Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgency Comments>` ~~~~ ~~~~~~ Date: August 18, 2011 To: Life Church 1803 S. Maple Grove Road Boise, ID 83709 Subject: MCUP-11-9~9~ 3225 E. Commercial Court Rebecca W. Amold, President John S. Franden, Vice President Carol A, McKee, Commissioner Sara M. Baker, Commissioner David L. Case, Commissioner On August 18, 2011 the Ada County Highway District Staff acted on your application for the above referenced project. The attached report lists site-specific requirements, conditions of approval and street improvements, which are required. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (208) 387-6174. Sincerely, ~~ Jarom Wagoner Planner II Development Services Ada County Highway District CC: Project file City of Meridian (sent via email) Wayne Thowless, LKV Architects (sent via email) Ada County Highway District • 3775 Adams Street • Garden City, ID • 83714 • PH 208-387-6100 • FX 345-7650 • www.achdidaho.org Development Services Department t ~~~~~ ~iom..wr7Xeal~o Sr~co Project/File: MCUP-11-019 This is a conditional-use permit application to convert an existing building into a church. The site is located at 3225 E. Commercial Court in Meridian, Idaho. Lead Agency: City of Meridian Site address: 3225 E. Commercial Court Staff Approval: August 18, 2011 Applicant: Life Church 1803 S. Maple Grove Road Boise, ID 83709 Representative: Wayne Thowless LKV Architects 2400 E. Riverwalk Drive Boise, ID 83706 Staff Contact: Jarom Wagoner Phone: 387-6174 E-mail: iwaaonerCa~achdidaho.orq Tech Review: August 10, 2011 A. Findings of Fact 1. Description of Application: The applicant is proposing to renovate the existing 41,820 square foot building and construct a 2,164 square foot addition to be used as a church. Renovations are to include adding a church sanctuary, classrooms and support spaces. The site contains approximately 4.2 acres. 2. Description of Adjacent Surrounding Area: Direction Land Use Zonin North Li ht Industrial District I-L South General Retail & Service Commercial District C-G East Li ht Industrial District I-L West Li ht Industrial District I-L 3. Site History: ACHD staff previously reviewed this site as MCZC-09-021 in April of 2009. The requirements of this staff report are not consistent with those of the prior action due to the fact that the proposed use of the site, as a church, will increase the number of trips to and from the site. 4. Impact Fees: There will be an impact fee that is assessed and due prior to issuance of any building permits. The assessed impact fee will be based on the impact fee ordinance that is in effect at that time. MCUP-11-019 5. Capital Improvements Plan (CIP)/Five Year Work Plan (FYWP): There are currently no roadways, bridges or intersections in the general vicinity of the project that are currently in the Five Year Work Program or the District's Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). B. Traffic Findings for Consideration 1. Trip Generation: This development is estimated to generate 400 additional vehicle trips per day (none existing); 24 additional vehicle trips per hour in the PM peak hour (none existing), based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 8'h edition. 2. Condition of Area Roadways Traffic Count is based on Vehicles per hour (VPH) Functional PM Peak PM Peak Existing Roadway Frontage Classification Hour Hour Level Plus ' Traffic Count of Service Pro ect Eagle Road 420-feet Principal 099 2 N/A** N/A** (SH-55) Arterial , Commercial 400-feet Local N/A N/A N/A Street Commercial ** ACHD does not set level of service thresholds for State Highways. 3. Average Daily Traffic Count (VDT) Average daily traffic counts are based on ACHD's most current traffic counts. The average daily traffic count for Eagle Road north of Franklin Road was 54,328 on August 29, 2007. C. Findings for Consideration 1. Eagle Road Eagle Road is under the jurisdiction of the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD). The applicant, city of Meridian and ITD should work together to determine if additional right-of-way or improvements are necessary on Eagle Road, abutting the site. 2. Commercial Court a. Existing Conditions: Commercial Court is improved with 2-travel lanes and no curb, gutter or sidewalk abutting the site. There is 50-feet of right-of-way for Commercial Court (25-feet from centerline). b. Policy Commercial Streets Policy: District Policy 7208.2.1 states that the developer is responsible for improving all commercial street frontages adjacent to the site or internal to the development as required below, regardless of whether access is taken to all of the adjacent streets. Right-of-Way Policy: District Policy 7208.5.1 states that the standard right-of-way width for commercial roadways shall typically be 50 and 70-feet. Street Section Policy: District Policy 7208.5.2 states that the standard street section for commercial streets will vary depending on the need for a center turn lane, bike lanes, volumes, percentage of truck traffic, and/or on-street parking. 2 MCUP-11-019 A 36-foot street section (back-of--curb to back-of-curb) will typically accommodate two travel lanes and on-street parking. A 40-foot street section (back-of-curb to back-of-curb) will typically accommodate two travel lanes and a center turn lane. A 46-foot street section (back-of-curb to back-of-curb) will typically accommodate two travel lanes, a center turn lane and bike lanes. Required Improvements Policy: District Policy 7208.2.2.1 states that required improvements to an adjacent commercial street shall consist of pavement widening to one-half the required width, including curb, gutter and concrete sidewalk (minimum 5-feet), plus 12-feet of additional pavement widening beyond the centerline established for the street to provide an adequate roadway surtace, with the pavement crowned at the ultimate centerline. A 3-foot wide gravel shoulder and a borrow ditch sized to accommodate the roadway storm runoff shall be constructed on the unimproved side. Sidewalk Policy: District Policy 7208.5.6 states that concrete sidewalks at least five-feet wide are required on both sides of all commercial streets. If a separated sidewalk is proposed, a parkway strip at least 6-feet wide between the back-of-curb and street edge of the sidewalk is required to provide increased safety and protection of pedestrians. Consult the District's Tree Planting Policy if trees are to be placed within the parkway strip. c. Applicant Proposal: The applicant is not proposing any improvements to Commercial Court. d. Staff Comments/Recommendations: The applicant's proposal does not meet District Policy and should not be approved, as proposed. The applicant should be required to construct Commercial Court as one-half of a 40-foot street section including vertical curb, gutter and a minimum 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk. The applicant should provide the District with a sidewalk easement for any segment of sidewalk located outside of the right-of--way. 3. Driveways 3.1 Commercial Court a. Existing Conditions: There is one 25-foot wide driveway onto Commercial Court located approximately 425-feet east of the intersection of Commercial Court and Eagle Road (measured centerline-to-centerline). b. Policy Driveway Location Policy: District Policy 7208.4.1 requires driveways located near intersections to be located a minimum of 75-feet (measured centerline-to-centerline) from the nearest street intersection. Successive Driveways Policy: District Policy 7208.4.1 states that away from an intersection there are no minimum spacing requirements for access points along a local street, but the District does encourage shared access points where appropriate. Driveway Width Policy: District Policy 7208.4.3 states that commercial driveways shall be restricted to a maximum width of 40-feet. Driveway Paving Policy: District Policy 7207.4.3 states that graveled driveways abutting public streets create maintenance problems due to gravel being tracked onto the roadway. In accordance with District Policy, 7207.4.3, the applicant should be required to pave the driveway its full width and 30-feet into the site beyond the edge of pavement of the roadway. c. Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is not proposing any changes to the existing driveway. d. Staff Comments/Recommendations: The applicant's proposal meets District Driveway Location and Successive Driveway Policies and should be approved, as proposed. 3 MCUP-11-019 The applicant should be required to pave the driveway its full width at least 30-feet into the site beyond the edge of pavement. 4. Tree Planters Tree Planter Policy: Tree Planter Policy: The District's Tree Planter Policy prohibits all trees in planters less than 8-feet in width without the installation of root barriers. Class II trees may be allowed in planters with a minimum width of 8-feet, and Class !and Class 111 trees may be allowed in planters with a minimum width of 10-feet. 5. Landscaping Landscaping Policy: A license agreement is required for all landscaping proposed within ACHDright-of--way or easement areas. Trees shat! be located no closer than 10-feet from all public storm drain facilities. Landscaping should be designed to eliminate site obstructions in the vision triangle at intersections. District Policy 5104.3.1 requires a 40-foot vision triangle and a 3-foot height restriction on all landscaping located at an uncontrolled intersection and a 50- foot offset from stop signs. Landscape plans are required with the submittal of civil plans and must meet all District requirements prior to signature of the final plat and/or approval of the civil plans. D. Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1. Construct Commercial Court as one-half of a 40-foot street section including vertical curb, gutter and minimum 5-foot wide sidewalk, abutting the site. 2. Utilize the existing 25-foot wide driveway, located approximately 425-feet east of the intersection of Commercial Court and Eagle Road, as proposed. Pave the driveway its full width at least 30-feet into the site beyond the edge of pavement. 3. Provide the District with a sidewalk easement for any segment of sidewalk located outside of the right-of-way. 4. Comply with all Standard Conditions of Approval. E. Standard Conditions of Approval 1. Any existing irrigation facilities shall be relocated outside of the ACHD right-of-way. 2. Private sewer or water systems are prohibited from being located within the ACHD right- of-way. 3. In accordance with District policy, 7203.6, the applicant may be required to update any existing non-compliant pedestrian improvements abutting the site to meet current Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. The applicant's engineer should provide documentation of ADA compliance to District Development Review staff for review. 4. Replace any existing damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk and any that may be damaged during the construction of the proposed development. Contact Construction Services at 387-6280 (with file number) for details. 5. A license agreement and compliance with the District's Tree Planter policy is required for all landscaping proposed within ACHD right-of--way or easement areas. 6. All utility relocation costs associated with improving street frontages abutting the site shall be borne by the developer. 4 MCUP-11-019 7. It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify all existing utilities within the right-of-way. The applicant at no cost to ACHD shall repair existing utilities damaged by the applicant. The applicant shall be required to call DIGLINE (1-811-342-1585) at least two full business days prior to breaking ground within ACHD right-of-way. The applicant shall contact ACHD Traffic Operations 387-6190 in the event any ACHD conduits (spare or filled) are compromised during any phase of construction. 8. Utility street cuts in pavement less than five years old are not allowed unless approved in writing by the District. Contact the District's Utility Coordinator at 387-6258 (with file numbers) for details. 9. All design and construction shall be in accordance with the ACHD Policy Manual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplements, Construction Services procedures and all applicable ACHD Standards unless specifically waived herein. An engineer registered in the State of Idaho shall prepare and certify all improvement plans. 10. Construction, use and property development shall be in conformance with all applicable requirements of ACHD prior to District approval for occupancy. 11. No change in the terms and conditions of this approval shall be valid unless they are in writing and signed by the applicant or the applicant's authorized representative and an authorized representative of ACHD. The burden shall be upon the applicant to obtain written confirmation of any change from ACRD. 12. If the site plan or use should change in the future, ACRD Planning Review will review the site plan and may require additional improvements to the transportation system at that time. Any change in the planned use of the property which is the subject of this application, shall require the applicant to comply with ACHD Policy and Standard Conditions of Approval in place at that time unless awaiver/variance of the requirements or other legal relief is granted by the ACHD Commission. F. Conclusions of Law 1. The proposed site plan is approved, if all of the Site Specific and Standard Conditions of Approval are satisfied. 2. ACHD requirements are consistent with applicable federal, state and local laws. Attachments 1. Vicinity Map 2. Site Plan 3. Utility Coordinating Council 4. Development Process Checklist 5. Request for Reconsideration Guidelines 5 MCUP-11-019 MCUP-11-019 Vicinity Map Site Plan '. ~.~ _ ------------------------------------------------------------ i; ~ ------ ~ :~: i ° ... ~ r . .---- a..ma.a~ - - - - - - ~ w. ---- -- -- -- . ~~ ~6i~. ~,,. ~Ff,LST '1~ tart, ~f----s------ - --- ° -- - -- - - ---------- ----- - '~ i r b - f - io` ® ' '' ~ ®' -~-- ~- ----, ~~y~ v Ego ~ - ~ j O `~'~ ~ ~ d s ~ ~~~ ~~' ~ i ~~ ~ g -a ~ i ~ ~° 9 1 i ~ s i ~ i0. ',~ , , ~ ~ ~ -- -- - ~- ~~ ~'~' i° i L~ _ i ; 1 1 _~_.' i ~. .• . s F~~ ~ i ~ _ __•__• ~ h ' :• • p ~ ~ ~ . - ~ 0. ~ da ~ i , $ . - . , <a~* ~~~ g~ ~~m !t ° _J ®®o©©®® ~ oo©o ©o00 ®o0gg o o~ 0 0 0 0 ~ a e ~ gig ~~ g g~g~ g ~ 4 4-0 i ~ '! I'I I i '~ `~~r°~~ $ag8~~i~ ~g~88 $$ gg~i 8~r~~~ ~ $ ~ ' s gE- ~ ~ ~ ~ii - ~ ~a t; ~ ~ Eg ~~1~ $~~~4~t EpF ~ ~ z ~~ r ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ R ~ •~~ : r r r r ~ i i g l i f~ I I ~ P ~ ~ ~ ~ , g ~.~ is ~$ ~ ~sd ~ sg ~~~g g~a~~~gg~g~~$g~ga+' ~ ~~ gg ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ Y ~ ~ ~ 1 i ~ g ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~$ a g g a a Sj E~ ~g ~ ~ g g ° ¢ C ~ 66b3 .ssii aa~rt F aaa~ ! ~ ~ 5 gg 6~F ~: ; B . "- S6ATNAY•KROIN-VUSOOKm . AxexR[CT9 Building Remodel for life Church a 3 . ~ rsy.vn.~.mcomraicox AIa.19nlmro MCUP-11-019 Ada County Utility Coordinating Council Developer/Local Improvement District Right of Way Improvements Guideline Request Purpose: To develop the necessary avenue for proper notification to utilities of local highway and road improvements, to help the utilities in budgeting and to clarify the already existing process. 1) Notification: Within five (5) working days upon notification of required right of way improvements by Highway entities, developers shall provide written notification to the affected utility owners and the Ada County Utility Coordinating Council (UCC). Notification shaA include but not be limited to, project limits, scope of roadway improvements/project, anticipated construction dates, and any portions critical to the right of way improvements and coordination of utilities. 2) Plan Review: The developer shall provide the highway entities and all utility owners with preliminary project plans and schedule a plan review conference. Depending on the scale of utility improvements, a plan review conference may not be necessary, as determined by the utility owners. Conference notification shall also be sent to the UCC. During the review meeting the developer shall notify utilities of the status of right of way/easement acquisition necessary for their project. At the plan review conference each company shall have the right to appeal, adjust and/or negotiate with the developer on its own behalf. Each utility shall provide the developer with a letter of review indicating the costs and time required for relocation of its facilities. Said letter of review is to be provided within thirty calendar days after the date of the plan review conference. 3) Revisions: The developer is responsible to provide utilities with any revisions to preliminary plans. Utilities may request an updated plan review meeting if revisions are made in the preliminary plans which affect the utility relocation requirements. Utilities shall have thirty days after receiving the revisions to review and comment thereon. 4) Final Notification: The developer will provide highway entities, utility owners and the UCC with final notification of its intent to proceed with right of way improvements and include the anticipated date work will commence. This notification shall indicate that the work to be performed shall be pursuant to final approved plans by the highway entity. The developer shall schedule a preconstruction meeting prior to right of way improvements. Utility relocation activity shall be completed within the times established during the preconstruction meeting, unless otherwise agreed upon. Notification to the Ada County UCC can be sent to: 50 S. Cole Rd. Boise 83707, or Visit iducc.com for a-mail notification information. 8 MCUP-11-019 Development Process Checklist Items Completed to Date: ®Submit a development application to a City or to Ada County ®The City or the County will transmit the development application to ACHD ®The ACHD Planning Review Section will receive the development application to review ®The Planning Review Section will do one of the following: ^Send a "No Review" letter to the applicant stating that there are no site specific conditions of approval at this time. ®Write a Staff Level report analyzing the impacts of the development on the transportation system and evaluating the proposal for its conformance to District Policy. ^Write a Commission Level report analyzing the impacts of the development on the transportation system and evaluating the proposal for its conformance to District Policy. It®ms to ba comglated b~- &~li~:ant: ^For ALL development applications, including those receiving a "No Review" letter: • The applicant should submit one set of engineered plans directly to ACHD for review by the Development Review Section for plan review and assessment of impact fees. (Note: if there are no site improvements required by ACHD, then architectural plans may be submitted for purposes of impact fee assessment.) • The applicant is required to get a permit from Construction Services (ACHD) for ANY work in the right-of-way, including, but not limited to, driveway approaches, street improvements and utility cuts. ^Pay Impact Fees prior to issuance of building permit. Impact fees cannot be paid prior to plan review approval. DID YOU REMEMBER: Construction (Non-Subdivisions) ^ Driveway or Property Approaches) • Submit a "Driveway Approach Request" form to ACHD Construction (for approval by Development Services & Traffic Services). There is a one week turnaround for this approval. ^ Working in the ACHD Right-of-Way • Four business days prior to starting work have a bonded contractor submit a "Temporary Highway Use Permit Application" to ACHD Construction -Permits along with: a) Traffic Control Plan b) An Erosion & Sediment Control Narrative & Plat, done by a Certified Plan Designer, if trench is >50' or you are placing >600 sf of concrete or asphalt. Construction (Subdivisions) ^ Sediment & Erosion Submittal • At least one week prior to setting up aPre-Construction Meeting an Erosion & Sediment Control Narrative & Plan, done by a Certified Plan Designer, must be turned into ACRD Construction to be reviewed and approved by the ACHD Stormwater Section. ^ Idaho Power Company • Vic Steelman at Idaho Power must have his IPCO approved set of subdivision utility plans prior to Pre-Con being scheduled. ^ Final Approval from Development Services is required prior to scheduling aPre-Con. MCUP-11-019 Request for Appeal of Staff Decision 1. Appeal of Staff Decision: The Commission shall hear and decide appeals by an applicant of the final decision made by the ROWDS Manager when it is alleged that the ROWDS Manager did not properly apply this section 7101.6, did not consider all of the relevant facts presented, made an error of fact or law, abused discretion or acted arbitrarily and capriciously in the interpretation or enforcement of the ACHD Policy Manual. Filing Fee: The Commission may, from time to time, set reasonable fees to be charged the applicant for the processing of appeals, to cover administrative costs. Initiation: An appeal is initiated by the filing of a written notice of appeal with the Secretary of Highway Systems, which must be filed within ten (10) working days from the date of the decision that is the subject of the appeal. The notice of appeal shall refer to the decision being appealed, identify the appellant by name, address and telephone number and state the grounds for the appeal. The grounds shall include a written summary of the provisions of the policy relevant to the appeal and/or the facts and law relied upon and shall include a written argument in support of the appeal. The Commission shall not consider a notice of appeal that does not comply with the provisions of this subsection. Time to Reply: The ROWDS Manager shall have ten (10) working days from the date of the filing of the notice of appeal to reply to the notice of the appeal, and may during such time meet with the appellant to discuss the matter, and may also consider and/or modify the decision that is being appealed. A copy of the reply and any modifications to the decision being appealed will be provided to the appellant prior to the Commission hearing on the appeal. Notice of Hearing: Unless otherwise agreed to by the appellant, the hearing of the appeal will be noticed and scheduled on the Commission agenda at a regular meeting to be held within thirty (30) days following the delivery to the appellant of the ROWDS Manager's reply to the notice of appeal. A copy of the decision being appealed, the notice of appeal and the reply shall be delivered to the Commission at least one (1) week prior to the hearing. Action by Commission: Following the hearing, the Commission shall either affirm or reverse, in whole or part, or otherwise modify, amend or supplement the decision being appealed, as such action is adequately supported by the law and evidence presented at the hearing. 10 MCUP-11-019 E IDIAN,- ~ C, ~- H ® R~~EIVED r =+ r: ~ z~ery Meridian TRANSMITTALS TO AGENCIES FOI~iKBd~JI;~SR~N DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN MayorTammy de Weerd City Council Members: Keith Bird Brad Hoaglun Charles Rountree David Zaremba To ensure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission please submit your comments and recommendations to Meridian City Hall Attn: Jaycee Holman, City Clerk, by: 24-AU -11 Transmittal Date: August 3, 2011 File No.: CUP 11•A~9~'QO Hearing Date: September 1, 2011 Request: Public Hearing -Conditional Use Permit approval to operate a Church from an existing building in an I-L zoning district for Life Church By: Life Church Location Of Property or Project: 3225 E. Commercial Street Joe Marshall (No FP) Scott Freeman (No FP) Steven Yearsley (No FP) Michael Rohm (No FP) Tom O'Brien (No FP) Tammy de Weerd, Mayor Charlie Rountree, C/C Brad Hoaglun, C/C Keith Bird, C/C David Zaremba C/C Sanitary ServlCeS (No VAR, VAC, FP) Building Department /Rick Jackson Fire Department Police Department City Attorney City Public Works/Scott Steckline City Planner Parks Department Economic Dev. ccuP only) Meridian School District (No FP) Meridian Post Office (FP/PP/sHP only) Ada County Highway District Ada County Development Services Central District Health COMPASS (Comp Plan only) Nampa Meridian Irrig. District Settlers Irrig. District Idaho Power Co. (FP,PP,cuP/SHP only) QweSt (FP/PP/SHP only) IntermOUntaln G8S (FP/PP/SHP only) Idaho Transportation Dept. (No FP> Ada County Ass. Land Records Downtown Projects: Meridian Development Corp. Historical Preservation Comm. - South of RR / SW Meridian: NW Pipeline New York Irriaation District City Engineer Boise-Kuna Irrigation District Your Concise Remarks: Boise Project Board of Control /Tim Page City Clerk's Office • 33 E. Idaho Avenue, Meridian, ID 83642 Phone 208-888-4433 •Fax 208-888-4218 • www.meridiancity.org CENTRAL ~~ DISTRICT ~THEALTN DEPARTMENT Rezone # Conditional Use # Preliminary /Final /Short Plat Return to: ^ Boise ^ ~9~ ^ Garden City Meridian ^Kuna ^ACZ ^~. We have No Objections to this Proposal. ^2. We recommend Denial of this Proposal. ^3. Specific knowledge as to the exact type of use must be provided before we can comment on this Proposal. ^4. We will require more data concerning soil conditions on this Proposal before we can comment. ^5. Before we can comment concerning individual sewage disposal, we will require more data concerning the depth of: ^ high seasonal ground water ^ waste flow characteristics ^ bedrock from original grade ^ other ^6. This office may require a study to assess the impact of nutrients and pathogens to receiving ground waters and/or surface waters. ^7. This project shall be reviewed by the Idaho Department of Water Resources concerning well construction and water availability. ^8. After written approval from appropriate entities are submitted, we can approve this proposal for: ^ central sewage ^ community sewage system ^ community water well ^ interim sewage ^ central water ^ individual sewage ^ individual water ^9. The following plan(s) must be submitted to and approved by the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality: ^ central sewage ^ community sewage system ^ community water ^ sewage dry lines ^ central water ^10. Run-off is not to create a mosquito breeding problem. ^11. This Department would recommend deferral until high seasonal ground water can be determined if other considerations indicate approval. ^ 12. If restroom facilities are to be installed, then a sewage system MUST be installed to meet Idaho State Sewage Regulations. ^ 13. We will require plans be submitted for a plan review for any: ^ food establishment ^ swimming pools or spas ^ child care center ^ beverage establishment ^ grocery store ^ 14. Please see attached stormwater management recommendations ^ 15. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT Environmental Health Division Reviewed By: Date:~~/~ Review Sheet 15726-001EH0904 Page 1 of 1 Machelle Hill From: Larry Strough [Larry.Strough@itd.idaho.gov] Sent: Monday, August 08, 2011 11:35 AM To: clerk Cc: Blaine Schwendiman Subject: CUP 11-~(S('3 Attachments: img-808102524-0001.pdf ITD has no comment on the enclosed notice. Thank You Larry Strough 334-8924 8/8/2011 a &'I1F.~,rd'ax 9vKgatioz Dewasict 1503 FIRST STREET SOUTH NAMPA, IDAHO 83651-4395 FAX # 208-463-0092 Phones: Area Code 208 OFFICE: Nampa 466-7861 SHOP: Nampa 466-0663 City of Meridian City Clerk's Office Jaycee Holman 33 E Broadway Avenue Ste 102 Meridian. ID 83642-2619 03 RE: CUP 11-0)~lLife Church; 3225 E. Commercial Court Dear Jaycee: Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District has no comment on the above-referenced application. Settlers Irrigation District has a facility within this area. Please contact Nathan Draper with Settlers Irrigation at 344-2471 or at PO BoY 7571, Boise, ID 83707. All laterals and waste ways must be protected. All municipal surface drainage must be retained on-site. ~ If any surface drainage leaves the site, Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District must review drainage plans. The Developer must comply with Idaho Code 31-3805. It is recommended that irrigation water be made available to all developments within the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District. Sinrce~rely,^w, , v I rr~ Andy Madsen Crew Foreman Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District AMidbg C: File/Office Nathan Draper; Settler Irrigation Dist. APPROXIMATE IRRIGABLE ACRES RIVER FLOW RIGHTS - 23,000 BOISE PROJECT RIGHTS - 40,000 10 August 2011