Assessment of property sought - Article 34 redevelopment

Hello dear forum,

I have been a silent reader for a long time and have already taken a lot of knowledge and ideas from here.
Now I need your assessment regarding the buildability of a plot of land that is up for auction.

Here are the key data about the plot (parcel 148) and the house:

[*]There is no development plan, therefore buildable according to Article 34; redevelopment possible
[*]approx. 800m^2
[*]trapezoid-shaped
[*]~20m width on the street side
[*]~13m width at the back of the plot
[*]~47m length
[*]built with a settlement house from the 1930s. In need of major renovation and according to the expert rather a demolition object.
[*]The house has approx. 60m^2 living area. Of which ~40m^2 footprint
[*]width of the house: ~7.4m; depth: ~6.7m
[*]roof pitch ~45°

I was at the building authority and asked for their assessment regarding buildability and possible use according to Article 34.
I did not receive a clear statement, only that I would have to submit a building inquiry and then learn more.

Unfortunately, this is no longer possible on short notice - the auction starts soon.
However, I was able to extract/hear a few pieces of information:

[*]One can utilize the width of the plot - minus 3m boundary setback.
[*]Since currently an extension - albeit very small - is registered, one can also build an extension.
[*]The house must align with the two neighbors regarding depth - both are also settlement houses.
[*]Eaves and ridge height of the neighbors must be observed - current eaves height: 3.6m (measured with laser).

A construction company created a first floor plan for a house that could be built like this (see floor plan and rendering in the attachment).
It has a minimum depth of 7.5m - about 75cm more than the house currently built on the plot.
According to their statement, less hardly makes sense anymore because then it simply becomes a long narrow tube.

What do you think about the project?
The building authority did not want to make a statement on whether something deeper would be possible. They always refer to an examination within the framework of a building inquiry according to Article 34 and the neighbors.
Would you take the risk of buying - within the framework of the auction - without a building inquiry and speculate that the building authority will come to a positive decision for us?
Or let it go and look for something else?

I would really appreciate your opinions. Thanks already for that!

The house must be oriented towards the two neighbors in terms of depth - both are also settlement houses.

I do not see any neighboring buildings here that would even remotely serve as orientation - especially the two direct neighboring plots to the left (house 28 / parcel 147, and even more so house 24, parcel 585) are practically drowning in extensions and outbuildings, so that the original core buildings cannot be seriously considered. The building density here is also quite high, and it is questionable whether relying on the assumption that comparable structures have been permitted here would not meet resistance against current spatial planning objectives. It seems to me that this will become a rough sea to navigate for anyone hoping for a peaceful resolution in the foreseeable future.

What do you think of the project?

I think it's good.

Would you take the risk of a purchase - within the framework of the auction - without a preliminary building inquiry and speculate that the building authority will come to a positive decision for us?

Yes.

Or let it go and look for something else?

No, unless you uncompromisingly dream of a "town villa".

I would dare to do it as well. Apart from the fact that the BU hasn't really created a draft but simply slimmed down a conventional model house, there are great narrow houses. Besides, you have the options to extend in depth with an annex. I hope as a layperson that this would then be allowed to become living space?! So you could accommodate part of the ground floor in an annex. Unknown to me now would be the roof pitch and whether it harmonizes with your family size. If agrees that in these annexes (outside this conceptual 34-meter building boundary) living spaces are also allowed, then the property has enough potential to settle.

In view of these almost cancerous-looking extensions in the neighborhood, I would rather wonder how the authority intends to refuse a building with more depth?

I would also strike, demolish, and then submit a building application for a moderate but significantly deeper house that fits perfectly visually on the street side. I would probably cheekily apply for something like 12m x 9.5m. (Due to the low knee wall, I would still recess a bit on the upper floor and therefore not make it too narrow.)

Then the Turkish bazaar can begin. If you have staked too high, you could presumably also plan with extensions – maybe with a 3rd gable in the garden.

Considering these almost cancerous extensions in the neighborhood, I would rather wonder how the authority wants to reject a development with more depth?

And I consider the problem to be that §34 requires an insertion, but the neighboring buildings consist of inhomogeneous chamber clusters, from which it is difficult to distill a defined framework.

and then a moderate but significantly deeper house, which fits perfectly visually on the street side,

Yes, I would probably aim for a building body that has a break roughly at the rear corners of the existing (then predecessor) building. So basically to build a total volume adequate to the neighboring buildings, but not composed in such a Frankenstein manner, rather "in an aesthetic way".