Large window front on the west side

One more question: the building plots in this row are pretty much the same size: about 20x25m (+/- 1m). The building window is about 12-13m deep. If you use the full building window (we would most likely do that because of a double garage), about 7m of garden remains. A terrace still needs to go there. Hm.... isn’t that a bit little? Sure, you have an unobstructed view and an additional about 2.5m wide public green strip... According to the plan, in front of the green strip (drainage so that no water from the fields and vineyards enters the houses) there is supposed to be a mound – as it looks on the plan, about 1m wide. How am I supposed to understand this? How high can such a mound be? Not that I have a small garden and instead of the nice view, a little “Berlin Wall” ;) Is anyone aware of this?

How high can such a mound be?

No idea. But if these mounds are one meter wide, then they can only be a maximum of 50 cm high. However, I notice that height differences/slope markings are present. I would rather deal with that.

approx. 20x25m (+/- 1m). The building plot is about 12-13m deep. If you use the full building plot (we would most likely do so because of a double garage), approximately 7m of garden remain. A terrace still needs to be added there. hm .... isn’t that too little?

Completely normal dimensions for houses of any kind. You have to plan whether double garages fit. Priority should be the actual house, energy values and dwellings or parking spaces should be secondary.
Draw templates and slide them onto scale drawings of the plots.
The best way is: make possible what can be made instead of searching for what's impossible.

No idea. But if these embankments are one meter wide, they can only be a maximum of 50 cm high. However, I notice that height differences/slope markings are present. I would rather deal with that first.

This middle height line running through these building plots is 237. The single-family house is 237.5 or 237. The terrain then only rises max 0.5m and then slopes down slightly again. I am primarily looking at these 3 plots because they lie the highest.

Draw templates and place them on to scale drawings of the plots.

I have already done that. But the 7m garden area puts me off a bit. Assuming we make a 3m wide terrace, only max 4m garden remains... That's quite little, isn't it?

How about ridge direction north-south? In any case, the plots can be built on more than well.

As for the Westwall: it would be nonsense to pile anything up there. Rather, the drainage would be executed as a ditch. But one doesn't really know. Can't you ask the municipality or the civil engineer about it?

These 3 plots are primarily on my radar because they are the highest.

Because of the simplistic calculation higher lying plot equals further view? - I would not build my priorities on the sand. Alternative suggestion: compare the actual elevation profiles of the plot with the reference height of the plot and the finished height of the street, then you will get an idea of the earth masses to be moved. Under the premise of construction incidental cost economy, the fourth most beautiful plot can be much more attractive.

Counterproposal: compare the actual elevation profiles of the property with the reference height of the property and the finished height of the street, then you will get an idea of the earth masses to be moved. Under the premise of construction ancillary cost economy, even the fourth most beautiful property can be much more attractive.

Yes...exactly that is what I did. The specified single-family house, FH, TH are according to the development plan the maximum levels - one is allowed to build lower. Which building plots do you think are "the best" here (where little earth mass has to be moved)?