Can a single-family house be sensibly planned on this plot?

I would even prefer to do without a pitched roof. However, I am tied to the neighboring buildings. I am going to the property again today. I will then photograph the immediate neighboring buildings to get an impression of what might be allowed.

What would rather make me think is the main street that goes by there. How heavily is it trafficked? Does it have through traffic? What is it like at night? How loud? Can I manage to plan at least all the bedrooms on the other side?

Putting a house on the plot itself, I don't see as problematic. Maybe you can play a bit with the floor area, it doesn't necessarily have to be a rectangle, but can be adapted to the shape of the plot. Although I'm not a fan of angles other than 90°, I would probably prefer the variant of nested rectangles as the floor plan. But that can certainly make better use of the space, and since there is no explicit development plan, you are relatively free in the design.

The insertion requirement (that is the infamous §34) does NOT mean that your house has to look exactly like the neighboring buildings, it only has to be of the same kind. So a single-family house, the measure of development (floor area ratio) should be in the same range, etc. There is no requirement as to how the roof must look!

The insertion requirement (i.e. the infamous §34) does NOT mean that your house has to look exactly like the neighboring buildings, it just has to be of the same type. So a single-family house, the measure of the development (floor area ratio) should be within the same range, etc. There is no specification on how the roof has to look!

That wasn’t clear to me. I assumed that the shapes were also relevant, including the roof.

However, only one full storey will probably be allowed on the plot (there was apparently also a preliminary building inquiry for this, single-family house with 100m2 floor area).

I will be at the plot around noon today and will also take a close look at the street

I also find a shed roof quite cool, and it is definitely cheap to build. Something like a staggered one, rising from 1.8 to 2.2 at about one third of the gable width, and from 1.8 to 3.0 at two thirds of the width. The former accommodates utility rooms, bathroom, and storage. The latter houses the bedrooms – possibly even with a sleeping gallery at the very top in the children's rooms, which would then be generously glazed.

You could therefore test the waters at the building authority.

What matters are the setback distances, not how the neighboring houses have dealt with them. It also does not matter what was approved in the previous building application, but only what is possible according to the legal situation. What is not allowed: multi-story buildings with 7 units or something like that.

But if the setback distances are sufficient, two full floors should not be a problem, nor an adequately high knee wall. That is also completely normal for a single-family house. Here with us, originally only bungalows were approved; some imbecile decided back then (in the seventies of the last century) that this corresponds to a traditional Swabian construction method (which is complete nonsense, but when such a moron holds such a position, this is what happens). So everyone here built bungalows with pitched roofs and zero knee walls because everyone thought that was the requirement. However, the development plan was never really adopted. When further houses were built after the first construction phase, they were relatively free to build. No more bungalows and spread out wide. Now it was indeed allowed to build with a ground floor and upper floor. My parents regretted it back then; they would have much preferred to build like that instead of this bungalow (although now it is rather an advantage for my 80-year-old mother – even though she is still fit enough for all kinds of stairs). We could have also put a cube-shaped house there – unfortunately, the setback distances did not allow it.

But we even got an approval for a setback overlap. We were able to justify well that it is better for all parties if we move the house one meter backwards and thus reduce the setback distance at the back. We succeeded with good arguments (more sun for all neighbors). Good arguments for an exemption are, for example, a better orientation of solar systems etc. So what I want to say: you have a lot of possibilities there.

A good architect – in this case one who has a good connection to the responsible building authority and is willing to deal with them – can get the maximum out of it for you. And the appearance of the neighboring buildings is relatively irrelevant in this regard. Think about what you want, what the building envelope (here not predetermined but only limited by the required setback distances) allows, what makes sense and what needs to be considered (e.g., noise pollution from this main road). With the shape of the plot, as already mentioned above, I would not rigidly insist on a rectangular floor plan. I would only copy from the neighboring houses if there is something I really like (which I did not really see in the pictures: please rather not!).

Otherwise: build yourself a nice house there, with a capable architect and exactly the way you want it and how the laws allow it. And as I said, that is relatively free!

§34 is not handled quite as freely . Under our penultimate mayor, our house would never have been approved like this. Set back further, ridge direction doesn’t fit, etc. The village center must be preserved, Franconian architectural style, etc. At the moment, everything is being approved as you describe. I would seek a conversation with the decision-makers. Explain my ideas. Two pictures showing roughly how you envision the house (a view from a catalog is sufficient) and mark it on the site plan or something similar. A few arguments in reserve why. For example, infill development, no departure or arrival of a family, building heights in comparison, small footprint necessary. We had gone to the town hall back then, sought the conversation, this is what we imagine, do you agree or what do we need to change? It felt like this 20-minute conversation cleared everything up and paved the way. Just because the gentlemen were involved directly and not simply presented with a finished plan. At the meeting it was then only said: We are getting new neighbors. Demolition and new construction will be applied for as coordinated with us.