Household Hazardous Waste Day
HOPWA Citizens Advisory Committee Members Needed
Document Actions
Minutes for Planning Board on January 18, 2007, 06:30 PM
|
|
City of Lowell -Planning Board
Planning Board Minutes
January 18, 2007 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
Jerry
Frechette, Member
Steven
Gendron, Member
Others
James
Errickson, Associate Planner
Attorney
McKenna, City Solicitor’s Office
Public Hearings
Site Plan & Special Permit Review: 136 Hildreth
Street
The Lowell Planning Board will review a revised
application by Specialty Home Builders LLC for site plan and special permit
review of the development of the property located at 136 Hildreth Street. The revised proposal includes the
construction of four (4) residential units.
The revised site plan also includes one new curb opening, parking for
fourteen (14) vehicles, site utilities, and landscaping on an 11,446 square
foot lot. Said revised project is
located in a TMF (Traditional Neighborhood Multifamily) zoning district. This project requires site plan approval
under Section 11.4 and special permit approval under Article XII of the Lowell
Zoning Ordinance. Site plan and special
permit applications will be heard concurrently for this project.
T. Linnehan: As a background matter, this was
continued from the December 18th meeting. This matter is back before the Board from the Courts for approval
of the site plan and special permit. At
this point in time I will turn this over to the applicant.
The following individuals spoke in favor of the
project:
Attorney Anctil (applicant’s Attorney), Richard
Colangelo (applicant), Attorney Scott
Owens (applicant’s attorney)
In Favor:
Attorney Anctil (Applicant’s Attorney): I believe we have gone through
the requirements set forth for this project.
I will go through the memo.
There is an existing conditions plan.
You had asked that we retain the maple tree, and that is the case. The existing conditions plan also goes over
the topography of the site. This also
shows the retaining walls existing on the site. The Board may remember that after this decision was appealed, we
went back to working with your council and PB staff in an effort to create a
plan that would satisfy the board’s requirements. The board rejected that plan, and the courts reversed the decision
of the board. We feel this plan includes
the resolution of these discussions.
The building on Hildreth Street is decreased. We also decreased the number of parking spaces from 14 to 12
spaces in order to provide more room for car mobility.
Attorney Owens: Also, the Bunker Hill building at the corner, there was
some median on the plan, that median strip has been minimized and reduced. That gives additional room for car
mobility. The location of exiting tree
is on sheet 2 to show that it will remain.
Attorny Anctil: The next item on the memo is a detailed landscaping
area on the plans. Along those lines,
we did submit to the PB some details of the retaining walls, allowing the walls
to take on the appearance of a brick façade.
We also included fencing details that we will use. Once again, there was a request to keep the
large maple, and that is out intent.
There are also specifications on the retaining wall, the wall is a
poured concrete wall, it is not an attractive wall, and structurally it is
sound. The product we included is a
brick veneer to the wall, and we are willing to do this.
T. Linnehan: The proposed retaining wall is the wall that will face
Hildreth Street?
Anctil: There is actually a wall along Bunker Hill. And this will be changed to the brick
veneer.
T. Linnehan: Okay, I just wanted that to be clarified. It will go all around Hildreth Street and
long Bunker Hill.
Attorney Owens: On sheet one, there shows the existing wall, on sheet
two, we will be connecting the walls.
We will use as much of the existing wall as possible. Also on your list are the complete
architectural details. We also have the
artists rendering. On the Bunker Hill
side it will include the new buildings, but the artists included the existing
building for reference.
S. Gendron: What is the height of the proposed structure?
Anctil: Our proposed structure is 28 feet from the base to the
top. The height of the existing
building is 32 feet.
S. Gendron: The artist rendering from what I can see is that the new
building is taller than the existing buildings.
Anctil: The front building is 1 foot, and the back building is 2 feet
above the existing building.
S. Gendron: The height shows that the building is 30 feet from the base
of the building, and from the street it is 36 feet.
R. Linnehan: Can you go through the heights again?
R. Colangelo: Yes, the front building is a different height partially
because the elevations of the lot. The
back building is at a higher grade, and therefore is 1 foot higher.
Anctil: The height issue was a
big issue at the trial, and the judge found that the reasons for the denial
regarding height are legally outside the Board’s review. The reason I highlight that is that this
was a major issue at trial. However, we
did do out best to limit the height of the building, and we feel that we worked
on this issue with DPD. I believe we
have addressed the issues of the Board, and we would be more than willing to
answer any issues you may have
The following individuals spoke in opposition of the
project:
George Heller (145 Hildreth Street), Maureen Kelleher (37 Unsworth
Street), Anne Marie Page (26 Fremont Street)
Maureen Kelleher (37 Unsworth Street): I would like to make sure that
the tree is there. The court is
requiring you to approve these plans.
However, you are also given the ability to place reasonable safe
guards. I just want to make sure the
tree is there. My second issue is the
fact that is you drive up right now you will find a pool of frozen water. That water is running from somewhere in that
property. My third thing is regards to
the landscaping plans. What happens to
us when these plans are not carried through the way they are presented to you?
George Heller (145 Unsworth Street): I don’t recall there being a
discussion about a wall along Hildreth Street.
And I’d just like to inquire about the height here along Hildreth
Street. I’d also like to see what
happens with regards to traffic and the St Louis school.
Anne Marie Page (26 Fremont Street): We were here before on this
project several times. This is one of
the few developers who did take time to meet with the neighbors on this
project. I think the main concern is
the walls and the height, and it does look like this gentleman has tried to
dress up the wall. And the tree and the
maintenance of the landscaping are other concerns. I think it is important that you are addressing the issues.
General Discussion:
J.Clermont: Thank you for the neighbors for providing us the
information this evening. The plans
that we got in our package, I noticed some changes, they were all dated in
November 2004, were they just not re-dated?
Anctil: Yes. We have spent
hours changing the plans. We have
listened to the staff to come up with these changes. When we came back to the Board in June, Attorney Linnehan had
some issues with the parking. We
decreased the size of the building by two feet, and eliminated some parking
spaces, to try to make that a better turn area. I can be sure that we have a 2006 plan for signing. I really don’t know how we can make any
other major changes, as far as locations of buildings, setbacks, relative
heights. We tried to address these
concerns already.
J. Clermont: With regards to the height of the buildings, I understand
that the higher of the two buildings, we have a street level, a grade level,
and to the top of the building is roughly 31 feet. Is the grade being increased or decreased?
Anctil: The grade is being decreased by a little.
R. Colangelo: With regards to the wall, we are just re-facing the wall.
As far as the corner goes, the wall
goes all the way to the side, we are scaling those back.
J. Clermont: Can you go over the landscaping plan?
Anctil: We did provide a plan
for adding some landscaping. The way
the site is laid out, there are few areas for additional neighborhood
screening. If the Board would like us
to work with staff, we are willing to do this.
We left room on the plans to allow the Board to work with us on the
landscaping plan. We will maintain the
landscaping.
J. Clermont: Typically we will
address this by having the applicant work with DPD design planner.
Anctil: We will do this.
J. Clermont: And the fencing you are proposing is a white vinyl. Can you go over the drainage for this plan?
Anctil: We don’t know what
issue is going on, but our engineer mentioned that we have great soil on the
site.
R. Lockhart: I have a couple questions. Has there been an easement created for the drainage system? And how are you handling your trash?
R. Colangelo: There will be separate trash areas for each unit. And the easements will be set up with the
condo association.
J. Clermont: And trash pickup will be handled privately?
R. Colangelo: If the city requires it, sure.
R. Lockhart: There was a
question regarding the wall along the streets.
Can you clarify what is there now and exactly what you will do?
R. Colangelo: We will start at
the driveway, and what is there is a block style wall, it will come across the
stairs to the corner. From the tree
back on Bunker Hill it’s all poured concrete, and runs along the property. The Bunker Hill will stay with the same
wall, except for at the point of the tree, where the stonewall will come out,
and we will place a new wall that runs along Hildreth. All of this will be faced with the details
we provided. The existing wall will be
the same height of the proposed wall.
J. Frechette: First I’d like to
thank the applicant for trying to respond to the concerns. The face of the wall is important. Preserving that tree is going to be crucial.
If something were to happen to that tree it would have to be replaced. I am looking at your second page, the
driveway in, you have handicapped access along Bunker Hill and Hildreth, and
there is no handicapped access.
R. Colangelo: Yes I see the same thing, and we will add the handicapped
access on that side as well.
J. Frechette: It looks like the
curbing will go into the walk.
R. Colangelo: Yes, the engineer may have made a mistake here.
J. Frechette: Okay, the second question, the two front walks to the
Hildreth Street units, if I am looking at the existing house, which sits
further back, you are actually bring the elevation up a foot and bringing it
closer to Hildreth Street. Best I can
tell, the street elevation on Hildreth is 30, and there is a five-foot drop
from where the structure is going to be to the street. That appears to be a steep ramp.
R. Colangelo: Actually, it will be exactly like the back building. It will have stairs. The walkway comes between the two buildings
and down to the street.
J. Frechette: You can see my concern.
R. Colangelo: You are right.
J. Frechette: Also, I like the
idea of cutting the corner. But
relative to the landscaping, my concern is that you should keep that
clear. I guess you can work that out with
DPD. And finally, looking at this plan,
it looks like that wall as it exists, encroaches on the right of way, and if
something happens relative to the wall, would it be advisable to have the City
create an easement.
Attorney McKenna: Just looking at the point of concern, it appears the
sidewalk is slanting. There certainly
can be an easement agreement there.
S. Gendron: I have a question about the loft, what is the foot print,
roughly 15 by 20? I’m looking at Hildreth Street.
Anctil: It’s the area of the footprint.
S. Gendron: From my estimates here, it’s roughly 15 feet by 20
feet. What designates that as a loft?
R. Colangelo: I don’t think anything.
S. Gendron: That is my concern.
It can be easily turned into a bedroom.
R. Colangelo: That goes to marketability.
S. Gendron: Yes, when you look
at the units, an extra unit adds cars, trash and impact on the
neighborhood. I am concerned about
that. I am wondering if you would be
willing to modify that so that it becomes a walk up attack, or a crawl
space.
R. Colangelo: There is just no way I can do that now, for marketability
I need that space.
S. Gendron: I appreciate the
time you put here, but it does seem deceiving to me; this is a three bedroom
unit.
Anctil: There was no discussion with regards to bedrooms. We advocated that the height is not in the
zoning. The court agreed with us, we
did a site walk, so she understands the concerns. We talked about height and relative height, and we did talk about
when the city rezoned this project. It
is in a multifamily district. Across
the street there is a single family district, and the concern is that there is
relative height difference here. The
Court said that this is not a reason for the denial.
S. Gendron: I see this as a
different circumstance.
Anctil: We did discuss height at length. Do you recall discussion of bedroom count?
Attorney McKenna: No I believe Mr. Gendron is discussing the height.
S. Gendron: Would it be a
reasonable condition for the builder to remove the loft space?
McKenna: With regards to the decision, it does not discuss the number
of bedrooms, so it would not be outside the scope of the decision. She did specify that the plans should be
approved.
S. Gendron: So based on what you said, that would be a reasonable
condition. I appreciate all the work
you completed. I am going to suggest
that we place a condition regarding the loft space.
McKenna: The judge did have a finding of fact regarding parking, but
that refers to the number of units.
Anctil: I would also note that the judge did discuss a case that argues
that a board may not go beyond what is specified in the rules and
regulations. I think that limiting the
bedroom is beyond the scope of the board.
S. Gendron: I think this is also a safety issue, a fire hazard.
McKenna: We are here on a site plan approval as well, and the previous
plan does discuss the number of bedrooms as two bedroom units.
T. Linnehan: Just a couple
things I’d like to address. One
question is in regards to if the plans are not completed to these
specifications, our Building Department inspects these, and they hold occupancy
permits until all the conditions are met for a project site. Regards to the water, and I saw that the water
was coming from this site; I hope that is one of the questions that is
addressed from the site plan. I know
the tree is an issue, and that can be addressed. The retaining wall will stay the same height as it is now. The aerial photo here shows the wall. Our concerns from day one are the same as
the ones from the neighborhood. The conditions we will put on the site will
hopefully make the site look better than it does today.
Motion:
The Special Permit and Site Plan were approved with the
following conditions:
1. The applicant
must work with DPD on developing the final architectural plans for the site,
and incorporate reasonable recommended changes into a final set of
architectural plans for the project.
2. The applicant
must continue to adjust the grading on site in an effort to lower the heights
of the buildings. Any additional
grading adjustments that can be made in order to lower the buildings on site is
encouraged and appreciated. Further,
The applicant shall not increase any of the grades on site above current and
proposed grade levels.
3. The applicant
shall provide a ‘facelift’ and/or replacement, where necessary, to the
retaining wall located on site, incorporating the proposed brick face façade to
the wall. If deemed necessary by the
City, an easement may be requested by the applicant in order to complete the
wall rehabilitation work on any portion of the wall that may be located in a
public right-of-way.
4. The applicant
shall provide private trash pick up for the development, should the applicant
not secure City trash pick up services.
5. No utility
meters, including electric, water and/or gas meters, shall be located in any
location visible from the either Bunker Hill or Hildreth Streets.
6. The applicant
shall construct a 6-foot high vinyl fence, as proposed, along the property
lines with neighboring properties of the site.
7. The project shall
have no net increase in water runoff from the site to abutting properties or
the public roadway.
8. The applicant
must create an easement to the site to allow the City to access the drainage
system in the event of an emergency.
The City of Lowell will have permission to enter the site, repair the
drainage system and charge the owners on the site, in the event that the
drainage system fails and is not repaired by the condominium association.
9. The applicant
must retain the mature tree located on site at the corner of Bunker Hill Street
and Hildreth Street.
10. The applicant
must not utilize the third-floor loft space in the proposed units as a third
bedroom. This space may be used for
loft or storage space only.
11. The applicant
must incorporate the proposed stairs to the sidewalk from the units located
along Hildreth Street into a final set of plans. These stairs must be similar in location and style to those
located along Bunker Hill Street (i.e. one set of stairs for the two units).
12. The applicant
must work with DPD’s design planner on a final landscaping plan for the
site. The final plan must be presented
to the Planning Board at a public meeting once this plan is finalized.
13. The applicant
must revise the plans for the project with all necessary updates, and provide
an updated plan to DPD for final review and approval to ensure compliance with
all conditions stated above. A final
set of plans shall be provided to DPD.
The motion to approve the Site
Plan was made by Member Joseph Clermont and seconded by Member Richard
Lockhart. The motion passed with four
members voting in favor, and Member Steven Gendron voting in opposition
(4-1).
The motion to approve the Special Permit was made by Member
Joseph Clermont and seconded by Member Richard Lockhart. The motion passed with all members voting in
favor (5-0).
New
Business
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.
¨
Project
Address: 672 Chelmsford
Street
Applicant: Daniel Sacco / Polaris Engineering
Project: Construction of 2 units on lot with 2 units
Zoning: TMU (Traditional Mixed Use)
Required Review: Site Plan & Special Permit
General Discussion:
Ted Doucette: I am here with
the applicant to present this project.
We put two potential layouts together.
Here is the existing two unit house with an existing garage on the
back. This right now is lawn. The proposal we had last time was to add the
blue area here. This proposal meets all
of the zoning requirements. Going to
the two building proposal, the first layout is to place the building here with
a shared parking driveway. It looked
good on the plans, but when we put it into the program we realized we weren’t
able to provide the required green space.
This other plan involves a driveway between the two buildings. The problem here is that we do not meet the
setback requirements. We do meet the
usable open space requirements, and because of the setbacks we had to remove
some of the architectural details. What
we are looking for here tonight is an indication which option is most
desirable.
T. Linnehan: I was up there
today, and I looked at it, and the garage is going down?
Ted: Yes.
T. Linnehan: On the new
plans, the buildings would be to the right of the existing driveway. The different between the plans is regarding
the location of the driveways. On plan
two, it met all zoning, but it was short open space, about half the open
space. The other plan, it didn’t meet
the setbacks. But it does meet the open
space. Between plan two and three is a
difference between the zoning requirements you meet. I do like the driveway to the right of the units, which places
the buildings further from the neighbors.
The only thing you are missing is the open space.
T. Doucette: This plan does allow for open space between
the buildings, which could be nicely landscaped.
S. Gendron: It is hard to get
a lot of feed back without a public hearing.
I do not like putting additional units on a side lot. If I were living next door to this, I would
be opposed to this.
R. Lockhart: I understand
Steve’s point; it is very tight right now.
I think green space is very important.
J. Clermont: Have you had the
opportunity to speak to your neighbors?
T. Doucette: No, I know the Board mentioned that last
time. However, we wanted more Board feedback before going to the
neighbors.
J. Clermont: I think your
neighbors will be most effected, especially those on the bottom. That dwelling is close to the lot line and
the retaining line. If we look at the
proposal with the 15 foot setback, you are going to be close to their
house. I think you should get their
thoughts. I do have concern that it may
be over building on this lot. I do also
prefer that concept with the driveway to the right of the two buildings. Plus the architectural details will be
important, however, speak to your neighbors.
J. Frechette: Is there one
plan that meets the open space and setbacks?
T. Doucette: That was the first plan of the single
building. We did discuss the required
variances at length. We’d prefer to
have something that meets zoning as well.
J. Frechette: I’m concerned from a safety issue with the
driveway.
Discussion of Adoption of the “Mullin Rule Bill” under MGL 39 Section
23D
The
Lowell Planning Board will discuss the option of requesting that the City Council
adopt the ordinance allowed under MGL 39 Section 23D. This would allow a Board to proceed with a public hearing when
one member of the Board is absent, and allow that Board member to later
participate in deliberations and voting on that matter, provided that Board
member review the video or other transcript of the meeting that was
missed. Adoption of such a regulation
for the Planning Board would require a City Council ordinance.
No
formal action was taken on the above items
ZBA
Notices:
Four members voted in favor
of DENIAL (4-0-1) with J. Clermont recusing himself from voting due to conflict
of interest
All
members voted in favor of DENIAL (5-0)
These
minutes were approved by the Planning Board on May 21, 2007
J.
Clermont: Motion to approve
J.
Frechette: Second
All
members voted in favor (5-0).
James Errickson, Associate Planner/Planning Board
Administrator