ᐅ There are different opinions about the maximum height of the knee wall.
Created on: 31 Aug 2021 21:31
U
ucsg1234Dear members of the house building forum,
The topic is the maximum allowed knee wall height that can be considered realistic.
We have approached various prefabricated house suppliers as well as an architect who sells traditional solid houses through another company, based on the development plan. Each gave us different height specifications based on the provided information. I am referring to the actual height measured inside after construction—so when I enter the finished house and hold a measuring tape against the wall.
Here are the key data points and excerpts from the development plan:
I Floor area ratio 0.3
o Plot ratio 0.3
SD 30-45 degrees
SHüS2: 0.5 m (1.6 ft)
FHüS2: 9 m (29.5 ft)
I would appreciate further evaluations and am curious if there is a logical explanation why some say 90 cm (solid house supplier) and others 1.20 m (prefabricated house supplier). Is it due to the construction method or the sales agents’ lack of experience?
Here are some additional details from the development plan:
0.1 ROOFS
10.1.1 Depending on the designation in the plan drawing, gable roofs (SD), shed roofs (PD), or flat roofs (FD) are permitted in the planning area. Gable roofs may be hipped (full hip, half-hip, pyramid hip).
10.1.2 Unless otherwise specified below, roofs must be covered with red to red-brown, gray, or anthracite-colored clay or concrete tiles. Roof coverings must not have reflective surfaces. Green roofs are also permitted. On buildings with more than two residential units, as well as in WA(S) areas and areas for community use (daycare centers), green roofs are mandated if the roof pitch is less than 20 degrees. On buildings with more than two residential units, full stories may be covered by terraces and green flat roofs up to a maximum of 25%.
10.1.3 Roofs of auxiliary buildings and garages may, contrary to points 10.1.1 and 10.1.2, have gable or shed roofs with pitches from 0 to 45 degrees. Roofs of auxiliary buildings with floor areas over 6 m² (65 sq ft) and garages must be greened.
10.1.4 The width of dormers, roof loggias, and skylights may each be up to 33% of the eave width per side. They must maintain a minimum distance of 1 m (3.3 ft) from the ridge and at least 2 m (6.6 ft) from the verge, measured along the roof pitch.
10.1.5 Throughout the planning area, non-reflective solar systems (solar thermal and photovoltaic) arranged across the roof pitch are permitted. They may cover up to 70% of a roof surface and must maintain a minimum distance of 1 m (3.3 ft) from eaves, verges, and ridges, measured along the pitch.
10.2 FACADES / WALLS / AUXILIARY STRUCTURES / GARAGES
10.2.1 The facades of the main buildings in the planning area are to be constructed from brick, fired brick, plaster, or other materials in light red to red-brown shades.
10.2.2 For up to 30% of the facade area of a main building, as well as for auxiliary structures, privacy walls, and the external walls of garages and carports, other materials and colors such as red, red-brown and beige, as well as off-white and gray, are permitted.
10.2.3 Garages and carports must be built at least 3 m (9.8 ft) away from street boundaries.
The topic is the maximum allowed knee wall height that can be considered realistic.
We have approached various prefabricated house suppliers as well as an architect who sells traditional solid houses through another company, based on the development plan. Each gave us different height specifications based on the provided information. I am referring to the actual height measured inside after construction—so when I enter the finished house and hold a measuring tape against the wall.
Here are the key data points and excerpts from the development plan:
I Floor area ratio 0.3
o Plot ratio 0.3
SD 30-45 degrees
SHüS2: 0.5 m (1.6 ft)
FHüS2: 9 m (29.5 ft)
I would appreciate further evaluations and am curious if there is a logical explanation why some say 90 cm (solid house supplier) and others 1.20 m (prefabricated house supplier). Is it due to the construction method or the sales agents’ lack of experience?
Here are some additional details from the development plan:
0.1 ROOFS
10.1.1 Depending on the designation in the plan drawing, gable roofs (SD), shed roofs (PD), or flat roofs (FD) are permitted in the planning area. Gable roofs may be hipped (full hip, half-hip, pyramid hip).
10.1.2 Unless otherwise specified below, roofs must be covered with red to red-brown, gray, or anthracite-colored clay or concrete tiles. Roof coverings must not have reflective surfaces. Green roofs are also permitted. On buildings with more than two residential units, as well as in WA(S) areas and areas for community use (daycare centers), green roofs are mandated if the roof pitch is less than 20 degrees. On buildings with more than two residential units, full stories may be covered by terraces and green flat roofs up to a maximum of 25%.
10.1.3 Roofs of auxiliary buildings and garages may, contrary to points 10.1.1 and 10.1.2, have gable or shed roofs with pitches from 0 to 45 degrees. Roofs of auxiliary buildings with floor areas over 6 m² (65 sq ft) and garages must be greened.
10.1.4 The width of dormers, roof loggias, and skylights may each be up to 33% of the eave width per side. They must maintain a minimum distance of 1 m (3.3 ft) from the ridge and at least 2 m (6.6 ft) from the verge, measured along the roof pitch.
10.1.5 Throughout the planning area, non-reflective solar systems (solar thermal and photovoltaic) arranged across the roof pitch are permitted. They may cover up to 70% of a roof surface and must maintain a minimum distance of 1 m (3.3 ft) from eaves, verges, and ridges, measured along the pitch.
10.2 FACADES / WALLS / AUXILIARY STRUCTURES / GARAGES
10.2.1 The facades of the main buildings in the planning area are to be constructed from brick, fired brick, plaster, or other materials in light red to red-brown shades.
10.2.2 For up to 30% of the facade area of a main building, as well as for auxiliary structures, privacy walls, and the external walls of garages and carports, other materials and colors such as red, red-brown and beige, as well as off-white and gray, are permitted.
10.2.3 Garages and carports must be built at least 3 m (9.8 ft) away from street boundaries.
ucsg1234 schrieb:
Attached are the key data and excerpts from the development plan:
I Floor area ratio 0.3
o Floor space index 0.3
Roof pitch 30-45 degrees
SHüS2: 0.5 m (1.6 feet)
FHüS2: 9 m (29.5 feet) It would be best if you could specify the development plan by name (not as a link! For example, in the format "Posemuckel No. 234 Wiesengrund II"). I’m guessing there’s a reference height called S2 that specifies the maximum allowed levels for the base and ridge height. A height of eight and a half meters (27.9 feet) between them might seem quite generous, but the identical floor area ratio and floor space index of 0.3 suggest that the "I" full story is taken very seriously. In my mind’s eye, I picture a steep gable roof with a large knee wall (Drempel) and little to no knee wall height (Kniestock).
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
11ant schrieb:
It’s best if you specify the development plan (not as a link! For example, in the format "Posemuckel No. 234 Wiesengrund II"). I’m guessing it defines a reference elevation called S2, which sets the maximum allowed heights for the foundation level and the ridge line. Eight and a half meters (27.9 feet) of building height between them sounds generous at first, but with both the floor area ratio and site coverage ratio being 0.3, it suggests that the "I" full floor level is taken very seriously. In my mind’s eye, I picture a steep gable roof with a large kneewall (dormer wall) and little to no knee wall under the roof. Thank you very much for your quick response! It’s really great when a community is so active. I hope we will have a great exchange here going forward.
Now, about the building project: Yes, they are definitely serious about the "I" full floor level. The question is simply, what can we realistically get out of the first floor? Please search on Google for: Schönberg-Bebauungsplan-67-vorläufiger-Rechtsplan.pdf
Thanks for your effort!
ucsg1234 schrieb:
Please search on Google for: Schönberg-Bebauungsplan-67-vorläufiger-Rechtsplan.pdf However, I’m not supposed to cross-check all thirty sections of the development plan with your data from the usage template. Please insert a section here where the plot can be clearly identified.
ucsg1234 schrieb:
Yes, they are really serious about the first full story (“I Vollgeschoss”). The question simply is, what can we effectively get out of the first upper floor. The upper floor will definitely be an attic. Keep in mind that it’s better to optimize the knee wall height rather than maximize it!
It can be wiser—especially since this “I” will likely not be negotiable—to accept a knee wall rather than possibly combining knee wall and dwarf wall consecutively (except maybe partially, for example in the bathroom).
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
11ant schrieb:
I’m not supposed to cross-check all thirty sections of the development plan against your input from the usage template. Please provide an extract here where the plot can be identified.
The upper floor will definitely be an attic. Keep in mind that it’s better to optimize the knee wall height rather than maximize it!
It can be smarter—especially since point “I” here is fixed—to get used to having a knee wall rather than possibly stacking knee wall and knee wall base one after the other (except maybe partially, for example, in the bathroom).I understand that a knee wall isn’t really what we currently imagine; let’s see if we can get used to the idea. But having a knee wall height would be desirable. The floor area ratio is limited, after all. The goal is to ensure that not 50% of the rooms upstairs have ceiling heights below 2.20m (7 feet 3 inches).
Attached is the plan
ucsg1234 schrieb:
The floor space index is limited, after all.No, the floor space index alone does not cause the restriction. Both the site coverage ratio and the floor space index, each at 0.3, are only maximum values. If only those mattered, a "town villa" would be possible with an actual site coverage ratio of 0.15. There is no eaves height restriction here, so at a building height of 9.00 m (29.5 ft), only the single full storey ("I" storey) limits it, since a 30° pitched roof could still start above the upper floor ceiling.According to your image excerpt, the situation is clear: the reference height is 7.99 m (26.2 ft), so the base height can be a maximum of 8.49 m (27.9 ft), and the ridge height at 16.99 m (55.7 ft). In terms of height, I see the biggest limitation here in the non-full storey. What concerns me more are the trees and the two parking spaces.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
Similar topics