Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-01-26 MinutesThe Fayetteville in the Directors MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Planning Commission met at 5:00 P.M., Monday, January 26, 1981, Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. Chairman Ernest Jacks, Don Hunnicutt, Elizabeth Crocker, Joe Wilson, Windell Cullers, and Newton Hailey. Morton Gitelman and Martin Redfern (one position vacant). Larry Wood, Ed Schweitzer, Wayne Ball, Thomas J. Hensen, Paul Richard Bynum, Bob Nickle, Danny Wright, Rudy Hatcher, R. C. Wray, Myron $ Eugene Lancaster, Jeff Slaton, Jim Lindsey, Rex Taylor, Bobbie Jones and members of the press. Chairman Ernest Jacks called the meeting to order. There being no deletions or corrections, the minutes of the January 12, MINUTES 1981, Planning Commission meeting were approved as mailed. The second item of business was the approval of the NETTLESHIP PLACE, A PUD Concept Plat of Nettleship Place, A Planned Unit Development, Concept Plat located South of the proposed Drake Street, West of Villa North Subdivision, North of Township Road, and East of Gregg Avenue (formerly Johnson Road). Dr. Anderson Nettleship is the owndr. The property is presently zoned A-1, Agricultural District, and R-0, Residential Office District. Planner Ed Schweitzer was present to represent Dr. Nettleship. Don Hunnicutt reported to the Commission that.the Subdivision Committee had reviewed the proposal and generally approved the concept plan, but that there are some matters to be worked out. Mr. Hunnicutt said that the major point to be worked out is the alignment for the extension of Drake Street to intersect with Gregg Avenue (formerly Johnson Road). Dr. Nettleship must work with the owner of the property to the North on this. The principal property owner to the North is a Mr. Martin. Mr. Hunnicutt said that the Subdivision Committee feels that this needs to be worked out before the multiple family portion of the project could be approved and that any sharing of the cost of constructing this portion of Drake Street should be worked out before approval of the preliminary plat. Mr. Hunnicutt suggested that the development could be done in phases, with the single family development done in the initial phase and having the access shown off Gregg Avenue. Newton Hailey said that some of the objection to having the Drake Street intersect closely where it crosses the railroad tracks is because they would then have a lot of earth work to be done and there would be two bridges to build across creeks. By moving the intersection of Drake Street with Gregg Avenue to the North, it gets completely off the property owned by Dr. Nettleship on its western end; however the terrain is more level and there would be only one bridge to construct. Ernest Jacks asked Mr. Schweitzer if they were proposing an 18 acre medical park. Mr. Schweitzer acknowledged that this was so. He also pointed out an area proposed for commercial development. Mr. Jacks informed Mr. Schweitzer that the rezoning for commercial purposes would have to be considered as a separate issue. He cited Article 8, Section 12, Subsection 2.10 of the Zoning Ordinance which requires that commercial uses of a retail nature are not permitted in a PUD unless the land on which they are located is zoned (or rezoned) commercial. He further quoted the section to read, 'Commercial zoning and uses at locations other than as recommended ta • Planning Commission Meeting January 26, 1981 - Page 2 by the general plan may only be considered when PUD's exceed five hundred (500) dwelling units . . . . " Mr. Schweitzer said that the proposed commercial had been shown on the concept plat so the Commission would know what the developer had in mind. Elizabeth Crocker arrived at 5:07 P.M. Mr. Jacks asked Mr. Schweitzer if he had taken the 150 ft. setbacks required for a single structure containing more than 4 units into consideration. Mr. Schweitzer stated that he had. Bobbie Jones pointed out that it would be necessary for Dr. Nettleship to petition to have some of his property rezoned from A-1, Agricultural District, to a residential zoning district in order to develop the property as proposed. Don Hunnicutt moved that the Concept Plat for Nettleship Place, A PUD, be approved subject to the comments which had been made and with a requirement that the development conform to all City codes. Newton Hailey seconded the motion. By way of further explanation, Mr. Hunnicutt stated that there is enough open space proposed in this development to consider a 5 acre tract of land for green space or park land. He stated that Elizabeth Reagan had been present at the Subdivision Committee to represent the Parks and Recreation Board. The Chairman called for a vote on Mr. Hunnicutt's motion to approve. The Concept Plat was approved 5-0-1, with Hunnicutt, Jacks, Wilson, Cullers and Hailey voting "Aye" and Crocker abstaining because she had not been present for the full discussion. The next item on the agenda was a request for the Commission to ED TORBETT consider whether storm drainage, curb, gutter, and paving to Lot Split full City specifications would be required on a lot split on Mally Wagnon Road Mally Wagnon Road had the proposed use been single family dwellings instead of duplexes. This property had been before the Commission on December 8, 1980, as two separate items. The Commission had granted a conditional use request to construct 3 duplexes on this R-1 Zoned property. In separate action the Commission had waived the minimum lot size required for a lot split on condition that the developer bear one-half the cost of paving Mally Wagnon Road for the entire length of the development, and will pay for installing any drainage improvements as required by Clayton Powell, City Street Superintendent, with cash to .be deposited into an escrow fund as required by Appendix C, Article III, Section A (r) (b) of the Code of Ordinances. Attorney Wayne Ball was present to represent Mr. Torbett. Mr. Ball asked the Commission whether they would have imposed the requirement for street work if it had been approved for single family residences instead of.duplexes. Mrs. Crocker and Mr. Hailey both affirmed that they felt the street work should be done even if the proposed use were to be single family and not duplexes. Chairman Jacks stated that he understood that the Commission has the prerogative to require such improvements under the current lot split provisions. Mr. Ball said that he had visited with Street Superintendent Powell and that it had been Mr. Powell's suggestion that instead of having a bond posted for one-half the cost of improvements to full City standards, his preference would be to pave the entire road at this time to less than City standards. Mr. Ball said there was a possibility that this would actually cost the developer less money. Chairman Jacks said that the Commission has, in the past, taken one-half the cost of constructing a street to full standards and used that money to construct a narrower street. Elizabeth Crocker stated that she would like to know what the Board of Directors' current policy in regard to this is. Mr. Hailey said that the Board of Directors has, itself, done this on a number of the Community Development projects just to get the street paved. He pointed out that the requirements for base, sub -base, and paving are the same and the only thing not to standard is the width of the street and curbs and gutters. 13 • • • Planning Commission Meeting January 26, 1981 - Page 3 Windell Cullers asked if the Commission could not approve a motion to require Mr. Torbett to either post the bond or pave the street to less than City standards using an equivalent amount of money. He said he thought it would be much more useful to have the street paved now, and added that the amount of money Mr. Torbett might put up now would not be much in the future if the improvements are delayed. Mr. Bali stated that he and Mr. Torbett had been under the impression that they could pave up to the standards of what is on the paved portion of the street now or to County specifications. There was no one present to oppose the request. Windell Cullers moved that the Commission require either a cash bond posted or paving to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Board of Directors. Elizabeth Crocker seconded the motion. Newton Hailey stated that it should be noted that this refers to less width and omitting drainage only and the standards for base and paving are the same. The motion to approve with - a requirement for a cash bond or paving was approved 6-0 (unanimously). The next item on the agenda was a request for a variance from the CLINTON BROWNE lot size requirement applicable to a lot split submitted by Clinton Lot Split Waiver Browne for property North of Douglas Street, West of Whitham Whitham & -Taylor and South of Taylor Street. The property is zoned R-3, High Density Residential District. Attorney Wayne Ball was present to represent Mr. Browne. The Commission was informed that the Board of Adjustment has already granted a variance in the minimum lot size for the R-3 Zoning District. Mr. Ball said that this property has consisted of the West 65 ft.. of Lots 8 and 9, Leverett's Addition since 1937 and that there is one residence on Lot 8 now and that it meets the rear yard setback from Lot 9. Mr. Ball said that the property to the West is owned by the University of Arkansas and that there is a residence on the balance of Lot 9 to the East. There was no one present to oppose the request. Newton Hailey moved to grant the request. Windell Cullers seconded the motion which passed unanimously by a vote of 6-0. The next itme on the agenda was a request for a waiver of T -N -T AUTO PARTS view -obscuring screening required on the East and South sides Thomas J. Hensen of the property submitted by Thomas J. Hensen for T -N -T Auto Parts, 402 South Locust 402 South Locust Avenue. The property is zoned C-3, Central Screening Waiver Commercial District. The property to the East and South is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential District; therefore, screening is required between this commercial use and the abutting R Zoned property. Thomas J. Hensen was present to represent the request. Mr. Hensen called the Commission's attention to the photographs which had been submitted with the appeal and stated that on the South side of his property there is an embankment and his property is about 8 ft. higher than the adjoining property. He also stated that there is an embankment up on his East side and the adjoining property is 3 to 4 ft. higher than his property. Ernest Jacks asked if the residence to the East is occupied. Mr. Hensen said it does not appear to be. Don Hunnicutt asked how far Mr. Hensen's building is located from the East and South property lines. Mr. Hensen advised him it is 10 ft. from both lines. Mr. Hunnicutt commented that the building itself is screening, because there is nothing the 10 ft. can be used for. Ernest Jacks noted that this is not the first request for waiver of the screening requirement; and that if the Commission approves this request, perhaps they should take another look at the ordinance requiring screening. /4, • • • Planning Commission January 26, 1981 - Page 4 Windell Cullers moved to approve the request for waiver of view -obscuring screening on both sides. The motion died for lack of a second. Elizabeth Crocker then stated that the parking lot is what she is concerned about. She thought waiving the requirement completely would set a precedent. Mrs. Crocker moved that the requirement for view -obscuring screening be waived except that the parking lot should be screened. Newton Hailey seconded the motion after commenting that this screening should begin at a point 20 ft. back from the street so that no traffic hazard was created. A vote of 4-2 was recorded with Hunnicutt, Crocker, Jacks and Hailey voting "Aye", and Cullers and Wilson voting "Nay". The motion failed to carry inasmuch as at least five affirmative votes are required for the Commission to effect any action. Cullers then moved again to waive the requirement for screening. This motion died for lack of a second. Cullers moved that the request be tabled until the next meeting in the hopes that there would be a larger membership of the Commission present at that time. This motion died for lack of a second. Crocker moved to waive all screening requirements except to require screening along the South side of the parking lot and that the screening be in the form of plantings and begin at a point 20 ft back from the street so as not to obstruct the view (for traffic). Hailey seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-1 with Hunnicutt, Crocker, Jacks, Wilson and Hailey voting, "Aye" and Cullers voting, "Nay". The next item on the agenda was a conditional use request PAUL RICHARD BYNUM submitted by Paul Richard Bynum for a caretaker's quarters 117 W. Rock on the second floor above a commercial use on the first Caretaker's Housing floor at 117 West Rock Street. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District. Paul Richard Bynum was present to represent. He stated that at one time this had been a residence. The lower floor is now a health food store and the upper level is not used at all at this time. Mr. Bynum said they wish to expand and put in a library consisting of about 5,000 volumes and some of them are quite rare and have a high value. Joe Wilson asked Mr. Bynum if he planned to live there himself. Mr. Bynum said that he did. Windell Cullers moved to grant the conditional use for a caretaker's quarters on the second floor of this property for one year. Elizabeth Crocker seconded the motion which passed unanimously, 6-0. The next item on the agenda was a request submitted by JOANNE ROBINSON Bob Nickle on behalf of Joanne Robinson for a waiver of 1556 f, 1560 N. Leverett the requirement that a lot have frontage on an improved public Lot:_Split Waiver street and for the minimum lot size applicable to a lot 1. Street Frontage Waiver split. The property is located at 1556 and 1560 North Leverett Avenue and lies South of Sycamore Street and East of Leverett Avenue. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential District. Bob Nickle and Attorney Danny Wright were present to represent Ms. Robinson. Mr. Wright advised the Commission that the purpose of this request is to allow the property to be split into two properties. He said it covers 2 acres and consists of one apartment building containing twelve 1 -bedroom units and another building containing ten 2 -bedroom townhouses. He said that Mr. F, Mrs. Robinson originally owned all the property. They have obtained a divorce and there is now a personal conflict between them. Mrs. Robinson wants to sell her interest and Mr. Robinson does not want to sell his. Ernest Jacks pointed out that the access to the rear proposed lot would be by way of a permanent easement which is also the access to a good sized parking lot for the proposed front lot. i8 • • • Planning Commission Meeting January 26, 1981 - Page 5 Windell Cullers questioned if the Robinson's had ever owned the single family residences in front of the proposed rear lot. Mr. Nickle advised him that at one time they had owned the two houses, that they had actually lived in one of them, but had sold it after getting a lot split approved when they got a divorce. Bobbie Jones advised the Commission that this had been done prior to the passage of the requirement that each lot have a minimum of 3 acres for the first split and a minimum of 5 acres for the second split. Elizabeth Crocker questioned how many more units could be built upon the proposed rear lot which would still be confined to the easement for access. She also pointed out that they are proposing a 20 ft. easement and that tandem lots, which are limited to one single family residence, require at least a 25 ft. wide easement. Mr. Nickle advised that some of that :Lies in the flood plain. He repeated that Mrs. Robinson just wants "out" and Mr. Robinson does not want to sell. Mr. Cullers stated that it was not encumbent upon the Commission to solve the Robinson's personal problems and that he was opposed to the waivers. He also said that sanitation, fire and police protection problems can occur with access as shown. Mrs. Crocker said that she was really bothered by the access coming through the parking lot and questioned if the Commission could attach conditions should they approve the request. She asked if they could not require at 25 ft. wide 'easement for access, realizing that it would go back into the parking lot, but it would serve to keep the integrity of the tandem lot ordinance. Mr. Nickle stated that he did not think anymore could be done with respect to additional units on the property after the property was split than could be done on it under single ownership. Don Hunnicutt asked about any provisions for utility easements to serve the back lot and said he was particularly concerned about water and sewer. Mr. Nickle did not know of any easements and Mr. Wright said he thought the buildings already have separate utility services. Windell Cullers moved to deny the request for a waiver of the requirement that a "lot" have frontage on a public street and also for a waiver of the minimum lot size required for a lot split. The motion died for lack of a second. Don Hunnicutt moved to approve the request for a waiver of the requirement that a "lot" have frontage on an improved public street and for a waiver of the minimum lot size required for a lot split on condition that a permanent easement 25 ft. wide be provided to the rear property from Leverets, Avenue. Elizabeth Crocker seconded the motion which was approved 5-1 with Hunnicutt, Crocker, Jacks, Wilson and Hailey voting, "Aye" and Cullers voting, "Nay". The next item on the agenda was a request to construct RUDY HATCHER f WAYNE BALL private driveways on the undeveloped street Driveways on Undeveloped Street right-of-way of James Way (East of Walnut Avenue James Way and West of Rayview Drive) submitted by Rudy Hatcher and Wayne Ball. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. This matter had been tabled by the Commission twice before; first at the December 22, 1980 meeting and again at the January 12, 1981 meeting. Mr. Hatcher and Mr. Ball were both present. Chairman Jacks read from the written request that the petitioners would agree to: (a) Construct and maintain temporary driveways until such time as the street is developed. (b) Execute a Bill -of Assurance combining Lots 7, 11 and 12. (c) Comply with any reasonable request to protect the interest of the City of Fayetteville and the integrity of the neighborhood. Mr. Ball said that after the last meeting he had received a phone call from Steve Williams who said he was originally under the impression that the driveway would come 16 • • Planning Commission Meeting January 26, 1981 - Page 6 along Linda Lane. R. C. Wray, 1719 Rayview, asked that someone competent approve the construction of the driveway: they are going to put in as to drainage and for other purposes. He said he had been told the driveway would be constructed out of concrete. Mr. Wray also stated that he would like to know what the applicants plan to do with Lots 24 and 25. Commissioner Wilson stated that he would like to know the applicants' plans for Lot 25, and for Lot 24. He asked if there would be a private residence built there for one of the applicants or would there be a dwelling built there and then sold. Ernest Jacks requested that Mr. Hatcher respond to this question. Mr. Hatcher did not answer Mr. Wilson's question; however, he furnished the Commissioners each with a sheaf of papers to document his past efforts on this property. He said he had originally proposed to have the street rights-of-way of James Way and Linda Lane vacated and make the interior lots tandem lots. Some of the other homeowners in the area had opposed this. He said the lot ownerships had been.the same for some time at that time. He called the Commissioners attention to Street Superintendent Powell's comments relative to closing the streets as well as his later comments on how to develop the property. Mr. Hatcher said he had not constructed the two houses which Mr. Powell had said were constructed by Mr. Hatcher. He also referred to a letter written by Mr. McClelland who subdivided the property. Mr. Hatcher said that Mr. Powell's most recent letter also brings up the question of what he plans to do with the lots he owns. Mr. Hatcher said he was not sure; he owns Lots 24 and 25 and the unnumbered lot. He said he did have intentions of building himself a residence up there and living in it. He still has intentions to build his personal residence on Lot 25. He was not sure about the other two lots. The unnumbered lot would have access off Walnut according to Mr. Hatcher. He said Lot 24 has a ravine across it and would require some special construction techniques. Mr. Hatcher said that is is suitable for a building permit now as it has adequate room off Rayview for off-street parking. R. C. Wray asked Mr. Hatcher to define "personal residence" and asked him how long he would live there. Mr. Hatcher declined to answer saying that was not relevant. Mr. Wilson said he had some questions about Clayton Powell's comments on drainage. Mr. Hatcher said the letter he had passed out from Mr. McClelland answered that question. Mr. Wray stated that Mr. Hatcher could build a street within the street right-of- way easier than he could fix up Lot 24 to put a house on it. Lot 24 has a large drainage ditch on it. Myron Lancaster, 1722 Walnut Avenue, asked how they would get fire engines in to the lots. She said she was also concerned about erosion. She stated that if a house were built on Lot 25, Lot 25 is directly across the undeveloped right-of-way from her Lot 8. She said she would prefer to have a street in so that she could sell Lot 8 if she decided to do so. She emphasized that she did not want a private driveway; she wanted a public_street. Elizabeth Crocker stated that to close James Way would landlock Lot 8. She said that Lots 7 and 11 were originally to be served by Linda Lane. Lots 6 and 10 were also to have been served by Linda Lane. The person who owns Lot 14 presently owns Lot 10 and the person who owns Lot 5 presently owns Lot 6. She said that approving private drives as requested might mean that Linda Lane would never be built to serve Lots 6 and 10. Don Hunnicutt asked who had constructed Rayview, Ash and Walnut Streets. Mr. Hatcher said Mr. McClelland had constructed Rayview he though and might have upgraded Ash and Walnut. Mr. Hunnicutt asked why he had not constructed James Way and Linda Lane. Chairman Jacks stated that the request amounts to closing the streets. Mr. Hatcher said they have tried to reach a reasonable alternative to closing the streets since they met with considerable opposition. 17 • • Planning Commission Meeting January 26, 1981 - Page 7 Windell Cullers stated that if the Commission would be in effect closing James Way, and he thought that was what they would be doing, there is a City ordinance that requires the unanimous approval of all the property owners abutting the street. Newton Hailey said the subdivision is poorly laid out and he did not think the streets should be there. He said it would be physically almost impossible to build the streets because of the topography. He said he had been on the property and thought this was really the only reasonable option. Myron Lancaster asked if it would not be too steep to construct a driveway, if it is too steep to construct a street. Ernest Jacks remarked that this is a situation where the people that are already (living) there don't want to contribute toward the construction of a street, but they don't want a private drive. Myron Lancaster repeated that she was worried about water coming down the hill and thought if it was going to be done, it ought to be done right. Elizabeth Crocker commented that the applicants are unable to form an improvement district (without the cooperation of the other property owners) because an improve- ment district requires a majority of the assessed land values. Mrs. Crocker moved to approve the request for a private drive on the unopened right-of-way of James Way to serve Lots 7, 11 and 12 and Lots 24 and 25; that the Commission request that such drive be constructed to the standards required by Clayton Powell so that it will not cause additional drainage problems to the owners of the lower lots; that the Commission accept Mr. Ball's proposal that Lots 7, 11 and 12 be combined and that only one residence will be constructed on those lots; and that Mr. Ball's Bill of Assurances be filed as a matter of permanent record with the property. Newton Hailey seconded the motion and added his comment that he did not think we can develop these (lots) without doing what we are doing and to encourage in -town development, we will have to do some things like that. The motion was approved unanimously 6-0. Mr. Hatcher asked if the City would be liable for any drainage problems since the Commission was requiring it to be approved by Mr. Powell. Mr. Jacks advised him that he would be responsible for any damages because this would not be a public street built there; it would be a private drive. The next item on the agenda was a public hearing, continued LARGE. SCALE DEVELOPMENTS from December 22, 1980, to consider an ordinance amending Public Hearing to Amend Article 8, Section 11 of Appendix A to the Fayetteville Code of Ordinances to clarify the types of developments which must be processed in accordance with the City's Large Scale Development regulations. There was no one present who wished to speak in favor of or against the proposal. Mr. Jacks stated that the draft of an ordinance before the Commission was prepared essentially by City Attorney Jim McCord and Planning Consultant Larry Wood. Bobbie Jones requested permission to point out some differences in the large scale development regulations as they now exist in the zoning and subdivision regulations and the proposed ordinance. The proposed ordinance would omit any reference to land size (now one acre). The present subdivision ordinance exempts. a single family residence or an addition to an existing development if the additional structure would not exceed 10,000 feet nor require more than 25 additional parking spaces, nor require a change in existing egress or ingress. The proposed ordinance will delete the reference to 25 parking spaces or additional driveways. Mr. Jacks said he did not realize a developer could add to a commercial development with 9,999 sq. ft., a maximum of 24 parking spaces and no new driveways without processing a large scale development. Mrs. Jones stated that the proposed ordinance would also exempt any development to be located in a platted subdivision in which all improvements required by Planning Commission Meeting January 26, 1981 - Page 8 Appendix C, Article III of the Code of Ordinances have been installed. Mrs. Crocker asked if this provision included off-site improvements. Mrs. Jones said they are included in Appendix C, Article III. Mr. Jacks said he had talked about having the large scale development regulations cover everything except single family residences, but they had gotten into a discussion about what a load that would put on the Planning Office and this proposal was a result of that. Bobbie Jones said you probably could not put in a commercial development with a building area of 10,000 sq. ft. without having more than 25 parking spaces; however, you certainly could an industrial development. Mrs. Crocker asked if Mrs. Jones thought the proposed ordinance should add, "or require 25 additional parking spaces, or require an additional driveway." Mrs. Jones said that it was her understanding that one of the main reasons for having the large scale development review, other than off-site improvements, was the traffic situation. Larry Wood said he thought the omission of those two points was an oversight. He said it was the :intent of the Committee to include everything not already exempted. Mrs. Jones said you could have a commercial development of 10,000 sq. ft. of building which would require 50 parking spaces, or in the case of offices 33 spaces. She said unless there is already some development on the property it was almost sure to require a new driveway access. She said that in issuing building permits, her office does check for location of and spacing of driveways as regulated by the Code of Ordinances. Mr. Jacks said that once the developer has to make new traffic patterns (driveways) that is what the Committee ought to see. He felt the provision having to do with new driveways should be added back in. Mrs. Jones said this must be written very clearly or else the Committee would be seeing all new commercial developments because they would require new driveways. Mr. Hunnicutt asked which type of development was the greater problem, commercial or residential. Mrs. Jones said the type of traffic will differ. With residential developments, the traffic is more concentrated when people are leaving for and coming home from work. Mrs. Jones said that by deleting the reference to one acre and adopting the proposed ordinance as written, the Commission would be deleting a lot of commercial development which it now sees and would be picking up a lot of multi -family development which it does not now see. Mr. Jacks said he was presently of the opinion that they should see any type of new traffic pattern generated by commercial development. Newton Hailey asked if it would be possible to see a list of things the proposed ordinance would change from the existing ordinance. Windell Cullers raised the question of why, if the developer is simply going to use the land as it is approved to be used based on the particular zoning pattern for the property, then does the Commission want him to come before them every time he wants to do anything. He remarked that it all depends on the Commission's definition of "large". Mr. Cullers said he was satisfied with the one acre require- ment, felt the large scale development regulations should be kept, but saw no reason to change them. He said he was not aware of that much of a problem with things; which had not been large scale developments and felt the size was arbitrary whether one-half acre or 5 acres was used. Ernest Jacks said that for a number of years the Commission had been bothered by the fact that developers would present plans as to how they intended to develop property when requesting rezoning, but that the Commission had no way to see that it was actually developed that way. He said when the Zoning Ordinance was adopted in 1970 this provision was inserted to take care of that problem. Elizabeth Crocker said that she would like to see the requirement which is in the Subdivision Ordinance added to the proposed amendment to require processing of a large scale development "if the development would require more than 25 additional parking spaces".