Eave height too low

The eave height set as the maximum is based on the floor heights commonly used in residential construction. It prevents extreme exceedances of the average heights without unnecessarily restricting the required design flexibility.

Long live the state-sanctioned social envy. Putting this aside, accusations towards the OP are pointless right now. Is that the entire description in the development plan? The ridge height of 9.5m was mentioned only in passing. A few points for thought or discussion:

[*]Quite brazenly: Does it say anything that would prohibit a mansard roof, e.g., a maximum roof pitch or an explicit ban on mansard roofs? [*]And how about a hipped half-hipped roof instead of a full hipped roof? [*]And does it say anything about dormer windows or cross-gables? [*]Regarding lowering the building: Is that forbidden by state building regulations or not (in the calculation of the eave height)? And is the terrain flat or not? The slope of the driveway does not contradict that. No one said the garage has to be at the same level as the ground floor. [*]All of these measures cost something. The question is whether the property allows simply building with a larger footprint and possibly shifting areas from the upper floor to the ground floor.

Just for clarification for the OP: Two full floors are reached when the clear width at 2m height is 2/3 of the floor area of the floor below (or something like that), i.e., a middle attic floor. And if I am not mistaken, that can just about be achieved with a tent roof at the given heights. It does not mean two floors without roof slopes.

So for us, there were absolutely no exemptions, not a single cm. The plans are not made just to fill paper, even if some decisions are hard to understand.

but the regulations partly came about simply for fun or incompetence (or more politely put, due to ignorance). we built in a huge new development area where they deliberately did not want to make any regulations. they didn't think much about "kniestock Max 40cm" and hit every customer right in the face with it. they didn't want that at all, but it was already signed and since politicians don't make mistakes, it couldn't be changed anymore. (other regulations: two stories allowed (you can build a house with 2 full stories and a normal floor with a kniestock of 40cm...), roof ridge height 10.5 meters, no regulations on color, shape, etc., generous floor area ratio, no pedestrian paths (because of snow shoveling), etc...). in the end, they just tricked it so that the kniestock could be designed as optimistically as possible. still useless. that's why we have a city villa...

Fun rather not, incompetence okay. Downhill-facing dormers were prohibited for us, nobody could understand that

Downhill-facing dormers were prohibited in our area

The planners probably thought that would leave less of an impression on the landscape. And politicians don't care whether people look out the window of their hundred-thousand-euro house at the slope or have a view and light.

looking at the slope

Or rather at the dining table of the person above. What I actually wanted to say is that you have to orient yourself to the development plan from the outset and come to terms with it. Unfortunately, the child has already fallen into the well here, and now you have to deal with it without prior knowledge. Development plans are generally there to apply to everyone.

An architect can conjure up very creative things from it. Despite our very strict development plan (which we knew from the beginning, e.g., an eaves height of 4m and a gable roof with 30-40° pitch or staggered shed roof), quite creative buildings have resulted in the area so far.

Sometimes things can go badly. For example, we reserved one of eight plots in an area without a development plan. However, it is supposed to be built like the houses in the neighborhood, i.e. single-story with a gable roof with about a 45-degree slope. Everything is approximate and rough. The architect said he could also have designed a Tuscan-style house there, as we would have liked. A slight exceedance of the floor area ratio would certainly have been accepted. But one of the eight owners insisted on having a townhouse with a pyramid roof, which was denied by the municipality. He then turned to the district administrator, whom he probably knew. The district administrator scolded the municipality, which was not pleased. Subsequently, a development plan was hastily created. Now all previously possible leniencies have been removed; there are now specifications for eaves and ridge heights, roof slope, floor area ratio, plot ratio, and more. The owner with good district administrator contacts has made quite a few enemies! That’s bound to cause some fun.
A reservation is not a purchase, the risk lies at 1500 euros, which we will lose if we withdraw from the purchase. Let’s see what the architect suggests now.