Feedback on property selection

F1.6 would also be my favorite ..however, there is still the question of whether the garage must also be within the building envelope.

After that, for me, the plots 3.2-5 would come, whose building envelopes are larger and possibly allow more freedom in house choice.

Between F1.1-1.3 and F1.6-F1.4 .. the gray area, I see less as a path, but could it be that the utility lines for F1.1-F1.3 are supposed to run here, so that, for example, technical rooms can be located in the north?

that the service lines for F1.1-F1.3 are supposed to run through here, so that, for example, technical rooms can be located in the north?

That would be pointless. Access always follows the street, unless there are extraordinary circumstances. Or via the driveway to the property, which can be assumed here in the new development area.

After that come the neighboring plots, where one should consider,

F1.5 is also well restricted regarding buildability; no more than 8 x 12 meters is possible here. Sure, our house size would fit exactly, but there isn't much leeway (in case it should suddenly become 160 m²) with this building envelope.
The lower F1 plots rather not, even though the houses from F5 would be somewhat further away here?

Are there so many alternatives with you? For us it applies: either or... better a bird in the hand than...

No, we have quite few usable plots coming onto the market.
The supposedly best plots (including F2.3) that we have seen have also been seen by other applicants. The same applies to the plots we had in the extended selection (including F2.2). The plots in F1 and F3 neither we nor apparently other applicants focused on.

however, also the question of whether the garage must lie within the building envelope.

Where would the alternative be? Ideally, you place it in the east or north.
We were told that it should lie within the building envelope. In exceptions, if it is justified urban-planning-wise, it would be possible outside on a case-by-case basis.

After that, for me it would be the plots 3.2-5, whose building envelopes are bigger and possibly allow more freedom in house choice.

Yes, the plots would be more flexibly buildable.
But a real south or west garden exists here only to a limited extent. You could build the house as far as possible at the building envelope boundary in the northeast and then lengthwise. You would then have about 6.5-7 meters of garden to the south, west, and north respectively. However, to the west, the next house (with garage on the property boundary) stands, and it is unclear whether this house will be built on the southern or northern building envelope boundary.

Between F1.1-1.3 and F1.6-F1.4 .. the gray area, I see this less as a path; could it be that the development lines for F1.1-F1.3 are supposed to come through here so that, for example, technical rooms can be arranged in the north?

That will be a (private) footpath, for whatever reason someone planned such a thing. Such a path does not exist in any of the many other building areas. The 6 F1 plots will have owners. In my opinion, the 3 northern plots could have simply been given those square meters too.
I have looked at the development plan again. It only says "Area to be burdened with walking and utility rights." Whatever these utility rights relate to here.
There are (private) access roads (including at F4.5), where it also says "in favor of the utility providers."

That would be pointless. Development follows, unless there are extraordinary situations, always via the street. Or via access to the plot, which can be taken as given here in the new development area.

What actually confuses me a bit here is that the sales conditions state "Development (car) from the south." Of course, this does not exclude that supply lines come from the north. On the other hand, the path is not particularly wide to lay the lines and a sewage and rainwater channel there.
I will inquire about that tomorrow.

If I really had to choose one up to 500m², I would probably take the 3.5. Even though it is a north-facing plot, you still have quite a bit of peace at the back with the bike path and the green space. It's almost like an extension of the garden (unless that is not a green area). I would probably place the house at most on the north border and put the terrace in the south, but also have an exit to the north.

The 1.4 to 1.5 plots would simply be too narrow for me - of course, it also depends on the wishes for the house. But if the light gray area at the end does turn out to be some kind of playground, I would be quite annoyed.

F 1.6 or F 3.5

That's almost like an extension of the garden (unless that's not a green area). I would probably place the house at most on the northern boundary and put the terrace in the south, but additionally also have an exit to the north.

Yes, that is an approximately 11-meter-wide green strip.
F2.1 also has a green strip. Still not interesting? Because of the parking spaces or the access to this quarter?

We had also thought about extending F3.5 as far as possible to the northern boundary. However, then there would only be about 9 meters in the south and about 7 meters in the west, and in the west there would then be the garage and the house from F3.4. And then unfortunately you don't know if the neighbor might orient themselves at the southern boundary, then in the afternoon you would have no sun in the south and north, and in the northwest only again toward the evening. In F1.1 the garden constellation would be similar, only that in the north you have the space with greenery and in the west you would not have the neighbor directly next to you. But then it would be a corner plot.

If the light gray area at the end does become a kind of playground, I would be pretty annoyed.

No, the playground is far away .