Questions about the development plan (full floors, knee wall)

Hello everyone,
after reading along for a long time, I have now registered here as well. We have a plot in Siegen (NRW) in prospect and are not entirely clear about the effects of the development plan.
According to the development plan, a two-story construction is permitted for the aforementioned plot. In the BO NRW, I found the definition (Full stories are above-ground stories that have a clear height of at least 2.30 m. A story is only considered a full story if it has the height mentioned in sentence 1 over more than three-quarters of the floor area of the story below). So far, so good. There is nothing about the knee wall/parapet in the development plan. However, there is another document on the City of Siegen’s website (Local Building Regulations for Development Plan 311) which stipulates a parapet height of 70 cm. The maximum ridge height according to the development plan is set at 8 m.
I don’t really understand the sense of this. On the one hand, I am allowed to build a two-story "block," but if I only build one story plus attic, the parapet may only be 70 cm? Have I understood this correctly? Does it make sense?
I hope you understand my concern,
Best regards,
jj-siegen

Did I understand that correctly?

Yes.

Does it make sense?

Whether it makes sense, you have to ask the urban planners who came up with it. If they find the high knee wall ugly or inappropriate for the area, then they have chosen the right tool to prevent this in the development area. If you disagree, you should have intervened during the establishment of the development plan and design statute. Now the statutes are legally binding, and no one is forcing you to buy the property.

Thanks in advance for the answer. I just don't understand why a high knee wall is supposed to be "uglier" than 2 full floors. In the area of the development plan where only one story is allowed, that makes sense to me. But in the area with 2 possible full floors, it does not.

I just don't understand why a high knee wall is supposed to be "uglier" than 2 full stories.

Yes, tastes are so different. X6 drivers also don't understand why high-legged sports cars are supposed to be ugly. If I could issue a design statute for cars, I would ban this type of vehicle from my area of influence.

Thank you again for the visual explanations
I have another question regarding the development plan. As can be seen in the attachments from post #1, the development plan provides for a building with "ridge direction perpendicular to the traffic area" (F).
I have sketched our preferred plot here. How should "ridge direction perpendicular to the traffic area" be interpreted here? The plot is located at the turning circle. Should the street be mentally extended here or should it be perpendicular to the sidewalk? What do you think?

Many thanks in advance!

Hello everyone,
I have another question about the topic of knee walls. Sorry, but somehow I don’t quite understand it all.
All information about the development plan can be found in the 1st thread.

My question is, until when is the knee wall still considered a knee wall and from when do you talk about a 2nd floor or a "normal wall" (apart from the definition of a full floor; which I have understood by now) and thus the knee wall is no longer a knee wall but a storey wall. I am attaching a sketch and hope you understand what I mean. Unfortunately, I can’t explain it better ops:
The background of the question is that we are allowed to build 2 storeys, but only with a knee wall of 70cm (top of raw ceiling to bottom of foot purlin) and a maximum height of building structures measured from the ground surface of 8m. Therefore, I would like to know if from a certain wall height (sketch option 2m or 2.5m) it is simply a storey wall and there is no longer a knee wall.

Oh dear, it’s all very confusing, but I can’t put it properly into words. Sorry.

Thank you very much in advance, best regards!