Planning Board

City of Lowell - Planning Board Planning Board Meeting Minutes Monday, December 6 6:30 p.m. City Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, City Hall City of Lowell, 375 Merrimack Street, Lowell, MA Remote Participation Optional 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 Caleb Cheng, Member Russell Pandres, Associate Member Sinead Gallivan, Associate Member Members Absent Richard Lockhart, Member Robert Malavich, Member Others Present Dylan Ricker, Associate Planner Christine Clancy, DPW Commissioner A quorum of the Board was present. Chairman Linnehan called the meeting to order at 6:32pm. I. Minutes for Approval November 15, 2021 T. Linnehan noted that staff is still finishing the minutes for this meeting and this should be continued to the January 3, 2022 Planning Board meeting. T. Linnehan motioned, and G. Frechette seconded the motion to continue the November 5, 2021 meeting minutes to the January 3, 2022 Planning Board meeting. The motion passed unanimously, (5-0). II. Continued Business III. New Business Tree Hearing: 157-157.1 West Forest Street, and 138 Marshall Avenue 01851 National Grid has applied to the Lowell Planning Board seeking approval for the removal of 79 public shade trees located at 157 and 157.1 West Forest Street, and 3 public shade trees at 138 Marshall Avenue. Of the 82 public shade trees, 1 is over 24 inches in diameter and 21 are dead or dying. The proposed tree removal is necessary for the Lowell Area Gas Modernization Project which involves the replacement of an existing gas pipeline system in the Greater Lowell area. On Behalf: Joshua Lee Smith, Applicant’s Representative J. Lee Smith stated that National Grid is seeking approval to remove up to 82 protected shade trees. J. Lee Smith said the purpose of the tree removal is to accommodate the LAGMP to replace components of the existing gas pipeline. J. Lee Smith stated the applicant met on site with the DPW Commissioner in September and up to 12 of the trees may not be removed, this will be determined during construction. J. Lee Smith said that 21 of the trees are dead or dying and noted that 23 trees could be replanted on site. J. Lee Smith stated the applicant is working to mitigate the loss of the trees. J. Lee Smith said the trees being removed will either be replanted or a contribution will be made to the City’s revolving tree fund pursuant the City Tree Ordinance. J. Lee Smith added the applicant will work with the City to determine the locations for any trees planted off site. Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: None Discussion: T. Linnehan confirmed that the applicant will be going before the Conservation Commission at their December 8, 2021 meeting. G. Frechette noted there is significant noise from the highway and stated the removal of trees may increase the sound on the neighborhood. G. Frechette asked if trees planted via the contribution to the tree fund would be in the same location. C. Clancy said of the 82 trees being removed, the stumps must remain due to the wetland. C. Clancy added that this limits the applicant’s ability to replant trees in the same location. C. Clancy stated 23 trees will be replanted in the immediate area, and said it is her intent to have all trees replanted as close to the site as possible. G. Frechette asked about the plan to let vegetation grow back over time, C. Clancy confirmed and added that this was in the Conservation Commission discussion. G. Frechette noted he would’ve preferred the applicant receive Conservation Commission approval first, and expressed his concern about the associated impact on traffic noise. R. Pandres asked whether the applicant intends to replace the removed trees which are dead. J. Lee Smith said that the replacement of dead trees is at the discretion of the tree warden. R. Pandres stated he prefers to see all trees including dead trees replaced and noted that in terms of deadening noise, dead trees serve as a noise buffer. J. Lee Smith stated that this hearing is a result of the City shade tree ordinance and removing trees on city land requires a hearing. J Lee Smith said that the pipeline is located in a pre-existing utility corridor easement which is not open to the public. J. Lee Smith noted the highway is a significant distance from the neighborhood, and added there is reasoning for the shade tree ordinance as it relates to trees in a park or a public way. J. Lee Smith stated that there is significant existing tree buffer from the highway and based on the location of trees being removed the impact would be minimal and likely unnoticeable. S. Gallivan agreed with R. Pandres that she would prefer to see the full amount of removed trees replaced, and supports having the applicant work with the tree warden to locate trees as close to the removed trees as possible. S. Gallivan noted it will take the young trees a while to mature. T. Linnehan asked if C. Clancy agrees with the applicant’s assessment. C. Clancy confirmed she was in agreement with the comments and recommends that 23 trees be planted on site and 60 trees off site to mitigate impact of removed trees. C. Clancy noted she agrees with Planning Board comments. G. Frechette asked whether a condition requiring trees be planted as close to site as possible was feasible. C. Clancy said based on the site there is not enough space for 60 trees and noted that the trees must be placed on City property and they will start the replanting as close to the site as possible. T. Linnehan stated that the forest is dense on site which makes it difficult to replant trees. C. Clancy stated the City can also use the contribution to replace dead trees in City ROWs in the neighborhood. Motion: G. Frechette motioned to approve the request with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with all Conservation Commission conditions; 2. The applicant will replace 23 trees on site as stated, and the applicant will donate to the City of Lowell tree replacement fund for the remaining trees; and 3. The applicant shall work with the City to ensure trees are replaced as near to the site as possible to offset any sound impact on the neighborhood. S. Gallivan seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously, (5-0). Site Plan Review and Special Permit: 733-735 Broadway Street 01854 Boston Capital has applied to the Lowell Planning Board and Lowell Zoning Board of Appeals for Site Plan Review, Special Permit, and Variance approval to redevelop the existing historic mill building at 733-735 Broadway Street into 53 affordable units. The project includes the redevelopment of the existing structure, as well as the construction of an addition to include additional housing, a management office, and parking. The subject property is located in the Traditional Multi-Family (TMF) zoning district. The project requires Site Plan Review approval 11.4, Special Permit approval per Section 8.1, and Special Permit approval per Section 4.5 from the Lowell Planning Board. The project will also require Variance approvals per Section 6.1, Section 8.1, Section 5.1, Section 5.2, and Section 5.3 from the Lowell Zoning Board of Appeals, and any other relief required under the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. On Behalf: Rich Mazzocchi, Applicant R. Mazzocchi explained Boston Capital’s mission and experience developing affordable housing citing a similar project completed in Dorchester, MA. R. Mazzocchi stated the site is currently occupied as a distribution center for the Merrimack Valley Food Bank. R. Mazzocchi said the project would be complementary to the neighborhood, and stated the development includes 53 apartments and 53 parking spaces. R. Mazzocchi noted the project is in close proximity to public transportation as well as retail and services and includes a bike storage area. R. Mazzocchi explained the nearby and on site recreational amenities. R. Mazzocchi noted select areas of the historic façade will be preserved. R. Mazzocchi stated the proposal aligns with many of the City’s Master Plan goals and the units will all be affordable units. Bill Martin, Applicant’s Representative B. Martin stated there are 2 pathways for approval outlined in the staff memo. B. Martin said the current use is a pre-existing non-conforming and the project would convert the property to another pre- existing non-conforming use. B. Martin noted there is a Special Permit for a historic conversion that could be used as well. B. Martin said that both pathways require Variance approvals from the Zoning Board and Historic Board approval. B. Martin noted the applicant is actively working with the Lowell Historic Board. B. Martin stated the applicant does not have a preference between the 2 approval pathways. Darrell Aldrich, Applicant’s Architect D. Aldrich stated the existing building is a detriment to the neighboring properties and stated the existing building is located near to adjacent residences. D. Aldrich said the site is currently entirely impervious. D. Aldrich explained the existing building design will be incorporated into the new design. D. Aldrich noted the building is continuation of the building fabric with the abutting Lowell Housing Authority building and added the building will be close in height to this structure. D. Aldrich stated the historic façade facing Shaffer Street will be restored. D. Aldrich said the development will incorporate many passive house goals. D. Aldrich said the site will have an underground stormwater infiltration system. D. Aldrich said the project will form a good transition from the existing neighborhood and the Locks and Canal Park. Brian Geaudreau, Applicant’s Engineer B. Geaudreau explained the site plan. B. Geaudreau said the plan is to demolish most of the existing building in accordance with the Historic Board. B. Geaudreau noted the stormwater management plan has been approved by the City’s stormwater management team. B. Geaudreau stated that access to the site will be via Tyng Street which is privately owned and added that Lowell Housing Authority uses this street for access to their property. B. Geaudreau stated there will be screened of the property to abutting properties. Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: Roseanne, Walker Street, Lowell, MA Roseanne stated that Broadway Street has heavy traffic and there is very little parking in the area. Roseanne said there is significant traffic, no parking, and the area is dense as is. Roseanne expressed concern about the impact 53 units would have on the neighborhood., and stated she is opposed to the project. Grace Zhou, Waugh Street, Lowell, MA G. Zhou said there is not a lot of parking in the area and UMass Lowell students take up parking. G. Zhou stated she believes the project would make the area too crowded. Discussion: T. Linnehan stated that the Planning Board does not typically decide the approval pathways, and this is the applicant’s responsibility. T. Linnehan said that that would be a good question for a pre-application hearing. B. Martin said the applicant would like to pursue the approval pathway via a Special Permit under Section 4.5. T. Linnehan asked for the location of the addition and what is being demolished. D. Aldrich said the building will abut existing Lowell Housing Authority property and stated the existing loading dock will be removed with an addition being rebuilt in this location. R. Mazzocchi stated the existing façade on Shaffer and Tyng Streets will remain. G. Frechette noted the Board has historically been supportive of re-uses of historic buildings, and added that the City is in need of affordable housing. G. Frechette expressed concern that the proposal is more of a new development than a historic conversion based on the scope of new building. G. Frechette stated a peer reviewed traffic study would be necessary for the development. G. Frechette expressed concern that 1 parking space per unit may not be sufficient depending on the type of affordable housing. G. Frechette said he would like to see the scale pulled back to more closely align with the zoning. G. Frechette added that he believes the relief from open space requirement is reasonable based on nearby outdoor amenities. R. Pandres agreed with G. Frechette’s concerns that the proposal is more of a tear down and rebuild than a historic conversion. R. Pandres asked how the craft space would be used. R. Mazzocchi said the craft space would be programmed based on the residents of the property and clarified the space would be for residents only and not a daycare. R. Pandres asked about staffing at the management office. R. Mazzocchi said once the building is fully occupied there will 2 staff members, including 1 full time staff member with staff managing leasing, maintenance, etc. R. Pandres asked about the status of Tyng Street as an entrance to the site. R. Mazzocchi said they are conducting title research and determining who owns the property. R. Mazzocchi stated the applicant is amenable to conditioning approval on the applicant receiving approval to use Tyng Street and added that the applicant may have a right to use Tyng Street without an agreement. R. Pandres asked how the passive house design will be applied to the project. D. Aldrich stated that passive house is typically a highly efficient envelope which conserves winter heat and summer AC conditions. D. Aldrich said the roof will be designed not to absorb heat and said the plumbing fixtures and heating systems will be high efficiency. R. Pandres asked which passive house requirements were being prioritized. D. Aldrich stated each of the requirements are being prioritized and this design will make long-term management of the building less costly. C. Cheng agreed with concerns about the parking and scale of the project based on the extensive list of Variances required and the density normally allowed by zoning. C. Cheng stated that housing may be a better use for the property than the food bank, but the 4 story building may impact nearby properties as it exceeds the height requirement. C. Cheng expressed concerns about the overall scale of the project and expressed support for a peer reviewed traffic study. C. Cheng added he has concerns about parking due to the many two and three-bedroom units at the property. C. Cheng noted the traffic study should review the parking impacts. C. Cheng stated the Board will need to be convinced that traffic and parking will not be a problem. C. Cheng added that typically the Board has applicants prepare a Transportation Demand Management Plan with proposals that do not meet the parking requirement including alternative transit options. S. Gallivan noted that she appreciates the work that went into the project to create an attractive building. S. Gallivan agreed with the concerns regarding traffic, parking, and density. T. Linnehan asked about the status of the approval to use Tyng Street. B. Martin said they are conducting a title review to determine who owns the property and whether they require permission to use Tyng Street. B. Martin stated the applicant is amenable to this condition. T. Linnehan stated he would not approve the Site Plan until access to the site has been approved. T. Linnehan agreed with fellow Board members about the need for a traffic analysis, and noted the new use would have an entirely different traffic impact on the neighborhood. T. Linnehan stated he views the concept of the proposal favorably, but is concerned about the scale based on the significant relief requested. T. Linnehan reiterated the importance proving access to Tyng Street prior to the Site Plan approval. G. Frechette asked whether the applicant is will to conduct the traffic study and review the density of the development. G. Frechette expressed support for a continuance based on the applicant’s understanding of the Board’s concerns. R. Mazzocchi agreed to the continuance and added they will review the Board’s comments. R. Mazzocchi stated the applicant is amenable to the traffic study and parking study as well as the peer review. R. Mazzocchi added that in their experience the parking ratio for an urban site with access to public transportation and bike storage has worked well. R. Mazzocchi stated the building that is to be demolished is not feasible for residential conversion based on the existing conditions. R. Mazzocchi said the development will respect the historic nature of the building and they intend to tie this building in with the neighboring Lowell Housing Authority building. T. Linnehan noted the importance of Board comments and access to the site, and added that coming back to the Board with this information will be crucial for the project. G. Frechette stated the development is being proposed in the TMF zone and should be based on the scale of nearby buildings. G. Frechette clarified his preference for a peer reviewed traffic study. R. Mazzocchi agreed. R. Mazzocchi requested the petition be continued to the February 24, 2022 Planning Board meeting. Motion: G. Frechette motioned, and R. Pandres seconded the motion to send the future traffic study for peer review, and to continue the petition to the February 24, 2022 Planning Board meeting. The motion passed unanimously, (5-0). IV. Other Business Pre-Application: 72-74 Boisvert Street and 253 West Sixth Street 01850 James Zorbas and Ryan Rourke have applied for a pre-application discussion with the Lowell Planning Board on their proposal to convert the former Saint Louis Elementary School building into 19 residential units. The subject properties are located in the Traditional Multi-Family (TMF) zoning district, and consist of 23,689 square feet of land, and a 16,386 square foot building. When the applicant files their full application it will require Site Plan Review approval per Section 11.4, and Special Permit approval per Section 8.1 from the Lowell Planning Board. The petition will also require Variance approvals from the Lowell Zoning Board of Appeals. On Behalf: John Geary, Applicant’s Representative J. Geary stated the Saint Louis School closed 1.5 years ago and the applicant currently has the property under agreement. J. Geary said the applicant is requesting input on the elevations, floor plans, and preliminary parking plan. J. Geary stated the proposal is to convert the school into a multi-family residential building. J. Geary said the applicant anticipates needing a parking variance and dimensional variances from the Zoning Board. J. Geary stated the applicant has met with Centralville neighborhood groups and will keep them apprised of any updates. J. Geary noted the reuse will provide much needed housing to the City and said the size of the units is on par with other developments in the City. Kerry Owens, Applicant’s Representative K. Owens stated they are proposing a few different design options for the building, and explained each option. K. Owens said the development would create a green open space for tenants on site to include a grill space, dog area, and space for kids to play. K. Owens stated they intend to include 19 units in the development and noted the building presented challenges due to the existing structure. K. Owens said the size of the units is based on the location of load bearing walls which why the applicant would need relief from the minimum unit size requirement under Section 8.1. K. Owens explained the preliminary parking plan. Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: None Discussion: R. Pandres asked whether the applicant has explored a shared parking agreement with the abutters including the nearby church. J. Geary said the applicant would explore this option but noted the church is currently up for sale. T. Linnehan expressed support for the proposed open space and noted this would be an improvement to the site. C. Cheng said the walkway may be improved with the inclusion of more landscaping space instead, and noted that the property includes a lot of asphalt and would benefit from more green space. C. Cheng said the applicant should include a Transportation Demand Management Plan in their final application. C. Cheng added that he is supportive of the copper treatment which aligns with historic elements of the building. G. Frechette agreed with Board members. G. Frechette said the proposal is a good example of a historic conversion which matches the scale of the existing building. G. Frechette stated that adding landscaping would improve the site. S. Gallivan agreed about C. Cheng’s comments regarding the parking area. S. Gallivan stated increasing the pervious surface on site and replacing the chain link fence with plantings would be beneficial. S. Gallivan asked about entrance and whether the property will be handicap accessible. K. Owens said accessibility is only required if there are 20 or more units and as a result this is not required. S. Gallivan expressed support for including some accessible units for handicapped people or residents with injuries that may have trouble accessing their units. V. Notices VI. Further Comments from Planning Board Members VII. Adjournment