Flat roof without parapet

Hello everyone

I have a question for all legal experts:
We have recently received approval for a plot of land in southern Germany near the beautiful Lake Constance. According to the development plan, it must be a flat roof with 2 full stories, max. height 6.90m.

In our neighborhood there is a relatively new house with a very flat, one-sided sloping roof with a pitch of about 6°. Since I have read on various sites that a flat roof is defined up to 7 or 9°, the question arises for me whether such a house would be allowed to be built.
In principle, it would be a flat roof house but without a parapet, i.e. with a visible roof slope.

Can anyone help me here?

Many thanks

Yes, I would also be interested... if FD is stated in the development plan, what is possible, what does not directly correspond to a typical flat roof in Bauhaus style? Especially regarding coverage and overhang...

if FD is stated in the development plan, what is possible there that does not directly correspond to a typical flat roof in the Bauhaus style?

I would say: if the development plan does not prescribe the slope, you are relatively free in that regard. In my opinion, a flat roof does not necessarily mean an evenly high parapet and/or the absence of an eave, but more importantly, that its slope is not even enough for an attic. However, keep in mind that you cannot "just" build a pitched roof arbitrarily flat: around a 20° slope, the selection of suitable roofing materials changes significantly. A metal roof is also possible with an overhang, but felt/foil/gravel require the parapet all around.

If no slope is specified, but simply FD, then it remains ultimately within the approval discretion of the building authority depending on... hmm the new development area is next to a bungalow settlement from the 70s... they are all very flat without experiments (and potentially leaky). How far then "creative" interpretations of the FD will be approved is then certainly very uncertain

A development plan is called a development plan, then an insertion requirement in the surrounding old stock does not apply at the same time. Administrative lawyers are not construction technicians; they could already draw the "boundary" at 10° DN.

Conversely asked: what are you planning to do?

What I intend to do, to be honest, I don't really know yet. I'm simply not an FD fan, but the development plan only allows FD. Therefore, I am looking for alternatives... What I have read so far, however, is that everything is less typical FD-like (e.g., fake PD clad with a parapet) and more problematic than a good FD executed as a reverse roof. I would actually like to have an overhang and gutters instead of these water collection boxes.