Meridian OZ Apartments H-2022-0073 Findings and Order of Denial CITY OF MERIDIAN
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, E DECISION,AND AND ORDER I D A H O
Date of Order: April 18, 2023
Case No.: H-2022-0073
Applicant: Jorre Delgado, Realm Venture Group
In the Matter of. Request for(A) a development agreement modification to the existing
development agreement(Instrument No. 99121334, AZ-99-005, Cobblestone
Village)to remove the subject property from the existing agreement and
enter into a new agreement for a proposed multi-family development and(B)
a conditional use permit for a multi-family development consisting of 60
dwelling units on 2.39 acres of land in the R-40 zoning district
Pursuant to testimony and evidence received regarding this matter at the public hearing before the
City Council of the City of Meridian(the "City Council") on March 21, 2023, as to this matter, the
City Council enters the following findings of fact, conclusions of law, decision, and order.
A. Findings of fact.
1. The facts pertaining to the Applicant's property(the"Property"), the Applicant's request,
and the process are set forth in the staff report for Case No. H-2022-0073, which is
incorporated herein by reference.
2. The Property is encumbered by an existing development agreement (Instrument No.
99121334) (the "Existing Development Agreement").
3. The Applicant is requesting a modification to the Existing Development Agreement to
remove the Property from the Existing Development Agreement and enter into a new
development agreement(the "New Development Agreement") to facilitate a proposed multi-
family development.
4. The Applicant is requesting a conditional use permit ("CUP") for the proposed multi-family
development, which is contingent on City Council approval of a modification to the Existing
Development Agreement, because the proposed multi-family development is inconsistent
with the Existing Development Agreement.
5. The Existing Development Agreement contemplates 96 multi-family units on 6.15 acres
(15.6 units/acre).
6. The Existing Development Agreement contemplates ingress and egress to the multi-family
units from both E. Franklin Road and S. Locust Grove Road.
7. A portion of the property encumbered by the Existing Development Agreement is now
utilized by the Ada County Highway District as a detention pond, and cannot be easily
developed as contemplated in the Existing Development Agreement.
FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,DECISION,AND ORDER
Case No.H-2022-0073 Pagel
8. The proposed multi-family development includes 60 multi-family units on 2.39 acres (25.1
units/acre).
9. S. Locust Grove Road is the only point of ingress and egress for the proposed multi-family
development; no access would be provided via E. Franklin Road.
10. The City Council held a public hearing on March 21, 2023, and received testimony from the
Applicant and the public concerning the CUP and the proposed modification to the Existing
Development Agreement.
11. The City Council finds, based on testimony received and information in the record, that a
single point of ingress and egress for the proposed multi-family development would result in
significant traffic safety concerns on S. Locust Grove Road.
12. The City Council finds, based on testimony received and information in the record, that an
increase in density from 15.6 units per acre to 25.1 units per acre (i.e., a 60.9 percent
increase) is not consistent with the density contemplated in the Existing Development
Agreement.
13. Based on the foregoing, the City Council finds that the proposed New Development
Agreement is inferior to the Existing Development Agreement.
14. Because the New Development Agreement is inferior to the Existing Development
Agreement, the City Council finds that it is not in the City's best interest to modify the
Existing Development Agreement as proposed by the Applicant.
15. The City Council specified the actions the Applicant could take to obtain approval,
including, but not limited to, reducing the density of the proposed multi-family development
to better match the density contemplated in the Existing Development Agreement and
providing better ingress and egress to the site.
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, including, but not limited to, sections 67-
6519(5) and 67-6535.
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(17)(2).
FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,DECISION,AND ORDER
Case No.H-2022-0073 Page 2
5. The City Council may modify an existing development agreement, but it is not mandated to
do so. UDC § 11-5B-3(F)(2). Similar to other binding contracts, the City Council may deny
a request to modify a development agreement if the proposed modification is not in the best
interest of the City. See id.
6. Courts in the Fourth Judicial District of the State of Idaho have held that a City Council
decision to approve or deny a request to modify a development agreement is not subject to
judicial review. Brown v. City of Meridian, CVO 1-19-06894, slip op. at 12 (District Court of
the Fourth Judicial District of the State of Idaho, County of Ada,Nov. 11, 2021).
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 Existing Development Agreement because the
proposed modification is not in the best interest of the City. Additionally, the City Council
hereby denies the Applicant's request for a CUP because the proposed multi-family
development is inconsistent with the Existing Development Agreement.
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(1)(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 18th day of
April, 2023.
Robert E. Simison
Mayor
Attest:
Chris Johnson
City Clerk
FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,DECISION,AND ORDER
Case No.H-2022-0073 Page 3