HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-28-21 Public Comment - R. Watson - Lazarewicz AnnexationFrom:Ryan Watson
To:Agenda
Subject:attention Tom Rodgers/Commission
Date:Monday, June 28, 2021 10:37:08 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
application 21-1230
1919 Bridger Dr. Tom/Commision
I wanted to write to you as I have had extensive interaction with the neighborssurrounding this property and its annexation request.
-We would rather have a smaller version of a standard street or road in the back. It helps withthe neighborhood to have a slower pace and many currently really like the slow feel and less
cause for speed, as kids play and folks are not pushed to drive so fast on a smaller than usualstreet... This being said we also want the ability to build a home,building,or multi unit on the
back forty and have access or split the lot. As oftentimes annexation costs so much that someowners may need to sell a lot in order to annex......
There are numerous issues involving both the fee structure ie impact fees, and the associated
land that the city is requesting. In many instances the city has tried to force their hand in landacquisition and it would be reasonable for us to work together to find options to make it easier
and more equitable for those looking to annex. Really the city wins as we pay more taxes(especially 2 lots) and are required to pay for services. Why then would we be asked to give
upto 35 ft of land for free just to annex. (Normal easements are 15'). -Why didnt city planning work on behalf of these stake-holders early on in the development of
the legends, so that the developer of the legends was required to both put in the width of astandard road knowing that we on bridger drive have larger properties that would likely be
built out to density and need access? If a common access is 15' why are we asked for upwardof 30'?
Many in and along this road would like it to not become a full city street; we have been toldthere are other smaller options to accommodate both a rear access/home and a smaller foot-
print roadway. I believe there are and it may be a way to accommodate future growth with-outa full on city street. Why are we building around cars when what we need is less cars?
-Costs associated with the forfeiture of the land in the easements should include treereplacement/fencing and existing structures this cost could be reimbursed in deducted impact
fees for the 2 parcels, better yet we pay one upfront impact fee for the entire property thatallows the property to be zoned/built out with maximum zoning or something other than r1 for
the future. Several of the neighbors would like both the R# maximum density zoning and theability to split the lot. If we are going to be a community that is focused on affordable housing
we have to start working at making housing and these remaining affordable lots....., bothaffordable and dense and this is what is required. I'd be glad to sit down with any of you to go
over some options to make this good transition for our community.
Ryan Watson1907 Bridger Dr.