My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_03786
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF3000 - PF3801
>
3700
>
pf_03786
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/28/2014 12:44:16 PM
Creation date
7/8/2013 10:31:06 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
3786
Planning Files - Type
Division of Land
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
39
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
suggestions, we feel that the originally proposed division lines would be in the best interest of <br />both the community and us and property owners. Our reasons are listed below: <br />1. The city suggested that we eliminate some corners and make the line division a <br />more free-flowing line, if you will. Our understanding was that this suggestion to <br />eliminate corners was because it would be clearer and the land lines would not <br />seem so chopped and cut up. However, we believe that corners are good. It is <br />clearer and easier to see where a definite corner is, rather than trying to keep track <br />of a variable line. Definite corners are easily identifiable and leave no room for <br />second guessing where a line should run or where it cuts in or out. It is clear and <br />concise. <br />2. There was also suggestion of a shared driveway. This would consist of both <br />parcels of property sharing about half of the driveway up to a certain point where <br />the line would jog back over toward the new lot. After careful thought and <br />discussion, although it may sound like a good idea, we believe this could be a <br />recipe for disaster in the long run. If, for instance, there are two neighbors who <br />share a driveway who do not necessarily get along, this could create a very big <br />problem. As we are all aware, there have been feuds between neighbors for lesser <br />things. We would not want to create a situation that would invoke feuding <br />neighbors over whose property is whose and not be able to sort it out because it is <br />owned by both. <br />Also along the lines of a shared driveway, or shared property, we feel that this <br />would inhibit our �,rope*_-ty va1�e. In the iong �un, wher, we decide to sell eitl�er <br />piece of property, we would not want to lose out on potential buyers or value of <br />the property because people would not be happy with a home that had shared <br />land. This may make each parcel of land more unmarketable, especially in a real <br />estate market such as the one that exists now. <br />After discussing our concerns with Mr. Lloyd, and listening to his ideas and suggestions, we feel <br />that the property division that we have proposed works out the best for all concerned parties. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.