Planning Board

City of Lowell - Planning Board Planning Board Meeting Minutes Monday May 6 2024 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 Lockhart Member Cheng Member Tenczar Member Dolan-Wilson Members Absent None Others Present Francesca Cigliano, Senior Planner A quorum of the Board was present. Chairman Linnehan called the meeting to order at 6:30. I. Minutes for Approval 4/18/2024 The minutes were continued to the 6/3/2024 Planning Board meeting. II. Continued Business III. New Business Site Plan Review and Special Permit: 63 Chambers Street, 01852 Lexx Estates, LLC has applied to the Lowell Planning Board seeking to demolish the existing structures at 63 Chambers Street, and construct two three-unit residential buildings on the site. The subject property is located in the Traditional Multi-Family (TMF) zoning district. The proposal requires Site Plan Review approval from the Lowell Planning Board per Section 11.4 for a development with greater than three (3) residential units, and Special Permit approval from the Lowell Planning Board per Article 12.1 for the use. On Behalf: Catherine Flood, Applicant’s Representative Matt Hamor, Applicant’s Engineer Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: David Koch, Back Central Neighborhood Association D. Koch said he has lived there for 63 years. Wondered why garages weren’t taken down and park was expanded. This project is not even a stone’s throw to the water. We’re right on the brook. Are we going to do what’s good for children or what’s good for people who don’t live here? There’s more to life than putting buildings up all over the place. Dina Koch, 14 Mill St Ct D. Koch said why six units? Go down to 4. I agree with 4. Bill Vinas, 94 Kinsman Street B. Vinas said the previous owner would not appreciate what’s going to happen. I rent one of the garages and park there because I don’t have parking. Force me in the street. I think you should come down there and look at it. I think 4 units would be enough over there with the parking and I would be for that. Discussion: R. Lockhart asked if they had heard from the fire department. F. Cigliano said no. G. Frechette said it is good that they worked with DPD. Included architectural elements on the end. Included bump outs. A lot more pleasing on the street level. The reduction in impervious surface is a plus versus what is there currently. Question about height of unit - max stories 3, height 35 ft. Is this compliant? M. Hamor said they will be meeting the height and stories requirement. They do not need a variance. G. Frechette said the location next to the park is a plus. Confused regarding parking. Looked like there were cars all in that parking area. Visually compared to what’s there it is an improvement. The idea of the units, I don’t disagree, if they were 2 and 2 I think that might be a little bit better but vehicular access - it’s well designed. It’s not out of character compared to the existing neighborhood. I would like to have seen LFD comments. Becomes a little bit of a problem. C. Cheng asked whether this falls within Section 4.5 nonconforming structures. F. Cigliano said yes in her opinion. C. Cheng said it creates an imposing structure compared to the existing garage. In terms of the massing, it is more massive compared to the park. That is my take. C. Cheng voiced concern about doorways being 3ft from property line. M. Hamor said doors will open toward the inside of the structure. C. Cheng said there’s no screening between housing and park. M. Hamor clarified that there is no living space on the first floor. C. Cheng said no clear delineation between private and public property. Looking for open space variance. Offer very little usable open space. Using public park for usable open space. There could be synergy, but at the same time, but if there is detriment to public land to have residential so close. Will a ball hit the residences? C. Cheng thinks it’s too tight. Not sure screening could fix it. The tightness next to the park is a concern to me. M. Hamor argued that there is a continuum from basketball court to walking path and many open spaces. Doesn’t think it is close to active park uses/sports. C. Cheng said some type of delineation would be helpful. Markers. M. Hamor said they could add a transitional area. D. Tenczar said he reviewed over the weekend. There was a one story high nonconforming use. When I look at this, this is 3.5 stories high. 4 stories. I liked the idea of the project when I first read it. But what I don’t like is that you are three feet from the lot lines, maybe 4 feet from the street. I think based on 4.5.3 we have the jurisdiction to say whether this should be restructured or not. I like the idea of it but 6 units are incredibly tight on this space, it looks more appropriate for 4. We are putting a lot on this one lot. I think what you’ve designed looks nice. I think it should be set back from the street. I think there should be more trees. I can live with 4, I can’t live with 6, and I think we are allowing someone to basically rip everything down and restructure, I think we have some latitude. Set it back a little from the street and do a better job not having 4 stories. A. Dolan-Wilson said it looks nice. I like trees in the back. I think a fence would be helpful. Some delineation. T. Linnehan said he noticed parking next door. Noticed at least basketball court is adjacent to building not baseball field. T. Linnehan said city isn’t asking us to put a park there. He would choose park, but we don’t have that decision. I think they cut back pavement from rear and added open space is good. M. Hamor added that they are adding a minimum of five trees in the rear. T. Linnehan said staff added that park will be lit up at night. M. Hamor said occasionally there will be passive lighting similar to street lighting. If that’s a problem, they can add shades. C. Flood said city sold it and are not interested in creating a park. Open to a fence or shrubs for delineating between our property line and park property line. M. Hamor added that it is a three-story building per zoning. D. Tenczar said so it’s not 4 stories, but it is 4 stories? T. Linnehan asked if they had considered doing 4 instead of 6. Do you need time to consider? Take a 5- minute break. *The Board took a 5-minute recess* C. Flood said client is not willing to go to 4 units. Would like to proceed with 6. Provide more vegetation in the area surrounding the parcel. Can provide more quality open space to the right of the parcel owned by the city. Can’t currently use it. Needs work. Will create usable open space on city of Lowell property that can benefit the neighborhood. T. Linnehan said he had no objections to continuing the project. R. Lockhart said it is critical to have communication with planning department if they are proposing work on city property. C. Cheng still has reservations. Appreciates the offer to improve city land. Concern is more with the property itself. I am in the same position as Mr. Tenczar. Even if this goes through with 6 units, appreciate the post and rail fence, should be decorative. I know there is a fine balance. G. Frechette said he understands where C. Cheng and D. Tenczar are coming from with the nonconformity question. I can see where from a special permit perspective - site plan meets criteria. Would like to see them come back with a plan. But honestly no guarantee how the final decision will be even with a revised plan. Maybe looking at reworking how the building sites on the site. Willing to have the applicant come back with revisions. A. Dolan-Wilson confers with Mr. Frechette. T. Linnehan said the project conforms to the site plan, but the Special Permit is higher standard and more difficult to meet criteria. Motion: T. Linnehan motioned and G. Frechette seconded the motion to continue the item to the 6/3 Planning Board meeting. Public Shade Tree Hearing: 200 South Street - South Common 01852 In accordance with MGL Ch. 87.5 and the Chapter 260 of the Lowell Code of Ordinances, the Lowell Planning Board will hold a public hearing to hear all interested persons about the proposed removal of one (1) Eastern White Pine with a DBH of approximately 18 inches at the South Common to construct a renovated stage and rain garden. To remediate the loss of the tree the planting plan calls for 35 new trees. On Behalf: Jess Wilson, Design Planner Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: None Discussion: G. Frechette said he is looking forward to the finished product. Removing one tree and replacing with 35 is quite impressive. T. Linnehan said he agrees with G. Frechette. No problems with this proposal. Motion: T. Linnehan motioned and A. Dolan-Wilson seconded the motion to approve the public shade tree removals. The motion passed unanimously, (5-0). Lowell Forward Comprehensive Plan: Vote to Adopt Plan In accordance with MGL Ch. 81D, the Planning Board members shall vote to formally adopt Lowell’s new comprehensive plan, Lowell Forward. On Behalf: Francesca Cigliano, Senior Planner F. Cigliano presented the plan to the Board members. Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: None Discussion: T. Linnehan asked if we could add that substandard housing data comes from the census, not inspectional services. R. Lockhart added that historic board and national park do a lot of work behind the scenes to revitalize downtown. Sign program. G. Frechette said it was a privilege to represent the Planning Board on the master plan steering committee. I’d like to acknowledge Fran’s work on this. She was at every meeting. City engaged consultant and had subconsultants. I reached out to Fran because she sent guidance to the board. It is the Planning Board that adopts the master plan. Have historically sent to the City Council to accept, but by MGL it is the Planning Board that accepts and adopts it. Not a major rewrite but if there are any things we want to change. I was reading the draft plan initially but the final plan took comments into account. On page 107, says it is unknown whether the Zoning For More Housing report went to a City Council zoning subcommittee. It did meet, I spoke at that meeting. The language should be modified to reflect that the subcommittee did meet and that it was determined that further study is necessary before implementing the recommendations in the report. G. Frechette also recommended removing two sentences about zoning policies related to large lot sizes. D. Tenczar expressed concern regarding the inclusion of the phrase “segregated by race” in the plan as it relates to housing. F. Cigliano recommended keeping this wording since it describes the findings of data and spatial analysis that the team conducted as part of Lowell Forward. A. Dolan-Wilson and G. Frechette recommended modifying the language to state that the city is currently segregated by race and socioeconomic status. Motion: T. Linnehan motioned and G. Frechette seconded the motion to adopt the Lowell Forward comprehensive plan with the following revisions: 1. On pages 39, 98, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, and 179, modify the language as follows: Reduce total number of households lacking kitchens and lacking plumbing, according to U.S. Census estimates, from 958 to near zero by 2040 2. On p. 107, modify the language as follows: Zoning for More Housing in Lowell (March 16, 2021) This was an internal report presented at the City Council. It was recommended to be referred to the Zoning Subcommittee. It is unknown whether the Zoning Subcommittee discussed the report and whether any public comment was registered. The Zoning Subcommittee of the City Council discussed the report and it was noted that several of the observations and recommendations within the report would require comprehensive review and further study prior to implementation. 3. On page 29, modify the language as follows: Lowell is very diverse, but inequities create fair housing concerns. Lowell is currently segregated by race and socioeconomic status, and areas with lack of multifamily or affordable housing may  perpetuate this segregation. Complying with fair housing law means more than avoiding intentional discrimination, such as determining whether zoning creates unintentional disparate impacts. Many zoning policies have been found to cause disparate impact, such as policies that only allow single family houses and require large lot sizes. These policies make the process of housing development extremely inflexible, and assume a one size fits all approach to addressing housing needs. The motion passed (4-1) with D. Tenczar voting no. IV. Other Business V. Other Comments from Planning Board Members R. Lockhart noted that doors open Lowell is coming up on May 18. VI. Adjournment T. Linnehan motioned and D. Tenczar seconded the motion to adjourn the meeting. The time was 9:25PM.