Developer withdraws rezoning request at 2106 Bridger Road after residents raise traffic, property‑value and infrastructure concerns

An applicant seeking to rezone about 6.79 acres at 2106 Bridger Road asked the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission to withdraw the rezoning application after a series of public comments raised concerns about traffic, infrastructure capacity and property values.

David Baker of Fisher & Arnold presented the rezoning request (RZ2513) and said the site’s future land‑use classification calls for higher‑intensity uses. "We feel like all of these justifications are in line with our request," Baker said, describing increased nearby commercial and higher‑density residential uses. Planning staff recommended approval with typical conditions tied to engineering, stormwater and final site plan review.

Public speakers opposed the rezoning during the public‑comment period. Dave Nance, speaking for Eden Hills Estates POA, said neighbors had three main objections: property values, quality of life and infrastructure. "If you don't require the developers to pay for this in some way or another with the impact fees, then all of us as taxpayers are gonna have to pay these things," Nance said, urging impact fees and infrastructure mitigation.

Other residents described safety issues on Bridger Road, narrow lanes, high vehicle speeds and a recent crash that totaled a car. Realtor Lynn Childers, who lives about 500 feet from the property, described a blind s‑curve and said her wife’s vehicle was totaled in a May collision when a speeding driver came around the curve. Carol White and Joanne Nalley also voiced opposition; Nalley said petitioners had collected more than 325 signatures opposing the rezoning.

The applicant had circulated a concept showing a potential yield of about 80 multifamily units, which the applicant’s representative said was a technical estimate based on setbacks, parking and detention requirements. Commissioners noted, however, that a conceptual site plan does not bind future development if a rezoning is granted.

After public testimony, Baker asked the commission to consider tabling the item to meet neighbors and discuss a lower density option. Commissioners took a vote on a motion to table and the motion failed. Following the vote, the applicant formally requested a one‑time withdrawal of the rezoning application. Staff reminded the public that, under commission rules, a second withdrawal would trigger a 90‑day waiting period before an applicant could refile.

Outcome: The applicant withdrew the rezoning application; no rezoning was granted.