Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 19, 2007 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 19, 2007 Page 17 of 47 Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to open Items No. CPA 07-002 and CPA 07-009 for the sole purpose of continuing these items to the regularly scheduled meeting of November 1 st, 2007. Moe: So moved. Siddoway: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue Items No. CPA 07-002 and CPA 07- 009 to the regularly scheduled meeting of November 1 st, 2007. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: Wow, we are doing pretty good tonight. Moe: Don't speak too soon. Item 14: Item 15: Continued Public Hearing from April 5, 2007: CPA 07-007 Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map for the future Ten Mile Interchange area to modify various future land uses designations and to create several new future land use designations for the Ten Mile Area Comprehensive Plan Amendment by the City of Meridian Planning Department - generally bordered by Linder Road to the east, McDermott Road to the west, the Union Pacific Railroad Line to the north and ~ mile south of Overland Road to the south: Continued Public Hearing from April 5, 2007: CPA 07-008 Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan by adding the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan as an addendum to the Comprehensive Plan for the Ten Mile Specific Area Plan Text by the City of Meridian Planning Department - generally bordered by Linder Road to the east, McDermott Road to the west, the Union Pacific Railroad Line to the north and ~ mile south of Overland Road to the south: Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to open CPA 07-007 and CPA 07-008 and begin with the staff report. Lucas: Thank you, Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission. This -- these Items deal with the Ten Mile Area Comprehensive Plan Map and Text Amendment that was discussed at length at the last meeting. I think it would be a good idea to go directly into the -- some of the direction that we received -- staff received both from the public and from the Commission at the last hearing. I have an exhibit here that kind of summarizes the -- the recommended changes that came from some of the public testimony and the Commission specifically asked for an exhibit that described those changes and how the new map would look if those changes were made. I'd like to go through them one by Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 19, 2007 Page 18of47 one just so everyone is clear on what we are talking about. The first of those changes was a change in designation on this triangular piece of property here from medium density residential to high density residential as designated there. Also, a similar change here from -- I think this one is from medium density residential to mixed use community. There is a small piece of property here. On the corner here, the southeast corner of the Ten Mile and Franklin, was a requested change from -- or a change from the designation which is mixed use residential to mixed use commercial for that entire corner. And also related to that was a discussion of going to a full access point at this location, rather than a right-in, right-out. Some changes here south of the freeway included a possible rerouting of this street to get a closer connection to the freeway and a possible location somewhere for -- for a gas station. This exhibit here, as you can see, this -- the changes haven't been made here on this map and when I toggle down you will see that this is what the map would look like with those changes made. You can see the commercial designation there, the increase in density there, the extended commercial designation there. These changes were a little bit harder to make, because they are more conceptual in nature, but certainly there could be text within the plan amended to allow for some of these changes, along with that access request also. As was discussed at the -- at the last hearing, staff, as we looked at these changes, found them to be mostly reasonable. None of the requests were giving staff major -- you know, major issues. So, really, it was -- this is just the response to the Commission's request to see those changes on a map and to kind of make your decision about how-- how the Commission feels about -- about those changes. Along with that, we also received just today, this afternoon, a pretty detailed letter from the Ada County Highway District regarding the Ten Mile area specific plan. Before I read some of that letter into the record, I just wanted to kind of respond just in general about this process and the map itself. Comprehensive Plans by -- in nature are very conceptual. This plan is a little bit different. It's more detailed than we usually have in this city. Our main map that we use is very conceptual and, obviously, get into a lot more detail than that, especially when it comes to the proposed road network, this collector network that's shown on the plan. But even with that said, this plan still remains conceptual and there is room for discussion about implementation measures and how all of these things will actually work through the process. And so ACHD -- ACHD's letter was very detailed -- in staff's opinion somewhat -- in some cases maybe a little bit too detailed with their analysis of some of these -- of these areas, because this isn't a development application in the sense of we don't know -- you know, we don't know the users, we don't know exactly what's going to happen out here, we are just kind of doing a conceptual plan of what the vision is and with that said staff feels it's important that we keep that in mind as we consider ACHD's comments and realize that there is a lot of room still to work a lot of these implementation measures out. ACHD points out some errors in the plan that -- which, obviously, can be corrected, but when it comes to their main three points, staff feels that -- that, really, the plan can stand alone and it's not necessarily imperative that we address all of these points that they have brought up here tonight, because a lot of that will happen in the natural process of development and when applications come in and through how we work with them through the implementation of this. And I also feel it's important to note that ACHD was involved from the very beginning on this plan, involved in the charrette process, involved in the public information process, and so for Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 19. 2007 Page 19 of 47 us to get these comments today -- this afternoon regarding the plan, it's great that we got them, but they have been and have had a chance to comment on this plan for quite awhile now and so to do that in -- to do that in a sense to this Commission and pressure on you to take all this in tonight is maybe a little bit too much to ask, really. And so I would -- those are kind of the things I wanted to make clear and, hopefully, that will help as we -- as the Commission considers this plan for approval. I'm going to read a little bit of what those issues are just into the public record, so it's clear to everyone. I'll just summarize. It says: ACHD has reviewed the Ten Mile interchange plan as submitted by the City of Meridian, with the assistance from HGR, which was the consultant. Overall, the plan was viewed as strong in overall substance, thoughtful and thorough in its comprehensiveness, and creative in its design and vision for what the location should be -- for what the location should eventually resemble. The plan has a few major issues and several minor points that ACHD wishes to comment on. The major points are below, while the minor points are attached. I will only discuss the major points through this portion of the staff report. It says the first signalized intersection location. The plan states that the intersection is to be located 1,000 feet north of the high top of the new interchange. Since this is the measure -- and just so we are clear, this is talking about the first intersection to the north of the freeway proposed to be located right at that location. Since this is a major -- since this is measured from the highest point of the interchange and assuming the elevation relief would require at least 200 to 300 feet before being level, this means the first signalized intersection will be located closer to 700 to 800 feet from the off-on ramp and creating similar issues of that to Eagle Road. ACHD recommends this intersection be moved further north to avoid -- to avoid likely -- to avoid likely stacking that would take place. Point number two. Impact fees and funding mechanisms. The plan does not accurately reflect the ACHD impact in extraordinary impact fee structure and does not address realistic possibilities for funding the collector street system in this area. While noting the importance of finding methods in which to develop the desired network, it is our recommendation that this section be either rewritten or removed altogether. We are happy to assist in refining this language if necessary. And the final and third point is Overland Road. This Overland realignment study is not complete. The south Meridian plan has yet to be fully developed and has not been finalized by the consultant, ACHD, or the City of Meridian and is, thereof, not ready for official action. Until this is the case, which will be well after the Ten Mile plan is finalized, discussing the possible alignments of Overland may be premature and should be handled with the delicacy of warrants due to the unknown factors that surround the future of the roadway. Those were the main points that ACHD wanted to bring up and I think the general response from staff is that some of those points -- certainly there is -- there is further discussion to be had and when it comes to exact distances and things like that of roads from the high top of the on-ramp and off-ramp and things like that, this plan really -- as I stated earlier, is conceptual in nature and there is, you know, flexibility when it comes to things like that. But overall staff stands behind the plan. A lot of thought went into the plan and doesn't -- doesn't feel that major changes need to be made at this point to the plan. And I'll stand for any questions with that. Rohm: Thank you. That was a fine presentation. Any questions of staff? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 19, 2007 Page 20 of 47 Moe: Yeah, Mr. Chairman. Justin, in regards to the Overland Road -- you know, ACHD has had -- we have discussions with them and they had no problem with the realignment that is shown six weeks ago or whenever. I mean are they just basically just trying to get some definites figured out now? I mean is the concept still approved by them? Lucas: Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission, and Commissioner Moe, yes, this realignment of Overland Road has been a topic of discussion for quite awhile now, as you stated, and the direction that the city received from ACHD was that we needed to act first and give a recommendation to them regarding this realignment and kind of show them the direction that we wanted to go, largely through this plan and other transportation plans that are happening in the south part of Meridian. So, staff was a little bit -- didn't understand their -- this comment in their letter either, because the realignment of Overland Road will take a lot more than just this plan to make it work. But this plan does give a concept, an idea, and a vision of what we see could work down there. And so this certainly doesn't cement the fact that Overland will be realigned and we do believe we are delicately treating that -- that alignment as something that needs further discussion and, obviously, you know, we will have a large process to make it actually happen. Rohm: Thank you. Moe: Thank you. Rohm: Okay. Is there anyone from the audience that would like to testify to this application at this time? Dave. Turnbull: Thank you. Commissioner Rohm. David Turnbull. 12601 West Explorer Drive, in Boise. Appreciate the planning staff report. Very to the point. As you're aware, a couple of weeks ago I came and testified about two items and I think that one of the concerns that probably hadn't been communicated between us and staff at that point was on our request for that change in designation on the Franklin and Ten Mile interchange on the mixed use commercial. I think Anna was probably concerned that maybe we would shift that -- excuse me. There is a pointer here; right? There is a collector road right in this area that she wanted to maintain in that -- you know, main street type of a feel and my comment back to her after the meeting was that we were still committed to that as well. And so, hopefully, that will alleviate any concerns with regard to that change in the Comprehensive Plan. So, if you have any questions for me in that regard I would be happy to answer them. Rohm: I guess my only question is are you happy with the way the map is currently presented with the changes that staff's made to it from two week ago? Turnbull: Yes, sir. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 19, 2007 Page 21 of 47 Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Is there-- Moe: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to make a point. I do believe there are a couple other folks in the audience that did come up two weeks ago. I'd appreciate it if -- I'd like to hear their response to the plan the way it's been revised to see whether or not if they have any concerns on that as well. Rohm: Okay. Mr. Bainbridge, would you like to come forward. Bainbridge: Steve Bainbridge. 5717 West Brigadoon, Meridian. That piece of property over here where it was medium density, to commercial, is -- is a good thing for us and I think it's a good thing for that piece of property adjacent to the -- the trash -- SSC. Moe: Transfer station. Bainbridge: We appreciate the change. Moe: Sir, you do know that one point is is that -- that they are not anticipating an access onto Franklin Road. Bainbridge: Yes. Moe: And do cross-access across -- Bainbridge: Yes. Moe: Okay. Good enough. Rohm: Thank you. Bainbridge: Thank you. Moe: Thank you very much. Rohm: Okay. Would anyone else to come forward? Mashburn: Jim Mashburn. L&M Associates. 4571 North Patton Avenue, Boise, Idaho. 83704. I'm the one that requested the change to high density residential there and I'd like to stand for any questions. Basically, my comment is that our main reason was not to try to pack a lot of people in there, it was to open up the possibility of some nonresidential, more flexibility, and stay within your vision was the reason we made the request. And I'd stand for any questions. Rohm: Any questions? Okay. Good. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 19, 2007 Page 22 of 47 Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I have one question for Justin. On this revised map were any changes made south of 1-84? Lucas: Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Siddoway, no. We will go back up to those requested changes. As you can see, the requested changes south was a possible realignment of what would be this extension -- I don't know what this road would be called, but it would be kind of whatever was left of Overland Road if the realignment were to occur, to get it closer up to the freeway interchange. There was some -- Mr. Jewett came and testified about that and talked about -- I believe it was some topographical issues and maybe the idea of putting some user there that would benefit from being that close to the interchange, like a gas station or something like that. And, then, the idea down here was possibly opening this area up -- whatever -- what is that mixed use community designation to -- I may have said that wrong. Siddoway: I think it's medium high density residential. Lucas: Yeah. Medium high density residential. Possibly allowing some language in the plan specific to that location to allow some small convenience store or gas station type use on that corner. But no change was made, because it was somewhat ambiguous on what was requested. So, we definitely noted it, but there was really no change to be made to the map, because there was nothing definite beyond that. I think Anna has a comment. Canning: Chairman and Commissioners, we did change the corner property to mixed use commercial and I spoke with Mr. Jewett about that earlier this week and he was in favor of that. Part of the reason I -- no matter how that property takes access, it will take access to an arterial street. So, it made sense -- some sense to have a use there that would particularly benefit from having access to an arterial street, which would be some commercial properties, rather than the residential. So, we did shift that one piece of property. Rohm: Thank you. Okay. Any other questions of staff or is there anyone else from the audience that would like to come forward and testify at this time? O'Brien: None from me. Siddoway: None for me. Rohm: All right. Could I get a motion to close the Public Hearing? Moe: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to close the Public Hearing on CPA 07-007 and CPA 07-008. Siddoway: Second. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 19, 2007 Page 23 of 47 Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on CPA 07-007 and CPA 07-008. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move to table CPA 07-007 and CPA 07-008 to the end of the meeting after -- Siddoway: Actually, we can act on it. Moe: Ah. We can act on it now. Excuse me. Rohm: Well, we will just have this one tabled and, then, we will open -- reopen them all at the same time and -- for a single action. Moe: No, you can't do -- Siddoway: We may want to do individual actions. Just take them -- Rohm: Okay. All right. Moe: Then, I guess, what I would probably want to do is I want to table this, so we can have some discussion. Siddoway: We can have the discussion now. Moe: Good point. On this one I have no problem. I think that staff did a very good job making the changes and whatnot and so it's my recommendation to go forward with approval of the Ten Mile area plan as has been revised. Rohm: Commissioner O'Brien, do you have any final comments on this Ten Mile -- O'Brien: I have been struggling with this thing for a couple of weeks and the only question I have is, you know, if you build it they will come and those are the concerns I have is that as we change things now -- and I guess we were addressing that tonight in that some of the things that we have table we are going to hear it after we take care of Item 15, is that getting the cart before the horse, I think, is what my concerns were. We are going to be changing designations here, but aren't those designations changed and done after we have agreed upon what we are really going to be doing with the plan itself? And maybe you're not following me very well, but it just seems like we are changing what we -- where the grocery store wants to be -- we are changing the area -- so, we are changing this area here to a commercial zone, basically. Right? I think the - Rohm: Mixed use. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 19, 2007 Page 24 of 47 Siddoway: Mixed use commercial. O'Brien: Mixed use commercial. This is high density residential and this is supposed to be a main corridor here and it just seems to me like this is going to end up being a main corridor as well. Am I wrong in assuming that? Because of the use that it's going to provide. Rohm: I think that the intent, Commissioner O'Brien, is there is going to be limited access off of Ten Mile to that entire stretch through there and so even though it does have the commercial flavor to it, the -- this Ten Mile area plan has addressed that and even though there will be these changes made to the map and allow for mixed use on the corner there and change the use on the east end of the project on the north -- or south side of Franklin and recommend it for high density in that other section, the roadway system and the limited access within this environment is going to pretty much remain intact and that's -- I think that that was part of the goal of this Ten Mile project is to capture that now, so that we can keep the flow of traffic going and changing some of the end use doesn't disrupt that. O'Brien: So, it's cast in concrete, subject to change? Rohm: Yes. O'Brien: Thank you. I'd just like -- that's, really, like a -- it seems like that's what we are doing, is we are adopting this thing and, then, we are allowing changes to happen later on. Rohm: Well, I -- O'Brien: Well, I know. I mean it seems like that's the danger. Rohm: I think that the intent Is to make this part of the Comprehensive Plan and each project that comes forward will, then, have to comply with the Comprehensive Plan as amended via this project and so even though we are making some tweaks to it tonight, via testimony from the last meeting, this is what will be the plan into the future. And so that's the intent is to make sure we get it right this time. So, it may seem like we are making significant changes to you, but overall this is still pretty well intact. O'Brien: Okay. You have answered my concerns. Thank you very much. Rohm: Okay. Canning: Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission, if I could add just one comment to that. I think perhaps, Commissioner O'Brien, what may have confused you, we use the term main street with regard to this facility right here and what was meant by that is we wanted something that was very walkable from the lifestyle center to the transit station, something where the store fronts were close to the street, where folks Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 19, 2007 Page 25 of 47 walk up and down there. Not that it would be the main commercial street, but that it would have a kind of main street feel -- O'Brien: Oh. Okay. Canning: -- in the -- in the Andy Griffith sense of the word is what it was meant. So, by adding the commercial over here, I was just originally concerned that we would be pulling the emphasis away from there. But I think that we understand and the owner of that property understands that we are still looking for that and have committed to doing that. O'Brien: Okay. That makes a lot more sense. Appreciate it. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. At this time could we get a motion to move forward with this item? Siddoway: I have a couple of comments. Rohm: Okay. Siddoway: The -- I do agree with the land use changes as proposed on the -- the next map here and the one that I had the most concern with was the change to mixed use commercial. But as I think about it, the difference between mixed use commercial and mixed use residential is very -- quite slight. I mean one's just what is the emphasis on commercial or is it on residential, but both of them accommodate mixed use, both residential and commercial, and with the understanding of the -- Mr. Turnbull's testimony tonight that he does intent to stay true to the main street concept along that collector road, that addresses my -- my main concerns with the change in land use. I would, myself, like to reaffirm the access management portion of it as remaining as proposed in the current plan with a -- this collector road being an underpass, a second collector road as with a full access and a third collector road as a right in, right out. That would be my only point of clarification from my own perspective. Rohm: Was that -- you're referring to the one -- first one south of Franklin Road as being the right-in, right-out? Siddoway: Yeah. It is in the plan of a right-in, right-out. Rohm: And you're just affirming that. Siddoway: Correct. If we go back one slide. It's shown as a proposed change from right-in, right-out, to a full access and I'd like to see it remain as proposed in the plan. Rohm: Oh. Wow. Interesting. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 19, 2007 Page 26 of 47 Siddoway: I wouldn't be so concerned if the access to the same area off of Franklin had a full access, but just thinking of Eagle Road and Meridian Road and the issues of multiple full accesses within close proximity of the interchange, my own thought about doing it right the first time for this Ten Mile corridor would be that we should limit the number of full turning movement accesses between the interchange and Franklin. Rohm: You know, I agree with your thoughts that you want to make sure that the traffic flow isn't inhibited in the fashion that Eagle Road was, but, quite honestly, Ten Mile and Eagle Road aren't the same. Eagle Road is a state highway and it feeds on over to Eagle and Star and Emmett and other points to the north. Ten Mile dead ends at Chinden and it's fed from east and west and, true, it will probably have more traffic once this is fully developed than it currently does, but I don't think Ten Mile is ever going to be an Eagle Road. That's my opinion. Siddoway: It's probably more comparable to Meridian Road, which I think has some of the same issues. Rohm: Commissioner Moe, do you have some final comments? Moe: Well, as I said earlier, I'm pretty much in favor of the plan as it has been revised, but Commissioner Siddoway is now making us at least think about the right-in, right-out a little bit more, but I'm of the opinion, as you are, I'm just not too concerned that traffic is going to be -- that full access would inhibit the traffic through there. So, I guess at the present time I would probably keep it revised as shown. Rohm: Commissioner O'Brien. O'Brien: I'm fine. Siddoway: Was there a staff recommendation on this issue? Canning: I almost said Madam Mayor. Sorry. I don't get here often enough, do I. Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission, the right-in, right-out only at that intersection is supported by all the -- the traffic analysis done for the plan. So, staff had not proposed a change of that intersection. And I think Mr. Turnbull of course will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think what he was talking about was leaving the option open to discuss that further in the future through traffic analyses and things like that. And that I certainly think that that's appropriate, but I -- it would be difficult -- we'd have to -- to talk to our consultant and try and redo all the traffic analyses if we are not moving forward with the right-in, right-out only at this time. But I know Mr. Turnbull will be working with ITD and with ACHD to increase the access to that point. But if the Commission wanted to make a recommendation on that, looking at fully evaluating that, that would be appropriate. We tend not to make those kind of detailed decisions for a property. We generally leave those kind of details up to ACHD based on traffic analyses, but -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 19, 2007 Page 27 of 47 Rohm: SO, in other words, that right-in, right-out is not specifically part of the -- of the application itself? Canning: No. The right-in, right-out is part of the plan as currently written. We did not change it. Siddoway: Right. It's in the plan as right-in, right-out. Rohm: Okay. And once this is -- has been adopted and development actually occurs, does it take another CPA to change it to a full access if, in fact, traffic studies warrant or would it just be part of the application itself? Canning: No, sir. I think -- you know, and this kind of gets to I think what Commissioner O'Brien's question was on the last one, too, is that this -- this is a different kind of Comprehensive Plan amendment for it. It is more specific. Yet Idaho state code -- and Mr. Nary can correct me -- he can be the one to correct me if I'm wrong now, but -- Nary: Mr. Turnbull can do that, too. Canning: Idaho state code still says there is -- the courts have still said these are just -- these are just guides to development. I don't -- I don't know that they have said a specific plan is any more or less a guide than any other Comprehensive Plan that's adopted. So, it's still just a guide to -- to evaluate against development. Now, we did want to get more specifics, so that we could start to work out a lot of these implementation issues and that's what Mr. Friedman and Mr. Ellsworth will be working on mostly next year is these implementation issues and this it is -- that's the big one. What are the appropriate access points. We have designated some of them, but we need to evaluate those further with the appropriate transportation authorities and get those kind details worked out. So, no, it's not going to be a Comp Plan amendment to go from a right-in, right-out only to a full access point, it still substantially complies, it's just we have done further research and come up with an appropriate solution. Rohm: Thank you. That's the answer I wanted to hear. Thank you. Okay. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I'm ready to try a motion. Rohm: Let's hear it. Siddoway: I would move to recommend approval of CPA 07-007 and CPA 07-008, as presented in the staff report in the proposed Ten Mile specific area plan, to incorporate the changes to the land use as proposed tonight during the hearing and acknowledging the potential for further analysis of the specifics of the road system in response to both the ACHD letter and Mr. Turnbull's comments regarding right-in, right-out. Just for clarification, I support the current proposal of right-in, right-out, but acknowledge that the details are subject to specific traffic analyses. End of motion. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 19, 2007 Page 28 of 47 Moe: Second. Rohm: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending approval of CPA 07-007 and CPA 07-008. And I presume that you support text changes to match the map changes? Siddoway: Yes. It was for both, the map change and 008 is the text change. Rohm: And, then, the text change as well. Okay. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. Thank you, folks. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: Okay. I think we are just going to work backwards and we are going to -- now we will go back to Item No. 11, CPA 07-003 and re-open -- Siddoway: No, don't open it. We can just act on it. Rohm: We are going to act on it. Mr. Nary, if an item has just been tabled, do we just ask someone if they'd like to make a motion at this time or is there any formal changes to -- that I need to -- Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, all you need to do is, basically, you have moved all those particular items. Whichever order you want to do them in it's fine and I think it's -- as Commissioner Siddoway stated, I think you want to take the Comp Plan amendments, either singularly or together, it doesn't -- that's the Commission's preference, but you can just say we are on -- now we are back to Item 7, now we are back to Item 8, and, then, you can act on it. or six. I was using it more as an example, not the specific number. But all you need to do is say we are on Item 6. Rohm: Okay. Let's do it this way: We are going to return to Item NO.6. Item 6: Continued Public Hearing from April 5, 2007: CPA 07-004 Request for an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map to change the land use designation from Industrial to Commercial for Jabil East Comprehensive Plan Amendment by the Joint School District No. 2 - 1303 E. Central Drive (Lot 1, Block 1, Jabil Subdivision): Item 7: Continued Public Hearing from April 5, 2007: RZ 07-005 Request for a Rezone of 9.21 acres from I-L to a C-G zone for Jabil East Property by the Joint School District No.2 - 1303 E. Central Drive (Lot 1, Block 1, Jabil Subdivision): Siddoway: Okay. Rohm: And could I get a motion?