Building plan with different eave heights

Dear building experts among you,

My husband and I have a building plot of approximately 600 sqm, floor area ratio 0.4, plot ratio 0.8 in Baden-Württemberg in sight. However, we are not experts and are trying to make sense of the development plan. The state building code BW from 1972 applies. According to the development plan, a single-family house I+IU may be built. An attic is also allowed as long as it does not exceed the 2/3 rule with a clear height of 2.0m. So far so good. A roof pitch of 22-33° is permitted. Now the catch: on the valley side, the eaves height may be a maximum of 5.7m and on the mountain side a maximum of 3.5m. In our opinion, the plot is on a very slight slope (not yet measured, but viewed from the top edge of the street the highest point is approximately +1.5m) so we simply can’t imagine how a maximum eaves height of 3.5m is allowed on the mountain side. This of course significantly reduces the knee wall height for the attic. In addition, the sun comes from the valley side onto the long side of the house which should run parallel to the street, so a terrace on the street side in the southwest makes more sense than on the mountain side in the north.

Now to my questions:
1. As a reference point for the eaves heights, the following is stated: "measured from the intersection between the house base and the defined ground level to the intersection between the outer wall and the roof covering."
How should we understand this definition? What is the house base, for example the floor of the ground floor or the point where the terrain intersects?
2. Is it worth fighting for this plot based on the given information, as there are several interested parties?

Thank you for your help

Now the crux of the matter: on the valley side, the eaves height may be max. 5.7m and on the mountain side max. 3.5m.

Is that certainly meant for the same plot? - it often means that one value applies to the plots on the valley side of the street and the other for the plots on the mountain side of the street.

Intersection between house base and designated ground surface

I don't understand that either, the lower reference point is actually either/or taken from the actual building and otherwise specified as a designation for each plot.

Is this really meant for the same property? - more often it means that one value applies to the properties on the valley side of the street and the other to the properties on the mountain side of the street.

Thank you first of all for even reading my long text
The property is part of a huge plot, which apparently belongs to only one seller. From this, several parcels of land were cut out. However, looking at the development plan, the building line runs along the edges of this large building plot, so there is no building line limitation to the north (mountain side). Therefore, unfortunately, we are not sure whether we have to implement it that way only for our property or if your version corresponds to the truth. The latter would of course be the best for us

I also do not understand that, the lower reference point is actually either / or taken from the real building and otherwise specified as a definition for each property.

Unfortunately, I reproduced the exact wording and do not make sense of it either

Please post the actual plan here. Then one can form a better judgment.

Please post the actual plan here. Then it will be easier to form an opinion.

Then I'll try to attach it. The plot is the area circled in red.
We noticed that the houses to the north have high eaves heights facing their street and low eaves heights facing the building plot. Because of this, some also have asymmetrical roofs.

Hmm, I am missing the explanation of what 3.5 and 5.7 mean. That should be explained somewhere in the development plan or did I overlook it? Edit: I found it.