 Board meeting of February 4th, 2015. First on the agenda tonight is a continued hearing on the draft master plan. After the public hearing, as we heard, there are a lot of comments from residents of the town. Based on the public hearing and feedback received following that, there have been some recommendations made by the master plan advisory committee, several members of whom are here this evening to discuss the plan with us. So I'd like to invite someone forward to do all of these recommendations. And Charlie Colossi is the chair of the master plan advisory committee. We do have a forum here, so this is an official meeting for the master plan advisory committee as well. What we did working with staff is address a number of comments we heard at the public hearing and have recommended some changes. And I would go over those point by point if you'd like. Please, and Carol, if you could help us with some of the comments. First recommendation is that we'd recommend inserting concern for capacity of the public schools, the high school accreditation, the size of the high school campus. You need to rebuild the high school. And that would appear in the introduction of the plan. And that would be also appear in the public facilities and services chapter recommendation for space needs analysis. And that's on page 132 of the master plan. And then there's an implementation step. Because we heard loud and clear from the public how important high school accreditation is, and also capacity of other schools in the system. Any questions? Would you like to take these one by one and discuss them? Or just go through them? Go through them. OK. The second is the committee recommends adding a housing recommendation. This is on recommendation number five, page seven. And then again, on 63, it's to study and plan for the increased supply of smaller over 55 active senior market rate housing and for affordable subsidized housing to meet Arlington's population trends. We do know that there is an increase in the number of over 55s, just demographics. And then people who have evidence that people over 55 are actually moving into Arlington, downsizing, moving closer to Boston and Cambridge. And there's a continuing need for affordable subsidized housing in town. We heard that. I don't know if it was found. Also, housing recommendation on page seven. Regarding minimum parking requirements, committee recommends substituting the word modified for the word removed on page seven. And if I can jump in and help with the context. Elsewhere in the plan, this recommendation was already represented as looking into modifying parking requirements. But this one location in the plan, it said, remove parking requirements. And the recommendation is to make it consistent throughout the plans so that they'll be modified. On page seven, it says, modified. And then elsewhere in the text, again, that's the answer. The committee recommends removing the phrase, accessory apartments on page 31. There was a comment, public meeting, maybe more than one comment about accessory apartments. We heard that, so we want to remove any reference to accessory apartments in the master plan. That's on page 31. On number five would be the committee recommends adding the Milbrook study area as a high priority for both redevelopment and for preservation. That's in the land use recommendations section. It's on pages five and 36. And we'd also add that the three village centers are priority resettlement areas, out being East Arlington Chronicle Center and Arlington Heights. Six is that he recommends noting the introduction, the contrasting public opinions on parking underscores the need for further study of parking. And that's already included in the implementation section on page 150. We feel pretty strongly that more parking studies are needed from Maryland, East Arlington, and Arlington Heights than what the parking study has done at the Chronicle Center. Another comment was we received a number of comments promoting locations throughout town, class A or class B office space, or an innovation part for economic development. Committee recommends adding this to the economic development recommendations on page 7 and 75, and then adding implementation stuff to study and identify appropriate locations. And also regulations to encourage new office buildings or an innovation park. An innovation park would be one that's really oriented towards the knowledge economy, similar to what's in Cambridge. I mean, Summerville is also looking at that as well. We have a lot of professionals, and we live within Arlington. This may be attractive to them. Rather than commuting to Boston or Cambridge. Eight, the committee recommends adding implementation stuff to study and consider amending setbacks, or earlier ratios, and other techniques that could address the concern for neighbor impacts for large homes that are constructed in existing established residential neighborhoods. This came up, again, through a number of residents who raised the issue. This is a mentionization issue that a lot of towns are facing. So we think that there should be a more work needs to be done on that and how that's addressed. So recommending a study. Another recommendation is adding implementation stuff to update Arlington's sustainability action plan. And note, especially note, the concern for flooding particularly in Arlington and other places in Arlington that have flooding problems as well, you know, along Millbrook. But it's a particular concern. Certain areas of town, I can mention that, are emphasized more. The committee also recommends implementation steps to consider mechanisms to ensure a balance of housing and a significant business component in future mixed use building. So mixed use, again, we want to make sure that if it is a thing of the first floor being business, making sure it's taking over bulk of the space on that first floor and then residences above. We just want to make sure that businesses are given the opportunity. That's truly mixed use development. Make that clear. Next one is 11. Committee recommends adding implementation steps for regulating the removal of mature trees on private property. Arlington is a town of trees. We heard that loud and clear. It's in the introduction in terms of one of the attractive traits of Arlington. It is mature trees. And we've watched a lot of trees because of their age, disease, whatever. So I think they're recommending that this be a study to see how that can be regulated when it's even in some private property want to remove a forward very large tree. Other towns have done that as well. The committee asked the staff to provide examples of problems with multiple uses requiring special permits. And at this continuity of zoning districts, would you like to address that one? This came up a bit. There was a comment that because this is cited as a problem throughout the district, it was felt that we should give examples of what kind of problems that creates. So in the abbreviated brochure that is being prepared for town meeting member information sessions, we're going to go into examples of the discontinuity of the districts and why that can be problematic and what not just for the property owners, but for our butters as well, neighbors, likewise with special permits. We'll give some examples of why at least the environmental design review special permit might not always be a one size fits all for all the uses that are currently called for. So that we could work that into the plan itself for the plan and the summary. The committee also recommends adding an open space recommendation to identify and study small parcels for open space that could be either, could be acquired with Community Preservation Act funds. Community Preservation Act allows that just identifying the sites. The committee recommends implementation step to improve the condition of town owner open space upon lane. I think there was one comment about it's equal and clear in terms of the open space. What's private property? What's public property in pond lane? But the town does have property there. Why so specific with that particular one? I mean, everything else seems to be much more. Much more general. I think that there is, there was some lack of clarity in terms of that being open space correctional. We did that in town meeting a few years ago. It is on the open space layer. It is protected open space. But I think this is trying to get at how the town manages it and maintains it. Just seems a little, I mean, it's OK to at least comment. Yeah, so it seems a little too specific. Yeah, it seems very specific, given everything else. Yeah, maybe because of the lack of clarity in terms of, is conservation commission have any responsibility for this parcel? No, no, Park and Rec. So Park and Rec. So it would be public forest that maintains it. So what is Park and Rec? OK, so for discussion then. Committee recommends adding the following recommendation and then complete steps. And this is the exact language. To quote, use more native and natural choices for landscaping on town-owned properties. Consider a placement of some grass areas with net, native ground covers. Consider a bylaw to require some native landscaping for new developments. There has been an increase in the number of invasive species around town. I think that native species should be used wherever possible. And probably needs more study. But we believe there should be a recommendation. There's two more recommendations. The committee recommends changing design guidelines and implementation steps to near-term and editing on pages 142 and 152. So that the design guidelines are vertical, commercial, and industrial districts to be consistent with other sections of the master plan. For example, on page five and the key recommendations. So there's an inconsistency. Again, I want to make sure that what we're saying in the introduction is consistent with the conclusions and recommendations and the implementation as well. And the last recommendation of the committee is to add the phrase for economic development in the historical and cultural resource areas recommendation number three. And there will be a page on that. It's in the 90s, right? It's in the key recommendations as well as in the section itself. So I can find the key recommendations because that's the beginning. On page four and the second column towards the top, it's the third one under historic and cultural resource areas. Promote arts and cultural activities for all ages. It would say promote arts and cultural activities for all ages for economic development. And as you said, the other page is 90. 94. 94. The reason for this was the master plans, because they're focused on physical development and land, they tried to have a discipline throughout the process of not making this plan about activities or programs. Though we felt this was important, and throughout the plan, there's a lot of overlap between the elements. And one of the things we say over and over again is that a lot of the reason why we value this history and cultural venues in terms of because they are good for economic development. So I thought it was an important way to keep that, but to link it to why we're doing that, because it's really good for economic development. It's not in the development. No. For economic development. For economic development to attract business to. Oh, factores. How valuable they are as a resource. Right. And why don't we just go to Lexington or Compton? OK, I get it. I totally agree with that. Any committee members want to add any of the recommendations? Thank you. I want to start by thanking Charlie and Carol Swenson and the members of the master planning advisory committee for a tremendous effort. And a very good draft of the master plan. It's really pretty encyclopedic, the listing of all the town's resources. I think the recommendations are very thoughtful. And I guess my first question is with respect to the recommendations, Charlie, that you just went through, what's the next step? These get woven into the final version of the master plan. And maybe I shouldn't say final version, because I know it's a living document. It will evolve over the next 10 years as well. But the next step is to get these 17 recommendations. If you accept those, yes, you get these recommendations into the document that would then be posted on the town's website and also be presented at town meeting as well. OK. There are some typographical issues and things like that, which I presume are going to be addressed in the process of putting these changes or these additional recommendations. Is that just doing that? And I have to credit a member of the committee as well. We are so fortunate to have a professional editor on the committee who has already started to go through and redline the typos and other consistency issues. So they're all in here thanks to Ann LaRoyer and those will be appropriated as well. They weren't highlighted this evening because they're not of a such standard. Right. And I've found a few, but I can send those along to whoever's compiling the list. I did have a couple of substantive questions. On page 10, there's a suggestion that the zoning bylaw be amended to allow for multiple units of historic houses. And I was wondering, I'm a little leery of introducing the in-law apartment scenario that was the subject of a previous warrant article and voted down by town meeting two or three years ago. So I was wondering if we should perhaps clarify that we're talking about properties that are already zoned for more than one unit as opposed to historic houses in an R1 district. There is a technique. I can't find the citation on page 10, but I know it. I think it's page 10, yeah. That's the summary. Maybe it's in the section. I'll look for it. It also comes up on page 94 in the recommendation. There is a technique where some communities have allowed flexibility for historic buildings to allow a little more latitude for use if it's going to mean they'll be preserved. So I think if that sounds to me like this recommendation, OK, I'm looking at page 94. Yeah, and if 4, it's the recommendation of 8. 8, OK. Or you can consider amendment. And it's phrased as consider. So I guess it's not as directed. Yeah, as an alternative demolition. It's kind of like a last resort if in Lexington so that they don't lose the historic buildings. It's something that now I can't say that I know all the current mechanisms of how it operates in Lexington. But the idea here was to look at it as one more tool in the arsenal of trying to keep buildings that are otherwise going to be taken down. But this could be the language could be revised. It could be study amendment. I mean, consider and study art. There's only a subtle difference. Right. OK. I don't disagree with your concerns. So just to put it out there. So I agree, I think. And I wonder, it's very specific to allow multiple units in the store in columns. Could you go more broadly and say to consider, I don't know, alternative zoning, you know, considering uses. Alternative uses. Or something. Because the units is like an example of one thing that can arise from this. Right. Not the only thing. Not the only thing. Multiple units may not be the right thing. Right. Or Arlington. I guess that would be my. Yeah, I mean, you could see somebody saying, well, I'm going to knock the house down unless you allow me to put four units into what was once a single family house. And almost using that had its leverage to get multiple units, which I sort of like Andy and Mike's idea of considering alternative uses. So that was one suggestion. Do you have any opinion on that? These are historic buildings. They're slated for demolition. And the question is, the language says, multiple units consider multiple units rather than your recommendation is alternative uses. Yes. So can you give me an example of an historic building that's slated for demolition? If there's anything right now. I'm not aware of any that are currently on the demolition delay on the death watch. It's a year. Is it a year? In Arlington it is a year. So if they're on there, what would the reasoning be? Would it be the structure of the building? Demolition delay is if someone has a building that is historically significant. It's on the inventory of historic buildings. And it's under the Jurisdiction of the Historical Commission in that case. If it's on the inventory, it's under the Jurisdiction of the Historical Commission. If the owner applies to demolish the building or demolish more than 25% of a facade of the building, it triggers a hearing for the Historical Commission for demolition delay. During that delay, during that year, the Historical Commission works with the owner to try to present alternatives to demolition, to demolishing the historical resource. So a lot of property owners will just wait out the year. Some will look to move the house or will consider some alternatives to taking the house down. The Historical Commission has some resources and some, I don't mean financial resources, but technical assistance that they can provide to, for example, introduce the owner to historic tax credits. So this is the building that's the subject of this discussion, a building that's going to be taken down. So some communities with a lot of historic buildings will allow a little greater latitude for use if it means saving the building. And Bruce makes the point that they could play that. They could abuse that. So would there ever be a case where the building was slated for demolition because of structural problems? And in that case, you would have to spend money to bring it up to whatever code in order to look at alternative uses. I mean, I'm not sure what would trigger the demolition of one of those buildings. But probably we could talk about that. Not every owner wants to use. Inefficient use, yeah. Yeah, if they don't want the building and they would rather put up something new that there are lots of people who find they own a historic building and they don't want it for different reasons. The land might be more valuable to them. How many historic houses are there now? I think you know what that number is. I don't have that number. But I could give you this in the appendix. Joey, say it louder, please. 1,734. And is that the number on the historically significant building list? OK. See that number. Well, it sounds like the alternative use works fine. It can accommodate different things. The alternative uses could be. Could be. Could be. Could be. Could be. Could be commercial. Could be commercial. I think we can agree. You're considering amending a bylaw, so. Yeah, there's a lot to it to get to that point. Yeah, there's a lot to get to that point. But keep it broad, right? But keep it broad as part of that consideration, I think. Because otherwise, I think there is a concern that it looks like a back door into 1,734, a zoning change. Yeah, that's what I was saying. I mean, in many houses, that affects actually many, many houses. Very good point. So we'll change that to, say, a broader range of uses instead of multiple units. Is that right? Alternate uses. Alternate uses, OK. That would go. 10? Yeah, page 10 and page number 4. Next item I had was page 17. And I'm just having some trouble with the chart and whether or not it supports the statements that are in the text immediately, or whether it's breaking out the statistics. And I could be reading this wrong. But for example, where it says, married couple families account for 81% of all family households in Marlington. And then in the chart, it shows total households are 19,000 and family households are 11,000. That doesn't seem like 81%. So it could be thickness on my part, but I'm not seeing that the statistics and the chart support the statement in the text. So I just call that to your attention so you can figure out whether the chart's right or the text is right. OK. Probably good text in that. Yeah, and actually, it goes in comport to the sentence right before. Because the number of families overall increased slightly. Still, they represent less than 60% of all households. And then it says married couple. Oh, it's married couple, not families. So there's a difference there. Oh, that's a little new one. So it's 81% of the 10,079. Right. OK, so maybe there isn't. Oh, so it's married couple families account for 81% of those families. Oh, OK. So maybe there doesn't need to be a change. Clarification. A clarification is the what? Table 2.4 is really illustrative. On 18, and this is sort of a similar type of problem, in the left-hand column down near the bottom, there's a statement that says, in addition to the income gap between Arlington and its wealthiest neighbors, Winchester and Lexington has decreased. For example, 40 years ago, Arlington's median family income was 77% of Winchester's. Today it is just 68%. That sounds like the income gap is increasing. I have that note as well. OK. Because word change has increased rather than decreased. OK. On page 77, the Sandwich Board signs are mentioned. And this board has struggled with Sandwich Board sign in the past. And I think we see that it can be very beneficial to retailers, particularly restaurants, and getting people in from the street. But it seems to have to be a regulatory problem in getting folks to make sure that there's enough passing distance between the front of the building and where the Sandwich Board is and that it comes in after business hours and doesn't stay out permanently. So is this a recommendation or is this? I agree with you. I think I would take it out now, because it's also an including. Yeah. The whole notion is it's about enhancements of signs. It really doesn't. And those are temporary signs. Yeah, it really doesn't. They're really not the subject of where you're talking about is an upgrade of the overall environment, not temporary. So I think that's a good idea to remove it. Just take that one. On page 101, I think this is just a praising issue. We were talking about construction on the floodplain. And this is on the right-hand column, the first sentence of the first poll paragraph, which currently reads, since construction on a 1% floodplain is strictly regulated by both state and local bylaws and has to be permitted by the Conservation Commission, I think it would be better to say and can be allowed only by permit issued by the Conservation Commission. So we don't want to make it sound like the CONCOM is under some mandate to issue permits here. We want to make sure that people understand you can only build there if the Conservation Commission allows you to do so. Bruce, would you mind repeating how you said it should read? OK, so what I would do is, so right after the comma, after bylaws, and where it says it has to be permitted, I would change that to and can be allowed only by permit issued by the Conservation Commission. Page 105, there's a small inconsistency in the right-hand column where it talks about state-owned open space, where it says, in 2003, the DCR prepared master plans for both the Alewife Reservation. And it has 2003 in parentheses and Mystic River in 2009. So it doesn't sound like they both happened in 2003. Right, that's straightened out. And the last two things I had were just a reflection of my own lack of understanding. I think I like the idea of the certified local government designation for the Art and Historical Commission, but I don't think I know enough about it. So I'll throw it out to the other board members and let them comment on that. And with respect to the transfer of development rights, that I think would be something I would need further study. And I'm not quite sure how the recommendations come down on this, whether it's in the directed category or the considered category. I'm comfortable with considering it. I don't know if I'm ready to sign up for directing it. I think we would agree with that. This is the first time we've heard about transfer development rights as a possibility. We don't know enough about it. So I think it does work for our study. OK. That's all I have. Mike? Yeah, so the couple of things I had were, one, in the new recommendations, I guess for some reason, number 14 does just hit me as being very specific versus all of the other ones that we really talk about. Certainly you talk about different pieces of land and everything else. I just find the committee recommends adding an implementation center to improve the condition of the town owned open space upon lane. Frankly, I just think it opens us up to everybody raising their hand and saying, why isn't this parcel here? Why isn't that parcel here? It just doesn't make any sense to me. So I'm not sure why 14. We'd want that to go specifically in. So that's the first thing I've mentioned. So I don't know what the rest of the committee feels. Of course, the board feels about that. And then, I guess, recommendations and implementation steps. With respect to the, wait, I've lost it, where we talk about, I guess, on the native plants, is it only on town owned properties that we're talking about that? I thought there was something more broadly. I know I can't find it. There's also an item about studying regulation trees on private property. Yeah. Is that it, Mike? Yeah, maybe it is that. I also saw the non-natives down below, but I hadn't attached it to the town owned properties. And I guess that's fine. It's just if that were to be broadened out with some type of bylaw for everybody that I think we should think twice about that or talk about study or what have you. But I agree. The other one that I was going to was on the mature trees. And I guess all we're doing is studying the methods of regulating it. So I think that's probably fine. I do think that even that will be somewhat controversial. When the committee talked about it, well, we're in the thoughts around that particular one. Again, it has to do with town character. Right. A lot of people have observed a lot of large trees being removed on private property. What can we do about it? And I want to know what other towns we're doing as well. So that would be a source of studies, probably to look at what other towns have done. Whether it goes farther than that, I don't know. Yeah, OK. So maybe it's to add the last bit to that, where it says, adding an implementation step to study methods of regulating the removal of mature trees on private property. And I don't know, diligence, or discover what other towns have done in such situations. In other words, really make it look like a study. That really what we're talking about here is just to come back with thoughts on it. And not that it's going to be a study, and then it's going to be a warned article in the next go-around. I'm thinking that's the other one. And then I actually agree on the TDR. So I'm glad to hear that the recommendation is to move that to a study. Because I did find the TDR to be, it's kind of funny. It's just kind of not really talked about throughout. And then it's boom. And then it talks about it versus, I think, a lot of the other things that we've talked about have been moved into the narrative. And that one just kind of shows up as well as, I think, the historical, the certified local government. So I think the notion of studying each of those makes a lot of sense. So the imploratory. That's what page 151 is for the implementation. I think that's what you were saying, too, right? Because I certainly don't know enough about either to consider whether it's a good idea or not. I think that's. Oh, just to, I agree with the TDR thing. And where would it end up now that you're moving it? I don't, or not, would it not end up anywhere? I think the suggestion is to make it not necessarily move it, but make it less a directive idea, more an idea that we'd be studying. OK. What's that? Can you explain 12 again to me in terms of, what is that? What is that? Can we add some staff to provide? Oh, we had comments from the public asking to hear, what are the problems with having so many uses allowed only by special permit? And what is the problem with having so many discontinuous, it is only districts on the island. Not so much in the residential districts, but as out of Broadway. So the idea here would be the staff would provide those examples. Which we've already started to do in the little summary that would be provided to town meeting. We could add it to the master plan as well. It would just, it wouldn't be, it would not yield new recommendations. It would not yield new implementation steps. It would help to amplify what the issue is and what the problems are. We're in the master plan, is that referenced? Land use. It's probably in the introduction as well, but also being the zoning. You know, Arlington page 23. What phrase are you looking for? I've got a search of an electronic problem. No. What page do you? Which phrase are you looking for? Too many zoning districts. I'm not sure how she has it phrased. Too many special permits. Too many special permits and discontinuous zoning districts. Yeah, it was a feeling first and very special. I've got page 23. It kind of gets to you. 34, 34 is dependent on special permits. Well, it's 34 electronic. It's 24. Yeah, on page 24, it says Arlington has so many special permit options. That Arlington has so many special permit options makes it nearly impossible to develop a plausible forecast of the town's so-called buildout potential. That is the difference between the amount of development that exists now and that which could still be built under existing zoning. We have a lot of uses that are allowed by special permit. And those uses might be very different than by right use. It's actually in this. I started drafting this for the summary. And one of the things I looked, when I look at the map, there's, if you look at the block between Route 16 and Windsor Street or Amston Street, there are seven or eight zoning districts in two blocks. And it's not even, I don't even think it's a half mile. You've got the same thing of Forest Street. That's right, on Forest Street. Between Mass Ave and the bike path, that's not quite a half mile. And I think there are six zoning districts there. There are also isolated parcels that are surrounded by two or three different zoning districts. So a property owner might buy a building based on what's there today and not realize that what could be built next door on three sides of them could be very different than what's there today. Or vice versa, they could tear down and build something that's very different than what their neighbors thought they would always have next to them. And that's kind of the story of zoning anywhere. But in Arlington, it's worse because we have these little isolated pockets and real patchwork in short distances. So if we could take these examples and add them to the land use section, I suppose that would help. It's impossible to develop a plausible forecast in the town to build up a patch and then to build up potential over them. Anything else, Andy? No. I would tend to agree with my colleagues as far as the CLG and TDR items. I would like to see those changed. I think I also agree with Mike as far as the open space upon lane recommendation 14. It is a little too specific. I think we try to emphasize all along this is a town line and not specific to certain areas and certain neighborhoods. And I think either it should be an implementation step to improve the condition of all town-owned open space or just remove it entirely. So it doesn't look like anyone is getting any sort of favor there. I did have a question as far as the balance of mixed use and I also forgot which recommendation that is. But what kind of ratio would you suggest putting in there? If one, would it be just a study as to what works in other towns and what might work in Arlington? No, we heard it was a story in a town of Bedford that had mixed use. It was commercial and residential. And the commercial use was just an ATM. Now, it's sufficient. So we want to make sure it's a significant commercial use in the building. What that percentage is, I don't know. But the sense I get is that it's at least 1.4. And I would go further to say that I think when we all generally think about mixed use, we picture retail shops with apartments above or something like that. But we might have buildings where we want to allow a really robust non-residential use. But it might not necessarily need to be on the first floor. If someone is really interested in doing some type of shared workspace, that might not be something that would look great in the display window. But if it takes up a good amount of the space in the building, I don't think we'd want to discourage that. So the real idea is to make sure that there's a real, that it more than passes the straight face test. We really want a robust business use in mixed-use buildings. I think that's the point of that recommendation. And then as far as trees, there were some comments that we saw as far as trees on public ways, and how those were cut down. Did they come to look into that at all, as far as how those are cut and preserved for the next cut? I think people complained that they were just sort of lopped off at a certain height, collapsed by way. We didn't really look into it. We didn't pursue that. I can find that out for the board. I didn't put a recommendation on that, though it is something that I think we wouldn't be precluded from pursuing based on other recommendations that are in here. OK. From my end. And you had a question. Weird is that that was good, Carol, this discussion of alternative definitions of mixed-use. Where is that? There is. Is it somehow referred to as what mixed-use is? Yeah. There's a good discussion of mixed-use on page 29. It's funny. We actually had this discussion last year. I think when we were talking about mixed-use. Yeah, that's right. I hear it as density and design. Page 29, the first column towards the bottom says, people want to live in Arlington. Residential demand and residential property values held strong during the economic downturn and have increased rapidly since the economy improved. This market pressure threatens to convert the scarce land available for Arlington's limited commercial tax base into more residential development. The traditional form of Arlington's commercial districts is mixed-use style buildings that have commercial uses, usually at the street level, and living units on upper floors above. By harnessing the markets drive towards residential uses, policies that promote higher value mixed-use redevelopments instead of apartment-only or condominium-only buildings could reinforce and increase commercial uses in and business tax revenue from our business districts. At the same time, policies that promote mixed-use could be crafted in a way to produce the smaller residential units desired by young adults and older Arlingtonians who want to stay here after their children have grown. Arlington's zoning bylaw states that mixed-uses are allowed. However, few mixed-use buildings have been constructed under the requirements of the current bylaw. That has to do, in my opinion, with there is not a lot of guidance in the zoning bylaw. And although in one of the zoning descriptions, it says that mixed-use is encouraged, there's nothing else in the bylaw that encourages it. In fact, it's kind of onerous, because if you want to do a mixed-use right now, you have to provide more on-site parking. You have to consume more of your costly land, the parking, than you would if you're just doing single-use building. So that right there, it seems to, you know, we're saying on one here, we're encouraging it. And then on the other hand, we have requirements that effectively serve to discourage it. Yeah, this is really important. I mean, we're hearing more about, you know, a live work units all around the country. And those are kinds of things that it's like a commercial, it is a commercial use. So it's like using a small business or person who is running a business and living in the same court as a very old school concept that's coming back that could help that situation. They also call it maker housing. People that are producing slight industry or small craft industry, and that could figure into the mixed-use formula. But I think you might kind of have it covered when you say commercial use. Reinforcement creates commercial uses along with residential. But I like that that's the seams. Yeah, I think that's better because it's just a retail. Yeah, because it doesn't have to be retail. No, correct, correct. We would love to have a row of worker, you know, of work, live work units. Yeah, the intention is not to limit it to retail. OK. I think there's some discussion of the co-working spaces. Yeah. Also, being part of the business, you alluded to that just now. I think that's important to know as well. Those are great uses that aren't retail uses. And that's not necessary to put those or other combinations of commercial and residential or something like that. Because that's really potentially pretty interesting. Or other combinations of, like, live, work, residential and commercial uses that kind of captured that a little bit. OK. I've got a question that I interrupted you. Go ahead. I was smashed. The sustainable part, where is that? I know you were talking about it with a relative to flood plan. About where in the plant do you find? You mentioned it in this, as being emphasized, relative to the permissive arrangement. I think it's natural resources in open space. 206. So think about it. 9. 9. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Sustainability action plan is going to be concerned for public health. Arlington Sustainability Action Plan. Where's Arlington Sustainability Action Plan in here? I'm just curious. It's on page 106. Thank you, too, whoever does so much on page 106. At the bottom on the right, I think Bruce found it. So are we at Arlington's commitment to sustainability? But OK. OK, I got it. Because it's good. Because you say examples of a good sustainability policies to ensure safety. It's to school, program, walkability, etc. Yeah, because for instance, the LEED stuff, which is one of the measures of sustainability that's prominent, is now adopted neighborhood LEED, neighborhood development. And all they talk about is one of the main things they talk about is mixed use. So it's being fed from the sustainability side. They're now saying, well, yeah, that's right. People are healthier if they're walking to a drug store that's near them, and they can go to a business or a so-and-so or a transportation. So anyway, I think that's important that you've highlighted that from that point of view, too. We had a lot of discussions about what sustainability means. A lot of people think it's just environmental, but it's economic, financial as well. So I think what you're talking about the neighborhood development, the neighborhood LEED, would be a good example. And that could be, again, as considered as part of a zoning change. Yeah, and I think you've got it. So I suppose it's a built-in natural environment that's going to be a healthier, more productive life. Carol, I think under the public facilities, it's also addressed under energy efficiency or some other area under public facilities. I think it somewhat addresses the issues and the LEED by the construction and buildings and things like that. Yeah, I mean, we were trying to take, I know the board was playing the part of taking baby steps toward pushing. And it's interesting that the regulations have kind of caught up years or past. But it's tricky for us because we now require checklists. But we know that small developments can be very honest to someone who's putting a vision on their house. And it has to go through some very cumbersome checklists. It's really having to do with the energy and commercial building. So it's a little tricky. But it's good that Master Plan is encouraging the next step in sustainability practices. I mean, there are some LEED houses in Arlington that we have a list of not. But there are people that have gone through that whole process. Everybody is costly, but long-term, it's better for the environment. That's it. OK. Any other comments, questions? Anything to approve there? The Master Plan Advisory Committee could take a vote on what the committee heard for the discussion to make a final set of recommendations based on the comments for the Redevelopment Board. And then the Redevelopment Board could consider adopting that whole slate. So if you like, I can review for the Master Plan Advisory committee what those changes are that we've just discussed. And this would be in addition to the ones. Right. Although one of them was removed. Yes, that's correct. That was? 14. It's the pond line, the reference to pond line. So that one, I think, just comes out. And while we're with that sheet in hand, the other change was to item 11, regarding removal of mature trees on private property, we would add and discover what other communities have done in this situation. On pages 10 and 94, we would change the reference to broadening uses to protect historic buildings that are slated for demolition to remove multiple units and replace it with alternate uses. On the statistics in the chart on page 17, we'll clarify what Table 2.4 is illustrating because of the inconsistency with the text. On page 18, paragraph 3, we'll double check, but it appears as though the word decrease is supposed to be increased, the income level increased. Page 77, Sandwich Board signs will be deleted that reference to Sandwich Board signs. Page 101, in the second column, we would change that to read and can be allowed only by permit issued by the Conservation Commission. On page 105, we have to correct the references to the DCR study of the Mystic River and Ale White Reservation because it was an inconsistency 2003, 2009. We, with regard to certified local government for this is related to Historic Districts Commission and transfer of development rights, we're going to soften those references to study those two techniques, whether they're appropriate for Arlington. And recommendation 12, regarding mixed use and the zoning patchwork, we'll work into those references a little bit about what the issues are and examples of the problem. And on page 29, the mixed use section to add something to the effective and other combinations of live work, residential and commercial uses. I believe those would also, we have to go through the implementation table to make sure we change these characters through, or through the implementation as well. And the only other thing is there was a zoning review that the consultant prepared. I think the intention was to include it as an appendix. It's on the website. It's been reviewed. I think we would just add it as appendix J. Do you have any references to recommendations in that? It was just an analysis. It's just an analysis. There are parts of the zoning diagnostic that are in the land use section. But I think it's a good review. It's a good snapshot of our zoning. What do you think about maps? Oh, the maps that will. I heard someone mention maps. The maps that would go into the maps that are on the website and these are the maps that would go into the plan. They would be 11 by 17 folded for hard copies, but they'll be larger format on the website. And it includes the Milbrook study area that the board approved in July, 2014. And it's referenced in there. That's right. We removed the numbers to transits as well on those plans. That's right. Great maps. The housing types map still has the numbers. So I think that was one of the edits. Those numbers were done in the initial analysis as part of the work in papers, but it's really to help us understand the consultant team, understand different areas of the town. But we found they weren't really embraced. We did not embrace them. They weren't very useful. Which ones, I was going to tell you? The numbers. I see the numbers. When you look at, like, seven, five, this little block right here. Yeah, yeah. And then nine surrounds it. So I think it's almost trying to bring us out into different neighborhoods, but it's not quite how we do it. I don't really know in the town. Yeah, not quite how we do it. And you said they coordinate with census tracts? Oh, no. Oh, I thought you were talking about the census tract numbers. Those are in some of the maps, too. We'll use your counter there. Yeah. So we're taking those. So those are also parcel land use? That's the one I think we're talking about. Yeah, as well as the housing types. Oh, sorry. Yeah, I was looking at the parcel. Yeah, those are taken out as well. It's in the parcel land use as well. We want to take it out of that one. It's parcel land use and the housing types. That's where the glacier stops. Yeah. We have much plans. This one, I love this map. Yeah, that's this one. It tells it all. It really does. What happens next? The MPAC needs to go out on these recommendations. I think that is what I recommend. OK. Maybe her emotion looks up the presentations. Second. All in favor? Aye. OK. Now I guess we need to take a vote. So I move that the Arlington Board, the Rebellion Board, accept the master plan with the revisions discussed tonight. And we don't want to do that. OK. So yeah, I guess that's recommended. But is it accepting? Adopt. OK. So let me rephrase. I move that the Arlington Redevelopment Board adopt the master plan with the revisions discussed tonight as recommended by the master planning advisory committee. I second. All in favor? Aye. 100%. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Yeah, very much. Thank you. All in favor? The plan advisory committee, you are amazing. Thank you. You're amazing, too. We need to know you. I love the rumor. We also need to thank Joe Carroll or Sly Quinn, Steve Byrne, who contributed a lot, and also to Christine's. Yeah, yeah, yes, that's all of you. We volunteer a lot at her time as well. And of course, the staff, as you said. Really appreciate it, everybody. Like us. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. More articles. More? Yes. Yes. More articles, discussion, you are. Yeah, Joe. Yeah, I do. I can't see. The next item on the agenda is the warrant article that we have adopted the master plan to take that to town meeting with some respect. I think I defer to Carol to go into depth on that. The committee discussed different approaches to, you know, all along this master plan process we've talked about the value of, although it's not required, the value of bringing this to town meeting and saying we expect we'll be coming back to you frequently to consider implementing some of these steps. So the committee just considered different ways. And at this point it seems like a resolution might be the appropriate approach to take. And we have a very nicely worded draft resolution. Thank you. Because for that reason we have a warrant, a draft warrant in front of you. Does anyone need a copy of this? I haven't. It basically says to see if the town will accept, receive, resolve, or, accept, receive or resolve to endorse the master plan or take any action related there to. You, this is very wide ranging. I think the idea is we don't want to convey this notion to town meeting members that they're being asked to adopt the plan. The plan is adopted, but we are asking them to embrace it, embrace the master plan as like a formal agenda. And we're asking them to be prepared to engage in that agenda. So resolve to endorse, if we just limited it to resolve to endorse, we could use the resolution language as the vote, as the language of the vote. I think that that would be allow for some question and answer from town meeting members, but wouldn't necessarily imply that this is a debate that could go on for days or for hours. And I believe that the town moderator would see it the same way. Accepting the report, receiving the report is, if you have either of those in the warrant article, my understanding is that any of this would allow room for discussion. If you were only asking town meeting to receive the report, you wouldn't even need a warrant article and there would be no discussion possible. But I think the committee discussed it, we went all over, the committee went all over the place, and staff actually discussed it a lot as well. I think we want to give town meeting a little more than just here's the report. I think it's a little more respectful. So that's, and this warrant article language gives you a lot of choice. You may not want it to be as wrong as this is. So with that said, I think the board should discuss it and I think that the committee, you didn't really remember if the committee saw a warrant, a draft warrant article at your last meeting even. So it's, this is the first time I think the committee is seeing a draft warrant article, though we discussed it. I'm going to just point out, I had several conversations with John Leone about how best to do this and his participation. And he reminded me that as a warrant article, someone can motion to amend this. Yeah. So we need to keep that in mind. And a couple other things, well, but they have to keep it in scope. Right. So that is, that is the one that we do have to keep it in scope. And from my experience, receiving a report simply is done under article three. Right. It's article three. So I don't think we need a warrant article necessarily to receive a report. Although I'm not sure whether discussion is allowed on that. So it's not. So then the question is, is, if we ask them to receive a report as part of a warrant article, then we can have that discussion. I discussed this, like, council today. Receipt, yeah, there's no discussion. Acceptance. Under article three, I mean. Yeah. Yeah. There could be. I'm sorry. So you said acceptance. His understanding is that under with acceptance, there could be. I think with acceptance, you're not really describing exactly what's being put before the meeting. And I think that you have a lot more of attitude to a resolution to really describe what the process is. And this is not the end of the story. This is really the beginning of the story. So I personally would advise that you go after thinking about it a lot and also going back and forth quite a bit that you consider. Well, I think tonight all you have to do is to vote to request that this be placed on the warrant. Right. This language, but then that you consider a crafted resolution that will, you know, allow the proper debate and questioning of the plan, but also describe exactly what this means that this is going to be a continued process going forward. And the town meeting will be consulted and other boards and commissions will be consulted. They're accounted it up. There are 85 recommendations in the master plan. So I think it just has to be made, you know, very clear that by accepting any resolution that comes out and recommended vote. You're not necessarily accepting everything that's in there. It all has to come back. It all has to come back. It all has to come back. I would recommend going to the warrant article resolution route. And if you do choose to do that, you know, I'd be prepared to ask my board to also hear if there is precedent for that, for multiple boards to hear these and to hopefully come to an agreement on recommended vote before town meeting. Obviously that's up to them discretion. So is the recommendation just to have, or is the recommendation, is the thought just to have it be simply to see if the town will resolve to endorse versus to see if the town will accept, receive or resolve to endorse the master plan or take. I mean, eventually we have to come up with a vote. So I think it's probably okay to see everything in there because it's ultimately what the vote is. Although someone could, I guess, put in a substitute that says we're just going to receive it or something. Okay, fine. You know, if someone wants to put in a substitute like that. I will say the one thing I guess I would definitely put in here is to see if the town will, whatever we decide there, to endorse the master plan adopted by the Arlington Redevelopment Board. Yeah, we don't want to discuss any other master plan. Why do you have to say receive? No, no, no. Ultimately, this keeps it in our purview when we ultimately take our, when we actually have the public hearing for what it is we do with the warrant article, it'll give us the latitude. If we decide, you know what, we don't want to go to the Resolution Resolution. We just want to ask them to receive it. And frankly, we could go no action in here and move that to just an article three, if that's what we wanted to do. Article three is when, you know, when everyone gets up and says receive our report. Part of the report of the ARB to town meeting and the report would consist of the master plan has adopted by the court. But you don't have a warrant article to receive a report? No, to have a discussion around the receipt of the report. So that's why I'm wondering why receive has to be? Because by doing that, if we decide to do the receipt of the report under the warrant article versus under article three, everyone can actually discuss it. See, if we only do it under article three, there can't be discussion. It's either a yay or nay. We either receive the master plan, which isn't really a report anyway. But anyway, so I think it does make sense. The one that doesn't make as much sense to me is accept. I don't really know what accept means. I know what receive means. But so I also think endorse is going to strike some people as approving of it in its entirety. And there are people who don't feel that way. So I think that might create some friction in the endorse. Well, I'm not sure what the resolution would be other than an endorsement though. What else would a resolution be in that case? You know, it would be two things come to mind with respect to that. Number one is, I believe we've always said that we're going to bring it to town meeting for its endorsement. That usually reminds me of my other question. It's hard, so I think it might be a difficult thing not to bring it for that endorsement. Because wait a second. You always said that you were going to come to town meeting for its endorsement. And I think it's important to resolve to endorse because it should be through a resolution and not through any other mechanism, I guess. My question is, when the warrant article passed for us to initiate this, what was the wording that we would do to bring it to town meeting? What was the language that we would do to initiate the plan and then what would town meet? That's a smart question. My recollection is though that it was, the master plan was not initiated by a warrant article. I don't think it went to town meeting except through the budget. Through the budget. I think that was it. It was just to put out the budget for the... And then what did we tell people at the meetings? Somebody must have asked that question along the line, or we must have... The word endorse was used a lot. It was. We should bring it to the town meeting as we had promised to bring it in that form. Go ahead, Jim. I would really strongly recommend that you maintain the language with the addition of, you know, by the redevelopment board. I think this was recommended by council to do at maximum latitude because you may find that in the course of discussion that it makes more sense to ask town meeting for endorsement of the redevelopment board's action and of the ongoing process and you may find that town meeting is very comfortable with that because if you're asking them to endorse... You know, I think you're giving yourself the maximum latitude by keeping all three of these verbs in here. Yeah. You're comfortable with the wording with the addition of the... Yeah. Adopt by the origin. Yeah. That's just my two cents. No. Go ahead. I just wanted to mention that somewhere, not in the warrant, but I think it should be explained to town meeting that I think it's state law or whatever it is, the governance that is the planning board that is authorized to adopt the plan. It's not town meeting that's authorized. They need to understand that it's not their job to adopt the plan that it's your job. And somehow that just needs to be clear so that people there... Because somehow endorse makes it sound like... It's pretty active. It's pretty active. But that is... Yeah. And it's not an active... If you put that into the warrant article, something to the effect of... To see if the town will accept, receive or resolve to endorse the master plan adopted by the Arlington Redevelopment Board as... As authorized... As authorized to general law. As authorized to general law. No, because that makes the endorsement sound like it's required. So I would not do that. I think it's more of an experiment. Can you just cite the statute without... Where can't you say that the master plan which was prepared pursuant to... Yeah, you're right. I think that's sort of a word smithing of the resolution. I think so. I think the resolution needs to be pretty... Clear on that. Clear on the whole thing. And that... At the risk of diving into early funky semantics perhaps the way to address that concern would just be to say to endorse the adoption of the master plan by the Arlington Redevelopment Board. But it's already done. I know. Yeah. But it's already done. I mean... If you said the adoption of it sounds like it's too... It could be interpreted as to be done. That's why I wanted to say adopted by because it's done. And the thing that we're going to have to explain is that endorsement, no endorsement, the master plan is done. So what are we asking them to do? We're asking them to endorse it. So we're asking them to say they agree with it. Support it. Support it. And I think it's a little... There is a distinction because I think that... And maybe this also needs to get woven into the final version of a resolution. But you have to come back to the idea that this is a living document. Right. And that from that document there are specific recommendations that will come before future town meetings, future changes or warrant articles for changes to the bylaw. But it's important to understand that town meeting in 2015 is not voting tonight on those types of zoning bylaw changes. So I think it's very important to make that very clear at the outset. Absolutely. One of the things that we made clear is that the master plan itself is not a binding document. The thing in here after our endorsement tonight is guaranteed to happen. It's all to be brought before town meeting, to be studied, to be implemented. In effect, it's like... But it exists. And everyone of the 84 recommendations, implementations, and or anything that costs money will come. We have to... A lot of people do not know that. They'll walk into it. Oh, absolutely. They won't know that. So there are a few facts, very simple facts that need to be explained. In effect, it's like an agenda. Yeah. It is a well-thought-out agenda for the titties. Or it's a plan for the future. They will have a chance to vote on anything that requires bylaw change, anything that has a cost attached to it. We do not... I've heard the phrase carte blanche. People think that we will have carte blanche. We, you, whoever, to go ahead and implement this plan. I think that in my own view is when we got into the first part of the hearing that we've all been working on it for so long, that we knew that this was the case. And, you know, we kind of took it for granted and didn't lay out that introductory statement that's very important for everyone to understand, including at the hearing. And I think, to some extent, I think that's what you saw with comments and everything else. And I think it is very important that we get it right as we approach the meeting. I'll also say that just given how we have approached it to date, I find it difficult to get away from the notion of a resolution for endorsement. So, you know, I don't think we can avoid that. Nor do we want to. I found this language from the Webster Master Plan page that the Master Plan Advisory Committee, some of the members thought we should use in some of our collateral brochures and stuff. The Master Plan is not a zoning bylaw, a subdivision regulation, a budget, a capital improvement program, or other regulatory documents. It is meant to provide the framework for the development of these plan implementation tools. I'll have to thank Webster. Webster, but I think that's what you're getting at. Absolutely. I had here in my notes that we want them to engage in the process. And it seems like that's what... I don't know if you said it. It's in the resolution. Yeah, but it's a process. Also, this Commonwealth of Massachusetts guideline, not guideline, but description of what a Master Plan is, is also stating that goals and policy statement, it goes down to what you've done, exactly what you've done. So is this something you want to include? Maybe that's too much. I like the Webster one because it tells what it's not. Yeah, yeah. And it's going to quill a lot of fear, of questioning, of having people on the defense immediately. If you give them all the information, it sort of takes some of the fire out. There are little fires that will rear their little heads. It's designed to provide a basis for decision-making. Such a plan may be added or changed from time to time. This is exactly what you... That's not a surprise. A living document. It's out of a number of master plans that have gone through the state. So, does anyone have any comments to the wording? I think I'm fine with just the insertion that you made. And I would like to keep it broad, except receive or endorse. Or resolve to endorse. I'll make a motion that the redevelopment board requests the insertion of the following warrant article titled Master Plan into the warrant to see if the town will accept, receive, or resolve to endorse the master plan adopted by the Arlington Redevelopment Board or take any action related there too. Second board. All in favor? Second is? Thank you. You were asking with the conjunctive... Or is important because we're going to ask them to do one of those things. We're not going to ask them to do all three. No, the second or it. Take any other action? No, the first or it. Yeah, it shouldn't be conjunctive. We're not going to be asking them to do all three. They'll be a resolution. Or we'll just ask them, if we don't want to go to your resolution group, we could just ask them to receive. We'll be writing a long resolution that will then be voted upon. This is just the warrant article. We do want to do all three. Yeah, right. Receive, accept, and endorse. Yeah, I think receive is just like what the Uncle Sam Committee does. They give the report. That's a little different than this. Or what the Human Rights Commission does, right? Right, but we can do that at any point in time. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Going back to the minutes from January... Is that close yet? Not yet. I would ask if I could just take that term. Well, I still have to speed read these guys. I'll tell you, I did read them, and let me tell you, they were great. The only thing that wasn't right in two places was Mr. Kowalski. That's what I had. Really, that's what I had. I thought they were great. I'm fine. I guess I'm fine, too. Thank you. I'll just rely on my good friend. Yeah, I think, I think I did. Because we're the very ones and everything else. Yeah. So just fix the Mr. Kowalski reference. Yeah, sorry. Yeah, Andy's trying to get out of the fact that he was voted in as vice chair, I think, in those minutes. So that was, that is correct. That is correct. Yeah. Yeah. Oh, motion to accept the minutes. Thank you very much. Thank you. Second? Second. All in favor? Aye. Well, are you still in session? Yes. I want to just note for the record that Andy West reviewed the transcript of comments of the public hearing and also listens to an audio recording of the public hearing on the master plan. And has certified that he did those things. That's not required, but it's something that Andy did do so that he would be able to vote as much as he could. Thank you. Thank you. Sorry. That's great. No, thank you. I wanted that to be on the record. Thank you very much for doing that. Meeting? What's meeting? Okay, the next meeting of the draft schedule is February 23rd. There's a holiday. Yeah, the 16th. And isn't that a hearing scheduled for the 23rd, right? Is that on the 26th? I'm not 100% sure, but I think so. We do have an interesting EDR coming up. I just put the legal ad in. I can't remember. We said it was March 2nd. No, I think it is February 23rd. Then you would have the hearing on, there's one zoning moment warrant article regarding notices for non-commercial things that all of us do. It's not a big deal. In my view, as far as the zoning part is concerned, but you still, by the law, have to hold a hearing that would be March 2nd, and the sponsor is available for March 2nd. So it appears that you have February 23rd and then March 2nd. And then I think you're going to want to just decide among yourselves if your second March meeting would be the 16th or the 23rd. Just decide that based on how those two hearings go, if they need to be continued. I'm just trying to remember your email earlier today of your correspondence with the proponent of the warrant article. Did he say that he was not available on the second and could be on the 16th? Initially, until today, he had a professional obligation on March 2nd as he was asking if the board could hear him on the 16th. But then his client canceled. So he's back to the second. I apologize for the confusion. Well, the other one that we're going to go through is this one. Yes. That one on the second as well. Yes. That isn't a zoning by-law, so you don't have to have a formal public hearing on that. Interesting. I think your work is done on your master plan warrant article except for the language of the vote. The actual resolution. Yes. Selecting his office. I'll email you the date by which they need to have the report of the development board on the zoning by-law and then the warrant article. I believe it's the first week of April. I'll email that to you. And the language for the vote, I'd like you to get that into shape on the same schedule so that that can go, of course it has to go into the mailing to town meeting members. By when? I appreciate it has to be by the first week of April. I wouldn't just do it March 2nd anyway. I think it's a good idea. The sooner it just gets so busy, you're going to have the- Pressure of minds right now. And if people are here and they want to hear it, then yeah, so be it. So March 2nd, I don't have any other business on your docket on March 2nd, so- A little concern about February 23rd, frankly, and you need all four of us if there's a hearing. I think I'll be okay. Okay. Is speaking of which? The candidate was asked to resubmit everything. There wasn't a problem, but the administration changed. She'd already passed the background check set of materials. I don't have any more. No, they're just more curious. I think that's all the news. Okay. I move to adjourn. Second? All in favor? Aye.