City of Lowell -Planning Board

Planning Board Minutes

Tuesday, January 3, 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, with Chairman Zaharoolis wishing everyone a Happy New Year, and wishing congratulations to the new Mayor and Vice Mayor.

Approval of Minutes

Motion:

J. Clermont: Motion to APPROVE minutes of the December 12, 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 & Special Permit: 500 Pawtucket Street (continued from December 12, 2005)

The Lowell Planning Board will review an application by Burbeck Falls LLC for Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for a project located at 500 Pawtucket Street, at the corner of Walker Street. Approval is required for Site Plan under Section 11.4 and for a use Special Permit under Article 12 of the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. The site is located in the INST (Institutional Mixed Use) zoning district, and comprises 34,556 sqft of land area. The proposed development includes the construction of a six (6) story building, of roughly 53,360 sqft of space, with 40 dwelling units. There are 56 proposed parking spaces and associated landscaping.

Continuation of Discussion From December 12, 2005:

James Flood (81 Bridge Street): Representing Burbeck Falls LLC. If you recall we had a hearing a few weeks ago and after the hearing we decided to amend the plans. We did not reduce the size of the building, we just reduced the number of 2 bedroom units. In accordance to your suggestions, we have worked the parking to one space per unit. Ken Lania will go through the plans otherwise.

K. Lania (K&M Land Consultants): Well, as Mr. Flood mentioned we reduced the number of 2 bedroom units and increased then number of 1 bedroom units to bring the parking total to 1 space per bedroom. That is basically all.

J. Flood: We now have 17 two-bedroom units and 22 one-bedroom units.

J. Clermont: Did you say 17 two bedroom and 22 one bedroom? So that would give the project 39 units?

J. Flood: Yes that is 39 units. There are 56 bedrooms with 56 parking spaces.

J. Clermont: And that was just done with some modification of the interior? I am happy to see that we have come more in line with the parking for other districts. You at least have a space per unit. That is a step in the right direction. I know we talked about lowering the building by one story, was there any consideration of this.

J. Flood: Yes, but that takes away from the marketability of the units and the building.

J. Clermont: We also talked about limiting the curb cuts. Is there any talk about this? The city engineer discussed eliminating the Pawtucket Street entrance.

K. Lania: Yes we are going to provide a right turn, exit only curb cut onto Pawtucket Street.

R. Lockhart: What are the square footages of these units?

K. Lania: 1,130 square feet for the 1 bedroom and 1,300 square feet for the 2 bedroom units.

T. Linnehan: I noticed that we received a letter in the packet from the Lowell Motor Boat Club that said that they met with you.

G. Zaharoolis: I would like to hold up that question until after we discuss this plan. After listening to the concerns of the Boat Club, I tried to think of a way to take a car off the road and provide a different access way into the site. There is about 6,600 to 6,700 sqft of land along the boat club that could be used for a parking lot. It does not interfere with the monument in the park and it addresses some of the concerns that were presented to us. It should not create that much of a problem. That entrance way would be about 25 feet wide. The City would have to okay this. I was going to ask for a motion to send this to the City Solicitor and the City Council for this to happen. If this did happen it could provide parking for the boathouse as well as for the high rise. In the wintertime it would be an ideal spot for people on Walker Street to get cars off the road. This could be plowed and used that way. Right now that walkway was provided for Burbecks. The walkways could be made a little wider. This will solve some of the problems of Pawtucket Street. It would take traffic off major thoroughfare. I think it is a good idea. Other than that, that was my answer. I think this proposal is not all that bad. Of course it is up to you guys. There is not guarantee that the City would go along with this. If the Board could go along and ask the City Council to get this to happen, why not get this to happen? There are two poles on their site that needs to be moved. There is a telephone pole and a masthead pole. Does that address the letter?

T. Linnehan: Yes it does.

Misc. Person from Audience: Mr. Chairman this was brought up with the engineers before, but we did not feel this was our right to propose the change. We would support this proposal. And you have addresses several uses.

G. Zaharoolis: So you would support this proposal if we went along with the parking?

Misc. Person: Absolutely.

J. Errickson: Mr. Chairman, I know there were some preliminary discussions internally about this type of development, however, the Parks Department was not in support of putting parking on their land.

G. Zaharoolis: I really don't care. I think this will be an enhancement to the quality of life in the City, and that area.

Estella Caput (19 Wannalancit): I don't think parking is right in that area. I don't think it would enhance the quality of the area. The land should not be leased for parking.

G. Zaharoolis: We are not leasing the land. We are not loosing the waterfront. The City still owns it.

E. Caput: There should not be parking on that land. It is parkland, and there would be no need for the parking if this project was not there, and there should not be a parking lot on the parkland.

G. Zaharoolis: You are right it is parkland. But we are not loosing it. The City still owns it. And with parking, anyone that wants to go to the park can go there.

E. Caput: This parking will be used by all the people in the high-rise development.

G. Zaharrolis: Well you have a point, and it is your point. This is my suggestion to alleviate the situation here. Yes mam.

Kathleen Sloan (510 Pawtucket Street): I really do not like the idea of using parkland for parking spaces. The beauty of that park is wonderful and I would hate to see it spoiled by parking. I would hate to see open space taken away.

G. Zaharoolis: I do not think it would spoil the parkland. It will give people a better chance to look at the monument and use the parkland.

E. Caput: Looking at a high rise is not good for the quality of life in the area.

Kathleen Sloan: Is this going to be close to the monument.

G. Zaharoolis: Yes, but this is just hypothetical. We don't know if this is going to happen.

Kathleen Sloan: I don't mind, I just don't want to see open space taken away.

K. Lania: Well there is another parking lot down the road a ways, but the idea for this lot is to provide safe parking for the boathouse and additional parking for the neighborhood.

Kathleen Sloan: I understand, and I am sure they are nice people, but they don't live in the neighborhood. I have lived there all my life and I don't want to see the open space turned into parking.

Misc Man from Audience: How do you know UMass students won't take over that parking either?

G. Zaharoolis: They don't know.

Linnette Rivera: Are the rest of us going to be able to speak? Is this an open forum?

G. Zaharoolis: Well no, this is not an open forum. I have let certain people speak, but this is not open for public discussion. Some of you did not get a notice because you are outside the area that is required to be notified by state law.

E. Caput: Well aren't we supposed to be notified, because I live around the corner, and I don't think a parking lot on the parkland is the answer. I did not get a notice.

G. Zaharoolis: The only thing before us is the high-rise project. There was a letter that was addressed to me, and I am trying to answer it. There is no done deal here. This is just a continuation of a previous meeting.

Michael Ready (130 Nesmith Street): I am here as a neighborhood activist. It is very interesting how the only change in the project is the number of one and two bedroom units. There is no change in parking, size of the building. This building is going to be used by college students. The reality is that there will be three students with their cars crammed into a one-bedroom unit. This will not be owner occupied. They will be rentals to students.

G. Zaharoolis: I would like to let the applicant answer this questions, though I don't think it is true.

J. Flood: These will be marketed for owner occupied units.

M. Ready: Will there be language in the documents to ensure owner occupancy?

J. Flood: No, we will not put that restriction in.

M. Ready: Well the reality is that these will be students living here, and the parking will be atrocious.

G. Zaharoolis: Well that is your opinion.

J. Flood: If I may, Mr. Chairman, the zoning allows this type of development, and encourages this type of development. We are well within the rights of zoning. It is our intention to sell these as condominiums.

M. Ready: How can you say that? You don't know the impacts of this on the neighborhood.

G. Zaharoolis: Excuse me but you have to go through the Chair.

M. Ready: I am concerned about the process here tonight. Several people have not been allowed to speak.

G. Zaharoolis: Well, this is a continuation of a hearing that was held at the last meeting, and is to allow the Board a chance to review the plans to ensure that all adjustments are properly reflected in the plan. And you know what, I am going to stop this, because this can go on all night. Do you have anything else to add about this project before us tonight?

M. Ready: Yes I am concerned about the ration of one bedroom to two bedroom units in connection to the number of parking spaces. And I don't this one parking space per bedroom is adequate. If there is a family on one of these units, they will have more than one car, and there is not enough parking. This is definitely being marketed to students, and the understanding that families will not live in them. Just because there is one bedroom, there is no limit to one person for one bedroom.

G. Zaharoolis: Okay, thank you. What is the pleasure of the Board?

J. Clermont: I would like to make a motion to approve this project with the understanding that the intention is to have the units owner occupied, and the sale price will be up to the standards of the site. The ratio of one bedroom to two bedroom units does not bother me. This project certainly fits all the zoning criteria, along with other criteria, which under zoning they are not required to do, but that they did do. I would like to commend you, Mr. Chairman, for the discussion of the Boathouse parking, and if there is an opportunity there to utilize that site for the residents of the neighborhood, I support that. I think we need to approve the site plan and special permit.

T. Linnehan: Mr. Chairman, I must remove myself from the voting, as I was not at the previous hearing.

Motion:

J. Clermont: Motion to APPROVE the Site Plan & Special Permit with the following conditions:

R. Lockhart: Second the motion

All members voted in favor (4-0). T. Linnehan removed himself from voting due to his absence from the previous Planning Board meeting.

R. Lockhart: I would like to add that the addition of a parking lot area along the river by the boathouse be backed by the Board.

Motion:

J. Clermont: Motion to support the development of a parking lot on the City property abutting the boathouse as presented by Chairman Zaharoolis.

R. Lockhart: Second the motion.

All members voted in favor (5-0)

Site Plan & Special Permits: 685-689 Lawrence Street

The Lowell Planning Board will review an application by the Frawley Realty Trust for site plan approval and special permits for the development of the property located at 685-689 Lawrence Street. The proposal includes conversion of the existing 4-story, 60,000sqft structure into fifty (50) residential condominium units, with associated landscaping and parking. This project is in the TMU (Traditional-Neighborhood Mixed Use) Zoning District. The project requires Special Permits under section 8.1 and section 8.1.3(10), and Site Plan Approval under Section 11.4 of the Zoning Ordinance. Special permit and site plan review hearings will be heard concurrently by the Planning Board.

In Favor:

Jim Flood (81 Bridge Street): I am here to represent the petitioners. Unfortunately the engineer could not be here tonight. We are here tonight for the approval for this Lawrence Street site. There is a little confusion in the documents. Initially we thought we had an agreement to pick up some land in the back. We had to remove that from the plan because the deal fell through. The original application was for 50 units. The plans for tonight are for 54 units. I do not know whether I can amend that tonight, or if I have to go with 50 units. Up until last month, a portion of the building was being used, but it is now vacant. We are proposing 32 one and two bedroom units. And on this side of the building, we will add 2 stories and add townhouse units there. We also have parking underneath for 50 cars and the remainder of the parking will be on site. In speaking with an abutter, he requested that the people purchasing homes here be aware of the industrial uses for rest of the area. We have no problem with putting a stipulation in the ownership of the site stating this. We have 28 parking spaces here, and we will have cross easements to back out of these spaces here, and we will give them an easement to go over a portion of our lot as compensation. As far as drainage, we are working to address these issues. We would be glad to work with the DPD with landscaping.

John Dowling (75 Dunbar Ave). I own property just down the street. I think Mr. Frawly has a nice project here. And I think it would be a great project that would be taxable for the city. This would be a nice building and really do something for the neighborhood.

Opposition:

Joe Vashon (MGM realty, 663 Lawrence Street): We have no objection for the project. Our only concern is the right of way easement. We have not had time to research the easement, and we still have trucks going in and out of there. With these cars parking there, we may have a problem with development in the future. The easement is only 15 feet and that may pose a problem in the future. We are an industrial use and this is bringing residential into the neighborhood. We have no problem with this, but there should be something in the deed to address this.

Discussion:

M. Burns: First, have you addressed the issues with Steve Curran about water.

J. Flood: I think these were completed and he is willing to complete the plans to Mr. Curran's standards.

T. Linnehan: I noticed that we have received a new set of plans tonight. And we do not have comments from the City Engineer on these plans.

J. Flood: Everything will be up to the approval of the City Engineer.

T. Linnehan: Can you explain trash removal for the site?

J. Flood: there is one dumpster on the back of the site, and that will be fenced.

T. Linnehan: You are all set on everything else, it looks like. Some of these things go back to the old plans. One concern I have is that I would like to have it signed off by the City Engineer. I think it will add to the City and the neighborhood.

R. Lockhart: The traffic flow, is that in and out with the one curb cut?

Dave Frawley (Applicant): There is a difference of eight feet from this level to this level. Everything is one way from Lawrence Street to Andrews Street. The inside parking is accessed here. The entrance to the building is through here for pedestrians. The one-way traffic is helpful. I am still intending to purchase this land for green space.

R. Lockhart: I just want some clarification; you are going with 50 units?

J. Food: When I initially filed the application, I filed for 50 units. Another plan came in with 54 units. I don't know if you can approve 54 units. I can survive the 50 units. But we can remove four of the one bedrooms.

R. Lockhart: Okay. The architecture of the building, what will that be?

J. Flood: We are keeping the existing architecture.

R. Lockhart: For the record there is no fire department approval.

J. Clermont: You raised an issue that could be an issue for you. If we approve the 50 units, you could raise it to 54 though an appeal. And you will be all set with parking if the easement along the side of the building is not granted?

J. Flood: If there is a problem with the parking, we can make the ones along the easement parallel, that is within our rights.

J. Clermont: The traffic engineer made a comment about the curb cut along the easement. Can you comment?

J. Flood: well that is there access as well as ours, and that is an existing pavement. We are just trying to work out an easement for the use of the space as parking.

Motion:

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

M. Burns: Second the motion

All members voted in favor (5-0)

New Business

Bond Reduction: Kaitlin Estates

The developer of O'Heir Way is requesting a reduction of the bond for the Kaitlin Estates subdivision.

Motion:

T. Linnehan: Motion to approve the reduction of the bond for Kaitlin Estates to amount approved by the City Engineering Department.

J. Clermont: Second the motion.

All members voted in favor (5-0)

Zoning Board of Appeals Legal Notices

VALLEY PROPERTIES INC. (777 Rogers Street)

J. Clermont: Motion to recommend upholding the Building Commissioner's decision to issue a building permit to Hannaford Brothers Co.

M. Burns: Second

All members voted in favor of upholding Building Commissioner's decision (5-0)

BIRUNGI VERONICA H SENGENDO ISSA (255-257 W Manchester Street)

T. Linnehan: Motion to recommend APPROVAL.

J. Clermont: Second

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

PHNOM PENH RESTAURANT CORPORATION (307-309 Westford Street)

R. Lockhart: Motion to recommend DENIAL due to an insufficient site plan submittal, lack of detail regarding the project and its impacts on the surrounding neighborhood, and the need for final approval from the Fire Department, specifically regarding the expansion of the coffee shop to a restaurant.

J. Clermont: Second

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

NORTHEAST ENDOSCOPY LLC (790 Chelmsford Street)

T. Linnehan: Motion to recommend APPROVAL

J. Clermont: Second

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

SARAT MAM (553 Fletcher Street)

T. Linnehan: Motion to recommend DENIAL due to lack of parking and increased congestion created from project.

M. Burns: Second

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

LOFT PROPERTIES (489 Dutton Street)

T. Linnehan: Motion to recommend CONTINUANCE to allow the applicant to provide more detailed parking information.

J. Clermont: Second

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

These minutes were approved by the Planning Board on February 23, 2006

J. Clermont: Motion to approve

R. Lockhart: Second

All members voted in favor (4-0). T. Linnehan was absent from the meeting

________________________________________________________

James Errickson, Associate Planner

Planning Board Minutes

January 3, 2006 - Page 8