City of Lowell -Planning Board

Planning Board Minutes

Tuesday, January 17, 2006 7:00 P.M.

2nd Floor Conference Room of the

Division of Planning and Development

JFK Civic Center, 50 Arcand Drive, Lowell, MA

Note: these minutes are not completed verbatim. For further detail, audio recordings are available at the Division of Planning & Development, 50 Arcand Drive, Lowell, MA

Members Present:

George Zaharoolis, Chairman

Joseph Clermont, Member

Thomas Linnehan, Vice Chairman

Richard Lockhart, Member

Mary Burns, Member

Others:

James Errickson, Associate Planner

The meeting was called to order at 7:00pm.

Approval of Minutes

Motion:

T. Linnehan: Motion to APPROVE minutes of the November 7, 2005 Planning Board meeting as amended.

R. Lockhart: Second the motion

All members voted in favor (5-0)

Roll Call of Neighborhood Groups

None in attendance

Public Hearings

Site Plan Review: 94-106 Rock Street

The Lowell Planning Board will review an application by Middlesex North Resource Center, a subsidiary of Bridgewell, Inc., a non-profit educational corporation serving disable individuals, for Site Plan Approval for a project located at 94-106 Rock Street. The proposal includes the rehabilitation of an existing building with site laundry facilities, a recreation/community room, and 12 bedrooms. The proposal also includes the construction of a new 6,900 sqft building with 12 efficiency units, classroom and office space, as well as a fifteen (15) space parking lot and associated landscaping. The project is located in the UMF (Urban Neighborhood Multi Family) zoning district, and requires Site Plan approval under Section 11.4 of the Lowell Zoning Ordinance.

The applicant and the Division of Planning & Development provided a written request to continue this public hearing unit March 6, 2006.

Anne Barton (Deputy Director, Division of Planning & Development): I am here on behalf of the applicant and the Planning Department to request a continuance in order to allow us to adequately address any community concerns, as well as any concerns expressed by the Planning Board. You are provided with a letter from both the Planning Department and the applicant making this request to continue the public hearing to March 6, 2006. Thank you.

Motion:

J. Clermont: motion to CONTINUE the public hearing until March 6, 2006

R. Lockhart: second

All members voted in favor (5-0)

Site Plan Review & Special Permit: 93-101 & 101-104 Smith Street

A Public Hearing will be held to hear all interested persons relative to an application by Carlisle Equity Partners, LLC and LANDTech Consultants, Inc. for Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for a project located at 93-101 and 101-104 Smith St, as required by Section 11.4 and Article 12 of the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. The sites currently contain a paved parking area and church. The proposed development includes the construction of thirty-three (33) townhouse style condominium units, within thirteen (13) building clusters and seven (7) detached, single family dwellings. There are 7 proposed building lots that combine to measure 122,048sqft in land area located in the TMF (Traditional Multi-Family) zoning district.

In Favor:

Jim Flood (81 Bridge Street, Applicant's Attorney): I am here on behalf of Carlisle Equity Partners. Also with me tonight is Matt Waterman our engineer. We are here for a SPR and SP for this project at 93-101 & 100-104 Smith Street. We still may need to get a SP for the Lot 6 width. I think the Board is familiar with this project, and at that time we had issues with the Horn Home. Those issues have been resolved. We reached an agreement with the Horn Home for an additional 8,000 square feet. The church is here, and the land is here. We will have 2 separate condo associations for each side of the street. We would be glad to work with DPD staff in regards to landscaping. When we met with the Board in July we took your recommendations about the single-family homes along Smith Street. The rest of the site will consist of multi-family townhouses.

Matt Waterman (LANDTECH Consultants): The two plans we have here are the existing conditions and the proposed layout. The church is here and there is a parking lot here. And what we have also included here is the Horn Home property. What we have here is the existing fence line. The proposed layout does not include the ANR subdividing the Horn Home. But the package we have here tonight includes the site plan for these two parcels. In lifting the deed restriction, the applicant and the Horn Home had difficulty understanding where the property line is. The applicant was not interested with this property, we will include it in our project, but we will not change our project. We will put a deed restriction to keep it as open space land area. In our last discussion, there were some questions of usable upon space, and so this increased the value of the open space by roughly 8000 square feet. The property to the other side will be deeded to the City for a turn around on Fernald Street. Based on preliminary discussion with DPD, this is important to the City, and is incorporated into the plan. The drainage system is here along Smith Street. Parking for the project has 98 parking spaces. The usable open space is 250 per dwelling unit. I prepared some copies and have them here for the Board. Our calculation exceeds the usable open space by 2 or 3 times. The hatched areas shown are all the usable open space requirements for the site. These are being presented on a per lot basis and basically range from 1000 square feet to 5000 square feet. And this shows the open space that will be included from the Horn Home.

Steve Almay (Treasurer of Horn Home): At first we were against this project. After we were shown the plans, and a presentation was made in front of our board, and after some negotiations, we found it better to give them that land, and now were are in favor of it.

In Opposition:

Jane Ginsberg (216 Westford Street): I think the city needs more open space, and I think the existing houses could be renovated and be used for living quarters. I think this project is not necessary.

Charles Ginsberg (216 Westford Street): My daughter is right. Lowell is crowded, and in the summer time Lowell is hot. I am for progress, but when you live in a house for 80 years, I resent having this house in my back yard.

Charles Georges (630/620 Princeton Blvd.): My only dilemma is that the water there, there is wetland behind the property. I know that the water table, what is going to cause the wetlands to come closer to by properties at Brook House Condos if the construction is not done properly. What is the guarantee that that will not happen. I need some assurance that this will not affect the condos at Brook House.

G. Zaharoolis: Excuse me sir, but I believe you are speaking about the next project.

Dennis Coughlin (80 Smith Street): My biggest concern is the fire trucks that come up the street. How are these fire trucks going to swing left when this construction is going to be completed? Can we have guarantees that there will be no parking on the street?

Robin Lemire (20 Westford Street): I am here to represent my mother. I am not speaking in opposition, but on Westford Street there is a 6-foot high wall, that runs down to Smith Street. I assume that wall will be removed, but what will happen with drainage.

Trong Huu Dang (20 Fernald Street): I do not like to have a lot of houses over there because of traffic.

Donald Pelletier (208 Westford Street): How many families will go in here?

Discussion:

M. Burns: I do have a question about the wall?

Matt Waterman: There is a wall at the rear of the property, and we are not going to touch it.

Jeff Arsenault: I am the developer for the project. I met with Mr. Sigma, I think he and his wife like what we are doing, and we are not touching the wall.

M. Burns: Now parking, can you explain, you have 95 spaces for 40 units.

J. Flood: We need 2.2 spaces per unit and we need 78. So there is an excess of 17 for visitor parking.

M. Waterman: It is broken down on a per lot basis. 2 spaces per dwelling unit and we are at 2.2, 2.3, 2.5 for the lots on the Church site, and similar rations for the other site.

M Burns: I will defer for now.

T. Linnehan: Getting back to the open space. Were the concerns on both lots or just one?

J. Flood: We showed the last time we were here that we met the open space requirement.

T. Linnehan: One of the comments from DPD was regarding open space.

M. Waterman: I think we are fine with both sides. Now we are just delineating the open space.

T. Linnehan: so the open space on Horn Home side of the street is only going to affect the one side of the street. The question came up that there needs to be enough open space or else you will not get a building permit.

J. Flood: That is correct but we are fine with the open space.

T. Linnehan: The parking lot right here is that maintained by the school or the church?

J. Food: The school.

T. Linnehan: Did you have an opportunity to go over the checklist from the engineer. Can you make changes to the plans to address these issues?

M Waterman: absolutely, we can make those changes.

T. Linnehan: What about the drainage, will that affect this project?

M. Waterman: There are two projects here tonight, but this one does not have any wetland behind it. So I think that gentleman is talking about that other project.

G. Zaharoolis: You need to address the issues of drainage. In other words the runoff on site will remain on site right?

M Waterman: 100 percent of the runoff will remain on site, except with overflow for the 100-year storm.

T. Linnehan: One of the concerns was from the Fire Department. We always give a copy of the plans to the Department. We would like to get comments from them and the other checklist from the other departments. But the traffic engineers mention that the crosswalks are not approved by the MUTCD.

M. Waterman: We will be leaving the existing crosswalks. Typically, crosswalks are best at intersections.

T. Linnehan: How many bedrooms will these be?

M. Waterman: Everything will be 3-bedrooms including the single families.

R. Lockhart: On your parking you have 15 external spaces. Those are on street correct?

M. Waterman: No they are all internal.

R. Lockhart: Your lighting how is this going to impact the neighborhood?

M. Waterman: The lighting on the plan shows two at the end of the roads, and each unit will have a wall pack. Preliminary meeting with DPD steered us in that direction. We will have private individual unit wall packs.

R. Lockhart: What kinds of barriers are you planning on having to lessen the impact of the development on surrounding property.

M. Waterman: The plan shows plantings here, and the northerly property line has a fence and we will not change anything here, the westerly line is the same, and we will propose a stockade fence along the school and along the northerly line with the Horn Home will be landscaped. And we will have a retaining wall along Barclay Street.

J. Clermont: The turn around that you provide for, you will give that to the city for a turn around for Fernald Street.

J. Flood: Yes.

J. Clermont: The access will be two-way for all traffic?

M. Waterman: Yes.

J. Clermont: You are willing to work with DPD on landscaping?

J. Arsenault: Yes.

J. Clermont: Have you met with the Fire Department?

J. Flood: We will meet with them and address any concerns they have.

J. Clermont: There is individual mail, and each unit will have mail pick up?

J. Flood: Yes, though we have not met with the post office yet.

J. Arsenault: We envision individual mail drop, but if the post office requires it we will have a central space, then we will do that.

J. Clermont: The area that you have added, is that considered as part of what your usable open space? I don't know if it can with the slope.

R. Lockhart: No I don't think it can either; the slope needs to be less than 8 percent I think.

J. Errickson: Yes 8 percent is correct for usable open space.

M. Waterman: We will designate that as landscaped open space.

J. Clermont: The city will have an easement for drainage?

J. Flood: Absolutely.

J. Clermont: Can you just address the issues concerning the lot 6 width.

J. Flood: I am not sure if that applies or not.

G. Zaharoolis: Everything has been covered but two items. One was the Fire Trucks, can you touch base a bit. I am not sure if it hits that portion, if it affects this site. If there are no cars parked on Smith Street, then I think it should be ok. The drainage will be contained on site, so that should not have too much of a problem. It is almost an environmental issue and they are doing that on this site. If you could work with the Fire Department as far as the traffic of the project that would be great. We should have a copy of the condo papers to find out what is happening. Joe mentioned the system that we have to have access in case of drainage. The gentleman back there discussed Fernald Street. Could that piece be enlarged to provide extra parking for Fernald Street? The last house has a lot of cars there. Could it be done, would it be extended for extra parking? I am just thinking about the people on Fernald Street, there is not enough parking. If there is a way to get some cars down there, something marked. If you could pick up two spots, parallel spots.

M. Waterman: Yes we can probably do some parallel spots.

Motion:

J. Clermont: Motion to APPROVE the Site Plan and Special Permits with the following conditions:

R. Lockhart: Second the motion

All members voted in favor (5-0)

Site Plan Review: 1095 Westford Street

The Lowell Planning Board will review an application by AVL & Co., Inc. and the City of Lowell for Site Plan Approval for a project located at 1095 Westford Street. The proposal includes the construction of a mixed-use 34,500sqft commercial, retail and office building with associated parking and landscaping. The existing lot is 70,230 sqft within the RR (Regional Retail) zoning district. This project requires site plan approval under Section 11.4 of the Lowell Zoning Ordinance.

In Favor:

Dave Orleans (Applicant, AVL): We are here tonight for the approval of 1095 Westford Street. Matt Waterman is here with Phil Thibault, as well as Mr. Legory and me. I will let Matt take the ball and get it rolling.

M. Waterman: Good evening, we are here for 1095 Westford Street, which is located at the easterly end of Westford Street. This board has seen this application in a pre-application. We presented to the Board that night, and we have met with the Conservation Commission, which we received feedback and adjusted the plans to the ones in front of the board tonight. We have met their 50-foot wetlands buffer. Since our pre-application meeting, some of the comments included what the uses will be for the building. And this plan addresses all of these concerns. The previous plans show a parking garage on the first floor, and in working with the tenants, we have reworked the architecture. We have nailed down what these plans will be. The bank will be on the first floor, with access to the first floor. There will be retail to the front, with a restaurant in the rest of the space. The second and third floor will be office/lavatory space.

Phil Thibault: Through further discussions the second floor will house office and retail, the third floor will be office, and the fourth floor will be lavatory space.

M. Waterman: The building height has dropped a whole floor. It was a five-story building with the parking, and now we have 4 stories in total. In eliminating that, we have incorporated a traffic mitigation plan for the site. Traffic includes a two-way entrance to the southerly portion of the site. Once you access the drive, it is one way. The parking is angled to retain the requirement. Parking is modified based on the shared parking chart. The total number required is 81 spaces. This plan shows 84 spaces. And that includes the retail, restaurant, the bank, office, and the lavatory. It is a diverse building, and we have tried to nail down parking. We are happy to answer your questions.

In Opposition:

James Kearns (150 Woods Street): I have some questions. I am concerned about trash. I have the property from Wood Street to just past Black Brook. I am concerned about the trash that it generates. I am concerned about rodent control with the restaurant. Now we have a raccoon and woodchuck problem. I am concerned about cutting through my property to get to this site. I'm concerned about traffic of the cut through. There are no walkways on Westford Street. Drainage, there is a drainpipe for the old landfill, that goes through this site. Do we know if it is still there, and is it on this property? Where is the snow going to be plowed for this project?

In Discussion:

J. Clermont: I went through the parking calculations, but I am not sure if I took them down correctly. Based on the shared parking, your project is for 81 and you provide for 84?

M. Waterman: Correct.

J. Clermont: Have you received commitments from proposed tenants?

D. Orleans: There is nothing signed, but we have some aggressive tenants, but the ownership is comfortable with the possible tenants.

J. Clermont: You don't perceive an opportunity whereby your office space may go into retail?

D. Orleans: The parking is tight, but we tried to provide some breath ability. But we are not sure if we will have 3rd or 4th floor space. If they have a tenant that puts this over the parking requirement, they will have to come back to you for further approval.

J. Clermont: Yes that is the concern. There was a memo attached to our packet, it was from the city engineer, are these items dealt with?

M. Waterman: Most of them were just reiterations about what they expect from the site plan, like the details of the driveway. We will provide a sidewalk along Westford Street. Most of it is construction standards. We can meet all of those.

J. Clermont: I think one of the concerns is to provide a walkway, and I think that is wise along the frontage of our property.

M. Waterman: Based on the city engineer's plans to subdivide the land, we have room to do that and have it be in the public way.

J. Clermont: Can you review plans for trash removal?

M. Waterman: We have some room for a dumpster in the back area and we will provide appropriate landscaping and fencing in order to mitigate rodent control.

J. Clermont: All of your snow storage is on site?

M. Waterman: All of the storage is along here, not affecting the side parcels. We will not affect the wetlands.

J. Clermont: there appears to be a lot of land so you may need to have snow removed from site. And there was discussion of a pipe.

D. Orleans: Based on my walking on the site, I believe it is at this end, which is on the abutting property. But we will not know until we go out there.

J. Clermont: I have no further questions.

R. Lockhart: are the plans that we have here, submitted substantially different from what we have?

M. Waterman: The smaller plan has the details that have the correct numbers with the architectural details.

R. Lockhart: Have you had any discussion with the fire department?

D. Orleans: I met with Capt Webber, and this meets with what he wants, and we have to meet with him to show the final plans.

R. Lockhart: And the only other question is regarding the engineers 10 comments.

M. Waterman: And we have not problem with those.

T. Linnehan: And the land here does not go up to the set of lights.

D Orleans: No this gentleman owns the property. And there is a 5-foot stretch that the city will retain ownership of.

T. Linnehan: So there will be nothing else built there.

M. Waterman: We rotated this area here to address these concerns, and mitigate the traffic.

T. Linnehan: And this is in front of conservation, and that will be completed when?

M. Waterman: Tomorrow night. We wanted to keep that hearing open to address your concerns.

M. Burns: What is your guess on the seating capacity in the proposed restaurant? That may affect the parking requirements.

D. Orleans: On past experience, probably around 50 seats. But it depends on the type of restaurant. I can't tell you what type of restaurant it is.

Al Magory: We want a family restaurant. A good restaurant would be like Livingstons. The present person has one on Milford Mass, and one in Falmouth, Mass. So this makes a good fit for him to come this way.

G. Zaharoolis: I am still trying to figure out where that pipe is.

Al Magory: I believe there are two pipes there now. I think some may be drainage pipes. But they are to the south of the property.

G. Zaharoolis: I don't have any questions.

Motion:

T. Linnehan: Motion to APPROVE the Site Plan with the following conditions:

R. Lockhart: Second the motion

All members voted in favor (5-0)

New Business

Updates to the Planning Board's Bylaws

The Lowell Planning Board will discuss updates to its Bylaws. The discussion will include the addition and election of a Second Vice Chair, as well as the addition of various other procedural measures adopted by the Board over the last few years.

No formal action was taken by the Board on the above agenda item.

Updates to the Planning Board's 2006 Meeting Schedule

The Lowell Planning Board will discuss updates to its 2006 meeting schedule. This is being completed because of a request from the City Council to televise all future Planning Board Meetings.

The Board unanimously voted to APPROVE the adjusted 2006 Planning Board Meeting Schedule.

Zoning Board of Appeals Legal Notices - January 24, 2006 meeting

OMNIPOINT HOLDINGS, INC. (1195 Varnum Ave)

T. Linnehan: Motion to recommend APPROVAL.

R. Lockhart: Second the motion

All members voted in favor of APPROVAL (5-0)

FEDERAL CARPET (1 Ennell ST. EXT)

M. Burns: Motion to recommend APPROVAL

T. Linnehan: Second the motion

All members voted in favor of APPROVAL (5-0)

ABISI RONALD P ABISIN DONNA M (15 Gates Street)

T. Linnehan: Motion to recommend DENIAL due to the size of relief sought.

R. Lockhart: Second the motion

All members voted in favor of DENIAL (5-0)

These minutes were approved by the Planning Board on February 6, 2006

R. Lockhart: Motion to approve

J. Clermont: Second

All members voted in favor (5-0)

________________________________________________________

James Errickson, Associate Planner

Planning Board Minutes

January 17, 2006 - Page 9