City of Lowell -Planning Board

Planning Board Minutes

Monday, May 15, 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, Second Vice Chairman

Members Absent

Mary Burns, Member

Others

James Errickson, Associate Planner

Minutes & Roll Call

Approval of Minutes: March 20, 2006, April 3, 2006, & April 18, 2006

R. Lockhart motioned to APPROVE the minutes from March 20, 2006, April 3, 2006, & April 18, 2006

J. Clermont second the motion

All members voted in favor (3-0)

Roll Call of Neighborhood Groups

None present

Public Hearings

Site Plan: 975 Varnum Avenue

The Lowell Planning Board will review an application by Sisters of Charity of Ottowa and D'Youville Elderly Housing Corporation for site plan approval for the development of the property located at 975 Varnum Avenue. The proposal includes the construction of a 42-unit (41 one-bedroom, 1 two-bedroom), affordable elderly housing project, as well as a three-story building that will hold a community room, offices, lounge, laundry facilities, on a portion of the D'Youville Senior Care Campus. The project will include 47 parking spaces on the 1,590,281sqft lot located in the SSF (suburban neighborhood single family) zoning district. This project requires site plan approval from the Planning Board under Section 11.4 of the Lowell Zoning Ordinance.

Site Plan: 378 Gorham Street

The Lowell Planning Board will review an application by Drake Petroleum Company, Inc. for site plan approval for the redevelopment of the property located at 378 Gorham Street. The proposal includes the demolition of the existing gas station on site, and the construction of a new 1,500sqft building, as well as new pump islands and canopy. Associated landscaping and parking also accompany this project located on a 13,040sqft site in the UMU (urban neighborhood mixed use) zoning district. This project requires site plan approval from the Planning Board under Section 11.4 of the Lowell Zoning Ordinance.

NOTE: Due to inclement weather, both of the above public hearings were continued to June 5, 2006.

New Business

Approval Not Required (ANR) Plan: 2 Bradley Street & 15 East Durant Street:

The Board will discuss the ANR request by Mr. Raymond Chenelle for property located at 2 Bradley & 15 East Durant

In Favor:

James Flood (81 Bridge Street): I delivered that plan to the DPD last week for an endorsement. Evidently this was before your Board at a prior time when it was discussed. One of the proposed lots had a three-family building on it. From my reading, this plan meets all the ANR rules. I have submitted a petition to the Board of Appeals to reduce the size of the lot. I did this based on 81P. The plan as submitted meets the zoning requirements. I was not involved the last time, but I am here to answer any questions.

In Opposition:

None

In Discussion:

R. Lockhart: Did you say there is one under-sized lot?

J. Flood: No, one is proposing to have a two-family. I think it meets all the statutory requirements.

T. Linnehan: Mr. Errickson, do you have anything to add to this case?

J. Errickson: Yes. Mr. Flood is correct; the plan in question is a legal ANR plan. However, since the plan was before the Board in the past, we felt it was necessary to bring it back in front of the Board. To note for the record, each dwelling unit will be required to have 10,000.

Pre-Application Sessions:

The following individuals have requested for the Planning Board to provide a preliminary review of their proposed project at the addresses listed below. These are not public hearings. Each project will require a public hearing as noted below.

Applicant: Hancock Associates & Steve Beati

Project: Multi-family - 128 Units

Zoning: SMU (Suburban Mixed Use)

Required Review: Site Plan

In Favor:

J. Flood: With me tonight are the two principles. I will turn it over to Joe from Hancock Associates for a description of the project.

Joe Penzola (Hancock Associates): This is an informal meeting to present the project to the Board. The property is located at 1857.1 and 1881 Middlesex Street. It is a Bradford Industry site. The property does contain 9.25 acres. Access to the site is through an easement. Whether or not that was adequate was suspect, so the applicant has entered into an agreement to purchase a single-family lot to provide access to the site. There is the crossing of isolated wetlands. The proposal includes the construction of 4 buildings with 128 units. There will be a community center in the project. All of the units are located perpendicularly to the river, to enjoy the views of the river. They will be 4-story structures with parking underneath. In the Suburban Mixed Use district, there is no height restriction. We will reduce the total impervious surface area on the site by over an acre. Each of the buildings is separated by parking and green areas. We won't be looking for any variances. We will need Conservation Commission approval for the wetland crossing. But all of the units will be greater than 50 feet away from wetlands. On the team will be Mr. Lowe from Chestnut Hill. I do have a rendering of the building, and also a photograph of a similar building in Chelmsford at a project called Wayside. It is a very unique and attractive building. We will have formal plans when we submit to the Board. That is a brief summary of what we are proposing.

In Opposition:

None

In Discussion:

R. Lockhart: That is a completely new access road?

J. Penzola: Yes.

R. Lockhart: Is what is there now unacceptable?

J. Penzola: Yes, that is why we are pursuing this access. We would like to provide enough access from a safety standpoint and an aesthetic standpoint. The other entrance is inappropriate.

R. Lockhart: It seemed to me some kind of area in the back portion by the railroad tracks would be necessary.

J. Penzola: Yes, we are thinking of a couple of different options for safety and noise.

R. Lockhart: That piece in the middle; do you have any specifics of what to do there? There is not much in that area.

J. Penzola: There is ample area for that, but I guess that will be market-driven. Some initial market analysis will determine if something there is appropriate.

J. Clermont: You mentioned that buildings similar to these are located in Chelmsford now? How many units are there now?

J. Penzola: Yes, that is up off Technology Drive. Those have 72 units. These will be one unit smaller, but of similar style. We won't build the same building twice. The decks are built right into the project. Each unit will have some kind of outside space.

J. Clermont: You mentioned that there is a single family home. Where is that located?

J. Penzola: It's right here.

J. Clermont: You noted some wetlands, but you have some parking in that open space area as well. Is that the limit, or would you want to expand it a bit?

J. Penzola: Yes, there is plenty of room. We are providing more parking, and if there was a need by the organization they can expand that in the future. From a drainage standpoint, we are fine.

J. Clermont: And you are proposing a 24-foot wide access road?

J. Penzola: Yes, we are looking to provide 24-foot width, 12 feet each way. Required is 20 feet for access to parking spaces.

J. Clermont: On either side of the fire lane, that is what—12 feet?

J. Penzola: Yes that is 12 feet all the way around.

T. Linnehan: I was wondering how you are getting in there. To acclimate everyone, it is along Middlesex Street in between the two apartment complexes. Directly across the opening is Dingwell Street. To the left is a two-family house, and to the right is a single-family dwelling. In between there now, there is a driveway. You're going to purchase the two-family? If you go down a little further, there are other apartment complexes.

J. Penzola: Currently, the only legal frontage to the parcel is 15 feet wide. We are not proposing to use that. With this proposal, we will have legal frontage.

T. Linnehan: Approximately how long is the road in from Middlesex Street?

J. Penzola: About 400 feet. It will be the access drive. It won't be developed into a separate lot and will be maintained by the condo association.

T. Linnehan: And in the plans you are proposing to make that 24 feet? Do you think fire access will be sufficient?

J. Penzola: It should be fine, but we do have the easement that we can keep as a gated exit or entrance for emergencies.

T. Linnehan: You do have 128 units, and as you have now, you only have 6 additional parking spaces. I think the parking could run tight.

J. Penzola: It has been our experience that with these projects, we need 1.7-1.8 parking spaces per a unit. The best way to handle that would be to land bank an area and have the board condition that if there is a need or a problem, we could construct that in the future. We have the room, but we would not like to build it if it is not needed.

T. Linnehan: And where is the snow removal? Not in the wetlands.

J. Penzola: In a strategic area in our landscaping plan. We make it sensible as to where it logically should go. There will have to be a management plan in place. But that is commonplace in any condo association. An association of this size will have a management company.

T. Linnehan: Since what is going in there is private, will there be private trash pickup?

J. Penzola: Yes, trash will be inside the building.

T. Linnehan: And will you have mail delivered onsite?

J. Penzola: It depends on the Postal Service.

T. Linnehan: You may be able to set up an area as you enter the site. Am I reading that the fire lane is just in back?

J. Penzola: The very far east, far west, and along the rail. It is not intended that traffic will go there.

T. Linnehan: And the easement to the right can be for fire access.

J. Clermont: Just to clarify: there are 32 units in each building and 4 floors, so 8 units per floor?

J. Flood: We are hoping that this will be a spot for over 55 units. We are hoping that in marketing, the parking will be sufficient. Those are some of our thoughts.

No formal action was taken on the above issue

Old Business

Update & Administrative Adjustment: 702/704 Gorham Street

The Planning Board will discuss adjustments to this project, which was approved by the Board on December 12, 2005.

Kenneth Lania: We would like to make an adjustment to the plans for this site. We are trying to decrease the amount of impervious surface on site to mitigate some drainage. We plan to keep to the original conditions of the original approval. We would like to ask the Board to remedy the lighting plan, to just wall packs on the buildings.

R. Lockhart: I know we talked a lot about access on Pinehill Street. Both ways we looked at it as to whether there would be a cut through. And I think we went on notice that we heard those concerns, and to have only fire access through that site.

J. Clermont: Could we see the original approval?

K. Lania: Yes, basically we are moving the buildings here.

T. Linnehan: So you are looking to move the buildings, have a condition of the Engineer's approval of the new drainage calculation, and we approve the new wall packs.

Motion:

J. Clermont motioned to approve the administrative adjustment as seen on plans dated November 10, 2005, updated May 15, 2006.

R. Lockhart seconded the motion

All members voted in favor (3-0)

Bond Reduction: West Meadow Estates/Dean Drive

The Board will discuss the reduction of the bond money being held for the West Meadow Estates subdivision.

Motion:

J. Clermont motioned to approve the bond reduction of the West Meadow Estates project to $16,000.

R. Lockhart seconded the motion

All members voted in favor (3-0)

Bond Release: Katherine Drive

The Board will discuss the release of the bond money being held for Katherine Drive.

Motion:

J. Clermont motioned to approve the release of the bond money being held for Katherine Drive.

R. Lockhart seconded the motion

All members voted in favor (3-0)

ZBA Notices:

Hebb Builders (2 Bradley Street)

J. Clermont: Motion to recommend DENIAL, due to the proposal's lack of consistency with the neighborhood, which is a single family neighborhood. The dwelling should either be converted into a single family or the property should retain 10,000sf per dwelling unit as required by zoning.

R. Lockhart: Second the motion

All members voted in favor of DENIAL (3-0)

Thorndike Place, LLC (115 S Highland Street)

J. Clermont: Motion to recommend APPROVAL. The proposed project remains consistent with lot area per dwelling unit requirements in the TMF zoning district.

R. Lockhart: Second the motion

All members voted in favor of APPROVAL (3-0)

Vasilios Bletsis (1 Salem Street)

J. Clermont: Motion to recommend DENIAL. The proposed project is over-extending the land area provided, is seeking too many variances, will strain services in the neighborhood and on site, and is proposing too much for the given lot.

R. Lockhart: Second the motion

All members voted in favor of DENIAL (3-0)

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

May 15, 2006 - Page 6