Planning Board

City of Lowell - Planning Board Planning Board Meeting Minutes Monday. December 4 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 Chairman Linnehan Vice-Chair Frechette Member Cheng Member Gallivan Members Absent Member Lockhart Member Dolan-Wilson Others Present Peter Cutrumbes, Assistant Planner A quorum of the Board was present. Chairman Linnehan called the meeting to order at 6:32 PM. I. Minutes for Approval 11/20/2023 Minutes Motion: G. Frechette motioned, with C. Cheng seconding, to approve the minutes with the following condition: 1. Member Lockhart is reflected as absent The vote was unanimous (4-0). II. New Business 2 Prince Ave, 1 Markley Way 01852 Markley Group, LLC has applied to the Lowell Planning Board seeking to amend a 2018 Site Plan Review approval which was also amended in 2020. The applicant proposes to alter the parking area, and make associated changes to the site. The subject property is located in the Light Industrial (LI) zoning district. The changes require Site Plan Review approval per Section 11.4 for the construction or expansion of any parking lot with more than 14 spaces or 4,000 square feet of impervious surface. On Behalf: Antonio Moura, the Engineer for the project, spoke. A. Moura gave a recap of the recent history, given it has been before the Board multiple times. In 2020 it received a minor modification to its original Site Plan to add a fourth building. It also received ConCom approval for this. A. Moura said Building 4 was never constructed and the Markley Group does not intend to construct it. He stated that the applicant received ConCom approval for this proposal over the summer. The new plan retains many elements of the original plan, but changes the shape of the paved area to be curvilinear, opening up more greenspace. In Support: None In Opposition: Nancy Fortes of 36 Iowa Street inquired as to where the access road depicted on the plan exits. A. Moura said it exits onto Iowa Street. He noted that this was approved under the 2020 plan. It is there to allow for repair vehicles to get to the generators, should they need work in the future. He said the path is currently landscaped, not maintained as a road, and is for emergency access. N. Fortes said the neighborhood is too congested and that fire trucks could not access the generators in an emergency through that road. J. Fortes of 36 Iowa Street also spoke in opposition. He says the neighborhood never agreed to the entrance to the emergency access road, and that with the several changes the plans has undergone, they have had multiple opportunities to. He said there are site plan modifications that are outside the scope of the parking lot. He provided the example of a new construction in the Northwest corner of the site plan. Eileen Castle of 64 Otis Street had a number of opposition points. She expressed concern that the water tower has been constructed without the Site Plan being approved. She asked why they didn’t get another public notice for this. She said the mist from the cooling towers is supposed to dissipate into the atmosphere, but is landing on buildings and cars in the neighborhood. She questioned whether the Markley Group will need to come to the Planning Board or the City Council again. She also asked if anyone has inspected the fire lanes or the cooling towers recently. Jacqueline Colton expressed her opposition to the project and concurred with the previous speakers. Discussion: G. Frechette asked for a side by side plan from the Markley Group demonstrating what they have changed from their original plan. He also asked if they added anything besides the parking. S. Gallivan noted that she asked for the same thing. A. Moura presented two large posterboards with the plans side by side. He noted the main difference is the parking area. There was also a guardshack previously approved that has been removed. He noted that the quantity of the cooling towers may change. He noted that there was a security fence added in the northeast corner of the lot. G. Frechette stated that there are other changes besides the parking. A. Moura said that the majority of the work is the parking area, as it needs to be done within the next year to meet ConCom approval deadlines. G. Frechette agreed with neighbors that the area is congested and the access road presents challenges. He said he would be more likely to approve the plan without the emergency access road on it if it is not currently needed. A. Moura asked if a condition of approval could keep the emergency access road and require notification of the Board if it is ever built. T. Linnehan said they have spent a significant amount of time on the project. He noted that S. Gallivan asked for side by side comparisons and that he asked for more information on the Andrews Street issue, but that the applicant didn’t provide either. S. Gallivan noted that the Markley Group requested to extend the timeline to finish the fence from May 2021 to August 2021, but that it is still not done. S. Gallivan asked if the emergency access is required by code. A. Moura said it isn’t needed by code, but that it is a historic access road. He said that fire trucks can access the site from Markley Way. S. Gallivan said she sees the new substation as a substantial change as it is on the property line. A. Moura said they are not 100% confident that it will actually be built. S. Gallivan said that anything on the plan is under their purview, even if it is just potential. She expressed discomfort with the substation on the plan without more information. C. Cheng concurred with the other Board members. He said they cannot just approve an outline. They need to know the details of the entrance or the substation. He said a redline version of the plans together would be helpful. He noted that it is worthwhile to go through the plan with A. Moura’s client and determine what is going to be built and provide more details. A. Moura stressed that what they really need approval on is the area within the green borders that was approved by the ConCom as it needs to be completed within one year. He took a brief moment to discuss with his client. A. Moura siad Markley would be amenable to removing the access drive from the approval for the plans. Jeff Flanagan, of the Markley Group, also spoke regarding the fence construction that S. Gallivan mentioned. He noted this was a different portion of the fence than the one on the plans submitted for approval tonight. E. Castle asked about the Andrews Street access gate for fire that has never been done. She also noted that they did not know about the guard shack. She asked about the logic of including larger cooling towers, if the current ones are already having issues. Lastly, she requested that Markley clearly list what they plan to do, as the process has been particularly convoluted. T. Linnehan agreed. A. Moura said the cover letter describes the changes. T. Linnehan said that letter is not comprehensive and that due to the inclusion of “potential” additions, he feels he does not know what he is actually voting for. He said the timetable on the opening on Andrews Street has been ignored. A. Moura said it is a condition of the previous approval, so that approving it tonight would be an extension. C. Cheng said he is unsure that approving this tonight would extend a condition of approval for a prior application. G. Frechette asked if they are reducing impervious surface on this plan. A. Moura said yes. G. Frechette said he would be open to approving only the area approved by ConCom, with the elimination of any other changes. He said the parking area being smaller is clearly a positive. A. Moura emphasized that this would be indicated by the work inside the green dashed line on the plan. S. Gallivan asked if the applicant could submit a revised plan as a condition of approval. G. Frechette said that is up to the body as a whole, but that the condition in general would require eliminating the access. C. Cheng asked how many fire access points that they have. A. Moura said two. C. Cheng said there should be revised plans due to the confusion. T. Linnehan agreed. G. Frechette said he thinks it is a positive thing to reduce the parking area and that a conditional approval of only the ConCom plans could be the path forward. E. Castle asked if they would still be building the new generators. A. Moura said no, they need to do grading work within the 100-foot buffer delineated by ConCom. C. Cheng clarified that the generators are already approved. J. Fortes said he has no issues with the parking, but that the Markley Group is always trying to make changes. He said the four generators behind his house were not supposed to be there, and were slipped in due to the confusion of multiple plans. Motion: G. Frechette motioned to approve the Site Plan Review amendment, with C. Cheng seconding, with the following conditions: 1. The proposed emergency access drive at the southwest corner onto Iowa and Prince Street be eliminated from the plan 2. The proposed substation in the northeast corner be eliminated from the plan 3. The proposed additional chillers are eliminated from the plan  4. The applicant submit revised plans to DPD reflecting the conditions of approval by December 15 5. The fence on Andrews Street will be completed as part of this phase of the project. Special Permit and Site Plan Review: 205 Pratt Ave 01851 Styliani Gogou and Alex Papadopoulos have applied to the Lowell Planning Board for Special Permit and Site Plan Review approval to demolish an existing single-family home and construct new multifamily structure with forty (40) dwelling units and an associated 133-space parking area at 205 Pratt Ave. The property is in the Suburban Mixed Use (SMU) zoning district and requires Special Permit approval under Article XII and Site Plan Review approval under Section 11.4 to construct a new development with more than three dwelling units. On Behalf: John Cox, the applicant’s attorney, spoke on behalf. He noted that the applicants have owned the property since 1992. He said they are proposing to build a new apartment complex with 40 dwelling units. He said the City has abandoned a portion of Pratt Avenue that would allow easier access to the building. He noted the adjacent lot, also owned by the applicants, contains 30 units, and that the existing single family home on the site would be demolished. He noted that the project has already received ZBA approval in September with the condition of planting trees on the Westford St side, and that they are before the ConCom next week. He said that they addressed the LFD concerns about fire access to the building, and LFD no longer has concerns. He also discussed the Traffic Impact Analysis that was submitted. The report stated that the development would have no significant impact on traffic. He noted that City Traffic Engineer Elizabeth Oltman did not express concern, and that the applicant has agreed to provide easements to the City while they do improvement work for the intersection of Westford and Steadman Streets. He stated that the increase in housing stock and tax levies would be positive for the City. M. Hamor, the applicant’s Engineer, spoke on behalf, discussing the Site Plan. He indicated that the home at 929 Westford Street will be knocked down. He noted that there is a culvert located on Westford Street as well. He highlighted the existing sewer easements on site, as well as the paper street that crosses the wetlands that will never be developed. He said the project has been designed around the easements. He also discussed the layout of the parking plan and landscaping. He noted that some of the parking area will be pervious near the wetlands. He stated that the property will be in full compliance with stormwater regulations. He then presented the renderings, floor plans, and elevations for the proposed building. M. Hamor highlighted the changes they made to address LFD concerns about the island in the parking area. He noted the traffic demand plan has been seen by the City Traffic Engineer and there were no comments. He said that the project will provide a bike storage area. In Support: None In Opposition: David McCabe, a resident at Westview Condos at 977 Westford Street. He noted that the front door of their building is actually on Pratt Avenue. He said that by and large the project is a sound proposal, but that he has a concern about higher traffic on Pratt Avenue. He said the residents of the condo would like to see the entrance to Pratt Avenue be moved over to make a fourway intersection with Westford and Steadman Streets. M. Hamor said that he discussed this with the City and that the City did not want to create this intersection. Discussion: G. Frechette asked if DPD has seen the landscaping plan. M. Hamor says he has discussed with DPD staff. G. Frechette said he may duplicate the condition of the ZBA to require a landscaping plan. He said he is glad to see the improvements to the intersection of Westford and Steadman Streets. C. Cheng said he believes the parking is adequate. He asked about the cisterns. M. Hamor said they are not true cisterns but oil/water separators. S. Gallivan said she is generally supportive of the application, but that she would also want to condition approval on the most updated plans with the landscaping features. She asked about the Engineering comments regarding usable open space. M. Hamor stated that they received ZBA approval concerning this. She also expressed her support for emphasizing the facade on the Westford St side. She asked about the stone on the ground floor exterior and wanted to confirm its not concrete. M. Hamor said it will not be bare concrete. She asked about the chain link fence along Westford Street and M. Hamor said it will be removed, but that they may retain a section in the north to keep people away from the culvert. T. Linnehan asked about the sidewalk running from Pratt Ave to Westford Street including a wheelchair ramp. M. Hamor confirmed that they will be there. G. Frechette asked about what is being done to differentiate the exterior of the building. M. Hamor discussed the stone on the ground floor, design to break up the window frame, overhangs on the gable ends, and that the siding will most likely be vinyl Motion: G. Frechette motioned to approve the Special Permit, with C. Cheng seconding, with the following conditions: 1. The applicant submit a landscaping plan for final approval by DPD 2. The applicant submit plans that show the articulation of windows on the right elevation facing Westford Street and the siding materials to be used 3. The applicant incorporate the easements requested by the City of Lowell in order to install the traffic lights and improvements at the intersection of Stedman and Westford Streets The vote was unanimous (4-0). G. Frechette motioned to approve the Site Plan, with S. Gallivan seconding, with the same conditions as above. The vote was unanimous (4-0). Special Permit and Site Plan Review: 190 & 198 Plain Street 01851 Lowell Development, LLC to construct 3 separate structures to contain 3 restaurants totaling 6,075 square feet at 190 & 198 Plain Street. The subject property is located in the Regional Retail (RR) zoning district. The proposal requires Site Plan Review approval from the Planning Board per Section 11.4 for commercial construction with a drive-through, and for the construction of a parking area with greater than 14 spaces, Special Permit approval from the Planning Board per Section 12.4(g)(1) for a restaurant drive-through, and Special Permit approval from the Planning Board per Section 6.1.5(5) and Section 11.3 to reduce the parking requirement for restaurants by 1 space per 250 square feet. On Behalf: J. Geary summarized the proposal. The applicant is proposing to construct a Popeyes, Taco Bell, and Smoothie King. He informed the Board that there are several other chain restaurants in the area, as well as other retail uses. He said that the applicant intends to provide a main point of ingress/egress from Eaton Street. He noted that the City has discontinued their rights to Eaton Street between Plain Street and Montreal Street, thus making it a private way owned by the applicant. J. Geary then discussed the Special Permit criteria. He said the project will complement the goals of the Regional Retail district where it is located by creating jobs and will also provide real estate taxes to the City. He stated that the project will compliment the neighborhood character and that there were no environmental consequences. He said that the circulation through the property will meet all traffic standards. He noted that all three restaurants will have drive thru facilities that can queue 10 cars. He restated that the applicant is seeking Special Permits to reduce the parking requirement, to have a drive thru, and is also seeking Site Plan Review approval. J. Geary discussed the parking, noting that Popeyes franchise standards would require 12 parking spots, and the applicant is providing 13. The Taco Bell brand standards would require 17 parking spaces at this site, and the applicant is providing 20. The Smoothie King will provide 15 spaces, as they expect for their business to be based mostly on take out. J. Geary then briefly discussed staff comments. He informed the Board that the plans meet the minimum open space requirements for parking lots. He noted that DPD agreed that sufficient parking is provided. J. Geary said most of the comments came from the Transportation Engineer, Liz Oltman. He told the Board that their traffic engineer has met multiple times with L. Oltman to make improvements to the plan. Marianne Diffin, the Project Engineer, spoke. She briefly discussed the Site Plan, noting that the three drive thrus can each accommodate 10 cars, and that they provided extra space to avoid backups onto Plain Street. Each drive thru lane will also have a bypass lane. She noted that all dumpsters onsite will be enclosed and screened by vegetations. She stated that there are crosswalks for pedestrians inside the complex. She also summarized J. Geary’s comments on the parking spaces. M. Diffin then discussed the landscaping features. She said the site will have nine shade trees on the east side that abutt the residential area, and that the site will also have a stockade fence. She noted that there will be shade trees along Plain Street to combat the urban heat island effect. Lastly, she stated there will be arborvitae screening the dumpsters from view. M. Diffin then discussed the stormwater plans. She said the site does not have any stormwater retention or treatment currently. She stated they have tried to encourage infiltration across the site, including two underground infiltration systems. Her calculations expect the site to have significantly less discharge than its existing state. She said the site will have deep-sump basins and separators. Lastly, she discussed the fire truck access and movement on site. She noted that LFD did not have any comments. She showed a plan demonstrating the site can be easily circulated by fire trucks. Andrew Arsenault, the Traffic Engineer, spoke. He noted that the Traffic Impact Assessment was done in coordination with the City. They used traffic assessments from April 2022 and August 2023, using the highest numbers from each plan. He noted that more than half of the total trips will be people who were already using Plain Street. He estimated 160 new trips in the AM hours, and 90 new trips in the PM hours. He said the project will meet all necessary standards. He stated that the project proponent is amenable to working with the City to design and implement traffic signal timing in the area, and that the project proponent will also do a roadway safety audit to help the City improve the roadway. In Support: None In Opposition: Paul Eaton of 14 Montreal Street spoke in opposition. He said Montreal Street runs behind where the restaurant will be. He asked if there are openings behind the restaurants onto Montreal Street. M. Diffin said yes, but that the site is preferentially designed to exit/enter from Eaton Street. She noted that they put the parking on the side opposite Montreal Street. Denise Eaton of 14 Montreal Street said people use Montreal Street as a cuthrough to avoid traffic. She does not see why cars should be able to enter/exit via Montreal Street. She also asked what the timeline is for construction. She also wants more information on rubbish storage and upkeep to ensure sight lines are not ruined and rat problems don’t increase. She also expressed concern about fire access. T. Linnehan said LFD did not express concern. He also said the dumpsters will have to be screened under the Zoning Ordinance. J. Geary said he estimates it will take 18 months to complete the project. J. Geary noted that Eaton Street is a private way, so that they had to allow access from Montreal Street. Dale Inglis, the owner of the body shop on Montreal Street. He expressed concern about the trash, traffic, and snow storage. He also does not want to see the pine trees eliminated. Discussion: T. Linnehan summarized the list of recommendations from DPD and the Transportation Engineer, which can be seen in the comment memo online. He noted that L. Oltman recommended trimming back the vegetation on Montreal Street as well as removing parking on the south side of the street, and that most people visiting the restaurants will be travelers who already use Plain Street. J. Geary said the applicant is amenable to all of those conditions. G. Frechette asked about the traffic counts. A. Aresenault said they set up at Eaton Street and Main Street to do traffic counts. He said they also did sight line analysis on Montreal Street. G. Frechette asked how many people would be accessing via Montreal Street. A. Arsenault estimated around 10-15 cars during peak hours. C. Cheng asked if it is possible to tell how many people are cutting through Montreal Street. A. Arsenault said they could be able to, but they did not do it in this scenario. G. Frechette said he really likes the landscaping as the site has a large amount of pavement. He said he originally had concerns but he feels they meet most of the requirements. He said he feels the chain stores sometimes do better keeping their properties up. C. Cheng asked about utilizing Eaton Street. J. Geary said it is private so that they are legally obligated to leave it open. He expressed support for the vegetation shielding the businesses from the residential area. S. Gallivan said she agrees that this is an upgrade to the site. She is particularly supportive of the new shade trees being provided and the stormwater management improvements. T. Linnehan said he feels the traffic and parking concerns have been addressed. Motion: T. Linnehan motioned, seconded by G. Frechette, to approve the Site Plan with the following condition:  1. The applicant shall include the recommendations from the City’s Traffic Engineer, Stormwater Engineers, and Engineers comment memos. The vote was unanimous, (4-0). G. Frechette motioned to approve, seconded by C. Cheng, the Special Permit under Section 12.4(g)(1) with the same condition as above. The vote was unanimous (4-0). C. Cheng motioned to approve, seconded by S. Gallivan, the Special Permit under Section 6.1.5(5) with the same conditions as above. The vote was unanimous (4-0). III. Notices IV. Further Comments from Planning Board Members V. Adjournment T. Linnehan motioned to adjourn, seconded by G. Frechette. The meeting was adjourned at 10:21 PM.