Planning Board

City of Lowell - Planning Board Planning Board Meeting Minutes Monday December 7, 2020 6:30 p.m. Conducted via Zoom Note: These minutes are not completed verbatim. For a recording of the meeting, visit www.ltc.org Members Present Thomas Linnehan, Chairman Gerard Frechette, Vice Chairman Richard Lockhart, Member Robert Malavich, Member Caleb Cheng, Member Russell Pandres, Associate Member Sinead Gallivan, Associate Member Members Absent None Others Present Christine McCall, Economic Development Director A quorum of the Board was present. Chairman Linnehan called the meeting to order at 6:31pm. I. Minutes for Approval November 16, 2020 R. Lockhart motioned and J. Frechette seconded the motion to approve the 11/16/2020 minutes. The motion passed unanimously. II. Continued Business Definitive Subdivision Approval: 4 Tamarack Street 01851 John Cox has applied to the Planning Board on behalf of Martin Burke for the approval of a definitive subdivision plan that includes the extension of Tamarack Street by approximately one hundred forty (140) feet, and construction of a single-family dwelling at 4 Tamarack Street. The site is entirely within the 100-year flood plain and is located within the Traditional Neighborhood Single Family (TSF) zoning district. This project requires Planning Board approval under Lowell’s Subdivision of Land Regulations. On Behalf: None Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: None Discussion: None Motion: R. Lockhart motioned and C. Cheng seconded the motion to continue the petition to 2/18/2021. J. Frechette abstained. The motion passed unanimously. III. New Business Site Plan Review and Special Permit: 14 McIntire Street 01851 Madjack7, LLC has applied to the Planning Board for Site Plan Review and Special Permit approval to subdivide the existing lot – which contains an existing three-level structure – and construct an eight (8) unit townhouse-style condominium structure on the newly created vacant lot. The property is located in the Neighborhood Business (NB) and Urban Neighborhood Mixed Use (UMU) zoning districts. The proposal requires Site Plan Review under Section 11.4 and a Special Permit under Section 12.1(e). On Behalf: Ken Lania, Representative for Applicant Steve Lawrenson, Applicant Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: None Discussion: Mr. Lania provides an overview of the proposed plan to the Planning Board. Notable improvements include: 1,037 SQ FT reduction in impervious area and increased landscaping along the frontage of Marshall Street. He addresses the concerns listed by staff and submitted revised plans that provide stairwell access to the interior and an enclosed trash bin that would be located in the front of each structure (reference building plan, sheet 3). Incorporate in condominium documents that snow storage that cannot be maintained on site, will be hauled off site. Member Frechette asked staff if there were additional comments for the applicant’s most recent submittal. Chairman Linnehan stated that he spoke to Ms. Cigliano and stated that staff concerns have been addressed. He stated that he would like to see plans for the concrete structure on the property. Member Lockhart asks the applicant if they are looking to renovate the concrete structure as residential. Mr. Lania states that they are exploring their options to modifying the floor space to redevelop into residential units. Mr. Lania states that we intentionally created enough parking on site. However, the applicant is still exploring the economically viability of redeveloping the structure. Member Gallivan asks the applicant to describe the access to the utility room. Member Gallivan references a note on the plan that states that the “sidewalks will be repaired as needed”, Member Gallivan would like to see the sidewalk reconstructed completely to City standards. Member Cheng asks about the failing retaining wall. Mr. Lania references a note on the plan that states the wall will be removed and replaced in kind. He further states that there is a need for a potential retaining wall in the rear. Member Cheng requests the applicant for improvements to the entrance/blind spot to the site. Mr. Lania states that they will be installing a mirror on a utility pole across the street. Member Cheng asked for comments from Lowell Fire Department. Member Malavich states that his questions have been answered and he is settled on the project. Member Pandres asks the applicant who would be maintaining the mirror; the City or applicant? Mr. Lania states that the applicant will be responsible for the mirror. He refers to the easement pan and states that that plan (+maintenance) would be included in condominium documents. Chairman Linnehan confirms with the applicant will be entering/exiting site on McIntire Street. Mr. Lania confirms that the exit/enter has been eliminated on Marshall. Member Malavich asks if the applicant will be meeting usable open space. Mr. Lania states that there is no USO/DU requirement. Member Malavich states that greenspace will be needed for residents. Mt. Lania states that 11% of the site will be landscaped open space. Motion: J. Frechette motioned and R. Malavich seconded the motion to APPROVE the site plan with the following conditions:  The applicant shall receive a stormwater improvement permit plan from the appropriate City Departments prior to the start of construction.  The applicant shall work with the DPD to determine the proper manner as to address site lines enter/exit on McIntire Street.  The applicant shall repair all sidewalks to city standard as determined by City Engineer’s Office.  The applicant shall receive final approval from the Lowell Fire Department prior to the start of site work. The motion passed unanimously (5-0). J. Frechette motioned and R. Malavich seconded the motion to APPROVE the Special Permit with the following conditions:  The applicant shall receive a stormwater improvement permit plan from the appropriate City Departments prior to the start of construction.  The applicant shall work with the DPD to determine the proper manner as to address site lines enter/exit on McIntire Street.  The applicant shall repair all sidewalks to city standard as determined by City Engineer’s Office.  The applicant shall receive final approval from the Lowell Fire Department prior to the start of site work. The motion passed unanimously (5-0). Site Plan Review and Special Permit: 1148 Bridge Street 01854 Fresh Fields Lowell d/b/a Reverie 73 has applied to the Planning Board for Site Plan Review and Special Permit approval to convert the existing build into a recreational marijuana dispensary. The property is in the Regional Retail (RR) zoning district and requires a Special Permit under Section 12.4(o) and Site Plan Review under Section 11.4(8). On Behalf: Matt LeLaucher, Representative for Applicant Chris Tymula, Engineer for Applicant Heather Monticup, GPI, Transportation Engineer for Applicant Harley Lacer Speaking in Favor: Corey Robinson, 5 W 10th Street Speaking in Opposition: Discussion: Mr. LeLaucher provided an overview of the project, including architectural renderings. Mr. Tymula provided an overview of the existing site conditions. He specifically stated that the proposed site would improve on the parking lot to be more compliant with existing zoning code requirements. He focuses on improvements to stormwater and other site amenities (including decreasing the curb opening). The project requires approval from the Lowell Conservation Commission. Ms. Monticup provided a collision update to the Board. She states that there has not been an accident in 3 years. The crash data should not be a major concern for the Board. The sidewalk network is great along Bridge Street. The site is also on an LRTA line. There is great availability for pedestrians, biking, and bus pedestrians. Provided a trip generation analysis for a retail marijuana site versus a fast food work. The project will be appointment only for the opening. The existing site is expected to generate less traffic than what a fast food restaurant on the site. This assumed all single occupancy trips. Most importantly, we wanted to analyze the parking. It was important that the flow in/out of the site is efficient. The applicant has entered into an agreement with the East End Social Club to provide overflow parking. Ride share parking will be provided on the adjacent site (Haffner’s site). The applicant will employ a parking attendant to keep site managed. Online ordering lessens the time you spend in the store, it also allows the store to communicate with the patron about where to park, what to do, and the rules for pick up. The applicant expect deliveries/drop offs to occur when facility is closed or at non-peak hours. Mr. Davis provides an overview of the security plan. Physical security starts with large planters and bollards in front of the building to prevent collision at the front of the structure. He provides an overview of how customers, employees, and products will be kept secure. The security plan has been approved by the Lowell Police Department while also complying with all CCC regulations. Mr. LeLaucher states that delivery options have been approved by CCC and should help with demand management. Member Frechette is concerned with the first space on the parking lot. It’s unfortunate we don’t have a Traffic Engineer on staff in the City. He has concerns about traffic entering and exiting the site, as well has pedestrian access, and parking for employees. He states it is unusual because it is not a designed parking lot and we don’t have a lot of control over the site. There is not a lot of room for folks who make a mistake to negotiate and turn around. Indicating signs that it would be by appointment only. I find this to be problematic off an arterial road; at hat point do they pull in…see the sign, pull in …and pull out??? Where would the signs be located? Mr. Racer says there will be a parking attendant and police detail, if need be. We don’t think it will be appointment only forever. Mr. Davis states we will have resources out there to help alleviate any issues out there. He cites the saturation of market; he does not think traffic will be all that bad as the facilities open around the state. Mr. LeLaucher states that the relationship between this site & the Haffner’s is paramount. Member Frechette likes the guardrail over the fence design and he appreciates the upgrade to the façade. Member Frechette requests to see the location of the proposed bike racks. The applicant confirms it will accommodate 4-6 bikes. Member Frechette asks the applicant to explain the snow removal plan. Mr. Tymula states that a bobcat from the Haffner’s site to remove Member Gallivan states she is in favor of the project but has a few questions. She asks about the duration of the parking attendant. Mr. Racer states that the parking attendant would remain on staff indefinitely. The striped area is indicated for pedestrians… Does the parallel spot have maneuverable space? Mr. Tymula states that there is ample room to get into the parallel space without having to use the pedestrian areas. Member Gallivan confirms that the drive lane is maneuverable. She confirms her support of the DPD comment regarding reconstruction of sidewalks. Member Gallivan also requests a periodic review of traffic and parking, whether it is after the 90 days (appointment only ceases) , 6 months, or 1 year. Member Cheng states he is in support of the project. Member Frechette is reading the applicant’s proposal regarding ‘appointment only’ period and is confused by what they are proposing. The applicant states that this would give them to adjust and review operations as necessary. Member Malavich states that he likes what is proposed, he has concerned about traffic going to the site. He could live with a 90-day appointment only, plus an additional 90-day review. Chairman Linnehan states that he is pleased that they addressed snow storage in their letter dated 12/1/2020. He appreciates that they would shut down operations temporarily to remove the snow from the site. Traffic monitoring is done by LPD and changes can be implemented without Planning Board approval. DPD staff as well as the Board can review traffic monitoring and make recommendations. He states he likes that the parking attendant will be employed indefinitely. Chairman Linnehan states that the board has a required ‘odor mitigation’ plan and requests to include a condition so that there is no confusion about where the Board states. Mr. Racer states that an odor mitigation plan condition is not a problem. Member Frechette confirms that the applicant is willing to provide an off site mitigation fee as an alternative to an on- site mitigation. Motion: J. Frechette motions and seconded by R. Malavich to APPROVE the Site Plan with the following conditions:  The applicant shall pay an offsite mitigation fee in lieu of on site mitigation, as determined by City stormwater management team, prior to the issuance of a building permit  The applicant shall restore and replace sidewalks to city standard as determined by City Engineer.  The applicant shall submit final sign package for on-site and off-site, to be approved by DPD.  The applicant will be restricted to appointment only for first 90 days of operation. The traffic and parking will be monitored after 6 months and 1 year after opening. If any concerns are brought forth by the DPD or LPD, the 90 day appointment condition will be reapplied and the applicant will work with the city to mitigate all traffic and parking concerns. The applicant shall submit traffic monitoring reports after 6 months and 1 year for review by the DPD. All mitigation improvements will be the responsibility of the applicant.  The applicant shall comply with all city and state requirements for odor control that may result from site operations. The motion passed unanimously (5-0). J. Frechette motions and seconded by R. Lockhart to APPROVE the Special Permit with the following conditions:  The applicant shall pay an offsite mitigation fee in lieu of on site mitigation, as determined by City stormwater management team, prior to the issuance of a building permit  The applicant shall restore and replace sidewalks to city standard as determined by City Engineer.  The applicant shall submit final sign package for on-site and off-site, to be approved by DPD.  The applicant will be restricted to appointment only for first 90 days of operation. The traffic and parking will be monitored after 6 months and 1 year after opening. If any concerns are brought forth by the DPD or LPD,  the 90 day appointment condition will be reapplied and the applicant will work with the city to mitigate all traffic and parking concerns. The applicant shall submit traffic monitoring reports after 6 months and 1 year for review by the DPD. All mitigation improvements will be the responsibility of the applicant.  The applicant shall comply with all city and state requirements for odor control that may result from site operations. The motion passed unanimously (5-0). Site Plan Review and Special Permit: 724 Chelmsford Street & 18 Wellman Street 01851 Evia Development, LLC and Krete Development, LLC have applied to the Planning Board for Site Plan Review and Special Permit approval to construct a drive-thru ATM building at the subject property. The property is in the High Rise Commercial (HRC) zoning district and requires Site Plan Review and Special Permit approval under Section 12.4.g (1) of the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. On Behalf: Brian Geaudreau, Representative for Applicant Dimitrios, Applicant/Property Owner Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: None Discussion: Member Cheng states at his site visit that the driveway on the residential property creates a very long crosswalk and suggests that this development to finish the crosswalk to Craven Street for pedestrian access. Mr. Geaudreau does not have an issuing striping. Mr. Cheng clarifies that a sidewalk be extended wherever the residential driveway (existing condition) is going to be removed and replaced with a greenspace. This will improve pedestrian access and eliminate a dangerously long crosswalk. Member Malavich confirms that this is an unmanned kiosk. Applicant confirms. The walkup ATM is in the building, this ATM is drive-thru only. Member Lockhart asks how many cars can be queued on site leading up to the ATM. The applicant states they show 5 cars, but the site can accommodate 25 queuing cars. Member Gallivan agrees that expanding the parking area is an improvement and the ATM will be beneficial. Member Gallivan asks for clarification that all parking spaces will be striped. Mr. Geaudreau confirms all parking spaces on site will be striped. The applicant is open to issuing a summary table to staff prior to a building permit. Member Gallivan agrees with DPD comments and requests that the applicant submit an elevation plan and landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by DPD prior to the issuance of a building permit. Member Frechette states that any additional parking to the site is a plus. He asks for clarification if additional banking services will be provided at the stand alone ATM. Mr. Geaudreau says the bank has not confirmed their plans, so the applicant would like to keep the option open. Member Frechette expresses disappointment that they do not have plans to review as is required for Site Plan Review applicants and that we are relying on the project to be approved subject to further DPD review. Chairman Linnehan states that at the very least the applicant could have provided a similar site in Lowell for the Board to compare it to. The Board does not have a lot of information to approve the site without sufficient information. What is it going to look like? Chairman Linnehan would like additional information. Member Malavich states he will not vote on this petition until he has the correct documentation. Member Lockhart concurs. Member Cheng offers a compromise to have the Board review the SPR (and wait to vote on the SP until additional information is provided). Chairman Linnehan states that the project is positive, we agree with the intent, we just need to see elevations and a landscaping plan so we can understand what the site is going to look like. Motion: T. Linnehan motioned and R. Lockhart seconded the motion to continue the petition to January 4, 2021. IV. Other Business Pre-Application Discussion: Adie Way (River’s Edge) 01852 Pre-application discussion for a proposed development consisting of fifty-two (52) duplex-style housing units. On Behalf: Kevin Murphy, Representative for Applicant Brian Milisci, Representative for Applicant Adam Garvey, COO Lowell Housing Authority Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: None Discussion: Member Frechette references Mr. Slagle’s email dated 12/7/2020 and states that it helps explain the process and provides much needed context. Member Lockhart states that if we can construct good quality affordable housing to people, this is a no brainer. We should amend the zoning to meet that need. Member Malavich agrees with Mr. Lockhart and is comfortably with rezoning the property to allow for the development of quality, affordable housing in Lowell. Member Gallivan states that there is 50-52 units that is being laid out, can you please confirm that these are duplex. Confirms that this is duplex style construction on this parcel. She agrees that the oversight is appropriate and would require another round of review from the Planning Board. Member Cheng agrees with Ms. Gallivan that if these are duplexes that this matches the character of the neighborhood. Additionally, he concurs with Mr. Lockhart and Malavich that the City is need of good, quality, affordable housing. He believes this is a good conceptual plan to carry forward the rezoning. Member Pandres is supportive of more housing (affordable or market rate). He asks the applicant if they have had conversations with the existing community and could you please provide feedback on those conversations. Mr. Garvey states that existing residents have informed the current plan. We originally brought them the idea of one structure with multi units. Chairman Linnehan confirms with the applicant that the Board is not able to take a vote tonight to change the re-zone plan. However, you can represent that we are more amenable to your proposal based on additional information. Prior to, the Board was hesitant to change a zoning when the Board was not clear on future oversight. It is now clear that the Lowell Planning Board, Lowell City Council, and DHCD all need to Member Frechette states that based on the communication from Eric Slagle, indicating that the plan requires oversight from Lowell City Council and DHCD, the Board is more open to the rezone. Member Malavich agrees with the comments of fellow members and thinks this is a good plan moving forward. Member Lockhart agrees. Motion: J. Frechette motioned and R. Lockhart seconded the motion to submit supplemental comments to the Lowell City Council representing that the Lowell Planning Board is more amenable to the rezone proposal based on new information provided. The following is the additional information provided to the Lowell Planning Board for their consideration:  Proposed Site Plan, prepared by Whitman & Bingham, prepared for O’Brien Construction Enterprises, LLC, dated December 3, 2020.  Email correspondence from R. Eric Slagle, Director of Development Services, Department of Planning and Development, dated December 7, 2020. The Planning Board is supportive of the construction of quality, affordable housing in the City of Lowell and affirms that substantial oversight of this project will be required prior to any construction, which satisfies any previous concern they originally had about approving the rezone petition. This oversight includes approval from the Lowell City Council, DHCD, and the Lowell Planning Board. The motion passed unanimously (5-0). V. Notices Member Frechette announces a Rourke Bridge Replacement Project public meeting on December 9th 6:00P-7:30P. The zoom link can be found online at mass.gov. Historic Board will meet on Monday, December 14, 2020 VI. Further Comments from Planning Board Members Chairman Linnehan expresses congratulations to Fran Cigliano as the new Senior Planner. Member Cheng provides a personal update on new position at a regional planning agency. VII. Adjournment R. Malavich motioned and R. Lockhart seconded the motion to adjourn the meeting. The time was 9:33PM.