Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes . . )I- that start recommends approval. Mr. Kelly made a motion to approve with Mr. Hall seconding. Motion carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM NO. 10: 82-247: Consideration of a parking lot plan fora LaQuinta Motel Addition located in the 707 Complex on Live Oak. Mr. Mayo explained the proposed addition, located it as being across the street from the existing LaQuinta Motel, and indicated that staff recommends approval. Mr. Hall asked how traffic had acc~ss to the west side of the project, and Mr. Mayo pointed out a private drive. Mr. Hall asked if there would only be one curb cut to which Mr. Mayo replied in the affirmative. Mr. Hill. asked if anyone had checked the scientific names on the landscaping plan to which Mr. Mayo replied that we have someone available who is qualified, and to whIch Mr. Hall said that he resented the comment. Mr. Hill then indicated that this represente9anideal plan and the details shown were the kind of details the Commission looks for and desired of more projects. Mr. Behling asked if the revised planscomplywithP.R.C. recommendations,. and Mr. Mayo replied that they do. Mr. Kelly complimented the project planner who had found a way to provide extra parking, and then made a motion to approve the plans and Mr. Hill seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. . AGENDA ITEM.NO. 11: 82-529: Considerationofa site plan permit for t.he Spring Loop Townhouses located on Lots 1-10, Blk F of University Park Section 1. Mr. Mayo explained the project, indicated that all P.R.C. recommendations have been met on this revised plan, and stated- that staff recommends approval. Mr. Hill said that landscaping plans were unclear. Mr. Mayo explained them. Mr. Hill asked if there was no shrubbery to which Mr. Mayo said that was correct. Mr. Hill said that he believes that property on Univers i ty should not be made an example, and should "not have to pro- vide more landscaping than other projects in the City, but that this particular project lacks landscaping and that it should have some ~hrubbery due to the size of the project. Mr. Kelly said the decision should be made by the Commission and not the staff. Mr. Behl ing asked if this type landscaping would be imposed if the project were a single family residence and Mr. Hill said that It would not, but that he. bel ieves that this is different because iti s a multi-residential unit pro] ect . Mr. Behling said that. it could be owned by one or several owners and that each would probably do his own land- scaping. Mr. Hill pointed out that another project on Harvey Road had been sent back to staff for more landscaping, and then referred to a proJect on Southwest Parkway and Ai rl ine which had hardly any landscap'ing and looked pretty stark, whereas there is one on Longmire with substantial landscaping which looks good, and he again stated that there ~ . p&Z Minutes 7-15~82 page 4 isalack of shrubs on the o.verallplan. Mr. Behling said that he was in favor of this project just the way the plan showed, and Mr. Hall made a motion to approve theplan with P .R.C.recommendat ions and changing required treesi zes to 3-511 native trees . Mr. Kelly seconded the motion which carried 3-1 with Mr. Hill voting against it. AGENDA ITEM NO. 12: sit e p 1 an for . I .M. E . Consideration of a Landscaping Plan for an approved 14& 15 BlockT of University Park. Mr. Mayo presented the landscaping plan which was requ~sted at the last meeting when the- site plan was approved. Mr. Hill asked what a native tree would be, and Mr. Mayo indi- ' cated that if nothing specific is noted on plans, Ordinance calls for native trees, but that it's not likely that a developer would ~se anything that was not native. Mr. Hill indicated that Chinese Tallow trees are not native, but Mr. Mayo said they would be acceptable because they grow well in this area. Mr. Kelly made a motion to approve the landscaping plan with Mr. Hall seconding the motion which carried unanimously.