Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
surveyor
Participantflat earth
There are regulations in the development code that specify how many houses you can put into a property that has a certain amount of slope. Based on looking at it, I can guess that there is probably space for only one house (that is how badly the slope shows up when I look at the topographic maps). With that and the access issues, I find it difficult to see how this place can be developed.
As for breaking it up into parcels and then selling it to the houses surrounding it, there are several problems with that.
1) Who wants to buy land that is essentially useless because of the slope issues
2) The existing landowners surrounding the parcel already have a fairly large amount of useless slope in it.
3) Assuming that the property was able to be divided (big if), why would anyone want to increase the amount of land they have and increase their property tax basis?
I know a lot of people will look at the location and start thinking, hey, something can be done with it. It’s what we surveyors call the flat earth tendency. It looks nice now, but when you start doing the due diligence, the surveying, the engineering, it begins to lose its luster.
Participantflat earth
There are regulations in the development code that specify how many houses you can put into a property that has a certain amount of slope. Based on looking at it, I can guess that there is probably space for only one house (that is how badly the slope shows up when I look at the topographic maps). With that and the access issues, I find it difficult to see how this place can be developed.
As for breaking it up into parcels and then selling it to the houses surrounding it, there are several problems with that.
1) Who wants to buy land that is essentially useless because of the slope issues
2) The existing landowners surrounding the parcel already have a fairly large amount of useless slope in it.
3) Assuming that the property was able to be divided (big if), why would anyone want to increase the amount of land they have and increase their property tax basis?
I know a lot of people will look at the location and start thinking, hey, something can be done with it. It’s what we surveyors call the flat earth tendency. It looks nice now, but when you start doing the due diligence, the surveying, the engineering, it begins to lose its luster.
Participantmap….
When you are in the ziprealty page for the property, go to the satellite map and them turn on parcel boundaries. Zoom down a little bit and you will see two large parcels, one rectangular and one triangular. These are the only two 5 acre parcels within that road area. I assume that the property is one of these two.
If you look at the birds eye view, you can see the huge slopes and drainage channels in both properties. I looked at the GIS maps for the area and could not find any access. Also, the only “buildable” area in the rectangular parcel is only accessible by getting a small driveway through this one house on Dakota Drive and it does not look like there is enough space to make the driveway fit.
If I were the owner of this property (assuming I could not find a complete sucker who dreams of building a house on it), I would sell it to a developer for the developer to do mitigation credits on it. Either parcel, the rectangular or the trangular, look awful. Even if you were able to build on it, you would probably be advised to make most of it open space anyways.
$195k might seem like a steal, but to make a house on it will cost you probably in the area of about $1million. And no I am not overestimating it.
Participantmap….
When you are in the ziprealty page for the property, go to the satellite map and them turn on parcel boundaries. Zoom down a little bit and you will see two large parcels, one rectangular and one triangular. These are the only two 5 acre parcels within that road area. I assume that the property is one of these two.
If you look at the birds eye view, you can see the huge slopes and drainage channels in both properties. I looked at the GIS maps for the area and could not find any access. Also, the only “buildable” area in the rectangular parcel is only accessible by getting a small driveway through this one house on Dakota Drive and it does not look like there is enough space to make the driveway fit.
If I were the owner of this property (assuming I could not find a complete sucker who dreams of building a house on it), I would sell it to a developer for the developer to do mitigation credits on it. Either parcel, the rectangular or the trangular, look awful. Even if you were able to build on it, you would probably be advised to make most of it open space anyways.
$195k might seem like a steal, but to make a house on it will cost you probably in the area of about $1million. And no I am not overestimating it.
Participantmap….
When you are in the ziprealty page for the property, go to the satellite map and them turn on parcel boundaries. Zoom down a little bit and you will see two large parcels, one rectangular and one triangular. These are the only two 5 acre parcels within that road area. I assume that the property is one of these two.
If you look at the birds eye view, you can see the huge slopes and drainage channels in both properties. I looked at the GIS maps for the area and could not find any access. Also, the only “buildable” area in the rectangular parcel is only accessible by getting a small driveway through this one house on Dakota Drive and it does not look like there is enough space to make the driveway fit.
If I were the owner of this property (assuming I could not find a complete sucker who dreams of building a house on it), I would sell it to a developer for the developer to do mitigation credits on it. Either parcel, the rectangular or the trangular, look awful. Even if you were able to build on it, you would probably be advised to make most of it open space anyways.
$195k might seem like a steal, but to make a house on it will cost you probably in the area of about $1million. And no I am not overestimating it.
Participantmap….
When you are in the ziprealty page for the property, go to the satellite map and them turn on parcel boundaries. Zoom down a little bit and you will see two large parcels, one rectangular and one triangular. These are the only two 5 acre parcels within that road area. I assume that the property is one of these two.
If you look at the birds eye view, you can see the huge slopes and drainage channels in both properties. I looked at the GIS maps for the area and could not find any access. Also, the only “buildable” area in the rectangular parcel is only accessible by getting a small driveway through this one house on Dakota Drive and it does not look like there is enough space to make the driveway fit.
If I were the owner of this property (assuming I could not find a complete sucker who dreams of building a house on it), I would sell it to a developer for the developer to do mitigation credits on it. Either parcel, the rectangular or the trangular, look awful. Even if you were able to build on it, you would probably be advised to make most of it open space anyways.
$195k might seem like a steal, but to make a house on it will cost you probably in the area of about $1million. And no I am not overestimating it.
Participantmap….
When you are in the ziprealty page for the property, go to the satellite map and them turn on parcel boundaries. Zoom down a little bit and you will see two large parcels, one rectangular and one triangular. These are the only two 5 acre parcels within that road area. I assume that the property is one of these two.
If you look at the birds eye view, you can see the huge slopes and drainage channels in both properties. I looked at the GIS maps for the area and could not find any access. Also, the only “buildable” area in the rectangular parcel is only accessible by getting a small driveway through this one house on Dakota Drive and it does not look like there is enough space to make the driveway fit.
If I were the owner of this property (assuming I could not find a complete sucker who dreams of building a house on it), I would sell it to a developer for the developer to do mitigation credits on it. Either parcel, the rectangular or the trangular, look awful. Even if you were able to build on it, you would probably be advised to make most of it open space anyways.
$195k might seem like a steal, but to make a house on it will cost you probably in the area of about $1million. And no I am not overestimating it.
Participantslope
On google earth it’s all land, all slope, virtually no access. It’s a developer’s nightmare. The Coastal Commission and City gov’t will ask for your first born child.
Participantslope
On google earth it’s all land, all slope, virtually no access. It’s a developer’s nightmare. The Coastal Commission and City gov’t will ask for your first born child.
Participantslope
On google earth it’s all land, all slope, virtually no access. It’s a developer’s nightmare. The Coastal Commission and City gov’t will ask for your first born child.
Participantslope
On google earth it’s all land, all slope, virtually no access. It’s a developer’s nightmare. The Coastal Commission and City gov’t will ask for your first born child.
Participantslope
On google earth it’s all land, all slope, virtually no access. It’s a developer’s nightmare. The Coastal Commission and City gov’t will ask for your first born child.
Participantupside
On the upside, maybe this will help lower rents for some people here on this board by causing a stampede towards home purchasing again…
(but hey what do I know).
Participantupside
On the upside, maybe this will help lower rents for some people here on this board by causing a stampede towards home purchasing again…
(but hey what do I know).
-
AuthorPosts
