Overland and Wells H-2022-0030 Findings, Decision and Order for Denial CITY OF MERIDIAN
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, aVERIDIANI--
DECISION,AND ORDER \Z2�/
Date of Order: November 9, 2022
Case No.: H-2022-0030
Applicant: Kristen McNeill, Givens Pursley LLP, representing Morgan Stonehill
Partners
In the Matter of: Request to modify an existing development agreement (Instrument No.
2016-060157)by changing the development plan for the northern portion of
the site from a retail grocery store to multi-family residential and vertically
integrated residential; request for a conditional use permit for a multi-family
development consisting of 345 apartment units on 11.65 acres in the C-G
zoning district
Pursuant to testimony and evidence received regarding this matter at the public hearing before the
City Council of the City of Meridian ("City Council") on October 25, 2022, as to this matter, the
City Council enters the following findings of fact, conclusions of law, decision, and order.
A. Findings of Fact.
I. The facts pertaining to the Applicant's property("Property"), the Applicant's requests, and
the process are set forth in the staff report for Case No. H-2022-0030, which is incorporated
herein by reference.
2. The Property is encumbered by an existing development agreement ("Development
Agreement" or"Instrument No. 2016-060157").
3. The Applicant is requesting a modification to the Development Agreement to change the
development plan for the northern portion of the site from a retail grocery store to multi-
family residential and vertically integrated residential ("Proposed Project" or"Phase 11").
Additionally, the Applicant is requesting a conditional use permit("CUP") for a multi-
family development consisting of 345 apartment units on 11.65 acres in the C-G zoning
district.
4. The Applicant is developing a multi-family project immediately to the cast of the Property
which consists of 360 apartment units ("Phase I").
5. The City Council held a public hearing on October 25, 2022, and received testimony and
evidence concerning the proposed modification to the Development Agreement and the
proposed CUP.
6. The proposed modification to the Development Agreement would reduce the amount of land
available for j ob-creating uses within this geographical area.
7. Certain roadway segments and/or intersection turning movements in this geographical area
are failing, and the Proposed Project would exacerbate these issues.
FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,DECISION,AND ORDER
Case No.H-2022-0030 Page I
8. Phase I consists of 360 multi-family units. Phase 11 would add 345 additional multi-family
units immediately to the west of Phase 1, resulting in a concentration of multi-family units in
this geographical area.
9. The proposed CUP is inconsistent with the existing Development Agreement, which
contemplates a retail grocery store on the northern portion of the Property, not a multi-
family residential development.
10. The Applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed modification to the Development
Agreement is superior to the existing Development Agreement.
11. Based on the foregoing, it would not be beneficial for the City to agree to a modification to
the Development Agreement, which is binding on the City and the Applicant, and may only
be amended by mutual consent.
B. Conclusions of law.
1. The City Council takes judicial notice of the Unified Development Code of the City of
Meridian ("UDC"), codified at Title 11, Meridian City Code; all current zoning maps; and
the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan.
2. The City Council takes judicial notice of the Local Land Use Planning Act ("LLUPA"),
codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code.
3. A development agreement is a binding contract. Wylie v. State, 151 Idaho 26, 32, 253 P.3d
700, 706 (2011). The legal effect of a development agreement is determined by the plain
meaning of the agreement.Id.
4. A decision to modify a development agreement shall be made by the City Council. UDC §
11-513-3(F)(2).
5. The City Council may modify an existing development agreement, but it is not required to
do so under the UDC. UDC § 11-5B-3(F)(2). The City Council may deny a request to
modify a development agreement if the proposed modification is not acceptable to the City.
See id. Given the findings set forth above, the proposed modification to the Development
Agreement is not acceptable to the City.
6. Courts in the Fourth Judicial District of the State of Idaho have held that a City Council's
decision to approve or deny a request to modify a development agreement is not subject to
judicial review.Brown v. City ofMeridian, CVO I-19-06894, slip op. at 12 (District Court of
the Fourth Judicial District of the State of Idaho, County of Ada, Nov. 11, 202 1).
7. A decision to grant or deny a conditional use permit is based, in part, on whether the
proposed use is in accord with the requirements set forth in the UDC,which include the
utilization of binding development agreements. UDC § 1-513-6; UDC § 11-5B-3(F). The
proposed CUP is not consistent with the existing Development Agreement.
FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,DECISION,AND ORDER
Case No.H-2022-0030 Page 2
C. Order. Pursuant to the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, the City Council hereby
denies the Applicant's request to modify the Development Agreement because the proposed
amendment is not acceptable to the City for the reasons set forth above. Additionally, because
the proposed CUP is in direct conflict with the requirements set forth in the existing
Development Agreement, the City Council hereby denies the Applicant's request for a CUP for
a multi-family development consisting of 345 apartment units.
D. Final decision. Upon approval by majority vote of the City Council, this is a final decision of
the governing body of the City of Meridian.
E. Judicial review. Pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-652 1(1)(d), if this final decision concerns a
matter enumerated in Idaho Code section 67-6521(l)(a), an affected person aggrieved by this
final decision may, within twenty-eight (28) days after all remedies have been exhausted,
including requesting reconsideration of this final decision as provided by Meridian City
Code section 1-7-10, seek judicial review of this final decision as provided by chapter 52,
title 67, Idaho Code. This notice is provided as a courtesy; the City of Meridian does not
admit by this notice that this decision is subject to judicial review under LLUPA.
F. Notice of right to regulatory takings analysis. Pursuant to Idaho Code sections 67-652 1(1)(d)
and 67-8003, an owner of private property that is the subject of a final decision may submit a
written request with the Meridian City Clerk for a regulatory takings analysis.
IT IS SO ORDERED by the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho, on this 9th day of
November 2022.
Robert E. Simison 11-9-2022
Mayor
Attest:
Chris Johnson 11-9-2022
City Clerk
FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,DECISION,AND ORDER
Case No.H-2022-0030 Page 3