The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2025-09-02 Tom Walton Charlene Way From:Robert Simison Sent:Tuesday, September 2, 2025 8:25 AM To:Tom Walton Cc:Clerks Comment; Bill Parsons Subject:RE: September 2nd Packet Mr. Walton, Thank you for reaching out and sharing your thoughts about the proposed project. Your email has been received by the Mayor’s Office. Because this project is part of an open application, the City Council members and I are prohibited from commenting outside of the public hearing process. That said, we take public feedback seriously and want you to know that we have received your email and have read your comments. Your email has been forwarded to our City Clerk and will be included in the project public record. As you noted this project’s City Council public hearing is currently scheduled for this evening Sept 2. I have also copied the Planning Department if you have additional questions on hearings, or should that date change. Sincerely, Mayor Robert Simison City of Meridian All e-mail messages sent to or received by City of Meridian e-mail accounts are subject to the Idaho law, in regards to both release and retention, and may be released upon request, unless exempt from disclosure by law. From: Tom Walton <tmw6472@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2025 10:49 PM To: Robert Simison <rsimison@meridiancity.org> Subject: September 2nd Packet External Sender - Please use caution with links or attachments. Dear Mayor Simison. I’m sending this letter as a comment on the Touchmark Land Use nd proposal, which will be discussed this Tuesday, Sept 2. I’m sorry I couldn’t send it in time to be included in the packet. I have some suggestions that are unique and I believe will help. Thank you for considering, Tom Walton Dear Mayor Simison and members of the Meridian City Council 1 Subject: Touchmark’s Proposed Land Use Development, H-2025-0012 Please, Please, return the Touchmark proposal back to the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZL)! The Commission was not able to consider several problems with the proposal. The plan does not have enough open space. The open space exhibit was submitted by Touchmark after the PZC meeting on 7/17/25. The exhibit now designates my backyard as one of the open spaces. My backyard is not an open space that the public can use. When we selected our lot, and built our custom designed home in 2012, the home was carefully placed to stay within the surveyed lines. We and our neighbors are careful to stay within those lines when we plant ﬂowers and bushes. The backyards that Touchmark designated as open space for the public to use, is bounded by the canal fence and the property lines of all my neighbors. (I have included the drawing of the lots for our home and the neighbors.) When you carefully examine the exhibit submitted on 8/2/25, you can see many other areas that are obviously not useable as open space for public use; the berm along the interstate for example. The PZC was told that Meadow Lake Village had enough open space for the entire project. The PZC was not shown any open space for the proposed commercial, multifamily project, only our open space. Meadow Lake Village, (MLV) is not an open public community; it is private. There are many signs throughout the community that make this very clear. None of our green space is open to the public; not our lake, our golf course, our rose garden, our vegetable garden, nor my backyard! The PZC was given the impression that MLV residents accepted the proposed plan. In the minutes of the July, 17, 2025 PZC meeting, many comments were made by the commission members indicating their surprise, that no residents were present at the meeting, no written comments were received, and no one was scheduled to speak. One commented, “I mean, the fact that nobody is here complaining leads me to believe that it - - it’s not a huge concern, but it is a di?erence to what they were committed to when they purchased in that community”. I and others feel misled by the Touchmark meeting in February and in July. I was given the impression that it was merely a consolidation and update of an old plan, and didn’t really involve us. Those with good eye sight noticed the plan showed villas replacing the golf course which raised several comments. We were told this was just an idea, that nothing was ﬁrm. I remember thinking that if it was just an idea they were considering, and after hearing our complaints, why don’t they remove it before presenting it to the PZC? I, and probably others let it go because the presentation was planned for that evening, and we wanted to trust Touchmark. We were also discouraged from attending that night. We didn’t want to be perceived as a group of disruptive senior citizens, especially since we believed it only involved us indirectly. We didn’t understand the nuances of the process. Most residents don’t have a car, and would have to rely on Touchmark vans to bring us to the meeting. I didn’t know that we could designate someone to speak for us, that we would have an opportunity to speak at the meeting that night. I didn’t know we could have submitted a letter if we had known the details about the project in time. I personally feel I was snookered. 2 The PZC was convinced residents accepted the idea of Villas on the golf course. We did not! I described some of my thoughts in the previous paragraph. In a recent resident meeting, there were many strong vocal objections to the idea. Touchmark said that they no longer wanted to maintain the golf course because of high costs, and because it was lightly used. It’s true that it is lightly used. Even though I and others are no longer able to enjoy golf, in the meeting I let those who play speak for keeping the course. I understood and was sympathetic to the need to reduce costs when possible. It’s true also that the majority of residents were silent at the idea of removing the golf course, but there were many objections at the thought of building Villas in its place. The minutes of the meeting PZC meeting describe how Touchmark’s presentation guided the discussion to consider only the light use of the golf course and replacing it with villas, not our concern for the loss of the beautiful trees and grass. It would be a huge loss to us, and me personally if I couldn’t safely walk around this beautiful example of God’s creation in the evening! My phone home screen has a picture of the beauty I see each night. Please see the photo I’ve added to this letter. Please consider the following suggestions. 1. Divide the proposed “Modiﬁed Development Agreement” into two separate agreements; one for the proposed commercial and home development, and a second agreement for the changes proposed to the Meadow Lake Village retirement campus. The features and requirements of an open public commercial development, are far di?erent than those of a private retirement village. The proposals need to be considered separately. 2. Consider building Villas on the West side of the campus. If Touchmark is determined to continue adding residents beyond what the campus was originally designed for, the villas could be placed where the proposed plan shows commercial buildings and multistory homes. Placing the villas there would keep the coordinated building design, character and beauty of our campus. 3. Consider building an additional assisted living building on the west side of the campus. Again, if Touchmark is determined to increase income by adding new residents, I believe they could increase revenue far more with another assisted living facility than they could with more villas. An additional assisted living facility would surely increase revenue far more than 20 villas, or selling the land to build commercial buildings and homes. There is a waiting list for assisted living, especially for two-bedroom apartments. I understand that typically, there are homes and villas available. I believe two homes have been available for about a year. The lodge and its kitchen were simply not designed for the number of residents we now have. Villas would make the problems worse. Either of these two ideas would preserve the beauty, character, and security of our campus. Touchmark’s current proposal is to have the homely back side of commercial buildings and homes appear to be part of our campus as you enter. The change in character and comfortable feeling one gets when they enter our campus would be gone. It would be unattractive to people who visit, or want to consider living in our very costly campus. Please send the proposal back to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Ask them to separate it into two proposals, and let use present our concerns. Touchmark will beneﬁt economically from a changed plan, and we residents will be so very much happier! 3 Respectfully, Tom and Joanna Walton 424 E. Splendor Ln., Meridian, ID 4