HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-27-21 Public Comment - R. Watson - 1919 Bridger DriveFrom:Ryan Watson
To:Agenda; Cyndy Andrus
Subject:1919 Bridger Drive, Application 21123
Date:Tuesday, July 27, 2021 12:29:48 PM
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.
1919 Bridger Drive, Application 21123
I sent a previous letter and hope it was received but thought I would just reach out as I may not be able to make
tonights meeting. I hope you are all well. Thanks for all the work you are putting in.
Many of us along Bridger agree we would like r2 or highest and best us case as the cost to annex is a lot. (Almost a
whole city lot) Their remains some information that we feel needs to be worked out
In regards to annexation.
-Why are we as neighbors being asked to give up over 3500 square feet of land with a value over 200,000 dollars in
order to annex? How is this making property values more affordable, and why was the developer of the legends
allowed to make exceptions to street width and sidewalks? Placing the brunt of development on the owners along
Bridger Drive…..
-If we would like other owners to annex would it not be wise and prudent to have a plan in place to show us all how
we can make the road narrower to accommodate the neighborhood its character, low speeds, and access/parking?
Where is this?
-Will both sides of the new alley-way share in the cost to implement the new roadway and side walks associated
with the city requiring it? (SID)?
-Could the city work with owners to allow for a split lot and shared annexation costs if we are required to give more
than a common right of way 15” feet on the back.
-What about allowing 1 development/impact fee for 2 lots on these parcels in trade for an over normal amount of
land being requested for annex.Again 200k in land 15k in impact fees, and another 15k for tie in, plus trees, fences
and buildings. Thats us giving you well over 230k plus we end up paying for the road? Maybe we could incentives a
more reasonable cost for some of the owners to annex? For instance allowance of a 2 for one in terms of impact fees
on these lots. So the ability to have 2 lots at r1 zoning if requested in trade for so much that was unproperly planned.
City planning has stated this roadway is an anomaly and I believe many of us like it just the way it is. However
those statements point to poor planning in the first place on behalf of what the developer of the legends was allowed
to get away with.
-We really would like the city to come up with a proper plan for this expansion as it effects the whole row, the
developer of the legends was allowed so many variances why should we not be afforded a compromise?
I would be glad to sit down with any of you on the commission to go over some solutions so neighbors can begin to
work with the city to accomplish a fair and equitable solution for annexation that will benefit us all.
Ryan Watson
1907 Bridger Dr.