Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 01/30/2018 SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD JOINT MEETING MINUTES 30 JANUARY 2018 The South Burlington Planning Commission and Development Review Board held a joint meeting on Tuesday, 30 January 2018, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: Planning Commission: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Riehle, D. Macdonald, M. Ostby, M. Mittag; Development Review Board: B. Miller, Chair; J. Smith, J. Wilking, F. Kochman, M. Behr, M. Cota ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; R. Belair, Administrative Officer; M. Keene, Development Review Planner; T. Barritt, S. Dopp 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room: Ms. Louisos provided directions on evacuation of the conference room should an emergency occur. 2. Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the Agenda. 3. Open to the public for items not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 4. Commissioner/Board member announcements and staff report: No announcements or reports were presented. 5. Planning Commission Project Updates / Discussion of DRB topics: Ms. Louisos said the Commission has been prioritizing a large list of potential projects including the amount of time estimated to complete the projects. She directed attention to a spreadsheet outlining these projects and noted that the highlighted projects are the ones that the Commission is currently addressing. She also noted a group of amendments that have already been adopted. Ms. Louisos said the Commission always listens to zoning requests from the public, some of which require short-term attention and others longer term. Some of these requests are under current consideration. At its next meeting, the Commission will hold a public hearing on another group of amendments including allowing setback waivers and taller buildings along major corridors. The Commission is also addressing on-going concerns with Form Based Code and has made a commitment to make it work. The Commission also works with other city committees (e.g., Affordable Housing, Bike/Ped) to see how their work can mesh with the work of the Commission. Some of the larger projects are being funded by grant money which is often used to hire consultants. The current Planned Unit Development (PUD) study will bring a major change for the DRB when it is completed. Mr. Behr said he will be very interested to see the different types of PUDs being proposed. Ms. Louisos said there will be 4 to 8 PUD types, each with clear criteria. Some could look like an overlay (e.g. Transit Overlay PUD in a well-developed area of the city or an Agricultural PUD in the Southeast Quadrant). Mr. Behr noted the DRB is currently limited to a 25% parking waiver in an area with a lot of public transit. Some of these developments could require even less parking, but the DRB does not currently have the flexibility to allow for this. Mr. Conner suggested the possibility of credit from transportation impact fees for public transit, bike accommodations, etc. Mr. Wilking urged the Planning Commission not to come up with a maximum parking number. He felt that a developer is not going to build less parking than is needed for the project. Mr. Conner said that there are times when the regulations require more than is needed. Mr. Kochman felt that to rely solely on the developer is “misplaced.” Mr. Wilking said the big issue becomes the second user who may require more or less parking. Mr. Conner then noted some current zoning requests (these are on the website) including a request for small commercial in South Village and R-4 setback standards to allow for front porches. Ms. Louisos then noted other on-going studies including the Williston Road Transportation Study, the Tilley Drive Land Use Study, the scoping of bike/ped projects, and river corridor standards. The Commission also engages in “proactive” projects as time allows. Currently, these include looking at smaller houses in conjunction with affordable housing and scenic view. The Commission is also looking at redefining open space city-wide using Form Based Code standards. Mr. Wilking expressed concern with existing tree replacement standards. He said that if a 14-inch caliper tree is taken down, it has to be replaced with as many as 6 smaller trees, and often there is no room for these trees on the property. He noted an instance where trees were put on Market Street because there was no room on the applicant’s property, and now they have to come down because of road widening and development projects. This happens frequently and seems to make no sense. Mr. Kochman was concerned with the absence of standards for waivers in the Land Development Regulations (LDRs)s. He felt that one good thing that can come out of the PUD project is tidying up the approach to waivers, including standards for each. Mr. Wilking cautioned against tightening things up too much because it can inhibit creativity. With regard to scenic views, Mr. Kochman questioned whether it should be only a “public view” that is considered. Mr. Behr noted the difference between respecting the existing character of a neighborhood vs. the planned character of the neighborhood. Mr. Behr said this happens frequently when considering the character of neighborhoods adjacent to a development. Ms. Keene stressed the issue of authority to deny an application with there are no standards. She asked what the Commission’s expectation is when there are no standards…just say “yes” or “use your judgment”? Mr. Behr said that when the DRB gets a new development adjacent to an existing neighborhood, they do not have the regulation or authority to take that neighborhood into consideration. That is a frequent complaint at DRB hearings. Mr. Behr said they need to address the “edge condition,” similar to the transitions buffers between residential and commercial developments. Mr. Wilking cited the requirement for no more than a 25-foot setback when all the existing homes in the area have 75-foot setbacks. The DRB doesn’t have the authority to change that. Ms. Louisos said that if the end goal is more of a “downtown,” with buildings closer to the road, you have to look toward that future. Mr. Behr said that with infill, you have to consider what is there now. Mr. Wilking cited the placement of CVS 6 feet off the boundary. The problem will arise with the future potential widening of Williston Road. Mr. Conner said that in a recent study a consultant found that the same capacity for traffic could be reached by widening Williston Road or by building a parallel street behind it which would open up more space for development. Mr. Kochman questioned the inability to stop a project because of traffic concerns. He didn’t feel a traffic impact fee is the answer to that problem. Mr. Conner cited the use of traffic impact fees for the bridge behind Trader Joe’s and the match for the Market Street construction. Mr. Wilking cited the need to coordinate intersections. Mr. Barritt noted there will be “adaptive signaling” on Dorset Street later this year. Mr. Wilking also cited issues with bike paths. They can go from “here to there,” but there is nothing to say what happens when it gets to “there.” Ms. Louisos noted the Bike/Ped Committee is working on a new bike/ped map to replace the older one now in effect. Mr. Wilking said a timetable would be helpful as would standards (is it a “sidewalk” or a “rec path”?) Ms. Ostby cited a request from the Affordable Housing Committee that all committees have a chance to look at a plan before it goes to the DRB. Mr. Behr said there would have to be some “bite” in the regulations so a committee’s recommendation can be taken into account. Ms. Ostby suggested a process in which several committees would meet together to consider an application and streamline the process for the developer. Mr. Kochman suggested sharing staff comments with committees. Ms. Keene noted the time issue as committees usually meet only once a month. Mr. Miller suggested that the Affordable Housing Committee work with a group to increase flexibility for developers to reduce their costs. Mr. Wilking noted that “affordable housing” is the most expensive to build. Mr. Kochman said the costs related to administration and fees. Mr. Conner noted that if a development has fewer than 275 houses and 20% are “affordable,” developers are exempt from Act 250 and their wastewater fees are capped. Mr. Behr expressed concern with the timing of affordable housing. In the LDRs, there is a density bonus for affordable housing. But when the DRB sees a Master Plan, they don’t see what is “affordable” and when it will be built. The developer is told they can build up to the base density without building an affordable unit, but they may never build beyond that and will have used up all the land without building one affordable unit. A clear picture is needed of when affordable units are designated and built. If a developer is asking for a density bonus for affordable housing, it should be known where that housing will be and when it will be built. Mr. Behr added that if 10% of housing has to be affordable, 10% of what is built should have to be affordable, along a similar timeline. Mr. Wilking cited another issue with people who deliberately violate the rules, then come in after-the-fact. He felt there should be some sort of punitive action. Mr. Belair said the intent is not to punish but to achieve compliance. As long as progress toward compliance, it is fine. Mr. Wilking felt there should be some other remedy other than going to court. Mr. Conner noted that the City Council will be considering the LDRs an “ordinance” which could trigger a ticketing option for violations. Mr. Wilking asked whether tax policy has any place in Planning Commission planning. Mr. Riehle said there used to be a 50-50 residential-commercial split, but that is not longer in effect. Mr. Barritt noted the City Council is considering a commercial reappraisal for the city. This would be a few years out. Mr. Conner questioned whether there should be more design review. Mr. Wilking felt there should be when a project abuts a “significantly traveled way.” Ms. Louisos noted that on Shelburne Road, the intent is to have corner buildings with a “corner presence.” Mr. Behr said developers are generally willing to listen to DRB requests to make buildings better to look at. 6. Public Comment on Topics Discussed: Ms. Dopp felt the more meetings like this one, the better. Mr. Barritt cited the number of hours put in by the two boards, thanking them for all of their work, and the amount of money coming into the city from redevelopment. He noted that Williston Rd. is on the verge of a lot of changes. He urged the Boards to come to the City Council when a need arises. Ms. Ostby cited the need for a safe way to get from Burlington to South Burlington. Ms. Dopp said it would have to be so attractive that people would use it. As there was no further business to come before the boards, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 8:45 p.m. Minutes Approved by the Development Review Board March 20, 2018 Minutes Approved by the Planning Commission April 24, 2018 Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. Planning Commission Work Plan FY 2017‐2018 Update1/25/2018 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 JKPUBM Project Description Percent  Complete Next Actions Status as of  1/25/18 End‐of‐trip bicycle & pedestrian  facilities Specifies bike rack standards and requires showers in certain new  or renovated buildings 100% PC Hearing on  Modifications  2/13/2018 Adopted; Modifications  underway Planned Rights of Way –  Williston Road, Market Street Williston Road planned ROW to 100'; Market Street established at  80'100% N/A Adopted Affordable housing in SEQ NRN  and reference corrections Adds SEQ‐NRN to allowable districts for bonus; clarifies no TDRs  required for bonus affordable units 100% N/A Adopted Street connection & cul‐de‐sac  standard clarifications Updates language how to determine when streets should connect;  clarifies cul‐de‐sacs in the SEQ 100% N/A Adopted Clarification of uses permitted  in the Municipal, Parks &  Recreation, R7‐Neighborhood  Commercial, and Institutional‐ Agricultural districts Removes redundant list of uses from articles 4 & 7, clarifies table  of uses 100% N/A Adopted Allowance for front porches in  the R4 District Allows unenclosed front porches to extend into primary building  setback in R4 100% N/A Adopted Administration & Enforcement –  streamline Planning  Commission, Development  Review Board, and Advisory  Committee authorization,  powers & duties, and  membership to refer to State  Law Streamlines authority provisions for Planning Commission & DRB,  Changes "design review committee" to "advisory committees"100% N/A Adopted Agricultural Use Amendments  not related to Agricultural  Enterprise Cleans up agricultural uses & definitions to match state law,  establishes "food hub" as a new use 100% N/A Adopted Street connections in T3 –  Barrett Street to San Remo  Drive Changes required connection to recreation path; shows Barrett  Street north connector as a Neighborhood Narrow, allows as a  dead‐end street 100% N/A Adopted Technical corrections Non‐substantive changes to various sections 100% N/A Adopted Zoning Amendment requests Requests from the public to consider amendments N/A Per Commission Reviewed 7 requests to  date in FY 18 Interstate Highway Overlay  applicability in FBC Consider having the FBC supersede the ICO provisions 10% Commission to  review options at  upcoming mtg Commission initial  review 1/23/2018 Heights in T4 District Consider allowance for taller buildings in the T4 10% Commission to  review options at  upcoming mtg Commission initial  review 1/23/2018 Allow Radio/TV studios in IO Allow Radio/Tv Studio as a permitted use in the IO district 100% Complete Adopted Footprint Lots Examine how to address footprint lot incongruity in the LDRs 50% Staff to follow up  with legal counsel Discussed language  1/23/18 1 Planning Commission Work Plan FY 2017‐2018 Update1/25/2018 1 JKPUBM Project Description Percent  Complete Next Actions Status as of  1/25/18 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Housing Replacement standards Requirement for housing that is removed to be replaced or  compensated. Will likely include some revisions to the definition of  affordability, and some small zoning boundary changes. 95% PC Public Hearing PC warned public  hearing for 2/13/2018 Urban Design Overlay District  (Shelburne & Williston Roads) Establish basic standards for parking, setbacks, heights, door  location, window minimums along Shelburne Road and C1‐R12;90% PC Public Hearing,  guidebook under  development PC warned public  hearing for 2/13/2018 Building Heights along  Shelburne & Williston Roads;  minor rooftops apparatus Establish maximum height of 5 stories in C1‐R12, C1‐R15, and C1‐ Auto Districts; remove minor rooftop devices from calculations 95% PC Public Hearing PC warned public  hearing for 2/13/2018 Williston Road Network Study (1) Define short & medium term street profile for Williston Road  (2) set ROW for long‐term street profile, (3) set/ revise location of  planned supporting streets, (4) revise FBC & Official Map to match,  (5) possibly revise how buildings and streets are related in the FBC 80% Review Proposed  Official Map  Streets detailed review of  proposed streets  underway Develop annual work plan Prepare annual work plan and review with committees, council at  leadership meeting 100%Initiate 2019 Work  Plan in March Reviewed status after 6  months Form Based Code district minor  changes T3 buildings, T3 descriptions, streets, materials 95% PC Public Hearing PC warned public  hearing for 2/13/2018 FBC phasing, conflicts, technical  corrections Conflicts between standards, phasing of projects, accessory  structures, banking of open space, off‐site landscaping 95% PC Public Hearing PC warned public  hearing for 2/13/2018 Organizing for managing larger  projects, including developing a  policy for support committees  providing draft policies Development of Commission policies and procedures for how to  farm projects out to Committees of the City 50% Consider draft Staff preparing for  annual work plans with  Leadership Committee Tilley / Kimball / Community  Drive Transportation & Land  Use Study Iterative development of a transportation & land use plan for this  part of the City: (1) presentation of current conditions and  anticipated amount of development; (2) review and approve  Purpose & Need; (3) discuss future transportation / land use  scenarios to study; (4) review recommended approach & projects;  (5) set table for future project to update zoning to reflect priorities  and coordinate with transportation plan 50% Review next draft Project team reviewing  PC feedback;  developing review plan  with PC and landowners Master Plan / Planned Unit  Developments (& related) Would set new standards for most new large scale development,  including revised Master Plan thresholds & procedures and  Planned Unit Development Types. Includes (1) creating clear  Master Plan process, thresholds, & benefits, (2) creating 4‐8  Planned Unit Development types with clear review criteria &  standards for development, (3) clean‐up of related LDR language ‐  subdivisions, PUDs, Site Plan, building heights, etc., and (4)  significant public outreach 65% Consider  underlying  amendments PC met with  Consultants 1/23;  meetings ongoing with  Rec&Parks; BikePed;  Nat Res; Energy;  Affordable Housing 2 Planning Commission Work Plan FY 2017‐2018 Update1/25/2018 1 JKPUBM Project Description Percent  Complete Next Actions Status as of  1/25/18 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Fixes to zoning and LDRs per  PUD project Development of PUD regulations has highlighted areas for  adjustments to underlying zoning as well as technical and policy  adjustments to the LDRs in support of PUD provisions 35%Commission to  review drafts Staff working on  underlying standards Transportation Overlay District  Update Replace the existing traffic overlay district that sets a cap on rush‐ hour vehicle trips along major roadways with new tools to  encourage multi‐modal investment and changes in travel modes.  Includes providing consultants & project team with broad direction  for desired outcomes 40% Review drafts consultant work  ongoing Traffic Impact Fee Update Replace the existing ordinance with new tools to encourage multi‐ modal investment and changes in travel modes 15% Initial presentation consultant work  ongoing Meet with DRB Annual meetings with DRB 0% schedule joint  meeting Meeting scheduled for  1/30/2018 River Corridor Standards Would update the City's stream buffer requirements to be  consistent with river corridor planning 30%Presentation of  findings Project team met.  Standards to be sent to  river corridors person  at State Scoping of 4 Bike / Ped Projects Prepare scoping studies of four city‐led projects identified by the  Bike Ped Committee 15% Initiate project Project team work  ongoing City Center guidance & direction Provide guidance on design / planning priorities in City Center in  support of the City Council as needed Ongoing Cottage Housing ‐ Affordable  Housing Would explore how to allow and incentivize Cottage Housing types  (such as Kirby Cottages). Project was initiated by a subcommittee  in 2012 but went to back‐burner. Members of that group have  offered to re‐initiate 45% Committee likely  to provide  recommendations  spring 2018 Commission appointed  liaison to Affordable  Housing Committee;  Committee meets bi‐ weekly Scenic Views Establish scenic view protection overlays, including a methodology,  analysis of priorities, and standards for foreground, middle ground,  and background 5% Staff to update  Commission in  March Staff is exploring two  alternative approaches Linking City's efforts together Coordinate committee & staff work. This is underway with the  Leadership committee & upgraded CIP/Budget process.Underway Leadership  Committee to  meet in  Leadership committee  meeting again R4 District front setback  standards Would evaluate and possibly lower front setback standards in the  R4 district 70% Review and  consider next  steps no change 3 Planning Commission Work Plan FY 2017‐2018 Update1/25/2018 1 JKPUBM Project Description Percent  Complete Next Actions Status as of  1/25/18 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 South Village Zoning Request for  neighborhood commercial Request for South Village Communities to establish a small retail /  neighborhood commercial component. PC gave direction to South  Village to work with the neighborhood and come back at a future  time. 60%PC to review  amended request Amended request  received; PC to hear in  Spring Chamberlin Neighborhood /  Airport Plan amendment Develop an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan based on the  Chamberlin report, neighborhood meetings, City Council, etc.35% Renewable Energy Siting ‐  CCRPC & Plan amendment Provide feedback to the CCRPC on renewable energy siting;  consider updating the Comp Plan 20% Redefine Open Space citywide Would replace the lot coverage standards citywide with intentional  open space, similarly to how the FBC has done this. Ties into the  PUD project for larger parcels, and has some of the work  completed from the 2014 open space report. 15% Wildlife / natural resources  standards Would establish more clear review criteria for conservation of  wildlife, landscape, natural resource standards on individual  parcels. Project was 50% completed in 2010 50% Commission/Council  applied for CCRPC  Assistance in FY 2019 Bike/Ped/Car Transportation  between neighborhoods, parks,  etc Broad topic ‐ how to improve connectivity between neighborhoods  in all modes of transportation, looking towards the future 30% Open Space Acquisition Continually review opportunities for open space acquisition N/A ongoing ongoing Waterfront development Would work with property owners to plan the conditions for a  future mixed‐use waterfront area along the lake.0% Transferable Development  Rights clarifications Clarifications to the TDR program as it operates in the SEQ 60% Garage door / front façade  standards  Would establish standards for relationship between garages and  faces for single & two family homes City‐wide 70% Comprehensive Plan progress che Would be an annual check‐in of the Comprehensive Plan and  development and review of indicators of success. Could also, as a  larger project, include review of all strategies and assignment of  responsibility / timelines Update City‐Wide Official Map Update the official map from its current 2004 edition. Smaller  project would be to align with Comprehensive Plan, medium  project would incorporate bike‐ped committee recommendations,  larger project would be to streets & public spaces citywide 30%Staff is working on  Bike/Ped elements Agricultural Enterprise Use (if  applicable) (1) Create a new use category for agricultural businesses at a large  scale; (2) look at in context of TDRs & add Non‐residential uses to  TDRs; (3) examine neighborhood impacts 30% 4 Planning Commission Work Plan FY 2017‐2018 Update1/25/2018 1 JKPUBM Project Description Percent  Complete Next Actions Status as of  1/25/18 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 Review TDR program Would evaluate the TDR program, including possibly (1) making  areas outside the SEQ eligible as receiving areas and/or (2)  prioritizing sending areas 15% Family / Affordability Goals Plan  amendment Explore establishing clear goals & objectives for young families in  South Burlington 10% Gap and future needs Analysis  Parks, Transportation Would determine future park space needed throughout the city  and how to access it for the coming decades. Some of this baseline  work was done in the 2014 Open Space report 10% Agricultural lands & soils  planning Would set criteria for which portions of a parcel would need to be  retained base on soil types, and would consider requirements for  soil aeration post development. 5% Park and Rides incentives in  LDRs Would create incentives for Park & Ride facilities into the LDRs Parking Standards outside City  Center Would re‐evaluate parking requirements Citywide. Could be a  smaller project to do an overall reduction of requirements, or a  larger project that looks at how to incentivize changes. Could  include Park & Rides 15% Initial discussion with  PC complete; Staff has  begun to discuss w/  development  community at PC  Request Clean up of LDRs ‐ remove  public works standards & put  into a book Would remove public works standards (street construction, turn  radii, etc.) from the LDRs and create as a DPW policy book 25%Work in progress at  staff level Fence heights in residential  districts, SEQ, and CC FBC Revise fence standards City‐wide 40% Commissioners to  bring proposal Defining density & housing units Would consider changing the definition of density. Today, a  housing unit is a housing unit, regardless of size or configuration.  Could be examined as bulk, or other methods 30% Intensities and Densities in  various districts, including  density increases allowable  through PUDs Examine appropriate intensities & densities in various districts.  May be folded into 2 other projects: PUDs for larger properties,  and examination of the definition of "unit" citywide 15% Shelburne Road‐ Nodes of  activity Would examine the Shelburne Road corridor to create intentional  centers of activity and places in between that are less built‐up.  Shelburne Road Form standards, underway, helps set the baseline  for this. 50% Connected to PUD  project and partially  implemented through  Urban Design Overlay Housing affordability (outside  City Center) Broad topic ‐ how to increase development of housing that is  affordable throughout the City 30% Receive  proposal(s) from  AH Committee Affordable Housing  Committee reviewing 5 Planning Commission Work Plan FY 2017‐2018 Update1/25/2018 1 JKPUBM Project Description Percent  Complete Next Actions Status as of  1/25/18 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 Allowing homes to be divided  into multiple units Would consider allowing larger homes to be divided into multiple  units (relates to density and definition of a unit)0% East‐West Roads Would re‐examine planned east‐west connections in the City  comprehensively 0% Commission decided to  put a review of prior  studies onto its  workplan in next year Maximum Density Calculation  and Undeveloped Land  Would consider removing undevelopable land from maximum  density on parcels. Would likely involve an examination of  underlying density to assure right‐sizing in affected areas 0% Historic preservation language Would establish requirements related to alterations to historic  structures 0% Examine tree requirements in  IHO‐ Would consider requiring more substantial vegetated buffers in  the Interstate Overlay District, and also whether a project's  landscaping budget can be used for this buffering 0% Review "purpose" statements of  each zoning district; possible  consolidation of districts Would do a clean‐up of each of the "purpose statements" to  assure that the regulations are framing the reasons for the  existence of each zoning district clearly, and assess where zoning  districts may be outdated 10% Connected to  underlying zoning clean‐ up; T3 recently updated Planning Commissioner items Would set aside time for Commissioners to bring new or different  ideas to the Commission not specifically related to a project in the  annual work plan N/A ongoing ongoing Short and Long Term Resilience Broad review of the City's policies to assure that they are  promoting long term resilience and sustainability 5%City became member of  STAR communities Focus of Development in the  city. Broad review of the City's policies to assure that they are  promoting development in planned areas for growth &  development ongoing. Assessment  included in FY 17 annual  report Landscape Requirements Would update the City's landscaping requirements; possibly allow  off‐site Intentionally work with large  property owners on their plans Would have staff and the PC engage proactively with large  property owners prior to any project plans Review Purpose & Need  Statements for various projects As City transportation & development projects move forward,  consider, adjust, and approve the purpose & need statements N/A as needed UVM ‐ Spear Street & Patchen  Road Residential zoning Would consider possible amendments to the I/A zoning district in  conjunction with UVM for possible faculty / staff housing in certain  areas. 0% Revised accessory dwelling unit  standards ‐ Would re‐examine how the city regulates accessory dwelling units,  within overall context of state statute 10% 6 Planning Commission Work Plan FY 2017‐2018 Update1/25/2018 1 JKPUBM Project Description Percent  Complete Next Actions Status as of  1/25/18 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 Citywide FBC Would develop a Form Based Code across the entire City 5% Public and private investments Review how to maximize the combination of these efforts. A piece  of this will be addressed as part of the PUD project 5% Industrial Zoning & Needs Would look comprehensively at how the City is planning for space  for future industrial areas as areas that aren't near housing are  limited in the City. Ties somewhat into the Tilley Drive project, but  only somewhat 0% Clarify regulations regarding  construction or reconstruction  of homes in the SEQ‐NRP  district Would review the criteria by which homes & properties are  reviewed and approved in the SEQ‐Natural Resource Protection  district to assure consistency with the intent of the district 0% Southeast Quadrant ‐  Quantifying Standards Would evaluate SEQ design standards to assure they are  measurable 0% Limit number of trailers on a  property  Would place a limitation on the number of movable structures on a  lot 0% Consider no parking on front  lawns‐ Would require vehicles to park in designated parking areas on a  parcel. Project would likely involve defining how much of a lot can  be devoted to such uses. 0% Clarify the number of single  family homes permitted on a  private right‐of‐way or road; Would re‐evaluate current restrictions limiting private roadways to  the lesser of: (a) 3 lots, (b) 5 single family homes, and (c) 10  housing units total. 0% Review Temporary use &  structures Would review the City's regulations regarding the number,  frequency, and allowance for various kinds of temporary structures  & uses 0% Clarify standards for fencing of  Stormwater facilities Would provide additional guidance as to whether stormwater  areas should be fenced, or not fenced.0% Placement of cell towers Would develop standards for cell tower placement. "Towers",  generally , will be addressed as part of a clean‐up of heights in the  PUD project. 0% Provide input to Capital  Improvement Program Annual Capital Improvement Plan  100% Annual Housing Affordability &  incentives for smaller homes Housing retention, cottage housing, tools to support affordability,  smaller homes for young families; comprehensive plan  amendment to address goals for retaining young families; etc. Visual and Physical Open Space Scenic views, citywide open space standards, acquisition of park  land, wildlife corridor & habitat standards, riparian corridors Connectivity of Places Linking parks & open spaces to neighborhoods; planning out future  park needs; creating quality transitions between neighborhoods Design ‐ small & big High quality of buildings; planned unity developments; large parcel  planning; business parks; coordination with smaller development  projects 7 Planning Commission Work Plan FY 2017‐2018 Update1/25/2018 1 JKPUBM Project Description Percent  Complete Next Actions Status as of  1/25/18 93 Chamberlin Neighborhood /  Airport Update Comprehensive Plan for the Chamberlin neighborhood;  continue to be active in Airport planning 8