HomeMy WebLinkAboutWRITTEN RESPONSE - Webb, Randy - 107 E 1st N - Rezone from MDR to HDRJune 19, 2002
Dear Planning and Zoning Board Members:
I have many concerns regarding the purposed apartment housing development located on the
north and west boundaries of my residence. As you are approached for yet another zoning
change just a few weeks after the last one, I hope you are aware of the emotional roller coaster it
puts us who have and will be living in the area for many years. I have been told don't worry you
are zoned rural agricultural which will provide you lots of protection. When that changed it
became MDR and I was told don't worry they will be limited to how many units they can build
and when we do the cite plan much can be done to limit the impact it will have on your property.
Now the proposal is to change part of the property to HDR which in my opinion is about as bad
as it can get. Once you approve the back section to HDR to accommodate the things he has
shown on his cite plan what is to keep him from saying now the property is HDR I am going to
change my cite plan and cram even more units into this limited space because my concern is the
bottom line of profit and I do not have to live next to the problems I may create.
When we purchased the property from Eldon Steiner 20 years ago the plan was to put 4 homes
on the frontage and use the back acreage for other things. When the City developed its impact
zone a few years ago it agreed this was a good plan of action and required Lance Godfry to show
a house in the front and allowed additional storage units on the rest of the property. If you look
at the property next to mine on the south (owned by Mr. Rammel) he has placed his shop back
on the property to allow a house in the front. When I spoke to him a week ago he told me he
was still looking at a house in front next to the road. Why do we need to abandon the plan now?
What is the driving force behind it? Are we always obligated to bend to the interest of out of
town investors? I feel Mr. Jones should be required to put a house in the front and the
apartments behind it.
This project will have an adverse affect on my property and already has. When I talk to people
about purchasing my home they laugh at me and say no way. When I talk to real estate agents
they say it will freeze the value of my property at best and I could see a decrease in value
depending on how it all turns out. This does not sound good for my bottom line and I am left at
the discretion of this board to help where they can. I would like to see a solid fence separating
the property made of something that will be attractive, not the chain leak fence they are talking
about now.
In closing I do appreciate the very difficult job the members of this board have. I feel you did try
to create some kind of buffer zone around my house and hope you will continue to do so in the
future.
Sincerely,
Spencer and Linda Jo Larsen