City of Lowell -Planning Board

Planning Board Minutes

Thursday, April 20, 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, Chairman

Joseph Clermont, Vice Chairman

Richard Lockhart, Member

Mary Burns, Member

Others

James Errickson, Associate Planner

Roll Call of Neighborhood Groups

None present

Public Hearings

Site Plan & Special Permit: 40 Andrews Street

The Lowell Planning Board will review an application by Inner City Development for special permit & site plan approval for the development of the property located at 40 Andrews Street. The proposal includes the construction of 6 townhouse style condominium units with associated driveways, parking, utilities, and landscaping. The project is in located on a 17,344sqft lot in the TMU (Traditional-Neighborhood Mixed Use) Zoning District. Special permit for use and site plan approval are required under Article XII and Section 11.4 of the Lowell Zoning Ordinance, and will be heard concurrently by the Planning Board.

In Favor:

J. Flood Jr.: I believe my father was before you back in February. The plan is for 6 townhouse-style condos. The land is currently mixed-use, and the plans conform to this. Two buildings will be constructed, both triplex style with two parking stalls for each unit. One benefit of the project is that there will be 8,400 square feet of landscaping. I drove by the site today, the property is quite blighted in this neighborhood, and this will definitely help in fixing up the neighborhood. Ken is here to answer your questions.

K. Lania: As James has stated, we are seeking a special permit and site plan approval. Currently on the lot there is a single story building. Our plans are to demolish the building. We will construct the two triplex buildings. On the area it is very impervious. As part of the application I submitted an aerial photo. In addition I tried to address some of the comments. I would like to address the comments from Mr. Errickson.

The first comment was regarding landscaping. We did provide landscaping along with the plan. We would like an opportunity to work with the DPD over the next few weeks to finalize the landscaping plan. As you can see on the plan I am passing out, we are proposing to do landscaped islands within the location. We are also proposing shade trees in the back of the site. The garages are at grade, as are the 10 additional parking spaces. We also have a retaining wall at the back portion of the parcel. We did determine there to be a passageway easement, and what we were able to do is pull that wall out of the easement. In addition, as part of the landscaping, the applicant was asked to upgrade the sidewalk. We did place notes on the plans that we will repair when necessary the sidewalks. Each unit will have a sidewalk entrance. Mr. Errickson did bring up that the three units in each building should be staggered. I did make changes to the plan and have six copies for the Board tonight. The lighting has also been addressed. The electrical and water meters will also not be viewable from the street. The other things that are new in this packet are on sheet one. Sheet C3 is the same. As I stated earlier, the triplex buildings have been changed in order to match the architectural renderings. We adjusted the parking as well to comply fully with parking. In addition to that, we did propose a fence line along the southern portion of the parcel. We did have an additional change on page C5, which is to verify the drainage. That is pretty much all we had for changes.

The first request we had from the City Engineer required that sidewalks on the street be repaired by the developer, and we are comfortable with that. The building should be set in a position so that drainage goes into Andrews Street. We have addressed this as well. We have sloped the building and the parcel. We will have a closed basin system. Comment 3 by City Engineer regarded the drainage computations. I did sit down with the City Engineer. The majority of the site is entirely paved, and what we have done is provide a closed drainage system to catch the runoff from the site. The tank will remove any silt, etc., from the runoff. The system will accept the stormwater, then will drain the water into the groundwater. Comment 4 regarded the utility sheet. We did have an opportunity to sit down with the Water Department. The water utility was requested to provide access to the utility by the City and that is how we showed it on the proposed plans. Mr. Curran noted that as long as the Water Department is satisfied, then he is satisfied. I would be glad to answer any questions.

In Opposition:

None

In Discussion:

R. Lockhart: My only question is with regards to the industrial zone in the back. Will there be a buffer from that zone?

K. Lania: As you can see from the picture, the back portion of the lot does have a natural buffer. And the site across the street will be a residential structure.

M. Burns: I don't have too many questions. You addressed the questions of the engineer and the DPD.

J. Clermont: As I am looking at the aerial photograph where those mature trees are shown, there appears to be some building in front of the trees. Will those be coming down? And what is the height of the trees?

K. Lania: Yes, those will be coming down. The trees are about 30 feet tall.

J. Clermont: I know you are going to upgrade the sidewalk as requested. What is there now and what are you proposing?

K. Lania: There is sloped granite there now, and we will provide bituminous sidewalk.

J. Clermont: What are you doing for trash pick-up and mail delivery?

K. Lania: We are proposing to do street pick-up, and mail delivery will by handled with boxes on each individual unit.

T. Linnehan: So the snow removal will be the open site in the rear and the one in the middle? Is there anything else in the way of open space?

K. Lania: Nope, we did not propose anything, but my hope is that the Canoe Association will put something in there for recreational use.

T. Linnehan: I like that you landscaped the area. Can you discuss the proposed retaining wall?

K. Lania: The lowest side is close to grade and the highest part is roughly 3.5 to 4 feet high.

T. Linnehan: The height of the buildings will be what again?

K. Lania: They will be 30 feet, 3.5 stories each. The properties in the rear actually sit higher since there is a grade increase in the back.

T. Linnehan: Some of those buildings look pretty tall. Will these building be in conformance with those other buildings in the neighborhood?

K. Lania: Yes, they will be right in line with the buildings in the back.

T. Linnehan: And I think there is a note that you will have access to the handicapped as well?

K. Lania: Yes, we will have access on the side.

Motion:

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

M. Burns seconded the motion

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

New Business

Definitive Subdivision Plan Approval: 118 Georgia Avenue (Conoyle Avenue)

The Lowell Planning Board will review an application by Leslie H. Tye & Delia Finneral for the approval of a definitive subdivision plan for a 100-foot extension of Conoyle Street to access a lot at 118 Georgia Avenue. The street extension is needed to create the minimum frontage required by zoning to access a lot located in the SSF (Suburban Neighborhood Single Family) zoning district for the construction of a single-family house. The applicant is seeking waivers from required sidewalk construction, granite curbing, drainage requirements, and road construction standards. This project requires Planning Board approval under Lowell's Subdivision of Land Regulations.

In favor:

Attorney Daniel Tenczar (applicant's attorney): The purpose of this application is to construct a single-family home. It is to extend Conoyle Avenue 100 feet. We have in excess of the required frontage for this site. This project meets all dimensional requirements. It meets the front-, side-, and rear-yard setbacks. The purpose of this project is for Delia Finneral to build a new home. She would like to stay in the Highlands and have a residence for her husband with wheelchair access. Chris Finneral will be constructing this project. At the preliminary hearing, the Board requested that the applicant meet with the members of the neighborhood. The applicant would like to retain as many trees on the lot. Another concern is drainage, and on the plans there will be a Cultech system that will collect the drainage of the site, and not let it go on to other properties. That is one of the concerns of the neighborhood. We did provide a copy of the plans you have to the Engineer's office. There are three waivers being requested: waivers of sidewalk construction, street width and granite curbing. There is no waiver of drainage since it was a major concern. One of the other concerns was regarding public safety. The Fire Department did sign off on this. The Board and residents did urge that the street be widened. This has been addressed on this plan. I believe that is all.

Joseph Michel (106 Lincoln Parkway): The reason I favor this proposal is because it does not create an intersection at Conoyle Avenue and Lincoln Parkway, an already busy roadway. There is also a great deal of bus traffic, and we also see a lot of youngsters and for those reasons I propose that the measure be accepted.

Walter Baylis (92 Lincoln Parkway): This project will probably impact my property more that anyone else's. I would like to tell you a little about the owner of the property. He had another opportunity to sell the property, but he wanted to insure the integrity of the property. The purchaser is seeking to retain the integrity of the neighborhood. We like Lincoln Parkway; it is a beautiful residential neighborhood. This is what zoning is about; it is about making exceptions to the rule for the betterment of the neighborhood. Mr. Finneral is an honorable person. I ask you to go along with this plan. Once this has been completed, it will retain the integrity of the neighborhood.

Beverly Schultz (145 Sanders): I am generally in favor of the amended plan, but I do have a few general questions. Will the water and sewer be put on what is considered Conoyle Avenue? I understand that in the next week there will a drainage test, and I ask that you hold off on the approval of the site until we know the results of the drainage on site. I would hope that the remainder of Conoyle Avenue be abandoned, and that a stipulation be put on that land for no future development. Most of us do not want the street to go through. When Mr. Hogan installed his house, he did some sub-grade paving, and then the City came in to add to the paving. I would hope that the extension of the street be the same width of the existing Conoyle Avenue. I would like to see proper lighting in there. I do hold in my hand several pages of a petition that James Carnivali put together. I am not sure we are entirely in opposition now, and I would like to see those issues addressed.

In Opposition:

Maria Maskaluk (22 Berchum Street): This lot is in my backyard. It was my backyard, and many years ago that was part of the property that now belongs to me. There are three factors to take into account. It is a beautiful little lot, but when we have snowfall and an abundance of rain, we have a pond. I already get water in my basement. I am opposed to a road going through to Lincoln Parkway. I am concerned about drainage. I ask that you take that into serious consideration. My other concern is the roadway: it needs to be wide enough and there needs to be a turn around.

Normand Charette (12 Berchum Street): I abut the northeast corner. I am not opposed to this, but I am concerned about the drainage.

Julie Charette (12 Berchum Street): I am also concerned about the height of the water table in the area. Once that water table is high enough there is no way to know where the water is going. My concern is how will we guarantee that the drainage system will be sufficient for the site?

Ralph Hogan (12 Conoyle Street): Since our last visit here, the plans have been improved. The street is relatively narrow, and I recommend that you consider the road width in the pondering of the waiver. If there is a drainage problem in the future, that is the only access point to alleviate any issues.

In Discussion:

T. Linnehan: Can you answer the questions from the abutters.

D. Tenczar: Yes, the sewer and water will be coming through a minor cut from Lincoln Parkway. One of the concerns was that with further building in that area with sewer and drainage in that area, there would be no way to build in that area. So it makes more sense to do a small curb cut.

T. Linnehan: I know tonight we have a new plan and you are proposing to increase the size of the roadway to 20 feet.

D. Tenczar: Yes, we will be providing a larger roadway, and the driveway can be used for a turnaround.

T. Linnehan: And in order to abandon the street that would be the jurisdiction of the City Council.

D. Tenczar: Yes, that would be a function of the City Council.

T. Linnehan: Can you address the issues of the drainage?

D. Tenczar: My understanding is that the system is designed to collect the water from the roof as well as the driveway. I believe a percolation test was completed. I gave these plans to Steve Curran's office this afternoon. We would certainly agree with the neighborhood: we do not want drainage issues in that area. We would certainly agree that the final drainage plan must past muster with the City Engineer.

T. Linnehan: And is the 20-foot right-of-way enough for public safety? The Fire Department and the City Engineer also noted the adequacy of the roadway width. Also the road will not cut through.

L. Tye (72 Lincoln Parkway): I have lived in my home for 37 years, and I have never had a water problem. When the house was built, we had a drainage system built around the house and we have not had a problem.

Engineer: The Cultech system will be a subsurface. There is an overflow from the Cultech system into the city sewer line. This has been discussed with the Engineering department. There was a percolation test done. The floor elevation of the building is designed to be two feet above the water table.

T. Linnehan: So to summarize: the drainage system will mean there will be less runoff than there is now. The drainage will be contained on site. Everything will be filtered into those catch basins. Do the surrounding houses pitch down to that area?

Engineer: Yes, the roadway—Lincoln—slopes into the area. So the water is trapped in that area. I believe years ago there was probably some land excavated from that area. Due to the construction, it was trapped. The portion of the proposed lot that is going to be developed at this time pitches into this same area. We intend to pick up the runoff into a system that will be overflowed into a sewer line. Thus the reduction of runoff. I stated that there was a percolation test conducted this past Monday. The City Engineer has not yet reviewed the results. It was discussed with their office.

T. Linnehan: So we have not had a chance to review those results?

Engineer: Not the results, but the concept of the Cultech system is what we want to propose.

B. Schultz: I have some questions for the engineer. Will the system be on private property? Are there maintenance requirements for such a system? I think these should be reviewed. The tank must be sufficiently sized for a 100-year storm. Also if there is storage, will there be an odor problem?

Engineer: The system will be on private property. The catch basin will be within the street layout. I don't know of any maintenance of any subsurface storage system. The City standard required a 90-bend turn in the pipe or a trap to catch any odors. There will be no odors. The Cultech system will not need to be maintained. This will be able to handle all loading standards. The basin in the right-of-way will be maintained by the City; that is standard procedure for the City. The outlet from this structure will be a sewer manhole, which will be at the intersection of Georgia and Conoyle Streets. It will be up to City standards and will have to be tested by the City. There should be no mosquito problems since it is subsurface.

T. Linnehan: I have a concern about not having comments from the City Engineer about the drainage.

R. Lockhart: The road width, the way I understand is that is an existing 26-foot roadway width. The initial proposal included a 16-foot width, and tonight there is a proposed 20 foot width. The Fire Department has signed off on that wider width, and so that is not an issue. The Cultech system, I am not familiar with, and usually these require some maintenance. Are you saying it will require no maintenance at all?

Engineer: As of yet I have not seen any required maintenance, unless the system is crushed in any other way. This one will be heavy-duty grade to accommodate the load of the road above.

R. Lockhart: If this thing malfunctions, who would be required to maintain this facility?

Applicant: That would be the owners, since it is on their land. Anything that happens on their property is their responsibility.

R. Lockhart: All right, I didn't see that specifically. The other thing was I'd like to see a little more detail on the plan here for the Cultech system or equal. It would like to see that documentation and stamped by professional engineer. This is a big issue here, and that would make me more comfortable.

M. Burns: I think the main concern is about water. And I think we need to see the engineers approval before moving forward with this approval. I have no problem with the width of the road or the turnaround. My only concern is with the water issues.

J. Clermont: Thank you Mr. Chairman. First of all, thanks to all the neighbors for coming to discuss this project. We have had an opportunity to review a few things. The petition shown earlier opposes any variances, and the developer is not seeking any variances. That would be under the purview of the Zoning Board of Appeals. They are seeking waivers for the width of the roadway, sidewalk, etc., which is what we have before us tonight. No variances can be granted for the roadway. Concerning the roadway, Mr. Errickson brought to my attention that at one time the approval of the original roadway was for no less than 15 feet by the Fire Department. Subsequently, the road was widened, I believe, by the City to its current dimensions. There is also some confusion regarding the actually roadway width. From my perspective, if we are going to approve the extension, I would like to see it consistent with what is there now. In terms of drainage, I would be comfortable to have a vote conditional on specific approval by the City Engineer. He would have to review it, and by law of course you cannot discharge any water from the site. If he was comfortable with that drainage system I would be comfortable with that. What we have done in the past for developments like this with that type of system is that we request an easement to the City to have access to repair the system at the owners cost if the owner does not repair the problem.

D. Tenczar: Certainly an easement makes sense so the problem can be fixed in an emergency.

Motion:

R. Lockhart motioned to CONTINUE the Definitive Subdivision Plan approval to allow the applicant time to address concerns regarding the drainage system for the site, as well as provide Lowell's City Engineer time to review the proposed drainage system.

J. Clermont seconded the motion

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

New Business

Election of NMCOG representative from the Planning Board

The Planning Board will elect a member of the Board to be its representative to NMCOG (Northern Middlesex Council of Governments)

Motion:

J. Clermont motioned to elect R. Lockhart as the Board's representative to NMCOG.

M. Burns seconded the motion

All members voted in favor (4-0)

Motion:

J. Clermont motioned to elect M. Burns as the Board's alternate representative to NMCOG

R. Lockhart seconded the motion

All members voted in favor (4-0)

Old Business

Update: Planning Board Bylaws

The Board will discuss updates & amendments to its bylaws.

The Board voted to place the Bylaws on the next meeting's agenda for an official vote of their adoption.

Update: KC Estates Subdivision (Twiss Avenue & Maryland Avenue)

No Formal Action was taken on the above matter.

ZBA Notices:

1975-1995 Middlesex Street (Omnipoint Communications, Inc.)

J. Clermont: Motion to recommend APPROVAL provided the telecommunications facility complies with the City's telecommunications ordinance and all State and Federal Standards, AND all equipment associated with the facility is located within the building.

M. Burns: Second the motion

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

657 Merrimack Street (Nextel Communications c/o Edward Onessimo)

R. Lockhart: Motion to recommend APPROVAL provided the telecommunications facility complies with the City's telecommunications ordinance and all State and Federal Standards.

M. Burns: Second the motion

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

484 Rogers Street (Faria Luis P Meneses-Faria Sandra)

J. Clermont: Motion to recommend DENIAL due to the lack of information provided in the submittal, the questionable legality of the fifth apartment/unit, and the false assessment of the building as a 4-unit residential buildings in stead of a 5-unit building.

R. Lockhart: Second the motion

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

30 Central Street (McCabe Phillip R Jr.)

J. Clermont: Motion to recommend DENIAL due to the lack of information provided in the submittal, the questionable legality of the units, and the fact that parking requirements may be met by leasing spaces in one of the City owned parking garages in the Downtown neighborhood.

R. Lockhart: Second the motion

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

These minutes were approved by the Planning Board on July 17, 2006

J. Clermont: Motion to approve

R. Lockhart: Second

All members voted in favor (4-0).

________________________________________________________

James Errickson, Associate Planner

Planning Board Minutes

April 20, 2006 - Page 8