Which type of house to choose?

that is no problem either with the 2/3 regulation BUT not in connection with the eave height of max. 4-4.5m, right?

I seem to remember that the eave heights were always different; I would have to check if you want to know exactly ... although there is a lot to consider



Rhenish greetings from the road Building expert

until yesterday evening (we were at a developer) my husband and I were sure, we are building a house with 2 captain's graves...

I'm glad that you are reorienting yourselves. Who would want graves in their house or on their property...

I'm glad that you are reorienting yourselves. Who would want graves in their house or property...

Hahahaha! Yes... That sounds creepy - we thought so too!

I seem to remember that there were always different eaves heights; I would have to check if you want to know exactly ... although a lot adds up there

I am only interested in a setback floor in connection with an eaves height of less than 4.5 m. We have a large development area here with several sections; in the first section only one story was specified, yet many, very many "urban villas" with a setback floor were built. Now for the next section, which will start in summer 2016, the municipality has limited the eaves height to 4.5 m and the ridge height to 9.0 m. As I think, they want to counteract the many "bunkers"—that is, urban villas—because it looks totally overbuilt, with tall houses everywhere in the tightest space.

Hello Alex,

I am only interested in a mezzanine floor in connection with a parapet height of less than 4.5 m.

I lack the necessary time to review all development plans, so I have looked up the three most recent (comparable) development plans - regardless of whether they are single- or two-story.

**01. Development plan in Cologne: Parapet height: max. 4.00 m, ridge height: max. 8.20 - built: single-story with mezzanine + attic (the actual parapet height is below the maximum allowed parapet height; the maximum allowed ridge height is not reached)
02. Development plan in MG: Parapet height: 87.5, ridge height: 90.5 - approved: two-story + mezzanine (floor height ground floor 83.68, parapet height roof terrace 87.60 and floor height mezzanine 89.66)
03. Development plan in ME: meaningful development plan almost non-existent. Sold as two-story with flush mezzanine (knee wall 2.00 m) + pitched roof 12°, ridge height 9.54 m; built as such in the immediate vicinity. This was rejected by the building authority because the mezzanine was considered a third story; a centrally located, "regular" mezzanine would not have been a problem. However, our clients did not want that because they need "more" space in the attic. Currently being built is a two-story with 1.10 m knee wall + dormer and roof terrace: parapet height - 7.36, ridge height: 10.575 (attachment). Such an attic is, after all these years, a first for us.

**Addition: if built regularly according to the development plan, a knee wall of 0.75 m would have resulted with a roof pitch of 40°.

In discussions with the clerks of the various building authorities, one always has to be prepared for compromises. By and large, both parties have always been able to live with the solutions so far. Therefore, I assume that it always depends on how we approach the employees in the approving positions and not demanding the impossible; it is no different with the tax office.

Rhenish regards

We had to submit an exemption application for our roof. According to the building regulations, the roof shape was not permitted. However, there were already two such roofs in the immediate neighborhood. No extra costs but with a 10-week approval period and a lot of hassle. However, we built in an existing development area adjacent to a new development area. The building regulations are identical. But the building authority didn’t care at all. Our architect was eventually just exhausted. A personal meeting with the mayor helped in the end.