City of Lowell - Planning Board

Planning Board Minutes
January 7, 2008 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, video 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
Stephen Gendron, Member
Gerard Frechette, Member

Others
Aaron Clausen, Associate Planner


The following are the results of the January 7, 2008 Planning Board meeting held in the City Council
Chambers at Lowell City Hall at 6:30 p.m.

All Members were present

Minutes & Roll Call of Neighborhood Groups
Approval of Minutes: November 11, 2007
Motion
Joseph Clermont motioned and Gerard Frechette seconded to APPROVE the above minutes. The
motion passed with all members voting in favor (5-0).

Public Hearings
Site Plan Review & Special Permit: Bridge St. CVS
A Public Hearing will be held to hear all interested persons relative to an application by Gershman,
Brown and Associates for site plan review and a special permit for a project located at the corner of
Bridge Street and Lakeview Avenue. The proposal includes the consolidation of six parcels totaling
approximately 1.3 acres of land area and demolition of the three existing buildings. Redevelopment of
the site will consist of an 11,800sqft pharmacy with a two-lane drive thru and a 62-space parking lot. The
project is located in the UMU (Urban Mixed Use) zoning district, and requires site plan review under
Section 11.4 and a Planning Board issued special permit under section 6.7.3 of the Lowell Zoning
Ordinance. The project was continued from the previous meeting held December 17, 2007 in order to
accommodate a full Board to hear comments from the applicant and public and render a decision.




The following individuals spoke in favor of the project:

---

Planning Board Meeting Minutes – January 7, 2008
Page 2
Jim Flood (Attorney for Applicant), Chris Ianuzzi (VHB, Engineer for Applicant), Kevin Patton (BKA
Architects, Architect for the Applicant), Conrad Gauthier (70 Methuen Street), Ann Marie Page (26
Fairmount Street), James Cassin (287 Fremont Street), Jim Jozokos (58 13th. Street)

Chairman Linnehan asked members of the audience attending from the neighborhood that are in favor
of the project. Approximately 20 people identified themselves as in favor of the project.

Speaking on Behalf of the Applicant
Jim Flood described the project introducing the project engineer and architect, going on to list the
following variances and special permits required for the project to move forward; special permit from
the Planning Board to allow a greater than 6% grade within 30 feet of a curb cut, special permits from
the Zoning Board of Appeals for the relocation of an existing non-conforming sign, allow a retail use
greater than 5,000sqft, and to allow a drive-through service window. The applicant will seek the
following variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals; to allow a drive-through queue for less than 5
vehicles, landscaped open space within the parking area, to allow curb cuts with a width greater than
25 feet, and a reduction in the 10-foot landscape buffer.

Chris Ianuzzi, engineer for the applicant, discusses the site layout pointing out vehicular circulation.
He goes on to note that the drive-through accommodates two service windows, one for dropping off
prescriptions only the other for dropping off and picking up prescriptions. Mr. Ianuzzi also points out
that the applicant agrees to reconstruct all sidewalks with concrete on all frontage roads, and will
utilize vertical granite curbing to City standards.

Kevin Patton, architect for the applicant, discusses the iterative process that had occurred between
Division of Planning and Development staff and the applicant for the development of the proposed
architecture of the building. Renderings of the initial proposed building were displayed along with the
subsequent versions attempting to respond to DPD comments. The last iteration features an updated
prototype building with additional brick used in the façade, additional windows along Bridge Street, a
flatter cornice line. The curved trellis over the main entrance was replaced with glass vestibule.
Responding to questions from the Board Mr. Patton pointed out the vegetation shown on the rendering
was in the general location as shown on plan but was not intended to show the type of vegetation
chosen and that DPD staff had not seen the most recent rendering prior to the meeting.

Speaking in Favor
Conrad Gauthier stated he was in favor of the project but had some reservations. Mr. Gauthier
described his concerns as follows:
He was concerned about the size, design, and number of signs the applicant was proposing.
Concerned that the overall design was appropriate for the neighborhood, and believed that the
project should be judged beyond “anything is better than what is there now” criteria.
He felt the glass vestibule was too modern for the sites context, and would like to see the applicant
continue to work with neighborhood residents to find architecture that fits with the neighborhood.
Would like to see 2 – 3 parking spaces turned into landscaped islands with trees.
Would like to see Victorian style streetlights used on the site, similar to those used by the bus
shelter across the street.
He would like to see more street trees and to have electrical outlets placed near-by so CNAG could
decorate them with during Christmas.
Would like the existing memorial garden replaced somewhere on the plan.
The inclusion of a bus shelter in the future providing a safe bus stop for children taking the bus to
school.

Ann Marie Paige pointed out support for the project and pleased with all the work the applicant has done
with the City. She pointed out that the architecture needed additional refinement and that it fit with the

---

Planning Board Meeting Minutes – January 7, 2008
Page 3
character of the neighborhood. She would like to see CVS set an example for the quality of future
development for the neighborhood.

James Cassen owns one of the properties that make up the site, pointing out that he has been working
with the applicant for a couple of years. He feels it is the best development for the site he has seen in a
long time.

Jim Jozokos re-iterates the architecture should be more in keeping with the neighborhood and suggests
the applicant consult with Historic Board staff. He felt the building location was appropriate, making it a
more pedestrian friendly facility and that the parking was more than enough and could use more
landscaping in its place.

The following individuals spoke in opposition of the project:
None

Board Discussion
Member Lockhart asked if sitting the project closer to the intersection of Bridge and the VFW highway
was explored in order to accentuate the site as the gateway to the neighborhood.

Chris Ianuzzi pointed out that due to the prototype building there was no other alternative for placing the
building any closer to the corner. Jim Flood also pointed out that the existence of the billboard at the
highway prevented the building’s placement at the corner.

Member Lockhart also confirmed that the applicant was amenable to resident requests, and whether there
was any green building technology incorporated into the site. He also urged the applicant to continue to
work with DPD to develop architecture sensitive to the neighborhood.

Chris Ianuzzi pointed out a subsurface infiltration system will be installed that will reduce the amount of
stormwater run-off, and the increased landscaping placed within the site.

Member Frechette echoed the concern over architecture, particularly with respect to signage on the
building. He asked for clarification of the aesthetic impact and safety for pedestrians particularly with
respect to the ornamental fence around the site, placement of windows along Bridge Street, and the
crosswalk at West 3rd. Street.

Member Gendron asked if there was any environmental clean-up necessary for the redevelopment of the
site, and was particularly concerned with the drive-through capacity. Mr. Ianuzzi said that any
contamination found on site would be cleaned up. He also pointed out that the combined queue could
accommodate 7 cars and that the windows would only serve pharmacy items; nothing from the
convenience store could be sold at the window. Member Gendron remained skeptical of the drive-
through capacity but felt it could work given the additional by-pass lane adjacent to the drive-through
lanes.

Member Clermont applauded the efforts to improve the architecture capturing the spirit of the existing
buildings, and urged the applicant to continue to work with DPD and neighborhood for further refinement
of the building’s architecture. Member Clermont also clarified vehicular circulation to the site and within
the site, including the drive-through as well as the placement of windows, ensuring they would be at a
pedestrian scale.

Chairman Linnehan echoed the suggestion to continue to work on the architecture of the building, and
asked the applicant if they would be willing to incorporate additional landscaping into the site. Mr.
Linnehan also confirmed the delivery schedule, which according to Mr. Ianuzzi would be once a week
early as possible so as not to compete with traffic.

---

Planning Board Meeting Minutes – January 7, 2008
Page 4

Motion:
Member R. Lockhart motioned and Member J. Clermont seconded to APPROVE the site plan and
GRANT the special permit. The motion passed with all attending members voting in favor (5-0). The
motion was approved with the following conditions:

1. The applicant shall meet with the City of Lowell Division of Planning and Development, Centralville
Neighborhood Action Group, and Historic Board staff in order to finalize the architecture of the
building. The agreed plan shall include design and placement of light fixtures, location and design of
signage, as well as the buildings architecture. The agreed upon plan shall come before the Board at a
regularly scheduled meeting for final approval.
2. The applicant will provide electrical service to street trees along Bridge Street providing the
Centralville Neighborhood Action Group the opportunity to provide tree lighting in order to decorate
the streetscape. Electrical cabling shall be installed below the sidewalk and patio area to prevent a
safety hazard for pedestrians and maintain the positive aesthetic impact of the tree lights.
3. The site plan is subject to Fire Department approval.
4. The applicant shall continue to work with the City of Lowell, and Massachusetts Highway
Department to implement any recommendations made to signalization of the intersections of Bridge
Street and the VFW highway and Lakeview Avenue and VFW highway in order to improve the Level
of Service and safety of the intersection.

Site Plan Review: 626 Rogers Street
A Public Hearing will be held to hear all interested persons relative to an application by Mason
Noureddine for site plan review for a project located at 626 Rogers Street. The proposal includes the
redevelopment of the auto repair portion of an existing service station into a convenience store to include
a Dunkin Donuts with a drive thru window. In order to accommodate the drive thru window the proposal
incorporates alterations to vehicle circulation, parking, and landscaping. The project is located in the RR
(Regional Retail) zoning district, and requires site plan review under Section 11.4 of the Lowell Zoning
Ordinance.

The following individuals spoke in favor of the project:
Mason Noureddine (Applicant), Jack Lougee (Dana Perkins, Engineer for Applicant), Andrew Pojasec
(Dana Perkins, Engineer for Applicant).

In Favor
Mr. Noureddine and Mr. Pojasec describe the project, showing the location of the drive-through queue
and altered site circulation since the pre-application scoping session. Generally, all vehicular traffic
will enter and exit via Rogers Street, with delivery access from Parkview Ave. As discussed during
the pre-application a gate was proposed at the Parkview Ave. curb cut to prevent customer access and
egress.

Mr. Noureddine handed out photographs illustrating congestion caused by the Dunkin Donuts across
the street, particularly cars traveling north trying to make a left turn into the existing Dunkin Donuts.
He also passed out petition with signatures by neighbors that supported the project.

The following individuals spoke in opposition of the project:
James Heller (54 Parkview Ave.), Dan Tobin (83 Berkley St.)

Opposed
Both Mr. Heller and Tobin expressed concern over traffic, they felt the new Dunkin Donuts would
create more traffic and further congest Rogers Street. There was also concern over snow storage and
piles of snow blocking sight lines for vehicles pulling from Parkview Avenue onto Rogers Street.

---

Planning Board Meeting Minutes – January 7, 2008
Page 5
Discussion
Member Lockhart confirms additional landscaping will be placed along Whitehead Avenue in order to
screen the drive-through from adjacent residences, including the use of a fence. He also questioned
whether the applicant would be amenable to add a sidewalk to City standards along Parkview Ave,
which the applicant agreed.

Member Frechette felt that the proposed Dunkin Donuts would help improve some of the congestion
caused by the existing Dunkin Donuts across the street, particularly those trying to make a left turn
while traveling north. He also confirms vehicular circulation and timing of gas deliveries to ensure
trucks will not affect circulation on-site and entering and exiting the site from Parkview Ave. The
applicant confirmed deliveries would be conducted after hours.

Member Gendron expressed serious concern with the traffic impacts of the new Dunkin Donuts, and
that the proposal will in fact increase congestion. He pointed out that there exists a serious safety
concern and that the proposal will only make it worse.

Member Clermont enquired to the architecture of the building, to which the applicant pointed out it
would only be a small addition, but expects to provide a general facelift with new paint and lighting.
Member Clermont asked if the applicant was willing to work with the City to incorporate a rain garden
or other low impact design elements, which the applicant agreed to explore. Member Clermont agreed
with the DPD that the new Dunkin Donuts would not adversely impact traffic any further than it is
now.

Member Gendron asked if Mr. Noureddine had approached the Belvedere Neighborhood Association
to discuss the plans. The applicant had not beyond getting signatures from neighbors listed on the
abutters list from the Assessor's office.

Member Gendron motioned to delay action until the applicant had the opportunity to schedule and
meet with the Belvedere Neighborhood Association. Member Lockhart 2nd. the motion. The motion
was defeated with 3 members voting against a continuance and 2 voting for (3-2).

Chairman Linnehan points to the number of people signing the petition and the applicant clarifies that
the petition was signed by neighbors abutting the project not only customers. The Chairman requested
an alternative motion.

Motion:
Member J. Clermont motioned and Member G. Frechette seconded to APPROVE the site plan. The
motion passed with four members voting in favor and member S. Gendron voting against (4-1). The
plan was approved with the following conditions:

1. The applicant shall work with the City Engineer and the Division of Planning Development to
incorporate Low Impact Design elements into the landscape plan in order to provide improved on-site
rainwater storage and infiltration. The landscape plan shall include coniferous trees and a fence along
Whitehead Avenue to provide a buffer for the residential neighborhood to the north. The DPD
Design Planner shall approve the final landscape plan.
2. The applicant shall install a concrete sidewalk along Parkview Ave. to City of Lowell standards with
6” face vertical granite curbing.
3. The applicant shall reach out to the Belvidere Neighborhood Group to acquire additional input from
neighborhood residents.
4. The site plan approval is subject to letter from the Fire Department attesting to the adequacy of access
for fire apparatus.

---

Planning Board Meeting Minutes – January 7, 2008
Page 6
Site Plan Review: 392 Chelmsford Street
A Public Hearing will be held to hear all interested persons relative to an application by North Kendall
Properties for site plan review of the project located at 392 Chelmsford Street. The applicant proposes to
redevelop the existing Burger King restaurant to include a new building that will be reduced in size by
more than 40% totaling 2,223sqft, provide a drive-through window, and a parking lot with 26 spaces and
additional landscaping. The project is located in the RR (Regional Retail) zoning district, and requires
site plan review under Section 11.4 of the Lowell Zoning Ordinance.

The following individuals spoke in favor of the project:
George Eliades (Attorney for Applicant), Huseyin Sevincgil (MHF Consultants, Engineer for
Applicant), Jim Winn (GPI, Traffic Engineer for Applicant), Mark Goldman (58 Oakland St.)

In Favor
Mr. Eliades discussed the redevelopment and its intent to update the building making it more efficient,
providing a cleaner look, and to adjust to a new business model that adjusts to changes in consumer
behavior that favors take-out business rather than dinning in.

Mr. Sevincgil noted that they have met with the City Engineer in order to accommodate her concerns.
They are willing to work with the Engineering and Wastewater department to connect to the planned
sewer separation project currently under construction Chelmsford Street.

The following individuals spoke in opposition of the project:
Sandra Fishman (158 Sayles St.), Leonard Fisher (Attorney for Ms. Fishman)

Opposed
Those speaking against the project outlined several concerns related most specifically to parking
capacity and traffic impact to Chelmsford Street. Concerns over ADA access, signage, and placement
of the dumpster where also relayed. Ms. Fishman and Mr. Fisher did not feel the applicant deserved to
receive the parking variance.

Board Discussion
The Board’s primary concern centered on parking capacity, but generally found the study provided by
GPI to adequately show the proposed spaces was adequate. The Board also confirmed the applicant
was willing to work with the Engineer to deal with stormwater retention and connection to the
proposed stormwater infrastructure.

Motion:
Member J. Clermont motioned and Member R. Lockhart seconded to APPROVE the site plan. The
motion passed with all members voting in favor (5-0). The plan was approved with the following
conditions:

1. The applicant will physically remove snow from the site when snow storage areas can no longer
accommodate snow accumulation.
2. The applicant will work with the City Engineer and Lowell Wastewater Utility in order to connect on-
site water drainage infrastructure to the proposed wastewater drain rather than existing sewer
infrastructure.
3. The applicant will comply and/or incorporate all of the comments submitted by the City Engineer in
the final plan.

Site Plan Review: 1519-1527 Middlesex Street
A Public Hearing will be held to hear all interested persons relative to an application by Nam An for site
plan review of the project located at 1519-1527 Middlesex Street. The proposal includes the construction
of 9,790sqft retail building housing approximately 8 commercial units and the redevelopment of the

---

Planning Board Meeting Minutes – January 7, 2008
Page 7
parking lot creating 63 spaces. The parcel totals 48,943 square feet and contains an existing 10,000sqft
commercial building that will remain. The project is located in the RR (Regional Retail) zoning district,
and requires site plan review under Section 11.4 of the Lowell Zoning Ordinance.

The following individuals spoke in favor of the project:
George Eliades (Attorney for Applicant), Jim Jozokos (Paul Davies Architects, Architect for
Applicant), Jack Sullivan (Sullivan Eng. Group, Engineer for Applicant), Paul Ouellette (1541
Middlesex St.)

In Favor
Mr. Sullivan points out that the project has already gone before the Conservation Commission and
received approval with condition. They will need to revise the plan to show updates to the retaining
wall, in the new plan the back of the proposed building will become the retaining wall. They are also
seeking a waiver on the traffic study.

As a trusty of the adjacent condominium complex, Mr. Ouellette worked with the applicant regarding
drainage issues, and reducing the impact of construction. Noted that the building itself will be a
problem for some of the residents as their view will be impacted and trees will be removed. He would
like the dialogue with the developer to continue.

The following individuals spoke in opposition of the project:
Helen Dolen (1514 Middlesex St.)

In Opposition
Ms. Dolen noted that she was one of the abutting residents impacted by the proposed building; her
windows will now look into the backside of the building. She is concerned how the area will
accommodate the number of proposed retail spaces, and she is concerned the value of her property will
go down.

Board Discussion
Board Members were primarily concerned about the impact of the building on the existing
condominium complex adjacent to the project, and explored with the applicant ways in which the
project may be screened from the condo complex. Screening was also discussed for mechanical units
on top of the building in order to reduce the aesthetic impact of the building. The Board also discussed
the tenant mix and its impact on parking requirements, it was pointed out that the applicant would be
required to seek an occupancy permit when the space was leased, the issue would be addressed at that
time. Lastly the Board explored landscaping improvements to the site, and possible alternatives for
placement of the building in order to reduce its visual impact on the neighbors.

Motion:
Member J. Clermont motioned and Member S. Gendron seconded to APPROVE the site plan. The
motion passed with all members voting in favor (5-0). The plan was approved with the following
conditions:

1. The applicant will address and incorporate conditions agreed to with the residents of the Commons
Condominium developed during the Conservation Commission permitting process. See attached list
of conditions.
2. The applicant will address and incorporate items from the “Response to Department Heads”
document. Please see attached document to reference responses and updates to the site plan.
3. The applicant will physically remove snow from the site when snow storage areas can no longer
accommodate snow accumulation.
4. The applicant will use best efforts to screen the building and mechanical equipment on the roof of the
building from the adjacent residential building west of the project site.

---

Planning Board Meeting Minutes – January 7, 2008
Page 8
5. The applicant will work with the City of Lowell Department of Planning and Development on
landscaping on site particularly on the landscaped island at the entrance of the site. Landscape plan
to be approved by DPD design planner.

ZBA Notices
20 Genest Ave.
Petition Type: Variance
Applicant: Patricia Deeney
Petition: To construct a rear deck within the required offset of the principle building to an accessory
structure (garage) according to Section 4.3.5 of the Zoning Code
S. Gendron: motion to recommend APPROVAL of variance for the project.
J. Clermont: Second the motion
All members voted in favor of APPROVAL (5-0).

122 Western Ave.
Petition Type: Special Permit and Variance
Applicant: BPV Lowell LLC
Petition: for the construction of live/work space units within the Artist Overlay District accroding to Sect.
9.2; with a variance from the required parking according to Sect. 6.1.4 of the Zoning Ordinance
J. Frechette: motion to recommend DENIAL of the parking variance for the project.
R. Lockhart: Second the motion
All members voted in favor of DENIAL (5-0).

26 Wood Street
Petition Type: Special Permit - Signs
Applicant: Sign-o-Rama for Dental Dreams
Petition: for the installation and internal illumination of a wall sign for Liberty Tax Service according to
Sect. 6.3.2.9
S. Gendron: motion to refer to DPD Design Planner for report and recommendation.
R. Lockhart: Second the motion
All members voted in favor of referring recommendation to the DPD Design Planner (5-0).

370 Bridge Street
Petition Type: Special Permit - Signs
Applicant: Frederic G. Holdsworth, dba Liberty Tax Service
Petition: for the installation and internal illumination of a wall sign for Liberty Tax Service according to
Sec. 6.3.2.9 and 6.3.4 of the Zoning Ordinance.
J. Frechette: motion to refer to DPD Design Planner for report and recommendation.
S. Gendron: Second the motion
All members voted in favor of referring recommendation to the DPD Design Planner (5-0).

320 Hildreth Street
Petition Type: Appeal of the Building Commissioner Decision
Applicant: Dorothy and Peter Bergeron
Petition: and request Variance to maintain paved area of lot that exceeds the requirements of Sect.5.3.1 of
the Zoning Ordinance.
J. Frechette: motion to render No Decision due to a lack of representation from the petitioner
R. Lockhart: Second the motion
All members voted in favor of rendering No Decision (5-0).

10 Wyman Street
Petition Type: Variance
Applicant: Priscilla Polak

---

Planning Board Meeting Minutes – January 7, 2008
Page 9
Petition: to subdivide lot, maintain existing structure and construct a single family with insufficient lot
area, lot area per dwelling unit, and minimum lot frontage; as required by Art. V, Sect. 5.1 of the
Zoning Ordinance.
S. Gendron: motion to recommend DENIAL of the variance for the project.
R. Lockhart: Second the motion
All members voted in favor to recommend DENIAL of the variance (5-0).

392 Chelmsford St.
Petition Type: Special Permit and Variance
Applicant: North Kendall Properties Inc. c/o Burger King
Petition: to raze existing and construct new building with drive-thru according to Sect. 12.4.g; with
insufficient parking according to Sect. 6.1; and to allow internally illuminated, over-sized,
relocated signage, according to Sect. 6.3 of the Zoning Ordinance.
J. Frechette: motion to recommend APPROVAL of the special permit and variance incorporating
conditions placed on the Site Plan approval from the Planning Board.
S. Gendron: Second the motion
All members voted in favor to recommend APPROVAL of the variance (5-0).


These minutes were approved by the Planning Board on March 3, 2008
S. Gendron: Motion to approve
R. Lockhart: Second
All members voted in favor (5-0)

________________________________________________________
Aaron Clausen, Associate Planner/Planning Board Administrator

---

Document Outline

• ��
• ��

---