City of Lowell -Planning Board

Planning Board Minutes

Monday, April 3, 2006 7:00 P.M.

City Council Chambers, City Hall

City of Lowell, 375 Merrimack Street, 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

Thomas Linnehan, Vice Chairman

Joseph Clermont, Member

Richard Lockhart

Mary Burns, Member

Others

James Errickson, Associate Planner

The meeting was called to order at 7:00pm, with Vice Chairman Thomas Linnehan and the members of the Planning Board recognizing retired Chairman George Zaharoolis for his many years of service, hard work and dedication to both the Planning Board and the City of Lowell.

Roll Call of Neighborhood Groups

Friends of Rogers Fort Hill Park - Anne Cavanaugh

Public Hearings

Site Plan & Special Permit: 200-206 Rogers Street

The Lowell Planning Board will review an application by the Rogers Street Association LLC for a Special Permit and Site Plan Approval for a project located at 206 & 200 Rogers Street. The project includes the conversion of two existing buildings on site into 13 condominium units, ranging in size from 900 to 2000sqft of living space with 3 parking spaces per unit. This project requires a Special Permit under Section 8.1 Conversion of Existing Buildings and Site Plan Approval under Section 11.4 of the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. The property is located in the TTF (Traditional Neighborhood Two-Family) zoning district.

In Favor:

Attorney David Plunkett (applicant's attorney): Good evening. After the last meeting, we continued to tonight in order to have feed back from the City solicitor's office regarding the application of Section 8.1 of the particular proposal at hand. It was clear from the memo provided that this is the proper ordinance and appropriate avenue to follow for the adaptive reuse of the building in question. The underlying district will dictate the lot area per dwelling unit. This project is compliant with the underlying zoning. Looking at the other projects that were approved by this Board under Section 8.1, they were approved with the waiver of the lot area per dwelling unit requirements. This makes sense when looking at the ordinance, and the reuse of these buildings. We came forward with a project that meets the underlying zoning. Our project provides desired housing for the area, the parking is 50 percent more than required by zoning, the usable open space is twice that required by zoning, and the traffic will be minimal. Yes there will be new traffic, however, this reuse is what was intended by 8.1, and this will be a nice development, one that the city and developer will be proud of. When looking at the plan details, there is a park across the street, there are pedestrian walkways around the development, and there is public transit stop in the neighborhood. Understanding the neighbors, this is something that should be utilized. These designs were created based on what the zoning ordinance contained. The initial phase has gone through more design review than most any project like this in the city. This will be a great development and we ask for your support. If you wish to, Mr. Cook is here to review the elements of the project. Otherwise, we have presented the information at the last meeting; it is in conformance with the zoning ordinance, and we ask for your support.

In Opposition:

Michael Ready (130 Nesmith Street): Thank you for this opportunity to speak. I live at 130 Nesmith, and I am a third generation resident of Lowell. I am active in preservation efforts throughout the city. These two buildings are in a traditional two family neighborhood. I have been coming to these meetings since this project has been before the board. This project is coming under Section 8.1. This developer is proposing 9 units in the gym and 4 units in the house. When this was done, the developer originally noted that he was going to demolish the gym. Section 8.1 served well to preserve this building. The City Council placed this property under historic review. This preserves the site indefinitely. The applicant noted that there is no other viable use for this site. I have spoken with the JCs and they mentioned that they could use this site for their seniors. Section 8.1 is great when there are no obvious opportunities for reuse. I say we can expand elderly care onto this site, and this is a viable use of this site. We in Lowell, we take care of the elderly, and I would say that 8.1 is not being used here in the spirit in which it is intended. I believe we should make efforts to contact the Rogers Hall and have them come here to present their intention for the site. Also this developer has left this site without any barrier, we have children down there. I don't understand this; this developer must complete what he started. Another neighbor expressed concern that this developer must finish what he started. So I would like to appeal to this board to deny this project this evening. I believe it will be the most prudent path for the city. We want to do what is best for the city. Thank you for your time.

Anne Cavanaugh (136 Hanks Street): I thank you for the opportunity to speak. I am going to read the letter that I prepared for the Board tonight. Quoting letter in the file…

In Discussion:

J. Clermont: I just want to express at the outset that we only have four members here tonight. You need a Special Permit, and you need all four members to vote yes. Will you be proceeding knowing this?

Attorney Plunkett: We will be going forward, thank you for the option, but we will go forward.

J. Clermont: Just to be aware that you need all four votes. I would certainly be willing to continue this until there is a fifth member.

Attorney Plunkett: Yes, I appreciate the offer, but we would still like to go forward tonight.

J. Clermont: Okay. Are you looking for any waivers?

Attorney Plunkett: no, no waivers are being sought. We are offering 50 percent more parking 100 percent more open space than is required. In essence there will be limited changes from the first plan approved by the Board in November.

J. Clermont: Under the new zoning that is being considered by the City Council next week, the new lot area per dwelling unit requirement will be 4000sqft per unit. Under that proposed ordinance change, you will be permitted for 9 units.

Attorney Plunkett: Well, there is the 8.1 waiver for this requirement, and looking at the Board's history, each project approved by the Board has been granted this waiver, ranging from 1800sqft to 2200sqft per unit. Again this is designed to allow the project to use the buildings in the most viable way, and to keep an economically feasible project, and to provide a range of unit sizes and affordability. Recently, studies have noted that affordability of housing has relation to housing supply. I would say that we comply with the zoning that we filed under, and with the proposed change we could seek a waiver.

J. Clermont: Does your client own the site?

Attorney Plunkett: yes.

J. Clermont: We have a bit of information regarding the review of the Historic Board, and we did receive a letter that says they do support the reuse of the building. Will your client be working with the Historic Board with the reuse of the buildings?

Attorney Plunkett: Mr. Cook has been working with the Historic Board, and they probably would not be overseeing this portion of the project. The front buildings will only have the addition of a small porch on the back, the gymnasium will have a couple windows added, that will match exactly what is there now.

Roland Mainville: I met with Steve Stowell this morning to go over the final details of the part of the project that has been approved. We are pleased with the progress of the buildings. He asked about the colors of the Rogers building and we discussed bringing back the original colors of the building. We are very excited about how this project is proceeding.

J. Clermont: If the project moves forward, would you be willing to commit to working with the Historic Board in the future?

R. Mainville: We are not touching the buildings on the site until we get approval, and we will definitely work with the historic board.

J. Clermont: Would the project be viable if the density were to be completed at 9 units.

R. Mainville: We have looked at a lot of different avenues. If you look at the units that we are putting in there, they are great units and they fit the buildings well. We are putting 9 units in the gym buildings and the sizes range from 900 to 1600 units. These are very good size units, and work well within the building footprint.

J. Clermont: The council is looking at lowering the lot area requirement, making this project move to 9 units under lot area per dwelling unit requirements. Would this project still be doable financially?

R. Mainville: It would have been doable at the beginning, last year when we started the project, but at this point with the all the fees being paid, at this point it is not as doable. We have met above and beyond every requirement that this project is required to fulfill.

J. Clermont: Have you been given any consideration as to what you would do if the project would be denied?

R. Mainville: Yes but I am not willing to discuss that at this time.

R. Lockhart: I would like to ask the developer about the fence regarding the site.

R. Mainville: The fence will go up next Wednesday. Unfortunately, it had to be scheduled. The site will be secured by next week.

R. Lockhart: It may not be required by the code, but it is a concern of the neighborhood.

R. Mainville: We did have a temporary fence, but it was pulled down by neighborhood kids.

R. Lockhart: My other comment is in regards to the historic character with the site. I gather you will be working with the Historic Board and the staff regarding the site. I know there are some arched windows, and will you have to replace them?

R. Mainville: We may replace them and we may restore them. We are not sure whether we can replicate perfectly what is there right now. If we can than we will use the ones there now. If not then we will be replacing them with a new type of window.

R. Lockhart: Will you work with the historic board on these changes?

R. Mainville: Well we will do that but it is not under their jurisdiction.

T. Linnehan: We also have a letter in our packet from two other members of the public noting their opposition to this project. Now we are looking at two issues, one being site plan review, and the other special permit, if the members could remember all the notes from last meeting, and all the materials in the packet tonight, and all the comments from the city as well as those individuals from the community that spoke at the previous meeting. At this point I will take any further comments or a motion.

No further comments? What is the pleasure of the Board?

J. Clermont: This is a site that we have struggled over, I am aware of the reuse of the buildings, and of the historic value of the buildings. I do feel that the contractors will work with the Historic Board even though they are not under specific Historic Board jurisdiction. However, I am concerned about the density. I think the path before us would be to reduce this project from 13 to 9. This would match the path by which the City Council is heading with regards to the zoning in the TTF district.

Motion:

J. Clermont motioned to DENY the Site Plan & Special Permit based on the following reasons:

M. Burns seconded the motion

All members voted in favor of the DENIAL (4-0)

New Business

Preliminary Subdivision Application: 118 Georgia Avenue

This plan by AHO Surveying for Delia Finneral, proposes to extend Conoyle Street to access property for the construction of a single-family house. The property is located in the SSF (Suburban Single Family) zoning district.

In Discussion:

Chris Finneral (Applicant): I am here tonight representing my mother in regards to accessing 118 Georgia Avenue. The land is 12,000+sqft. I am building the home for my mother and for my father who is unable to reside in the home they reside in now. My mother needs a single story ranch. Last time I was here, there was discussion about access to the property from Lincoln Parkway, or from Georgia Ave. It is my understanding that Georgia Ave has been abandoned; so in order to access anything from Georgia Ave it would require the acquisition of additional land. We may also access the site from the parkway, but all the abutters are against the site being accessed from the parkway. I spoke with Mr. Hogan, and he thinks it would be a good idea to put the road through to the parkway. I also met with Mr. Curran, who noted his only concern is roadway width and working the sewer line, and we have no problem with these conditions. We are asking for waivers under standard roadway construction, curbing and sidewalks. The proposal before you is what we would like to do, and that will be the final proposal. Another concern is that this is a wooded lot up there, and privacy is a concern. We are looking to disturb as few of the trees as possible.

James Carnevale (105 Georgia): I work with federal, state and local leaders, when you talk about density as a concern, a larger concern is reasonable and rational development. I have full opposition for waivers. I feel these standards should be upheld.

Norman Cherrette (12 Bertram): One of the reasons my wife and I bought this house was for private issues. And I would hate to see that wooded lot go. I also have a concern regarding drainage, and I hope these concerns are taken into account. Also if there are variances for the road, I have a public safety concern.

Maria Maskaluk (22 Bertram): I am one of the owners of the paper street. This proposed house is directly in our back yard, with big huge trees, beautiful birds. I am a realist so I know that we cannot prevent development in there. I have a few concerns, there is a potential for some creativeness that there will be two homes on that lot. I am concerned about drainage, and for public safety.

Bill Gendron (23 Bertram): I guess my concerns are density. There is some land back there, and I am concerned with some creativity about the density. I don't want to see more that what should be built there. We don't want people crowding people in. We are concerned that things work with the history of the area. We don't want punching through to other streets. There is a lot of confusion here. We are concerned about the history of the area.

T. Linnehan: I think the application is not to punch through. A road with a turn around, for just those two lots would be a lot safer.

Ralph Hogan (12 Conoyle): To clarify, on access, my comment was that the most economic way is to go strait through at the same width. The concern with the drainage, I would caution the Board to grant this waiver. My neighbor has spent quite a bit of funds regarding drainage concerns. To access this site on a 16 foot wide width is not wise. Access to the site is the issue. My point to Chris is that a street going all the way through is the best option. Without engineering plans, you are not going to know what problems may occur. I think the drainage needs to be addressed. There are two parcels, just across the street from my house, and this parcel.

Maria Maskaluk: I am confused by Mr. Hogan's comments because be built that road, and he built that road to his home, and I am confused as to why he is not happy with the street.

G. Proakis: The city has put in place subdivision standards in 1986. The Board has, on occasion, granted waivers. If a project is in front of the board fully complying with the regulations, it is hard to grant approval with conditions. It is possible if there are waivers to grant the project with conditions. The Board is given discretion when subdivision waivers are being granted.

J. Clermont: As I understand this project, the applicant is not looking to connect to Lincoln Parkway. He is only trying to access this lot. Regarding the sum total of the land, it is 12,362sqft, and I don't think there are two lots.

C. Finneral: Our intent is to build one house. I would be glad to show these plans with the neighbors.

J. Clermont: Just as a comment, I believe there was a question as to if there is more than one unit could be built there.

C. Finneral: No we cannot build more that one unit.

J. Clermont: Have you looked at punching the street through, economic wise.

C. Finneral: Yes we looked into this, and it we would have to build the street to city standard which would cost at least $100,000.

J. Clermont: Would you be amenable to have any drainage issues on the site itself.

C. Finneral: The waiver I am seeking is regarding the roadway.

M. Burns: My only concern is the number of houses being built there. I am sure you will address the drainage issues. So I have no other questions.

R. Lockhart: Yes my original question is that there was some neighborhood opposition. Have we heard from all of the abutters?

C. Finneral: No Mr. Bayliss is recovering from an operation. I did speak with all other abutters, including Mr. Hogan tonight.

R. Lockhart: I would encourage you to meet with the neighbors. And the other issue is the drainage issue up there.

T. Linnehan: The only two questions I have are for the waivers. I would like to wait and see what the engineer and the fire departments have to say about this project. There will be a definitive approval, which will require a public hearing process.

J. Clermont: I do believe we will need to take a vote tonight.

Motion:

J. Clermont motioned to APPROVE the Preliminary Subdivision Application

M. Burns seconded the motion

All members voted in favor of the APPROVAL (4-0)

Julian Steele Bond Release

The Board will discuss a 6-phase approach for the release of bond funds for the Julian Steele project.

No formal action was taken on this item

Old Business

Site Plan & Special Permit: 106 Marginal Street, aka 117 Marginal Street

The applicant is requesting a clarification to one of the conditions of approval. The Board approved this project on December 12, 2005 for the construction of 136 condominium and townhouse units.

The Board voted to table this issue until the parties involved are ready to address the Board with a resolution.

Other Business

Election of a new Planning Board Chairperson

Motion:

J. Clermont motioned to elect Member Thomas Linnehan as new Chairperson of the Planning Board

R. Lockhart seconded the motion

All members voted in favor (4-0)

Election of a new Planning Board Vice-Chairperson

Motion:

M. Burns motioned to elect Member Joe Clermont as new Vice Chairperson of the Planning Board

R. Lockhart seconded the motion

All members voted in favor (4-0)

ZBA Notices:

None

These minutes were approved by the Planning Board on May 15, 2006

J. Clermont: Motion to approve

R. Lockhart: Second

All members voted in favor (3-0).

________________________________________________________

James Errickson, Associate Planner

Planning Board Minutes

April 3, 2006 - Page 7