Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 20, 2006 P&Z Minutes .," /! Meridian Planning & Zoning April 20, 2006 Page 56 of 88 Zaremba: After consideration all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend -- Borup: Do we have any discussion? Zaremba: Okay. Moe: Mr. Chair, I was just curious -- before you make a motion, I am curious what the other Commissioners think about the western portion going to R-2 and R-4. I would like to see that go -- Borup: I think it makes sense. Zaremba: I would and I was going to add it to the motion. Moe: Thank you very much. Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: Okay. Let me begin again. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 06-010 and PP 06-008 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 20, 2006, with the following modifications to the proposed development agreement. Actually, modifications to Exhibit B, paragraph 1.2, site specific recommendations on the preliminary plat. Paragraph 1.2.3 and paragraph 1.2.4 I would combine and reverse. 1.2.3 appears to be a statement about the other one, so I would combine 1.2.3 and 1.2.4 and reverse the sentences. Then, I would add a paragraph 1.2.9 requiring that the lots identified on the western boundary be zoned to R-2 and that the proper legal description for that be provided. Borup: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 06-010 and PP 06-008. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 12: Public Hearing: AZ 06-016 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.08 acres from RUT to R-4 (Medium-Low Density Residential) zone for Quarterhorse Subdivision by M2 Land LLC - 710 Black Cat Road: Item 13: Public Hearing: PP 06-010 Request for Preliminary Plat approval with 14 single family residential lots and 2 common lots for Quarterhorse Subdivision by M2 Land LLC - 710 Black Cat Road: ~ Meridian Planning & Zoning April 20, 2006 Page 57 of 88 Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on AZ 06-016 and PP 06- 010 and begin with the staff report. Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This is a request for a 5.08 acre site at the intersection of Black Cat and Pine, which is next to the EI Gato Subdivision, as well as the Castlebrook Subdivision to the north, which is an R-4 and R-2. The Comprehensive designation for this site is medium density residential and the applicant is proposing an R-4, medium low density residential site with 14 lots. Currently the area is very much developing. There is low density residential to the west, as well as there is four existing homeowners that immediately surround this property and also take access from the Quarterhorse Lane. With this development the Quarterhorse Lane, which is currently a private lane, does exist at the south border of the property. That is the lane that provides access to -- there is one, two, three and, then, four homes. This lane will be dedicated to the public, which it currently resides 50 feet on the southern property boundary. The applicant has met with ACHD and is in agreement with the ACHD conditions of approval. There is currently a building site on the property in this location. Obviously, some of those buildings cross property lines. Anything that does cross property lines would removed and the applicant has not -- the applicant has agreed to all conditions of approval and staff is recommending approval with the conditions listed in the staff report. I'll stand for questions. Rohm: Any questions of staff? Thank you. Would the applicant like to come forward, please? Carney: Good evening. My name is Ryan Carney; I'm with Lochsa Engineering, civil engineer on the project. Address is 1311 West Jefferson in Boise. 83702. I guess I would just reiterate that I'm in agreement with all staff recommendations. Rohm: That's pretty clear. Thank you. Any questions of the applicant? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, actually, I have a question. I'm just curious why we chose a cul-de-sac, rather than a stub street to the east. Carney: To the east -- Newton-Huckabay: Apparently, Joe wants to answer that. Guenther: That was our idea. We didn't think that they should connect Pine and -- to the east they are providing a stub connection right here. Newton-Huckabay: You can finish your statement -- Zaremba: In discussion of that -- Newton-Huckabay: In my defense it's getting late. .! Meridian Planning & Zoning April 20, 2006 Page 58 of 88 Borup: Not yet. Zaremba: -- it is shown that what we were seeing as a private road, which it currently is, but your staff requirement is that that portion of it be converted to a public road; right? Guenther: Well, it is ACHD's condition, then. That is the design. Zaremba: Okay. Carney: Yes. It will be dedicated as a public right of way. Newton-Huckabay: I don't think I was clear on the question I'm asking. You're talking about the southeast portion. I'm talking about in the middle, why there is no -- stubbing into what -- that agriculture -- right there. Carney: Why we are not adding an access to the eastern property line? Newton-Huckabay: I would just think it's -- it's unusual -- it's unusual to see a parcel this small come through that doesn't give stub streets for when the one besides them develop, if they decide to develop. Borup: They have got access on Quarterhorse. Carney: Yeah. I'm guessing they have got access. Their property line probably is somewhere near our southern property. I don't have that officially, but the dedicated right of way does grant that property to our east. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Carney: Public access. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Gary Casey. Haneke: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, Staff, my name is George Haneke. I reside at 4600 Quarterhorse Lane. And in a moment here I will have a few thoughts on the proposed subdivision to share with you. Planning and Zoning Two. Canning: Is Planning and Zoning Two yours? Haneke: Yeah. I think. This just summarizes from our perspective the proposal in front of you. You can see -- and I think -- getting ready to arm wrestle you guys. Sorry. Okay. So, this is the proposed property for development. I own the eight acres to the east here and I own the two acres to the south. I'm representing the Alexanders and the Caseys. I have a couple of concerns about the proposal. One is that the dedication of the Quarterhorse Lane up to this point right here -- pardon me for shaking so much Meridian Planning & Zoning April 20, 2006 Page 59 of 88 on the light. It really provides no turn-around space from the development. If you'd go to the next slide for just a moment, please. You can see that -- what you're seeing here is the corner of my property and the Quarterhorse Lane that's being proposed to be dedicated to the city terminates right here. I have a gate here and I have another gate on an entrance to my property here and the Caseys have a gate just a little bit further down the road here. So, really, what's going to happen here is the traffic will come down here; they will turn around into the Alexander's property and exit. Now, the gates exist here and on my property, because we have been raising Alpacas and sheep for many years. With the advent of the subdivisions, I have bermed and fenced and landscaped the entire eight acres here around it to provide some sort of insulation for the critters. I'm very concerned about the lack of turnaround space here and we put the gates up here, because we had people driving down the road into our property and dumping beer cans, garbage, and other such stuff. If you could go back to the previous slide for just a moment. The other point that I want to make is in the development of this subdivision over here, this is a dead end street with this piece of property right in this corner here being dedicated as a park. So, there will be no through traffic going this direction here. It's closed off. So, we are concerned about that. Forward one, please. Can you hear me okay? Sorry. The other thing that I'm concerned about is with the landscaping plan and such that was submitted with the proposal. There, apparently, is no fencing proposed or landscaping on the east side of this development, which abuts my property over here and I think that at a minimum there should be some sort of a privacy fence consistent with the privacy fencing that's going on in the area and that I have installed around the property that I have here. There is an alternative and if you go to the next slide, if you just flip that top plan, you can exit the property on West Pine and achieve virtually the same thing and leave this dedicated road here or private road, which if I could get the light to work I could show you. That's an option that I'd like considered. And I certainly would recommend that we do something with respect to the border on the east side here. In lieu of that, given the hodgepodge of property that you guys have to deal with from time to time, it might be beneficial to see if there would be way to do a multiple development with the R-1 property over here, some pieces of the Alexanders, which they might be willing to entertain and combine these two in some way, manner, shape or form. Any questions? Newton-Huckabay: I didn't really follow your last statement. Haneke: Which one? Borup: About combining. Newton-Huckabay: Combining -- are you indicating we should tell the developer to go develop the Alexander's property? Haneke: I'm suggesting that if this plan here doesn't work, to do something here, that -- to flip this exit up to this side -- Newton-Huckabay: Right. I understand. t- Meridian Planning & Zoning April 20, 2006 Page 60 of 88 Haneke: -- that there may have to be something to get access down in this area here to develop it, because it's not going to happen over here. Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh. Got you. Haneke: That's what I'm saying. Borup: Are the Alexanders interested in that? Haneke: I would say that this party down over here and this party over here might entertain a cohesive development of that in some way, manner, shape or form, so that it doesn't -- first of all, we are very pleased with the layout here. Sorry, I'm taking medication for this and drying out pretty good. So, if you saw what was there before, you would say, geez, what are you complaining about? So, I'm not really complaining about that. It's a giant step forward. But, we'd like to see it avoid a problem here where we have a dead end street that doesn't solve anybody's problems. Other questions? Did I address your -- Newton-Huckabay: Yes, you did. Thank you very much. Borup: And I just wondered -- have you had any discussion with -- Haneke: No. Borup: -- the property owner -- they have never called you, you have never called them? Haneke: Who? The Alexanders? Borup: No. No. Haneke: The developer? Borup: Yes. Haneke: I have been trying to buy that property for about 16 years and not from -- Borup: Right. But you haven't had any discussion on trying to combine -- Haneke: No. I'm just offering that up as -- if he can't -- if it can't be flipped, then -- then something needs to be done, so that we don't end up with a mess down here. Borup: Well, it makes sense to me. I'm just surprised there hasn't been some conversation earlier. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 20, 2006 Page 61 of 88 Haneke: Sometimes it's hard to get that, you know, through the barriers and -- you don't want to open up a hornet's nest if you don't have to. Any other questions? Zaremba: We will eventually ask the applicant that question, but I have the exact same instinct you do when I read through the file. It seemed to me access off Pine was a reasonable suggestion. Haneke: It makes perfect sense to me and I'm going to guess that if you go back one more slide I'll just show you that we will be -- sorry. One more. When you look at this property over here, there is an irrigation ditch and some day -- my wife informs me it's after my bones are long shiny on that land -- somebody will want to connect that and it's landlocked, so it will have to be connected to Pine somehow, because there is a subdivision on this side right here. Three houses. Rohm: Thank you, sir. Guenther: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to just shed a couple of points -- and, Mike, can you back me up on this one? The sewer that came down -- the sewer that came down Black Cat, they put a manhole approximately here, which is why Quarterhorse is most important, because sewer and water was stubbed to the property -- will be stubbed to the property line here, which would be the facility for getting this property developed. If they came in off of Pine, then, the sewer and water stubs would not exist for these properties down here. Cole: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, there is water in Pine now. They could extend water to their development from Pine, but there is no sewer in Pine that touches their development. They'd still have to get their sewer from Black Cat. If that's what you were asking. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I would comment that among the things to consider, along with previous testimony, when we had some developments further down Pine, this continues on over to Ten Mile as a private gravel or dirt road, I believe. When this development, and I think the one here, were approved, there was a requirement that that be gated and I suggest that might be -- if the gate were put -- if the configuration was the way that the applicant is presenting it with the loop coming in here, there could be a gate right after that entrance, similar to what we did on Pine, not to access the continuing private properties at the end of that. Rohm: That would certainly solve the problem of trespassing to -- Zaremba: And not being able to -- getting stuck and not being able to turn around. Moe: But at the same time, I think you are causing a problem with gating to where they can't go to their own property unless they open the gate. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 20, 2006 Page 62 of 88 Zaremba: That's true. Actually, it would have been reasonable for me to have asked you that question while you were here, so -- yes. Haneke: Adhere to the protocol of the moment. That is exactly what we did here is we have an electronic gate at this place here, because we would -- did not want to have our -- have to get out in the rain and the mud and the muck and the mire in the middle of winter to open a gate to get back and forth and so if something is proposed here, it needs to be of at least similar -- Borup: Similar to what now? Newton-Huckabay: An electronic gate. Borup: Oh. With a -- Zaremba: With a remote opening. Haneke: Correct. Zaremba: Or even a key pad, if you could reach out the window, even in the rain. Thank you. Rohm: Is there anybody else that would like to testify to this application? Would the applicant like to come back forward, please? Carney: If I could address the issue on access off of Pine -- and I really don't need to go to that slide, but I had met with the highway district and their planning department suggested that there is a future light at the intersection of West Pine and Black Cat and, then, we would need to be 440 feet away for a potential access and suggested I don't access Pine, which is why we came up with this configuration. And that was the only reason that we had brought the access in off of the newly dedicated Quarterhorse Lane. And we don't have enough space to access Black Cat, as we are only 300 some feet, so -- there is the reasoning behind where the access is where it's at and I wouldn't suggest that a potential agreement between the two southern properties is out of the question either. I'd have to make a phone call, but-- Borup: I don't understand. You said it is out of the question? Carney: No, it's not out of the question. Borup: Oh. Carney: And, then, if I understood the last discussion, are we proposing -- one option might be an electronic gated entrance at the very eastern edge of Quarterhorse, is that what was proposed? Meridian Planning & Zoning April 20, 2006 Page 63 of 88 Rohm: I think the suggestion was right here, because -- Carney: Oh, just beyond -- Rohm: -- they drive all the way down here, then, they are kind of -- Carney: Then there is no turnaround? Rohm: Right. Guenther: Mr. Chairman, you can't gate a public road Borup: Right. Guenther: So, if there was a gate, it would have to be on the Haneke property. Carney: And another solution -- and if you mirror it east and west, the entrance to the cul-de-sac would be say whatever that lot depth is away from the end, which still is an inappropriate turnaround, but it's -- you'd get access to the cul-de-sac and turn around and leave. Whether anyone trespassing would do that or not, is -- so, I don't know that we can have access off of Pine, the discussion I had with the highway district, but I think it's been denied. Zaremba: Well, maybe an alternative suggestion is a sign that says dead end road or something like that, just as you pass the entrance into your subdivision off of Quarterhorse. I mean there needs to be some warning to people that there is no way to turn around down there and I think that's a fair request. How to solve that, maybe we need ACHD's opinion or -- I'm trying to think of suggestions. Signage is a very minor one. People can ignore signs, but -- Newton-Huckabay: Well, excuse me, Mr. Chair. Zaremba: I agree is hard to gate a public road. Newton-Huckabay: Was the -- I guess I missed -- the gate's out of the question? Borup: On this property. Newton-Huckabay: But would the developer considering putting it on Mr. Haneke's property if he agreed to do it? Zaremba: I don't think that helps. You got a car trapped or a truck trapped that can't turn around. Guenther: Chairman Zaremba? Meridian Planning & Zoning April 20, 2006 Page 64 of 88 Zaremba: That's too far down the road. Guenther: Commissioner Zaremba, Quarterhorse Lane is still a private lane and Ada County has their own regulations governing private lanes, which also says they are not to be gated, similar to our code. And that they have to have an approved turnaround. Borup: The traffic, I -- that we are concerned about here, I mean it's not going to be the people that live in the subdivision. Hopefully, they know where they live. So, it's just going to be those that are lost. And I don't know how many times that happens. Maybe the concern would be as the road is improved it may look like it goes somewhere. Is-- that maybe the concern, that it could be more attractive than it is now? Carney: Yeah. I would suggest -- you know, to discuss with the developer, but perhaps an approved radius turn around and reconfiguration of the southeast corner would be a better solution than a gate for both an Ada County Highway District requirement and an emergency access requirement. I don't know the permanence of kind of a dead end cul-de-sac on the eastern edge there. And we discussed with Planning, both in Meridian and Ada County Highway District, that is there any potential or an extension of that street? Zaremba: If you would be willing offer that, I think the wording would be something like whatever space that took out of the lot that's in the southeast corner, once that public street is extended, if it ever is, then, the turnaround could be abandoned and that property given back to that lot. I don't know if that's a legal option or not. Borup: Well, we have done that before, a temporary turnaround. It could also be a temporary hammerhead, except in this case they need to be 8,000 foot lots and -- how does a temporary turnaround count towards the lot size? Does it diminish the required -- Guenther: It would be more along the lines of a platted easement for a turnaround. You also have to keep in mind they do have a sidewalk -- a five foot sidewalk and, then, a five foot landscape buffer here, so they have an additional ten feet before you even get to the lot. So, they could do some sort of temporary turnaround there and, then, if the roadway is either extended to the south to accommodate development here or further through to accommodate another parcel or whatever, might be -- that's for future development that ACHD ends up commenting on. Borup: A temporary turnaround or hammerhead or whatever to me makes -- seems to make sense to me. I wouldn't think it's going to be a lot of traffic down there. So, to be able to accommodate those that do makes sense, without having to do a major redesign. Zaremba: And with that I would suggest a sign that says not a through street or something. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 20, 2006 Page 65 of 88 Borup: Yes. I would agree with that. And it still makes -- I mean there may be some design considerations in -- with the neighbors to the south. Even if they didn't develop immediately, you know, there could be some configuration that would make the total project go together better. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I'm going to ask a question and I honestly don't know what the answer is, but I'm just curious. Would it -- could it be, rather than ending in a cul-de-sac, could it just not flow back through down that Quarterhorse court, come back down through to Quarterhorse Lane and so you have a circle, in essence, and, then, you get your access down into the Alexander property -- or natural, I would say, for that development and, then, same with the Haneke property to the west and, then, put -- I mean, then, at least you're not having a dead end, you're not having to have people try to do a bunch of turnarounds. Borup: You would lose that common lot. Carney: In a sense that would permanently eliminate one of the residential. Borup: Which residential lot would it eliminate? Carney: Well, we would have to replace that common lot, which makes up our five percent open space requirement. Borup: Oh. Carney: And, then, we need to replace it with a former residential lot. So, it's possible, it's -- Newton-Huckabay: Well, don't take this wrong, but I'm not -- I'm more concerned about what's going to work 20 years from now, than what works for, you know, lot count, so to speak. But this is just very awkward to me, this whole thing. I'm having a hard time getting my head around it as a good plan. Moe: You may have made a comment earlier and maybe I just didn't pay attention, but you -- when you talked about basically mirroring this thing, basically, putting that entrance down towards the east and just flip flopping that, if you did that I would see that you have enough room, basically, to turn around and go back out if, in fact, that that's not what you need to deal with. I think if you just flip that over that takes care of the concerns, but still put your signage there that it's not a through street. But I'm not trying to design this property. Newton-Huckabay: We all are. Zaremba: Well, I don't know if this helps, but Quarterhorse Lane, even if all of the properties depicted here developed into more dense residential properties than they Meridian Planning & Zoning April 20, 2006 Page 66 of 88 are, Quarterhorse Lane can never go any farther than the far end of the Casey property, because there is a large canal and, then, another subdivision that has no stub street to it. So, this is never going to be a major road going anyplace. We just need to solve the problem for now of people not coming down into other people's yard to be turning around. Rohm: I like your idea of just signing it not a through street and leave it as it is. Zaremba: Let me ask this: If you were to get together on the other two pieces of property that have been suggested might be interested in talking together, would that just be an addition or would you see significantly changing this portion of it to accommodate the rest of it or would it pretty much stay the same way anyhow? Carney: Well, one thing I'm noticing, if we do, like you said, the southern -- which is listed as R-1 right there and, then, a portion of the -- I believe it's the Alexander piece, Quarterhorse Lane as it now sits is still an access easement to the property to our immediate east. So, that access road will be there no matter what we do north and south of it. So, the other option, I suppose, is looping it back to Black Cat and that would eliminate any dead end stub street right there. So, yeah, it would be reworked as a plat layout and, in theory, we could eliminate dead end stub streets. Now, also -- and I'm speaking planning here. I think they would mandate the vacation of that easement and the dedication of right of way up to that -- our eastern property line, to eliminate that portion of a private drive, but-- Moe: You just got me confused again. You are suggesting go back out to Black Cat? Carney: I'm saying if we -- if there is an agreement to develop a large piece of property, namely, a big chunk to the south of us here, you could eliminate a dead end on our southeastern corner by putting in the 90 degree that goes south and, then, access this back down to Black Cat, assuming that the separation requirement can be met that ACHD's going to mandate. Moe: That's my concern right there. Carney: And I don't -- I haven't done the math, so I don't -- Zaremba: I guess the reason I ask that is would you rather make it -- that we make a decision tonight that only involves solving not having through traffic go down there or would you like a chance to talk to the neighboring property owners and possibly bring a redesign? Carney: That's a good question. I think I would rather make a decision tonight and, then, I'm going to -- I'd know what I had do to solve it, so -- rather than me offering that - - a new development potential to the client, I don't -- that could waste a month, so -- Zaremba: And even if we took action that doesn't stop you from talking to them. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 20, 2006 Page 67 of 88 Carney: Right. Exactly. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Carney: If one gives me two options, I'm going to pick the one that gives me two options. Rohm: Any other questions of this applicant? Thank you, sir. Carney: Thank you. Rohm: Discussion? Zaremba: I don't know if staff has commented on whether signage that says not a through street would be helpful or -- Guenther: Well, if you're going to go in that direction, the applicant's offer to flip this around would also satisfy, because he would, essentially, be providing a hammerhead 84 feet from the property line, which would serve for an approved turnaround by ACHD standards and, then, as well as a dead end or no through traffic signage at the intersection would also probably eliminate a lot of the potential traffic -- the nonresidential traffic down that road. Zaremba: Is flipping it a significant change that would require renotice or -- Guenther: It's not. It would not be, because ACHD would be the one mandating that condition, which Meridian staff can, essentially, qualify as substantial conformance, because -- Zaremba: Well, I know we discussed it, but I'm not sure whether the applicant said he would be willing to flip it that way. Carney: The applicant would be willing to mirror this project to create a hammerhead approximately 84 feet from the eastern property edge and to sign it as not a through street. Zaremba: Works for me. Rohm: Thank you. Carney: Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: Is that an agreeable solution? f Meridian Planning & Zoning April 20, 2006 Page 68 of 88 Rohm: I know that we have -- that's outside of our province at this point. We can't have back and forth continually and we already asked for the rebut of the -- Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Just lost my thought here. Forget it. I can't remember now what I wanted to ask. Rohm: Okay. With that being said, is there any discussion before we-- Moe: Now I remember what it was. Moe: I guess the question I would have is are we going to have to continue this, so that we see this -- the plan change or are we going to consider making a motion to do something -- Zaremba: This is one of the few that I probably would be satisfied not to see it. Nothing else changes except flipping it as a mirror image. By the shape of the property that doesn't appear to be a problem and I would be willing to make the recommendation and pass it on. Moe: That's-- Zaremba: I usually take the other angle, but-- Moe: And that's exactly what I was asking, because I just -- I felt the same way. I don't see this as being too difficult if we are just going to flip it and, again, I think it takes care of the problem. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move we close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-016 and PP 06-010. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing AZ 06-016 and PP 06-010. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Do we want any discussion -- do we need any discussion on fencing? f Meridian Planning & Zoning April 20, 2006 Page 69 of 88 Newton-Huckabay: Oh, yeah. Rohm: We do. Guenther: Mr. Borup, the -- there is a condition in there that they provide the privacy fencing six foot on the perimeter of the subdivision. Borup: That's already in the staff report. Guenther: It's in the staff report. Borup: And the applicant has already agreed with all the staff comments. Guenther: Yes. Borup: We are good. Rohm: Good job. Zaremba: In that case, Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I recommend we forward to the City Council -- or, actually, I move that we -_ I'm sorry, let me start over entirely. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 06- 016, PP 06-010, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 20, 2006, and the preliminary plat date of November 9, 2005, with the following modifications: In Exhibit B, page 21, it begins the site specific requirements preliminary plat and, actually, I would carry over to page two and add a paragraph 1.1.10 that says the applicant has agreed to flip the proposal east and west and a 1.1.11 that says the applicant has agreed to post the street as not a through street. End of motion. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 06-016 and PP 06-010, to include the staff's report with stated modifications. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 14: Public Hearing: CUP 06-010 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a drive through within 300 feet of a residence for Cherry Crossing Drive Through by Mike Robnett - 1760 West Cherry Lane: