City of Lowell -Planning Board

Planning Board Minutes

Thursday, September 7, 2006 6:30 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

Mary Burns

Others

James Errickson, Associate Planner

Roll Call of Neighborhood Groups

Roll Call of Neighborhood Groups

Public Hearings

Site Plan: 963 Chelmsford Street

The Lowell Planning Board will review an application by Genesis LPD for site plan review for a project located at 963 Chelmsford Street. The proposed project includes the demolition and removal of an existing building on site, and the construction a roughly 8,000 sqft, two-story building on site. The building will have first floor retail space, with offices on the second floor, and a basement for storage. The project is located in the RR (Regional Retail) zoning district, and provides 50 parking spaces with associated landscaping. Approval is required for Site Plan under Section 11.4 of the Lowell Zoning Ordinance.

In Favor:

G Eliades (133 Market Street) Here this evening on behalf of Genesis LDP the applicant. With me is one of the principles, Peter Doyle, and his engineer Matt Hamor of Poliaris Engineering. I will be brief. We were back here a couple of weeks ago. This location is basically the last piece of property in Lowell before you hit Route 3. Most recently this was used as a music building. Mr. Doyle and his family decided this would be a wonderful location for an expanded location for this business. We think the plan will change the site, and provide a great alternative to the site. We don't think this will add too much traffic to the area. It will be a two-story building, retail on first floor and offices on second floor. We have more than enough parking. I will pass this off to Mr. Hamor.

Matt Hamor (Polaris Engineering): You have seen this plan before. The layout has not changed. We are proposing a two story structure, and we have shown an architectural drawings, as well as the floor plan. This gives you an idea of what the building will look like. This section here is Chelmsford Street, which is shown on this front elevation. This shows a glass window with windows above. It will generally stay with a terracotta appearance. This elevation here is looking at the structure from the parking lot. We are anticipating that we may extend an awning across this walkway area here, and along this proposed sidewalk. Generally, as I discussed before, everything shown here in black is parking. And the green area is all connected subsurface. We have received comments from engineering department, and we have responded immediately back to the department. We anticipate that all of those comments will be resolved. One additional aspect of this project is that there will be a drive in loading bay. So we have lifted the structure up a little bit to use this one-way delivery access drive. One of the comments that was on the sit layout issue is that this dumpster. And this dumpster needs to be fenced in, and we will do this. One of the other comments was regarding a full landscaping plan. And a full landscaping plan has not been created yet, and we will provide that to DPD for their review. And that is all.

In Opposition:

None

General Discussion:

R. Lockhart: First, I think you have a nice quality job here. Just a few questions, the dumpster in the back corner. It is hard to tell if that is close to a house. How far is that?

M. Hamor: There is a big row of vegetation; so abutting neighbors will not see this.

R. Lockhart: Your outside lighting?

M. Hamor: The outside lighting will be downward facing. We have not incorporated any lights along the perimeter itself.

G. Eliades: We figured the lighting and the landscaping would be combined together and subject to the DPD review.

R. Lockhart: There is one comment regarding the pedestrian safety. Can you explain the sidewalk plan?

M. Hamor: I think what we need to add to this plan is a striping for pedestrian safety here.

M. Burns: Just a couple of things to be pointed out. What about the signage plan?

M. Hamor: We have not worked out those details yet. There will be signage here on this plan, and I think we are going to have some signage dedicating parking to the office space. Plus the handicapped signage. We do show a proposed sign here. But we will go through a normal permitting sign process.

M. Burns: And all the city engineer's comments will be resolved?

M. Hamor: Yes.

J. Clermont: Mr. Hamor can you discuss the construction of the retaining wall?

M. Hamor: Yes at this time we are proposing a retaining wall along the whole perimeter here. The actual construction is still to be determined. The engineering department will ultimately approve the walls.

J. Clermont: I know you have 50 parking spaces here, and I think that is well in access to the site. I don't think you need to designate parking spaces. Do you plan on renting the above and retain ownership?

P. Doyle: Yes.

J. Clermont: The entrance that is on the smaller façade, what will that be used for?

G. Eliades: We will probably use that for the office.

J. Clermont: At this point you have not received comment back from Mr Curran.

M. Hamor: That is correct, we sent him a plan set last Thursday. His main comments were regarding the retaining wall, and we provided a full plan profile.

J. Clermont: There is a note too from the water utility.

P. Doyle: It was metered, but they could not shut off the meter. So they put a new shutoff on the property, but that is all set.

T. Linnehan: How many total handicapped spots will you have?

M. Hamor: We will have at least 3. You are required one space for every 25 spaces. And there will be an elevator shaft to the second floor.

T. Linnehan: I was up there and I believe there is some demolition on site. And you were before the conservation and received their approval.

M. Hamor: Yes that is correct, we have a number of conditions on the site.

T. Linnehan: We have received a favorable reply from the other departments. And you are addressing the comments from the city engineer and you are working on a landscaping plan and a lighting plan.

Motion:

Member Joseph Clermont motioned to APPROVE the site plan with the following conditions:

Member Richard Lockhart seconded the motion.

All members voted to APPROVE the site plan (4-0).

Site Plan & Special Permit: 15, 21, 31, 31.1 West Third Street

The Lowell Planning Board will review an application by East End Social Club of Lowell for site plan and special permit review for a project located at 15, 21, 31, 31.1 West Third Street, a portion of the existing parking lot for the East End Club. The proposed project includes the construction of 15 townhouse style units, in two rows of buildings, on a lot measuring 23,437sqft of land area. The proposed buildings will be three stories in height and consist of one indoor parking space and two bedrooms. The project is located in the UMU (Urban Mixed Use) zoning district, and provides 33 off-street parking spaces with associated landscaping. Approval is required for Site Plan under Section 11.4 and for Special Permit under Article XII: Table of Uses of the Lowell Zoning Ordinance

In Favor:

James Flood (81 Bridge Street, Applicant's Attorney): Representing East End Social Club. We are before you for site plan and special permit for townhouse development. I think you are all familiar with the property on West Third Street. The property is currently being used as a parking lot. We have done a parking analysis and Matt will discuss that with the Board. As the notice states, this is for 15 townhouse units in two buildings. The front building has eight units and the other has seven. We are back to 15 units, because of financial feasibility. We met with this board and the neighborhood association. In designing the project, we hired Jack Sullivan for the architectural plans. I know there is some concern regarding the location of the trees. We will attempt to relocate the trees on site, if not we will contribute to the City to replace those trees. I think this plan meets the requirements of the master plan; it is within walking distance of Bridge Street, which is the major commercial section of Centralville. I think we tried to design the development into the plan. I think it will be a beneficial project within the neighborhood.

Matt Hamor (Polaris Engineering): We've gone over this project a number of times. I will go over the project just generally. Some additional details have been added to the lay out here. We have incorporated a subsurface drainage system to the plans. We have also incorporated a landscape design plan. In your packet is a landscape plan. What we have done is provide a significant amount of landscaping on this site. We will incorporate a number of trees on site to replace the trees being lost along the street site itself. An additional concern is regards to the Planning Department. We have not had final confirmation from them, though we have not had final word from them regarding the parking situation. We are sticking with the same layout; we feel this layout works for this area. This rear building is actually in line with this adjacent building, so this is within the style of what is adjacent to the property. This district is in the UMU district, and it shows that generally most of the area in this are is paved. We are providing a significant amount of green space in this area. I can pass around this aerial for your review. We've also received comments from the various departments within the city. Primarily the Engineers Office was looking for cross sections to the retaining wall here. Some of his comments were related to sewage water issues, and we have provided comments on those issues. One issue is that our exist form this property is within close proximity, and we are recommended that one-way signs be used to make Forest view a one way. It should also be recognized that the adjacent project also have their exit from their properties similar to ours. As you can see this natural flow of traffic works. And that is basically where we are at with the comments from the municipal department.

J. Flood: Although we were not required to provide any open space, we have provided 5,000sqft on this site. The intent is to market this project to first time homebuyers. They will be owner occupied, which is important to the neighborhood.

In Opposition:

Anne Marie Page (26 Freemont Street): VP of CNAG. When you say in favor or opposed, some neighbors are not totally opposed or totally in favor of the project.

T. Linnehan: We have to address the project as it is before us tonight.

Anne Marie Page: Thank you.

Greg Cooper (58 West Third Street): In the years that I have lived here, when it rains hard, the bottom of the street floods, and it comes within feet of our driveway. What is going to happen when it rains and all the sewer back up?

T. Linnehan: This is not the responsibility of the applicant; it is the City's responsibility.

Conrad Gauthier (70 Methuen Street): The neighborhood group is not 100 percent opposed to the project. We are opposed to the size of the project. We think there are too many units on that lot. I have taken the plans, and made some changes to the coloring of the site. To show that it does not actually look like they are proposing. The buildings are 4 stories high. It represents about 41 feet high and 165 feet long. In our meeting, you had mentioned the size of the building. I have a graph here to show you the size of the buildings. Half of the buildings are two stories, and the other half are three stories. The other condo complex has 12 units, and all but 4 units are rented out. These houses are two and three story house. This as I add it up is a 4-story house. Also the landscaping buffer between this lot and the parking lot to the back is not enough. The parking is not sufficient. Another thing to consider is that these units have two bedrooms. The parking situation here is very bad. We are looking at the green space here. I know it's legal, but the green space is so small in here. Hardly anyone can do anything with this green space. There are back doors here on the one level of this unit. There is no walkway to get in either direction. If you look at the landscaping in the front of the building, I don't know how you do any type of landscaping without more space. And you can't back up the building because of the parking requirement. We talked about this being a two-bedroom unit. Here is the loft. These people can put a handrail here, and call it a loft. My take of it is that these will all be three bedrooms. These units here will have a window. Aesthetically speaking, this opens the door for lighting and ventilation. It basically makes all these units 3 bedrooms, and the only thing to keep these from being legal bedrooms is a closet. This picture here shows the 18 inch front green space. There isn't anyone here that can do a decent garden in 18 inches. I don't think they can be pushed back because of the crowding of the cars in the back. I'd like to mention in the back that this loft room is close to being equal to the largest room in the whole unit. Again the parking and all the asphault. And the size of the building times two. I also wanted to mention that we did a survey about 10 years ago in this section of the city, and 62 percent are renters, and on this street 75 percent are renters, we have tonight only 5-6 home owners. There are 11 single-family houses here, and there are 41 rentals. There is one other thing I would like to mention briefly, at one point in time, there were discussions to reduce the number of units from 15 to 14, the one person that lived in the house here was very interesting in it, but he still thought that the project is too big. And he is not moving.

Peter Kaselis (270 Beacon Street): I think Conrad has spoken largely on the density of the project. I'd like to address some issues in flooding. The neighborhood is flood prone, which is shown by the flooding on both sides of the site this past spring. The property maps has this in the flood plane areas shown in the 100 year flood. During a 100-year flood event those areas will overflow the neighborhood. So we need to establish what elevations will flood the area. 15 units can generate between 4000 and 7000 gallons of wastewater a day, so based on this project, there will be a substantial amount of wastewater added to the city's system. Finally the shade trees were planted using federal CDBG funds by the City of Lowell. Finally the City of Lowell has a shade tree ordinance that requires shade trees within 25 feet of right of way, and if you cut down the trees, those must be replaced in kind on a diameter-by-diameter basis. I provided a copy of an e-mail sent to James Errickson regarding the shade tree ordinance. Based on what this what said. I'd like to see the project reduced to one row of houses. The houses can be moved further back from the street, for the trees. Placing these housing units in such close proximity to the street. And to provide landscaping to the rear of the property as well as other usable open space.

Anne Marie Page: We thank you for your patience tonight for all these presentations. We have met with the East End Club reps. The East End Club is very generous to the community and we are not here to harm their plans. Their plan it to sell that piece of property, and those funds will be used for their charitable donations. In July we passed out flyers to ask neighbors to come to the East End Club for a review session. We think it is a good project. Yes part of it is a good project. Will it improve the real-estate on the street, yes it will. Our main concern is regarding the number of units. That night there was no direct answer. There are a number of problems in this neighborhood. First is parking. I believe the engineers have worked with DPD, but have they addressed all of the concerns of DPD? Such as the safety of that exit? Forest view is the size of the driveway. And the location of the trees to the site? And Mr. Flood did discuss the relocation of the trees. Is it a good project, is it too big, can it be tweaked, can they work with DPD on the final plans for the site?

General Discussion:

R. Lockhart: Yes, I think the site is a little too dense.

M.Hamor: The analysis completed by the city representative did not take into account an additional parcel that was not taken into account. We estimate that the existing parking for the club has 98 spaces. The requirement is one space per 100 sqft.

R. Lockhart: In your open remarks, you mentioned that you are creating some housing for first time homebuyers. And yet I still do not see any open space for these children to play. I know this is not a requirement, and to make it a nice development I think there is a need for this to be added to the site.

J. Flood: Yes there is not requirement, and we tried to provide some open space onto the right side, and it can be used for gathering for the condo association.

M. Hamor: We did propose a small structure on the plan.

R. Lockhart: Where is the dumpster?

J. Flood: There is a dumpster, and it will be fenced in,

R. Lockhart: Just another questions, Mr. Gauthier had an excellent drawing regarding the height of the buildings. What are the dimensions there?

M. Hamor: The height of the building is roughly 37-38 feet. This is a 3.5 story structure.

R. Lockhart: So it is taller than what is in the neighborhood now?

J. Flood: In Zoning there is no requirement for height in this zoning.

M. Hamor: These buildings will be approximately the same size as the building located here.

M. Burns: Regarding the East End Club parking lot, will it be fenced?

M. Hamor: Yes it will be fenced but for safety reasons we want to make it a chainlink.

M. Burns: I'd like to make a note about the East End Club parking. There is no room for extra parking on those streets. And I do want to see an analysis regarding your analysis vs. the City's. The height of the buildings on Forest View is a major concern. And that person is selling. I am very concerned about all the neighbors, in particular that home owner. The neighbors have had an issue with the trees, they are beautiful and we need to keep as many of those as we can, since those don't grow that easily. I assume you will handle the engineer's issues. The water department issues will also be handled. The fire department also had some issues regarding the rounding of the roadway.

J. Flood: I did speak to Mr. Hall at the evening meeting, and we discussed that we can provide him with some fencing around his yard.

M. Burns: And I think it is just too close to the houses behind, and I think the parking should be addressed before we approve this.

J. Clermont: Thank you MR. Chairman: As has been stated the East End Club has been a good citizen by the city of Lowell, and I think we would like to see a good project that fits the neighborhood. You talked about possibly relocating the line of trees that are located there. There are some concerns from the Parks & Conservation Trust, and if you are going to move them where will they go?

M. Hamor: We talked with the DPD regarding this, and we will relocate them throughout the city. We will try to relocate them elsewhere on site.

J. Clermont: What about snow removal?

M. Hamor: We have snow removal here, as well as snow removal elsewhere. We believe there is enough snow storage along here, and along the sides over here by Forest View. The vegetation is perennial that is designed for snow storage.

J. Clermont: What is the distance from the end of the exit drive to Forest View? From the left end of the exit drive to the beginning of Forest View?

M. Hamor: Approximately 11 feet.

J. Clermont: What is the back line of the landscaping strip at the back portion of the lot?

M. Hamor: 5 feet.

J. Clermont: And the green space by the trees is what?

M. Hamor: 16 feet long by 10 feet wide.

J. Clermont: And the green space by the end of the driveway to the roadway?

M. Hamor: It's approximately 12 feet by 6 feet.

J. Clermont: There are no balconies on these. These are characterized as a three-story building but with a garage. For a benefit of a couple of the neighbors can you discuss the subsurface drainage on the site?

M. Hamor: Yes we are providing a perk test, and this property is not located in the 100-year flood plain.

J. Clermont: That is all.

T. Linnahan: I have a few concerns: First I also think the plan is too dense. We asked that you could reduce the plan. On the back lot, I have concerns about that; I think it is way too close in the rear. You talked about having 15 units for economics. Under the Special Permit criteria, we do have to take into account the economic of the community needs. We want to see how it fits in the neighborhood. Have you addressed the fire department comments by eliminating one unit? Other question I have is regarding pedestrian safety. I am concerned about the Forest View Road. I think it will clog up that area. I have not seen plans regarding the parking along West Fifth Street. Tonight we have a public hearing and we have not seen the parking plans. I think it will be a good project if it is downsized. I think the trees should be retained.

J. Clermont: I know that you have worked with the DPD to try to alleviate some of the concerns. And the memo from Sept 1 and some of the proposed solutions regarding the traffic flow, and the closeness of the driveway on Forest View Ave, the site density, and the site layout providing for little open space. I believe a project is good on this site, but I think this proposal needs work.

Motion:

Member J. Clermont motioned to DENY the special permit and site plan for the following reasons:

Member Mary Burns seconded the motion.

All members voted to DENY the site plan and special permit (4-0)

New Business

Discussion: Planning Board Application forms

The Planning Board will discuss proposed updates to the various forms used during the Board's application submittal process.

No formal action was taken on the above item

Annual Meeting Election of Officers:

The Planning Board will elect officers for the 2006/2007 Board Year. Positions to be elected include Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson, and Second-Vice Chairperson.

The Board voted unanimously to re-appoint Thomas Linnehan as Chairperson.

The Board voted unanimously to re-appoint Joseph Clermont as Vice-Chairperson

The Board voted unanimously to re-appoint Richard Lockhart as Second Vice-Chairperson

ZBA Notices

840 Merrimack Street (Omnipoint Communications, INC)

J. Clermont: Motion to recommend APPROVAL.

M. Burns: Second the motion

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

724 Chelmsford Street (Evia Development LLC)

J. Clermont: Motion to recommend NO ACTION due to the lack of information about the project provided by the applicant, specifically regarding the type of take out restaurant, the size of the restaurant, whether or not there will be any indoor seating, and how many spaces would be required.

R. Lockhart: Second the motion

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

730 Lawrence Street (Meehan Patrick T)

J. Clermont: Motion to recommend DENIAL due to the project lacking any space for parking, the two-family property already being too dense for the site, and the lack of consistency with the neighborhood.

M. Burns: Second the motion

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

511 Moody Street (Acre Triangle Dev Corp )

J. Clermont: Motion to recommend APPROVAL, due to the project's consistency with the goals of the Master Plan, housing a population that will likely not be able to afford multiple if any vehicles, and location within a neighborhood that has plenty of on-street parking.

R. Lockhart: Second the motion

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

These minutes were approved by the Planning Board on April 19, 2007

J. Clermont: Motion to approve

R. Lockhart: Second

Three members voted in favor with two abstaining (3-0-2).

________________________________________________________

James Errickson, Associate Planner/Planning Board Administrator

Planning Board Minutes

September 7, 2006 - Page 9