Planning Board

City of Lowell - Planning Board Planning Board Meeting Minutes Monday October 16, 2023 6:30 p.m. In Person at City Council Remote 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 Sinead Gallivan, Member Allison Dolan-Wilson, Associate Member Members Absent Richard Lockhart, Member Others Present Francesca Cigliano, Senior Planner A quorum of the Board was present. Chairman Linnehan called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm I. Minutes for Approval II. Continued Business Site Plan Review – 21 Christman Avenue, 01852 The Lowell Planning Board will hold a public hearing to hear all interested persons relative to an application by Landsmart, LLC to construct and operate a Veteran’s Education and Housing Facility at 21 Christman Avenue. The proposed facility will include classrooms, meeting space, an associated office, and 12 temporary residential units. The subject property is located in the Traditional Single- Family (TSF) zoning district. The proposal requires Site Plan Review approval per Section 11.4 to construct greater than 3 residential units. On Behalf: Douglas Duschene, Applicant’s Attorney Matt Hamor, Applicant’s Engineer Dean Jenkins, Applicant D. Duschene noted there was no mechanism for a use variance. Dover amendment was approved by the Building Commissioner and Law Department. The law says you can hold a site plan review provided that that review is limited to the considerations provided in the law. We have listened to what the board said. Changed the architecture. All with the intent to make this building meet massing and scaling requirements. We have a new rendering of what the building would look like in this setting. That building does meet dimensional requirements. I believe it is conforming with all dimensional requirements for any structure. Not looking for relief with respect to dimensional requirements. This building has approximately 2500 sq. ft. Footprint, it’s about 5,000 sq. ft. Not out of scale. M. Hamor explained that they would be adding an 8ft tall fence along the left and rear property lines. Would be willing to add arborvitaes as well. Would also add four shade trees. Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: Doreen Perrotti, 28 Jean Ave D. Perrotti said she doesn’t see any public bathrooms in the plan. M. Hamor said a bathroom could be installed on the ground level. D. Perrotti said that’s the stuff that bothers me. To me that would be a basic thing. That’s what makes it feel like it’s not about education. I feel like last time ADA issues got glossed over. I have received an email from Clearpath that they don’t have an intention of moving forward until sidewalk and crosswalk are addressed. Safety issue. Not trying to be unreasonable here. Wanted a cross light here. Put in 12 people there that don’t have transportation that will live there. We’re not going to concede on the safety portion. Don’t want our existing fence ripped out. D. Jenkins said he would meet with neighbors about buffers and fencing on-site. D. Jenkins said he is building a new sidewalk. Have been in contact with LRTA. Trying to work with them to create a mechanism that allows buses that go out there to turn and come back and drop-off so they don’t have to cross the street. The other thing - Clearpath has shuttle services. Main thing they do. Gentlemen on this site will be shuttled as a group for shopping etc. What happens if this is approved and a violation is filed and the federal government puts a cease and desist on it? What happens if it’s an empty building? I don’t think the trees and fence are going to fix the headlights. I don’t think the building fits into the neighborhood. Dover Amendment cannot override safety. Kim Scott, 27 Commonwealth Ave K. Scott said at the last meeting I thought they were coming back with a smaller house. This is a monstrosity. The women’s shelter is about half the size. I would say the bulk and scale does not fit the neighborhood. That is in your purview. Parking issue - loading zones, shuttles. There’s no loading area. There will be deliveries, snow removal. There’s no place to turn around. Nicole Allard, 50 Jean Ave N. Allard said we have some serious water pressure issues. Wondering what will happen when we add 12 units. South Lowell has sewage backup. On City of Lowell website- it says water and sewer overflows occur when there’s excessive rain and snow. We have had those issues. I wanted to address that. The other big issue I have - site maintenance. This last storm we had brought down large branches and they are still there. Lawn has been mowed once. What happens when they go to demolish house that is there? Wildlife is going somewhere. Prefer to have no more mice. How can we approve something when an issue on safety isn’t being addressed. Patricia Brassard, 27 Lowell Street P. Brassard said I am beyond words tonight. Have been asking for a report from an independent traffic and safety analysis of the entire neighborhood. All the vehicles coming and going, going to cause traffic backups when there’s already traffic backups.Now we’re going to have more traffic along our houses. A lot going on in this family neighborhood. What is the real need for this building in this neighborhood. Need to find better location. Have lived here for 59 years. Does not belong in a family neighborhood. Do not welcome this one bit. It’s not right it’s not fair. Cannot fix the noise pollution this is going to create. A lot of noise pollution - opening doors, closing doors, backup beeping, voices. Dover amendment is an issue. I’m not sure it truly applies to this facility. Need a little time to look into this with proper authority. This is a temporary living facility. We don’t need a hotel. We feel that the residents and long-term homeowners should be given fair consideration before project is voted on. Submitted a petition saying no we don’t want it. Women’s shelter down the street was snuck in. None of us got notice. Now surrounded by 6-ft vinyl fence. It’s ugly it’s disgusting. I think you know I’m not interested in this facility. Please more time to get more information on Dover Amendment. Tammy Bedard, 7 Gene Ave T. Bedard said this is a big concern. That neighborhood is built on wetlands. Adding more property - what’s going to happen to our water? That definitely does not belong in our neighborhood. People from women’s shelter are hanging around walking around. We got kids and daycare facilities. Traffic is incredible. I hope someone appeals to neighbors who have been there forever. David Donald 33 Gene Ave D. Donald said Lowell tried to get crosswalk twice and were denied because it wouldn’t be safe. There were two accidents on that road. I highly recommend and hope that the Board would vote this down. Let’s end this. It’s getting ridiculous. Painful for us. It’s all we talk about. Jeff Thomas, 76 Bowden Street J. Thomas said he didn’t want to beat a dead horse but residents have given plenty of reasons to deny. Two major ones - size of this building, way out of character for this neighborhood. This looks three stories, not two stories. Parking - I don’t think they will have adequate parking. D. Jenkins said artist rendering isn’t correct. Only 2.5 stories, not 3.5 stories. M. Hamor said it would be 2 stories. MH said it will look 3 stories from front but in back its 2 stories. You take the average. David Donald asked if the classes would be in the basement. M. Hamor said entire building would need to be code compliant. Julie Costello, 35 Christman Ave J. Costello said classes are in the basement. Why are all the classes in the basement with no bathroom? This is not an educational facility. M. Hamor noted it would be compliant with the building code. M. Hamor noted the building would be fully sprinkled. Steve Turcotte, 15 Folden Street. S. Turcotte said it is appalling you’re saying you’re doing this for veterans. Another way for you guys to make a quick buck. This neighborhood will be left with an atrocity of a building. My brother is serving right now. The fact that you will put them in this building. Trucks coming down 495. Doing this in the name of veterans is disgusting and appalling. I can’t imagine trying to cross the street. Just looking for a quick buck. D. Duschene said as I’m sure as you’re aware, you get comments and make changes so you come forward with new plans. Typical. Iterations. Correcting things. I think we have done this in every instance. We may have misrepresented the activity that is going to occur at this site. Not in and out vans, multiple vans on a given date. Most of our classes, folks are required. Classes will have a minimum of 12 participants. P. Brassard said I didn’t say there would be trash pickup every day. I was told there would be meal deliveries three times a day every day. Noise pollution. We have enough with the highway. We don’t need anymore. They need to reconsider the location. Wonderful idea but not on Christman Ave. How often will they have to change laundry? This is a hotel you know. They have to keep it up. T. Linnehan said we received a report from the Law Dept that this meets the Dover Amendment, as well as the Building Commissioner. Joanne Dolan, 37 Jean Avenue J. Dolan asked if everything needs to be in place before everything is OK. T. Linnehan said that building inspectors need to look into it. M. Hamor clarified the building permit review process. C. Cheng clarified the Board’s purview of Site Plan Review vs. building inspector’s review of building permits. Discussion: G. Frechette noted he would be recusing himself from the discussion and vote related to this matter. S. Gallivan said she has some comments. Happy neighbors brought up accessibility concerns. Concerned about the accessibility in the floor plans. Concerned about the remoteness of the exits in the interior. Don’t look remote enough for the building code. I know these aren’t under our review but wanted to point them out. Don’t think it minimizes departure of character. Minimize volume of cut and fill. There’s question about how tall the building is. Proposed grade- 105 feet. Raising the grade by 4ft of building to bring the overall building height. I do think that the plan is proposing to increase the fill in the site to get building height that you want. Berming it up. Not minimizing volume of fill. Adding fill there to get height that they want. D. Jenkins said like any construction, start with foundation and you dig around. Not taking an unreasonable amount of fill on the site. S. Gallivan said that it is now 101 ft elevation and raising it to 105 ft. Raising it by 4 ft. C. Cheng said it’s not clear to me what is within our purview. T. Linnehan explained. C. Cheng suggested removing parking and adding additional trees. C. Cheng said glare is a concern. C. Cheng said in terms of fill, it does look like a 3-story building. MH added that balancing the site involves a number of different things. Want to make sure stormwater is OK. That’s where the grades can change. Groundwater in this area is high. Has gone through iterations with the stormwater team and has resulted in this elevations plan. Fill was added to comply with height requirement. M. Hamor said could add additional vegetation and screening by removing two rear parking spaces. T. Linnehan has a couple questions about safety related to traffic. Looked over comments from the traffic engineer. Received a couple responses from her. In favor of replacing the sidewalk. Indicated once you get to Woburn Street, MassDOT jurisdiction. She indicated that for a project of this size, would not need a traffic study. There is a lot of traffic in that neighborhood, but what they are proposing she does not feel It would create safety hazards. Could handle traffic no problem. Very satisfied with pedestrian traffic. Petition City Council to add “no parking” signs in front of building. Would help meet safety concerns. She was satisfied that this meets public safety. Joe Cady in favor of new sidewalk so long as it meets city standards. Dev Services satisfied with waste management. C. Cheng confirmed snow would be removed when needed. M. Hamor said yes. Motion: S. Gallivan motioned to deny the Site Plan based on zoning 11.4.10 site plan review granting criteria: - Minimizes volume of cut and fill - Minimizes unreasonable departure of scale …public ways and places. C. Cheng said applicant has made effort to comply with zoning. Don’t feel I can support motion. A. Dolan-Wilson said she appreciates all commentary. Thinking of what is specifically in our jurisdiction, I can’t agree with the motion. T. Linnehan seconded the motion. (2-2) motion fails. C. Cheng motioned to approve the Site Plan with the following conditions:  1. The applicant shall obtain a stormwater permit from the Lowell Regional Wastewater Utility; 2. A new sidewalk shall be built to Woburn Street to city standard; 3. Snow shall be removed off-site in the event of a large snowstorm; 4. A landscaping plan to be submitted and approved by DPD showing the removal of two rear parking spaces prior to applying for a building permit; 5. The applicant shall work with Board of Health to approve indoor waste storage; 6. The applicant shall provide private trash collection; 7. “No parking” signs shall be installed in front of the building, subject to City Council approval. The motion was seconded by A. Dolan-Wilson and failed (2-2). Definitive Subdivision – 330 Princeton Boulevard, 01851 The Lowell Planning Board will hold a public hearing to hear all interested persons relative to an application by Edson Dos Santos for the property at 330 Princeton Boulevard. The subject property is located in the Traditional Two-Family (TTF) zoning district. The applicant is seeking to subdivide the existing lot, and construct a two-family dwelling on the newly created lot. The newly created lot will not meet the minimum frontage requirement pursuant Section 5.1 of the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. The project requires Definitive Subdivision approval from the Lowell Planning Board under Lowell’s Subdivision of Land Regulations. On Behalf: None Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: None Discussion: T. Linnehan noted that the applicant had requested a continuance to the February 5, 2023 Planning Board meeting. Motion: T. Linnehan motioned and C. Cheng seconded the motion to continue the petition to the February 5, 2024 Planning Board meeting. The motion passed unanimously, (5-0). III. New Business Zoning Amendment: MBTA Communities – Creation of Three (3) Multifamily Zoning Districts The Lowell Planning Board will hold a public hearing to hear all interested persons relative to a proposed zoning amendment that would create three overlay districts in and around the Gallagher Terminal and downtown Lowell and would bring Lowell into compliance with MGL Ch. 40A Section 3A, commonly known as the MBTA Communities legislation. On Behalf: Francesca Cigliano, Senior Planner Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: None Discussion: G. Frechette said he dissected it and he became more and more satisfied. I don’t think it is as big of a departure as it first appears from current zoning. I believe in creating critical mass downtown. We have to attract people who want that urban experience. I think beyond the requirement of the MBTA Communities, these changes make an effort to address that. We do have parking garages. Went to Thorndike in the weekends. There is a lot of capacity there at night. Maybe during the day there would be some issues. Seems to me somehow consensus that boards don’t approve big development here. We understand parking situation. Lot area per dwelling unit has been a hindrance for larger developments. You won’t have as many projects require variances. I was impressed. I serve on a lot of committees with people from other towns. A lot of people are fighting this in other communities. Some of the largest obstacles are code improvements in these buildings: sprinklers, elevators. This is going to help, but that’s still a practical part of all of this. T. Linnehan said the project we just approved on Westford Street would fall into MBTA community zoning. C. Cheng said he could see the mixed use as being tricky in terms of meeting the parking requirement. Motion: C. Cheng motioned to issue positive recommendation to City Council for the following reasons: 1. The proposed zoning overlay districts do not actually depart substantially from existing zoning; 2. The proposed zoning overlay districts promote critical mass and support efforts to revitalize downtown; and 3. The proposed zoning overlay districts aid in expedited approval of projects in that area. The motion was seconded by T. Linnehan and passed unanimously, (5-0). IV. Notices V. Other Business Election of Officers Chair, Vice Chair, Second Vice Chair, Representative to NMCOG, Representative to Historic Board G. Frechette motioned and S. Gallivan seconded the motion to nominate T. Linnehan as Chair. The motion passed unanimously, (5-0). T. Linnehan motioned and A. Dolan-Wilson seconded the motion to nominate G. Frechette as Vice Chair. The motion passed unanimously, (5-0). A. Dolan-Wilson motioned and G. Frechette seconded the motion to nominate S. Gallivan as second Vice Chair. The motion passed unanimously, (5-0). C. Cheng motioned and S. Gallivan seconded the motion to nominate R. Lockhart as Historic Board Representative. The motion passed unanimously, (5-0). T. Linnehan motioned and C. Cheng seconded the motion to nominate G. Frechette as representative to NMCOG. The motion passed unanimously, (5-0). VI. Further Comments from Planning Board Members S. Gallivan provided an update on the Community Preservation Committee. The Committee will be reviewing CPC applications at upcoming meetings. T. Linnehan thanked the City Manager and City Council for his reappointment to the Planning Board. VII. Adjournment C. Cheng motioned and A. Dolan-Wilson seconded the motion to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously, (5-0). The time was 9:08PM.