Planning Board Minutes

Monday, January 4, 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

George Proakis, Chief Planner

Public Hearings

Zoning Amendment: 550-570 Bridge Street

The Lowell Planning Board will review a proposed zoning amendment to extend the existing TMU (Traditional Neighborhood Mixed Use) zoning district to include the area of 550-570 Bridge Street.  The area is presently zoned NB (Neighborhood Business) and comprises 550 Bridge Street and 570 Bridge Street.  The area is located at the corner of Bridge Street and West Sixth Street in Lowell.

The following individuals spoke in favor of the proposed zoning change at the public hearing:  James Flood (81 Bridge Street), Andrew Conway (applicant)

In Favor:

James Flood (81 Bridge Street):  Representing bridge street owners of the property.  With me tonight are the engineer Bob Gill, and Aide and Conway the principals of the property.  The two principals have been around Lowell for a number of years.  We are before you to night to request the affirmative recommendation to the City Council for the rezone of the bridge street property to a TMU district.  Back in 2003 this property was zones B1 which would have allowed a drive through with a ZBA Special Permit.  The zoning was changed from B1 to Neighborhood Business which does not allow a drive thru.  I know there has been a lot of talk about what my client is proposing to construct.  The applicant has not made a final decision at to what is there.  It may be a Dunkin Donuts with a drive thru.  In order to make the project economically feasible for Dunkin Donuts, a drive through is necessary.  Under both zoning districts, a convenience store is allowed, and many other uses.  The only difference is the drive thru.  The only thing we are basically requesting tonight is to allow a drive thru.  If the council would allow this site, we would be before you for site plan for the drive thru, plus we would need a front yard setback variance as well as a special permit for the drive thru.  There has also been talk about how this would cause additional traffic problems.  We think this is false, Dunkin Donuts is not a destination drive thru. We feel that this will be a benefit for the city.  When the owner bought the site, it was their intention to put in a Dunkin Donuts with a drive thru.  It does not make sense that this site is not in the TMU.  This would take away traffic from the intersection.  I am going to let Bob Gill take care of the engineering. 

T. Linnehan: Just to clarify this is not before us for the site plan.  I don’t want to get into the discussion of the site plan because we cannot discuss this, because a typical site plan would require staff review and we would have various comments.  I don’t want to start the site plan since this is not what is being reviewed by us.

J. Flood: I understand this, but I think Andy would like to make a comment.

Andrew Conway (principal applicant): We are based out of Chelmsford.  I appreciate you working us in tonight.  We have been in business since 1968.  We have done a lot of good things.  And over the years we have dealt with many neighbors.  We know this property has been sitting for a while, and we apologize for that.  We are doing a project at University Ave and Riverside Streets.  We bought this back property in 2003, which allowed a drive thru.  I want to thank the residents who met with us.  The last meeting with them was in July, and we were happy to see a satisfied group.  I understand tonight’s agenda is procedural in nature.  I just want this board to know we have been out there a long time.  It is getting better, and we want to get on with this project.

J. Flood:  I want to add one thing.  When they bought the property it was B1, and the drive through was allowed.  From 1974 to 2004, the drive thru was allowed.

The following individuals spoke in opposition of the proposed zoning change at the public hearing: Anne Marie Page (26 Fremont Street), Sharon Sawyer (39 Methuen Street), Conrad Gauthier (70 Methuen), Paulette Renault Caragaines (84 Beech Street), Lauren Cervetti (74 Nancy Ave), Peter Richard (114 Billings Street), Chris Steinko (18 Shedd Street), Jim Jozokos (58 Thirteenth Street)

In Opposition:

Anne Marie Page (26 Fremont Street): As Mr. Conway has said, Aide and Conway are good people and have always contributed to the community.  Would the drive through be nice, sure, but that is a very busy intersection.  To get through there with the lights, they are just bumper to bumper with congestion.  You have a school, a church, a bank, and a busy convenience store. I think the drive thru might not help that situation.  And that is the problem.  As far as when the land was purchased, the zoning may have let this go through.  That is why the neighborhood worked with the city to change the zoning.  And that is why we are now here today.  I am going to pass this on to other people who wish to speak.  But it is the traffic at that intersection that will not be a pretty site.  Thank you to the family, they did meet with us, but that is a bad intersection for a drive thru.

Sharon Sawyer (39 Methuen Street): I oppose this plan because every morning I do have to go down Bridge Street, and usually it takes three light cycles to get through the intersection.  That intersection is the only intersection with a light, and anyone coming out of the side streets are in tough shape.  Most people go thru the drive thru for their coffee and it is a corner with school children and bus drop off.  I believe that if a donut business is there it would be fine, however, once you add a drive thru, the intersection is very tough.

S. Gendron: In fairness Mr. Chairman, this discussion must also not discuss the site plan.

T. Linnehan: Correct

Conrad Gauthier (70 Methuen Street):  I am here to tell you that the neighborhood group is opposed to this project.  We think this is bad for the neighborhood.  When we are talking about this project, our concern was that if the Board were to see a site plan along with the fact that this group wanted to put in a gas station, food store, Dunkin Donuts drive up, that eventually down the road, there might be a legality to force the Planning Board to accepting that proposal.  We don’t want a gas station that is open around the clock.  The site has looked like this for at least 10 years.  Now I would have to admit that they are letting us use their building to store garden equipment, so as you can see the neighborhood effort we do try to make that property look nice.  The rest of the year it looks like photo 2A, bad. The traffic on this corner is the 25^th worst traffic in the Northern Middlesex district.  The other site that is worse then this is by the other Dunkin Donuts.  The idea of having a fast food restaurant on that site is what we do not want in our neighborhood.  A year and a half ago, MIT did an envisioning project for the neighborhood.  We have a very nice downtown area in our neighborhood.  We don’t need to have these other types of things.  We need to keep the vision that MIT has and keep the character of Bridge Street.  There could be small businesses, housing, and other uses on that site and the owner would make money.  We like the idea of what MIT is presenting.  Dunkin Donuts does not have a good history of taking care of traffic.  They just want to serve coffee.  In closing, we are asking you to stem this tide of developers.  Vote this project down, and the neighborhood group do not want it.  Thank you for your time.

Paulette Renault Caragaines (84 Beech Street):  I am here to speak for my neighbors and stem the plan for the extension of this zone.  Drive thru restaurants are not in the best interest of the neighborhood and the city.  Our concern is that this area directly abuts a school, which is in session at the same time when people typically use the drive thru.  Gridlock happens at all times in this intersection.  On another note, I know that people will not consider looking in Christian hill because of the traffic in this area.  Extra traffic means more cars idling.  And with the amount of children and residents walking through this area, this is also a public health area.  Bridge Street needs another vision.  Not long ago the MIT students presented a set of plans for the area.  These plans included mixed use, green space, and real pedestrian improvements.  The Bridge Street corridor is a gateway into the city.  Please do not approve a plan that will present Lowell as a fast food center.

Lauren Cervetti (74 Nancy Ave): The resounding response is that you should not allow a zoning change to this property.  I have owned my house since 1992.  A lot of things have changed since that time, and all are not that good.  Just because the property owners bought this property with the allowances for a drive thru, doesn’t mean it was a good idea then.  The reason for the original change is for the people of Lowell to protect the people of Lowell.  Anyone on Bridge Street at 6:50 am knows that the traffic is a night mare.  Right now on West 6^th street, it is a singe travel lane in each direction. There is not way that the people of Centralville should have to deal with people exiting onto Bridge Street from a drive thru.  This intersection is full of pedestrian traffic.  Not one person spoke in favor of this project other than the people wishing to make the zoning change.  We are asking you to protect the citizens of Centralville.

Peter Richard (114 Billings Street): I think the company is a great company.  I don’t think this is a good plan. And I think fundamentally we are approving a change to allow a poor plan to be before the city. The zoning changes were in need and that is why they were made.  Ultimately, we need to think whether a drive thru is right for this site.  To what extent are we going to allow economic development that will be good for the people?  I can testify about Bridge Street.  But that is not the issue.  The issue is the zoning change, and I think it is not good for the neighborhood.

Chris Steinko (18 Shedd Street):  My house is right behind that lot.  I have lived there 5 years.  It is a very sharp corner right there.  Adding all this too it will add more problems.  I don’t see this project improving the site.

Jim Jozokos (58 Thirteenth Street): The site has been there for about 25 years.  I just want to point out that this is the purpose of why we pushed for the zoning change.  The changes between the TMU and NB district are more than just a drive thru. If this is approved by the Council, and a project was ultimately denied, then this district would allow the owner to build townhouses without going in front of you.  This would also allow for a bar or saloon without coming before you.  It would also allow offices to be constructed without coming in front of you.  The MIT study calls out this site as being a potential catalyst for development in this area.  The research for the zoning of this site was very thought out.  The amendments to the zoning have all been minor alterations.  I believe this project would be very detrimental to this area of the city.  The Dunkin Donuts drive thru is a prime example as to how bad a drive thru can be.  This intersection would be very similar to Mammoth and 4^th.  I believe the Planning Department did a good job zoning this NB.

In Discussion:

R. Lockhart: I have a couple of comments.  It is nice to see a lot of my neighbors here.  It is important to get feedback.  I just want to make sure everyone understands a procedure here.  Even if we vote this in, it does not mean we will allow a drive thru.  Obviously traffic is a major concern.  One of the things we would ask for is a complete traffic study there.  We are not voting on a drive thru.  I would like to see the professional comments on this site so that we can make a rational decision at that time

G. Proakis:  The purpose of the NB zoning district is to create a walk able community.  The Master Plan discusses the need to create these communities in the center of various walk able parts of the city including Bridge Street.  The NB district reflects the strategy outlined in the Master Plan, and the main purpose is to promote a vibrant business district to enhance the neighborhood.  The location of the NB district in these neighborhoods is by no means arbitrary.  With that said, the DPD is not taking a position on this.  If you look back at the history of Bridge Street, B1 was the zoning up to a point in the district.  We looked to bring NB down to this site to promote a walk able neighborhood.  I would like to point out that both these lots in the back were in the M3 district, which would have allowed significant residential, and did not allow commercial uses.  The districts were extensively looked at by a council subcommittee and voted on by the council in December 2004.

J. Frechette:  I would like to ask the attorney if you have had any discussions as to what you may construct on this property.

J. Flood:  No, but we feel that the current zoning would create a problem in this district.

J. Frechette:  Considering the zoning changes, the city Master Plan was designed to guide zoning.  It is vague in some instances, but is designed to guide development in the city as well.  Specifically, the NB district was noted as being one to strengthen the walk able business districts.  The picture there is Bridge Street in the plan.  Also from this site to the corner there are four cross walks.  On page 99 of the Master Plan, the goal is to lessen the impact from and the dependence of auto oriented development on the neighborhood, and to identify more appropriate areas for this type of development.  I attended many meeting on the zoning changes, I walked many blocks to get a feel for what is in these neighborhoods.  There is a lot of thought that went into the current zoning.  Also, what is crucial here is the purchase of the back lots, to provide for a deep drive for the site.  That was an M3 zone, and in that zone there was no drive thru allowed in the district.  The challenge of any city is if the current owner feels the zoning was arbitrary, to allow them to build what was allowed under previous zoning, but when I look at this site, clearly this was not allowed prior to the recent zoning.  I know the neighborhood was excited by the proposal of the MIT plan.  I am certainly familiar with the proponents.  They provide jobs in the area, but what we are looking at is a zone change, and what the change will potentially do that that site. 

J. Clermont: We are being asked to consider a zoning change.  With any zoning change, we need to look at whether the change is the extension of a certain zone.  We are not looking into a specific project.  In this case, the owner is asking for a change from a zone that would not allow a drive thru, to a zone that would allow a drive thru.  If this were to pass, then we would have an opportunity to complete a thorough review of the site plan.  I personally would be in favor of recommending a zoning change. 

T. Linnehan: Traffic is a major concern.  The traffic is a site plan issue and under site plan we have a lot of advantages, the applicant has to give us a narrative including an extensive list of items concerning the site.  Also, when they submit the plan to us, they go to all the department heads.  But this is not what is before us tonight, so what we have to do is look at the extension of changing the NB district to the TMU.  And what we have to look at are the different uses that would be allowed.  Though this vote does go to the council, and this is not a binding decision.  The council has the final decision.  I have to ask what would be the other uses that would be allowed, the major things we have to look at is a bar and saloon, townhouses, and other uses. 

S. Gendron:  I have an additional comment, first I would like to thank the Centralville Neighborhood group for coming out tonight.  Also want to extend my respect to the company; you are clearly good business men and good for the City.  I am anxious to see that lot developed.  It is a detriment to the community.  I think some of the establishments are appropriate for that site.  The issue is that of drive thrus.  But the issue before us to night is should we recommend the zoning change.  I think a lot of effort went into the zoning changes.  I personally think it would not be appropriate for us to recommend a zoning change.

J. Clermont:  When the changes to the zoning came about, there were several changes, and there was an understanding that we weren’t going to deal with individual properties, and I think this just got caught up in the changes and in the wrong district.

R. Lockhart:  I think it is important for the neighborhood for that property to be redeveloped.  I would be in favor of a rezoning understanding that we still have control of what is going in there.

J. Frechette:  The City’s Master Plan document was not just designed for the residents to protect their neighborhood.  It was also designed for businesses to come in with development that is encouraged in an area.  It is designed for a developer to come in and work with the City on plans that are encouraged in the Master Plan.  I feel that the Master Plan is a tool to help facilitate the discussion.

J. Clermont: Motion for a roll call vote.

T. Linnehan: I have no problem with this matter coming before us with a drive thru.  But as a zone change you have to look at all the uses under the new zoning.  I am concerned with the other uses on site.  I think we would loose control of the site.  I have no problem with reviewing this project under site plan.  But if they do not get a drive thru, they can put in townhouses or a bar without our input and that is the major concern.

Motion:

A roll call of the Planning Board members resulted in a three to two (3-2) vote in OPPOSITION of the proposed zoning change.  Therefore the Board votes to recommend that the City Council DOES NOT ENACT the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment at 550-570 Bridge Street.  The vote commenced as follows:

Members Stephen Gendron, Jerry Frechette, and Thomas Linnehan voted in opposition of enacting the proposed zoning change for the following reasons:

1.       Much thought went into the zoning changes unanimously adopted by the City Council in December 2004, and changes such as this to citywide zoning should neither be encouraged nor promoted.  The NB district was created to encourage the Master Plan goal of providing a vibrant walkable neighborhood center serving local residences, and the zoning change enables projects that are not consistent with this goal.

2.       The applicant indicated that they are requesting the proposed change to permit a drive thru to be located on site.  This use has the potential to create additional traffic issues along an already congested Bridge Street.  Further, pedestrians, especially school-aged children attending the St. Michael’s School, heavily use the intersection of Bridge and West Sixth Streets.

3.       The proposed change would permit other uses (i.e. a bar) on the site that are not desirable for this site and this section of the neighborhood.  The members felt strongly that the NB district should stay clearly delineated at this section of Bridge Street.

4.       The proposed change would limit future review over certain uses allowed in the TMU district that are either not allowed or allowed through a special permit process in the NB district (i.e. a residential townhouse project,, automotive sales, etc.).  Such uses contradict the desired character and use of the Neighborhood Business zoning district.

5.       As outlined in Section 3.1.3 of the Lowell Comprehensive Master Plan, the City should seek to strengthen neighborhood business districts as local hubs of activity that insure the availability of goods and services within easy walking distance of residential areas.  The proposed zoning change would contradict this objective, and create a situation whereby pedestrian safety becomes a secondary concern, and the vitality and economic strength of the Bridge Street neighborhood business district becomes threatened.

6.       As outlined in Section 9.1.4 of the Lowell Comprehensive Master Plan, the City should seek to lessen the impact of auto-service establishments on neighborhood character, by reducing the number of areas in the City where auto-service businesses are permitted and identifying more appropriate locations for these establishments.  The NB zone along Bridge Street is identified as one of these areas whereby auto-service establishments should be discouraged, and more pedestrian friendly developments encouraged.

Members Joseph Clermont & Richard Lockhart voted to in favor of enacting the proposed zoning change for the following reason:

1.       The proposed change is a reasonable extension of the TMU (Traditional Neighborhood Mixed Use) zoning district, and will facilitate re-development of the site.

Site Plan & Special Permit Review: 685-686 Lawrence Street

The Lowell Planning Board will review an application by the Frawley Realty Trust for site plan approval and special permits for the development of the property located at 685-689 Lawrence Street.  The proposal includes the construction of twenty-four (24) residential units, with associated landscaping and parking.  Four (4) units will be located in the existing building at the corner of Lawrence and Andrews Street, nine (9) units will be located above a portion of the building on Andrews Street, and eleven (11) new townhouse units will also be constructed along Andrews Street.  This project is in the TMU (Traditional-Neighborhood Mixed Use) Zoning District and requires Special Permit review under Article XII and Site Plan review under Section 11.4 of the Lowell Zoning Ordinance.

The following individuals spoke in favor of the project:  James Flood (81 Bridge Street), David Frawley (Applicant), Bernard Hammel (Applicant’s Engineer), Dean Jenkins (244 Fairmont Street), John Dowling (75 Dunbar Avenue)

In Favor:

J. Flood (81 Bridge Street): Representing the applicants.  With me are Dave Frawly, Bernie Hammel, and John Dowling.  We are requesting a waiver from the drainage calculations.  We were before you for the conversion of this site into 54 units.  Since that time, the applicant has decided to split the existing mill into two separate buildings, which has been completed.  We did present an ANR plan which was approved and recorded.  The plan before you tonight is in two stages.  One is to construct 13 units in the existing mill structure; the other is to construct 11 new townhouse units.  The project has parking of 19 cars within the existing building.  The townhouse units will have space for one car in a garage, and additional surface spaces.  There is a Portuguese church in the building.  In accordance with the zoning, the church will need 33 spaces, and an abutter will provide these spaces on Sundays.  If necessary we will go before the ZBA for a variance.  All the required facilities are located within Lawrence Street.  The location of the dumpster is located on the additional plan.  The proposed development should not cause additional traffic in the area.  We are before the ZBA to request the demolition of the building, and construction of the townhouse units. 

Bernie Hammel (H-star Engineering): Effectively we have been talking with the City engineer.  We have rerouted the roof drains into the catch basins.  The amount of impervious surface has not changed.  We are actually pulling a portion of the building back.  We are providing 91 parking spaces currently.  I am open to any questions you may have.

David Frawley (Applicant): I was before the Planning Board earlier this year.  We tried to rent these for commercial space, and we were unsuccessful.  An abutter has generously leased spaces to us.  My wife’s business is in the space now, and we also have a police precinct in there.  The plan is to occupy this building with units.  The entrance will be here on Lawrence Street.  There will be garage spaces under these units.  The units facing the back will be set back 5 feet.  There is one-way traffic onto Andrews street.  The people located in these townhouses, will use the shared driveway.  Dumpster will all be here on the back portion of the site.  We do have some green space on the roof.  And I will also have additional green space here on site. 

J. Flood: I do have some pictures of the parking area next door.  This will provide the additional parking.

D. Frawley:  The space I will be using has 33 parking spaces.

J. Flood: I think this is a better plan than before.  We hope to price these between $130,000 to $195,000.

Dean Jenkins (244 Fairmont): Trustee of the development across the street.  I guess with both of us with these projects, we are really making a great look for the road.  That area gets a lot of traffic and trash and I think our developments will reduce both.  That is a dumping ground for trash.  I have cleaned both sides of the street.  With residents there, the area will really be cleaned up. 

John Dowling (75 Dunbar Ave):  I owned property down the street from there.  This project is going to be a benefit in the neighborhood.  It used to be a larger building.  Years ago it burnt down. And this will be a nice change to the site.

The following individuals spoke in opposition of the project: Carol McCarthy (64 Blossom Street), Michael Ready (Nesmith Street), David Koch (546 Lawrence Street)

Carol McCarthy (64 Blossom Street): I am against the development.  It is wrong.  I have had a lot of concerns.  One of my main concerns is the traffic flow.  There is going to be 24 units there, there will be 48 cars.  We have asked for a traffic study in the area because of all the issues.  The other concern I have is that Andrews is a major bus route.  These sidewalks and street should be re-paved and fixed up.  I do commend them on the elevator in the building.  I do have a concern with green space.  Is there enough green space for children to play?  The park down the road does not have enough playground equipment for children.  The other issue is fire apparatus.  Can a fire truck access the building?  I think this is better than what is there.  I do like the idea of mixed use. 

J. Flood: I spoke with Steve Curran about the sidewalks.  And we are willing to fix the sidewalks along Lawrence and Andrews street.  We are also willing to do a minor re-pave of Andrews Street.

Mike Ready (Nesmith Street):  I come before you as an independent activist.  This developer intends to demolish another mill building in the City.  This developer utilized a section of our zoning code that we activists like, Section 8.1.  A developer is allowed to apply for density increases, and for changes in the building.  In exchange these developers sought to preserve another mill site.  The purpose of 8.1 is very much to the point of the proposal before us.  This is in a TMU district.  This is not the first time that a developer is turning on it heals after seeking approval under 8.1.

T Linnehan: We must stick with the agenda and keep with 685-689 Lawrence Street.  We cannot discuss other projects and developers.  We must stick to this project.

Mike Ready (Nesmith Street): What I am focusing on here is 8.1 and that this board should take the position that when a developer has a project approved under this zoning, they should stick with that project.  We are loosing our mills in this city.  There should be no demolition to that mill. 

David Koch (546 Lawrence Street): I own property near this site.  Anything that these two gentleman say they are going to do, they will not do.  We have condos all over the Back Central neighborhood that sit empty.  The major problems are over crowding, and parking. 

General Discussion:

R. Lockhart: I am confused about what portion of the existing structure is being demolished. 

J. Flood: It is the portion of the building along Andrews street.

R. Lockhart: Can you go through the parking spaces?  Are there enough handicapped spaces?

Bernie Hamel:  There are three handicapped spaces.  The normal space is 22 feet in length.  We have 91 spaces total, and 30 additional spaces next door. 

S. Gendron:  There are actually 79 legal spaces.

R. Lockhart: And 51 are required.  Can you just go through the traffic flow?

B. Hamel:  The existing traffic flow will be like this.  The rest of the traffic will go through here around the building.  There is access into the building off Lawrence Street. 

R. Lockhart: There is just one other question, with regards to green space.  What is available on site?

B. Hamel: There is very little green space on site.  We do have a spot out here for green space.  However, I believe Dave had in mind for the plantings on the roof.  By no means is this a playground area.

J. Flood:  This is basically the same as before.  We can work with DPD on an appropriate landscaping plan.

S. Gendron:  Where is the church located?

B. Hamel:  The church is located in the third floor of this portion of the existing building.

David Frawley:  We have not changed this portion.  We are seeking to restore this portion of the site. 

S. Gendron:  The only time they use the church is on Sunday?  How many parishioners?

D. Frawley:  There are about 35-40.  We will be leasing spaces from next door.  But the church is a tenant at will.  We have a Lowell police precinct, and my wife’s business.  We are seeking for more of a warehouse business.  My wife’s business is just an office for three workers. 

S. Gendron:  I am a little concerned about the parking situation. You do have adequate parking for the 24 units.  But we do have to consider the parking situation.  There is no long term commitment for the 33 spaces. 

D. Frawley:  There is very little activity up that street, which is why we are going to use if for warehouse space.  There are only 14 people there now.  The police usually staff it with 1 or 2 people. 

S. Gendron: That corridor you mentioned is two way up to a certain point. And that is only to keep traffic moving to Lawrence Street, correct?

B. Hamel: Yes, it just makes sense for traffic to go just right back out from the site. 

D. Frawley:  It makes sense to have traffic onto Andrews Street.

S. Gendron: Given the crowded situation, you have 24 units on 20000sqft.  We need to consider the crowding situation on the site. 

J. Flood: As I said, Kathy Murphy noted that there should be no problem with the parking situation.

S. Gendron: I understand but we must understand the parking situation on the site and in the neighborhood.

G. Proakis: The mixed use districts, these are tricky to do well.  If this site were to be approved, the city can work on the easement issue.  This is a special permit and a variance.  If you decide to move forward to approving this project, I would urge you to approve this with some conditions addressing your concerns, to make sure that the situation on this site stays harmonious. 

S. Gendron:  Do we have the ability to put restrictions on the use of the second building on the site?