Indentation rules for stepped floors

Hello,

We would like to realize 2 full floors with a recessed top floor above. The development plan does not specify by how much the top floor must be recessed. Our architect says that according to the HBO only the distance areas must be adhered to, and that the top floor must be 25% smaller than the lower full floors. Thus, for example, we could recess one side and make the others flush with our exterior walls of the lower full floors. However, the city is totally confusing us. They once said that it must be recessed by 0.5 m on all sides. This would result from the fact that only flat roofs, tent roofs, and gable roofs are permitted, and because of the eaves height and that NO shed roof is allowed, it would follow that all sides would have to be recessed by 0.5 m. Is what they say comprehensible? Now we have learned from another builder that only the side facing the street must be recessed (also info from the same source). But what is correct now? Do we have to recess more than one side (regardless of the street) at all? Are there any other regulations in the HBO? Thanks in advance.

What do you want to do with the Hessian Building Code at "Construction Site: BW"?

Thank you for the note. I have corrected it to HE! We build in Hessen.

I did a bit of reading. Your state building code was amended in summer ’18 and states on the topic in §2 (5): "[...] A top floor set back from at least one exterior wall of the building (set-back floor) and a floor with at least one inclined roof surface is a full floor if it has this height over more than three quarters of the floor area of the floor below it [...]" and in §6 (4): "[...] 5 Walls are defined as: 1. Roof structures in continuation of the exterior wall or with a setback of up to 0.50 m behind the exterior wall, [...]", (in other passages the usual explanation of what a full floor is applies).

From the cited passages I conclude:
a) the setback itself already creates the set-back floor if it only sets back behind the lower facade on one side of the house; the dimension of the setback is not actually specified;
b) however, regarding the wall height aka eave height, the wall of the set-back floor only counts as an independent wall if it sets back at least 0.50 m behind that of the floor below.

In equal treatment with a gable roof, I would therefore consider the setback to be required only for the long sides of the house as the usual eave sides and argue for the "gable sides" that they do not have the respective maximum permitted eave height as a height limit with a gable roof either.

But what is correct now?

I agree with 's interpretation, although I would like to point out that the legal situation here is extremely complex and I would not engage in a controversial discussion with the building authority, but rather take their conditions into account during planning. There will probably not be many court rulings yet on the new State Building Code in Hesse, but there are already some regarding the setback floor and the eaves height, so the acceptance of a 50cm setback as not being counted towards the eaves height already represents a builder-friendly interpretation by the approval authority. Whether the old State Building Code must still be applied for certain provisions also depends on the wording in the development plan. And to compare with the neighbor, one would need to know so many details about their building project that it would go beyond the scope of the forum.

so that the acceptance of a 50cm setback as not being counted towards the eaves height already represents a builder-friendly interpretation by the approval authority.

I fully agree with this view in theory, but in practice I see a setback of half a meter all around as a catastrophic scenario for the structural and energetic implementation. Conclusion: Theorists tried to be nice here, but in the process remained theorists. However, in the specific case, I also see the spatial program as manageable with a gable roof with "kniestock 0".