HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-02-08 Michael Blowers
Charlene Way
From:Michael Blowers <mjblowers@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 8, 2022 8:50 AM
To:City Clerk
Subject:H2021-0075 Public Comments
External Sender - Please use caution with links or attachments.
City Council :
In regards to the above project, my comments may end up being unnecessary should the applicant and the city choose
to proceed with the direction that ACHD and applicant has committed to, which is leaving Rolling Hill an emergency
access / dead-end road.
I think I can represent the remaining residents in saying that we are in support of the application assuming the applicant
follows through with, and the city council agrees to, making Rolling Hill an emergency access only. We recognize it came
to this proposal because of an ACHD rule limiting vehicle traffic to 2000 for Rolling Hill and would have gone through
regardless based on planning and zoning comments.
While we recognize this is a public road, the only reason there hasn't been a safety incident is that residents have
restricted the use of the road: no more dog walking, kids riding bikes, footballs being thrown, or morning jogs. For those
unfamiliar with the area or situation - this is not a typical neighborhood complaint about traffic and a new development
happening two blocks over. This is 20 yards from the front door in a neighborhood not set up for any of this. This is life
altering. Yeah, it's "legal" to allow multi-ton 40 foot trucks to parade up and down a residential street, or to let it be an
entry and exit point to liquor licensed establishments, or to increase the traffic 30 feet from our front doors by 20-
fold. What we don't understand is how someone can look at what is happening here and say "this is crossing a line".
This is something the city claimed they were committed to NOT pursuing in several meetings that preceded any of these
developments, dating back to early 2017.
What has confused the residents here during this entire 5+ year "fight" to keep it that way, is that there has always been
a clear and obvious alternative that didn't require this fiasco and it obviously wouldn't have meant a thing about
permanence should a developer decide to come and actually attempt to buy the homeowners out. That option has
always been the Silverstone access. To date, I can speak for most if not all the remaining homes on Rolling Hill that no
one came knocking on our door to "buy us out". In fact, one of the homes was put under contract with an employee of
BVA which indicated to us there are no plans to do anything with the homes here. There's even one for sale right now
that's been trying for months. That is to say - we haven't been preventing anything from occurring - only attempting to
keep what we have until we don't any longer.
If this situation has been done somewhere else - I'd like to see it. This notion that we are in an impact/future land use
area should be clarified. What's the expectation or desire from the city - move out and sell it to another home owner so
they have to deal with it (what family would buy into that knowing they could be pushed out in 3, 6 or whatever number
of months)? Leave it and have an abandoned home with a pile of weeds as the entrance to the new development?
There's been 5 homes for sale in less than 3 years - plenty of opportunity for developers to come and buy them. That
hasn't happened - there's even one for sale right now.
The precedent being set by decisions here make me wonder where I can buy a home in an established neighborhood in
Meridian if buying into an established neighborhood doesn't mean anything if it means another apartment can go in
somewhere. We bought into a developed, established, dead-ended road and while it was a reasonable expectation for
the Farm Field to get developed, at no point did we think an actual horseshoe would be allowed around a neighborhood,
1
regardless of its age or aesthetics. Why not at the very minimum make the developers at least attempt buyouts of the
remaining area before doing these half measured developments? I've made this comment before in Planning and
Zoning - why is it good planning for an entrance to a brand new development be a stroll through some 1960s farm style
neighborhood to grab some drinks and hit some golf balls or to get to a brand new apartment or even workplace. I think
about how that would look entering The Villages all the time and just shake my head. It seems like an odd entrance to
have to a new development.
This has been discouraging, from a lifelong resident seeing how the city gets laid out, to the downright disrespect and
degradation of tax payer safety, all in the name of "progress". The only thing planning and zoning was hearing was
complaints that they thought we needed to take up with ACHD - when the solution, and our request the entire time was
available to make all sides happy until the time comes for a developer to make their move and well within their purview.
The decision here isn't just about the remaining 14 homes either. It's bordering neighborhood of 20+ homes and
businesses are part of this as well if the city is truly "planning" as part of their zoning. Planning and Zoning likely
wouldn't have heard anything, nor would the applicant, had they used this obvious solution from the beginning - it
wasn't until the final two months of a 5+ year ordeal that it was offered as a solution.
We ask that City Council agrees with the decision to make Rolling Hill an emergency access only AND also restrict the use
of construction access so that we can live in relative peace in the interim.
Mike Blowers and Family
1325 Rolling Hill Drive
Meridian, ID 83642
2