Planning Board

City of Lowell - Planning Board Planning Board Meeting Minutes Monday, June 17, 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 Associate 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 PM. I. Minutes for Approval 6/3/2024 T. Linnehan noted that for 17 Kearney Square, the vote needs to be corrected to 4-0-1 because D. Tenczar abstained from the vote. II. Continued 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 Attorney Matt Hamor, Applicant’s Engineer Speaking in Favor: Jason Mello, Citywide Properties T. Linnehan read a letter of support from J. Mello into the record. Coalition for a Better Acre T. Linnehan read a letter of support from Coalition for a Better Acre into the record. T. Linnehan noted that the applicant had also submitted a petition with 20 signatures in favor of the application. Raymond Wicker 14 Watson Street R. Wicker said he sits on board for his condo association. We are in favor of this project. If you could make 7 on there, we would be more in favor. Having more starter homes improves the value of all homes in the neighborhood. Research shows that the intro of starter homes with urban density increases value of all homes. We also have all kinds of data being studied across country without a doubt that when you restrict units you increase rents and decrease home values. This development is good for the neighborhood. There are stacks of research that shows that non-conforming uses in an area are detrimental unless driving economic development. This area is zoned for multifamily, and this is commercial garages. They are an eyesore. They are a danger zone. Trouble waiting to happen. Empty bottles and needles. We want homes there. You avoid crime by adding people to keep eyes on the neighborhood. Adding families. Even though it is now 2br and hostile to young families, we are still in favor. We want it to be used by families. Parks there are not well lit or well observed. Few houses that abut them. We are in favor because undeniable research shows building more starter homes will mitigate rents. Please do what is right for the city and neighborhood. Help us build these homes. Don’t be the obstacle to progress. Speaking in Opposition: Jason Vinas, 94 Kinsman Street J. Vinas said he rents one of the units from the owner. I have been renting garage space for 25 years. I understand new owner wants to expand property. Their responsibility to follow zoning code and ordinances. This would not allow for enough open space. Too many units for this size of a lot. How can city approve such small setbacks for such a tall building. How can you tear down a mural that city paid for. I acknowledge that the building is nicely designed, but it does not fit on this small lot. If approved as presented, knocking down two structures that are 10 feet high with some that are more than 3 times higher. Size and scale are overwhelming. We need to preserve the neighborhood of the back central neighborhood. Arthur Vinas, 94 Kinsman Street A. Vinas said that his family has lived in the area for more than 90 years. Size of that lot is 7000 sq. Ft. I can’t see 6 buildings on such a small lot. In the winter things are ridiculous. Why not 4 units with more greenery? Discussion: G. Frechette said in looking at the application that was submitted - we also got results of ZBA meeting - the current use is nonconforming with the zoning. This proposal would be putting things on the site that are in conformance with underlying zoning. It is a unique location. We’ve looked at projects in the past that are really close. This property is between a city park and other land owned by the city that there’s not much you can do with. There’s no homes behind it. Honestly, if it met minimum usable open space and didn’t have park and land available, there would be less land for people to enjoy it. The more eyes you have on that park, the less undesirable activity happening there. I see a positive effect there. Currently there’s no stormwater management on site. This would add stormwater management. I feel a lot was put into the design so it will look better than the older multifamily that are currently in the neighborhood. A lot of the other homes are close to sidewalks and street. This fits into the surrounding properties. Unique situation. Has more open space on either side than any property around it. The fire department has signed off on this. Adding quality housing. Putting site into conformance. At this point I am satisfied with the fence that we talked about. We wanted a demarcation. I would imagine future residents would want to use the park and take ownership of the park, making sure there’s no illicit activities. I understand frustrations of residents who use as a parking garage. Creates a difficult situation. I am generally favorable of what is before us. C. Cheng said he appreciates the fence. I concur with part of G. Frechette’s observation that the zoning has been met because of the variance. ZBA has jurisdiction and the Building Commissioner is ok with the height. With regard to open space, I acknowledge that that would help having a park next door. I also have concerns about how residents may take ownership of the park. Could go both ways. I still think the setback is tight but that’s the ZBA jurisdiction. I think it’s dense but with the zoning requirements met I would see merit for approval of the site plan. M. Hamor said they are still amenable to adding plantings to the right of the site on city property. Could work with DPD. M. Hamor added that the city has trees to plant. This would be a great area to incorporate. We have a significant amount of space. C. Cheng said he agrees with G. Frechette regarding parking. Close to train station. Helps mitigate parking concerns. Reducing back room reduces usable open space requirement. D. Tenczar said what struck him with various speakers was they were talking about parking and open space - those are things that aren’t in our purview. ZBA has passed those things. Still struck and haven’t been able to get out oh my head- 35 foot wall 3 feet from the street on both sides. Still troubled by the density. 6 units in this small area. More fit for 4. I think it should be set back so there is adequate room. It’s the scale I can’t get over and the fact that most of this lot is being taken up with buildings. I like the project. That’s what is troubling me. I like the project but I’m in favor of 4 instead of 6. C. Flood said the master plan says wants density outside of downtown. Also, regarding the size and space of building – this proposal would be reducing the amount of space buildings are taking up. Adding more green space in rear. Buildings close to the street promotes walkable neighborhood. The project is in conformance with what the city is looking for. D. Tenczar he disagrees with zoning department. C. Cheng acknowledges the Lowell Forward plan we adopted. Density is a range. I do have similar concerns with D. Tenczar. Trying to fit a lot in here. It is a problem. A. Dolan-Wilson said she disagrees with colleagues. She was surprised that the 3rd bedroom was taken out. Thinks the project is in line with what is around it. Looks good. Impressed at number of people writing in favor. I think at some point you have to say when and where is density OK. We say a lot that density is not OK. I am in favor. T. Linnehan said he had a few comments. Big concern was LFD. Got the OK from the stormwater department. It does meet the height requirement. We don’t set the zoning, the city council does, and we need to abide by that. Staff is in favor of it. Still needs to go before Conservation. Willing to add more trees. I like that they reduced from 3 to 2 bedrooms. Will reduce the number of cars. G. Frechette asked M. Hamor to clarify where trees would be planted. F. Cigliano explained the Greening the Gateway Cities program which makes most of the city eligible for free trees from the state Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR). Motion: G. Frechette motioned to approve the Site Plan with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall work with DPD to incorporate tree planting on the 50’ x 50’ block of 7 Chambers Street if doing so supports the City’s vision for the future of that site; 2. The application is subject to final approval by the Lowell Regional Wastewater Utility; and 3. The applicant shall incorporate reflective paint on pavement to reduce urban heat island impact (per ZBA condition of approval); to be maintained by the property owner in perpetuity. A. Dolan-Wilson seconded the motion and it passed 4-1 with D. Tenczar voting no. Site Plan Review: 17 Kearney Square, 01852 Sun Building, LLC has applied to the Lowell Planning Board to construct an additional unit at the building located at 17 Kearney Square. The property is located in the Downtown Mixed-Use (DMU) zoning district, and the Multi-Family Mid-Rise (MFOM) Overlay District. The project requires Site Plan Review approval per Section 11.4.2 (2) for expansion of a structure with more than three (3) dwelling units. On Behalf: Trudie Hale, Applicant’s Attorney Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: A neighbor (unnamed) said that a grade level plan is missing. In addition, the drawing has a stamp on it, and yet the first floor plan excludes part of the building where trash areas are located. Discussion: *D. Tenczar noted that he was recusing himself from this matter* Motion: G. Frechette motioned and C. Cheng seconded the motion to continue the matter to the next Planning Board meeting on 7/15/2024. The motion passed unanimously, (5-0). III. New Business Site Plan Review: 1733 Middlesex Street 01851 Tran Management, LLC has applied to the Lowell Planning Board to expand the parking area at 1733 Middlesex Street. The property is located in the Regional Retail (RR) zoning district and requires Site Plan Review approval under Section 11.4 for the alteration and expansion of a parking lot with more than fourteen (14) spaces and 4,000 square feet of impervious surface. On Behalf: Brian Akashian, Applicant’s Attorney Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: None Discussion: T. Linnehan said big question is the willow tree. B. Akashian said they can make sure tree stays. Just waiting on tree warden’s decision on whether it is a viable tree. M. Hamor said the willow tree is a detriment to area because debris is always falling down. Discussion: G. Frechette shared photo of a dumpster with inadequate enclosure. BA said unacceptable and will share with property owner. D. Tenczar asked to identify what trees are coming down and what trees are staying up. One side of the building has tremendous landscaping. The place is jammed. Needs more parking. Would like to see landscaping and trees replicated and looks like they’re trying to replicate in the back. C. Cheng asked about balsam fir trees. M. Hamor said it’s like a Christmas tree. Grow to be quite large and will screen from rear property. A. Dolan-Wilson said this is good because it’s improving drainage in a wet area. Motion: G. Frechette motioned to approve the Site Plan Review with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall repair the existing screening around the dumpster; 2. The applicant shall complete more frequent pickups of trash or shall install a larger dumpster in order to better manage waste; 3. The applicant shall work with DPD and the City of Lowell Tree Warden to determine the appropriateness of the rear landscaping relative to the willow tree; and 4. The applicant is subject to final approval by the Lowell Regional Wastewater Utility. The motion was seconded by C. Cheng and passed unanimously, (5-0). IV. Other Business V. Further Comments from Planning Board Members G. Frechette said that they had a Lowell Forward housing subcommittee on June 7. At that time, the committee reviewed a draft of the Housing Production Plan’s goals. G. Frechette provided an update on NMCOG’s strategic plan. VI. Adjournment C. Cheng motioned and D. Tenczar seconded the motion to adjourn the meeting. The time was 8:02pm.