center of the terrain. That means if there were a depression at the actual building site on the property, the house would be lower but still may not exceed the 4m eaves height. Someone explain that to me.

Furthermore, a dormer is only allowed with a shed roof and set back; gable and dormer together, as currently planned, would be rejected because it would constitute a full story. Although there are no living areas in these parts. According to the underlying building regulations, this is apparently calculated differently than with this 2/3 rule.

Your suggestion was now a different roof shape, such as hip roof or mansard roof. No idea to what extent a hip roof or clipped hip roof would change the knee wall. Mansard roof max. 60°. Problem with that: we don't like either option aesthetically at all.

Now we have to see what we make of it. Whether we can somehow squeeze out a few centimeters of knee wall or be satisfied with the 75cm.

Furthermore, a dormer is only permitted with a shed roof and set back; a gable and dormer together, as currently planned, would be rejected because it would result in a full story. [...] Your suggestion was now a different roof shape, such as hip or mansard. No idea to what extent a hip roof or clipped hip roof would change the knee wall. Mansard roof max. 60°.

I consider the requirement for a shed roof to be excessive, i.e., the flat roof over the bathroom is acceptable. Less contestable is probably that the opposite roof structure should not have a different ridge direction. In general, the distinction between dormers and cross gables (that dormers recede from the eaves-side wall) means that dormers make little sense with knee walls, as they cannot then rest on a knee wall. I find the suggestion of the mansard roof—despite my pleasure that this roof shape is not yet entirely forgotten—absurd here, since with it (even in the full-hip version) a full story would become increasingly likely. On the other hand: how does the criticism of the full story reconcile with the fact that a second full story was permitted here?

I join 11ant: That confuses me the most as well:

Number of full floors: 2.

Is that a typo? And how is a mansard or hipped roof supposed to help against the single-story design? That’s nonsense!

Besides, how do you come up with the 75cm knee wall? Are you not allowed to completely bury the floor slab? Otherwise, I would say (2.65 room height + 25cm ceiling = 2.90 floor height = 4m-2.90m = 1.10m knee wall).

If in doubt, it might also be possible here to trade a bit less house width for more house depth. This would then more likely allow placing a knee wall of the desired height in front of the outer wall. It would also improve the dressing room-bathroom situation – which is still a total mess as it is.