Planning Board

City of Lowell - Planning Board Planning Board Meeting Minutes Monday, December 2, 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 Cheng Member Tenczar Members Absent None Others Present Peter Cutrumbes, Assistant Planner A quorum of the Board was present. After technical issues, Chairman Linnehan called the meeting to order at 6:50 PM. I. Minutes for Approval 11/18/2024 G. Frechette motioned, and C. Cheng seconded, to approve the minutes. The vote was unanimous (4-0). II. Continued Business 1733 Middlesex St, 01851 – Site Plan Revision Tran Management, LLC has applied to the Lowell Planning Board to revise their Site Plan Review approval at 1733 Middlesex Street. On June 17, 2024, the applicant was granted approval to expand the rear parking area. The applicant is now proposing to revise the Site Plan by constructing an addition to the existing building. The subject property is located in the Regional Retail (RR) zoning district. The proposal requires Site Plan Review approval from the Lowell Planning Board per Section 11.4.2 of the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. On Behalf: Matt Hamor, applicant’s engineer. Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: None Discussion: The applicant has requested a continuance to the January 6th meeting. T. Linnehan motioned to continue the matter to January 6, with C. Cheng seconding. The vote was unanimous (4-0). Motion: III. New Business 10 Technology Drive, 01851 – Site Plan Review Bohler Engineering, on behalf of Spectrum Health Systems, has applied to the Lowell Planning Board to convert the use of the existing building at 10 Technology Drive to a medical services and business education center. The property is located in the Office Park (OP) zoning district. The project requires Site Plan Review approval from the Planning Board under Section 11.4.2. On Behalf: Nick Dewhurst, Bohler Engineering. Frank Wight and Kristen Nolan, Spectrum Health Systems. Kim Shellenberger, Vinfen, Bob Michaud, Traffic Engineer. N. Dewhurst said it is mostly an internal fit out of the building. They received a Zoning Determination stating that the proposed use is an allowed use under the Dover Amendment. This means they do not need ZBA approval. The work mainly consists of creating easier access to the separate entrances for Spectrum Systems and for Vinfen. There will be two sidewalks and a new crosswalk added to the site. Connecting the sidewalk on the southerly side of the building. Also connecting to the existing sidewalk on Technology Drive. Site meets parking requirements. B. Michaud provided brief analysis of the traffic plan. The site provides adequate parking. Due to the nature of the use, staff shift patterns and transportation patterns to the facility for patients will not coincide with peak traffic in the area. They are amenable to the Transportation Engineer’s suggestions. Speaking in Favor: David Daly, 40 Linden Street, but also owns the abutting ambulance business to the property. In favor, but has questions about security and safety. His ambulances also utilize Technology Drive and wants to know the hours of the services. K. Nolan confirmed services will be 24/7.On top of the interior staff, they will be employing program safety staff to monitor the outside of the building Speaking in Opposition: None Discussion: G. Frechette referenced the DPD project management team projects re: maximizing tree canopy and incorporating a healing garden. N. Dewhurst said they have not made plans in response to staff comments but are amenable to working with the DPD staff. G. Frechette read the security portion of the application. Asked what the expected volume of patients is. Noted that there are encampments behind the site and a cannabis facility within walking distance. Wants to make sure the patients and other businesses are protected. K. Nolan said they offer many programs across the Commonwealth and have a standardized safety plan. The hope is this program will address encampment. G. Frechette asked how they envision most patients will access the facility. K. Nolan said it is mostly by vehicle. Its uncommon for people to walk off. G. Frechette noted legally they can, and she confirmed. K. Nolan said that they notify police when they have a walk off. C. Cheng noted the project will provide important services to the City. Site plan is adequate. DPD Project Management staff noted that tree canopy should be increased. Would they be open to take out some parking to plant more trees? Could add islands to increase tree cover. N. Dewhurst said they are happy to talk to DPD on designing a plan. They believe they are meeting all regulations in the zoning ordinance for parking and landscaping. C. Cheng expressed satisfaction and noted tree canopy can help urban heat island effect. C. Cheng asked about the LRWWU comments. N. Dewhurst said the LRWWU is asking for topographic info, pipe sizes, etc. No existing stormwater structures are changing. C. Cheng asked if they have engaged LRWWU yet. N. Dewhurst said no. C. Cheng said the Board will condition their approval on LRWWU approval. C. Cheng noted in the comment memo, the City Engineer says they will need a driveway permit. N. Dewhurst says his team needs to speak more in depth to the Engineer re: the necessity of a permit. C. Cheng asked to confirm that the Westford Street access will remain gated. N. Dewhurst confirmed. C. Cheng said there is plenty of snow storage, and asked about trash pickup. N. Dewhurst said they are discussing as a team. Trash may be internal to the building or a screened exterior area. F. Wight explained the trash situation. Spectrum is on the top floor and will have a compactor in one of the rear loading docks. Vinfen is on the bottom floor and is going to use a fenced in enclosure across from their entrance. Both facilities have entrances on different sides of the building. C. Cheng asked where the bike rack is going to be. N. Dewhurst said it will be on the exterior of the building. Believes two racks at the entrance to each organization. D. Tenczar said his colleagues have hit on most of the subjects. Agrees with C. Cheng that they should work with DPD to maximize the canopy. Asked for more information regarding security protocols. K. Shellenberger said there will be security guards 24/7 on site and security equipment on the exterior and interior. The site will be highly staffed. D. Tenczar asked if there have been security incidents in the past. K. Shellenberger noted that Vinfen has over 200 locations they have experience. They know how to de- escalate and know when to call emergency services. Working closely with police to develop secure drop off at the restoration center. They are months away from beginning operations but will continue to work with police. Security equipment includes cameras, exterior buzzers, staff keyfobs, motion activated lighting, etc. T. Linnehan said most things have been covered. Noted that DPD asked for bioswales within the large paved area due to proximity to Black Brook and its wetlands. N. Dewhurst confirmed they are amenable. T. Linnehan said if there is an exterior dumpster it has to be screened. G. Frechette noted that they only have jurisdiction over SPR. The Dover Amendment says the applicant doesn’t need Special Permit. Motion: G. Frechette motioned to approve, seconded by D. Tenczar Site Plan Review with the following conditions: 1. The applicant will ensure all onsite landscaping and snow storage areas will not impede sight lines. 2. The applicant will ensure that maintenance of landscaping or snow windows to below 3 feet in height within sight triangles 3. The applicant will incorporate items A-H of the City’s Transportation Engineer’s transportation review 4. The applicant shall work with DPD to create a landscaping plan that incorporates landscape design that will enhance the services offered. 5. The applicant will receive a Stormwater Permit. 6. The applicant will receive approvals from the City Engineer’s office. The vote was unanimous (4-0). 684 Westford Street, 01851 – Proposed Zoning Amendment In accordance with M.G.L. Chapter 40A, Section 5, the Lowell Planning Board will hold a Public Hearing to hear all interested persons relative to an ordinance to amend “The Code of Ordinances City of Lowell, Massachusetts,” with respect to Chapter 290, thereof entitled “Lowell Zoning Code” by extending the existing Traditional Two-Family (TTF) zoning district to include an area presently zoned Suburban Single-Family (SSF) at 684 Westford Street. On Behalf: John Cox, attorney for the project and Matt Hamor, engineer for the project. J. Cox representing Dave Daly, the owner of the property. Mr. Daly has done a significant amount of work renewing blighted properties throughout the city. This is the former site of the American Legion post. The site still has an active liquor and restaurant license. Asking to extend the TTF across Westford Street. The proposal is to build 4 single families on the Westford Street side and a two family in the rear. The project will have a driveway and parking, as well as an HOA for all units to manage the property. If the zoning amendment is granted, the project will need PB ZBA and HB approvals. In September, Mr. Daly held two meetings at the site with community members. At that point the proposal was 4 single family homes on Westford and two single families at the rear. He listened to the neighbors and took their concerns into consideration, and came up with the new plan. Residential use is better for the neighborhood than a new restaurant or bar that replaces the former American Legion. Changing the zone to TTF would also take away the possibility of ADUs, which is a positive for the community. DPD memo notes that the lot is large and will allow construction of new housing units, as well as meeting the goal of “missing middle” housing set forth in Lowell Forward. Speaking in Favor: T. Linnehan read two letters from William and Brad Daly, of 743 Westford Street, expressing support into the record. The letters noted they are not related to the applicant. Dennis Conners 38 Westview Road. Attended both neighborhood meetings convened by the Daly Group. No doubt in my mind that a residential use of the site is more beneficial to the neighborhood. Neighborhood is fortunate to have a developer like Mr. Daly taking on the project. Ellen Moriarty 167 Westview Road. The Highlands is a primarily residential neighborhood, and this proposal matches with the neighborhood. She is in strong support. TJ McKiernan 831 Westford Street spoke in support. The development will improve the current site as it is today. The homes will be within the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Daly has done great projects. Noted that with the recent ADU legislation, he could have put even more units if he kept the zone SSF. Last thing the neighborhood needs is another large function hall. Morgan Schermarhorn 21 Tyler Park. Direct abutter. Purchased in 2017. The American Legion was an eye sore in the neighborhood and this proposal is a much better use. The proposed duplex will provide more opportunities for buyers and preserve green space. It will be a natural addition to the character of the neighborhood. The zoning extension is minimal. Trusts developer to continue working w neighbors Brian Donovan (no address), full support of the project due to traffic concerns. Significantly less cars than a commercial use. D. Daly has the best interests of the neighborhood in mind. Speaking in Opposition: Phyllis Hunt of 48 Florence Avenue. In favor of residential development but not the proposed zoning change. When the Legion was originally sold, three homes could be built on the property. Now the owner is seeking a zoning change that will put 6 units on the site. This is overcrowded and not beneficial to the existing residents in the neighborhood. The change in zoning lowers dimensional requirements and may not need Board approvals. Recommended changing zoning district to TSF instead. Bob Hunt 48 Florence Ave spoke. Thinks a residential project is a good idea. But thinks the zoning extension is too much. Supports a TSF zoning change. Proposals were 6 units with 24 beds. Could be 24 cars. Parking issue on Florence Ave would be made worse. Could be mitigated by the amount of units on the site being lowered. Discussion: T. Linnehan noted they cannot change what the zoning request is. Can only issue positive or negative determination on the proposed TTF extension. G. Frechette felt the Zoning Ordinance’s Table of Uses best describes the previous property as a lodge. Not sure he agrees that a bar/restaurant is the pre-existing non-conforming. Agrees with residents about the positivity of a residential use. Noted Mr. Daly has done great work in the past. The property abuts TTF and TSF and is currently zoned SSF. Referenced the sizes of the lots in the area to get a feel for development patterns. Development patterns is what the zoning change recommendation will be based Lot sizes and uses in the area is evenly split along single family multi-family. Noted that ADUs are by right and could be put in the current zoning district, which would create even more density. Cannot speak to the proposed development, only to the zoning change. Need to make sure it is consistent with what’s around there. Thinks it could be TSF or TTF, but only voting on a recommendation for TTF tonight. C. Cheng said he believes the site is a fit for higher density. Minimized curb cuts on a busy road. Lowell Forward strongly recommends more housing. Thinks there is merit in this petition. D. Tenczar was hesitant because there are many single family homes on Florence. Was originally in favor of TSF due to this. Better use than what is there right now BUT they are not looking at the project, only zoning. Now believes TTF is not a major departure from existing neighborhood. In favor. T. Linnehan knows the neighborhood well. No one in favor of leaving it how it is. Whatever plan presented here is not what they’re voting on. Have approved zoning changes in past and then developers came back with different site plans. Agrees that it should be residential. No objection to the zoning change. G. Frechette wants to clarify that it is not being changed to residential. It IS a residential zone. This would only allow different uses/lot sizes. Motion: T. Linnehan motioned to make a positive recommendation, seconded by D. Tenczar. The vote was unanimous (4-0). 71 North Billerica Road, 01852 – Proposed Zoning Amendment In accordance with M.G.L. Chapter 40A, Section 5, the Lowell Planning Board will hold a Public Hearing to hear all interested persons relative to an ordinance to amend “The Code of Ordinances City of Lowell, Massachusetts,” with respect to Chapter 290, thereof entitled “Lowell Zoning Code” by extending the existing Traditional Two Family (TTF) zoning district to include the entirety of 71 North Billerica Road in Lowell, which is presently zoned Traditional Single Family (TSF). On Behalf: George Theodorou, the attorney for Stephen Doherty, the property owner. Petition would extend the TTF zoning district to include the entire parcel. The parcel is currently zoned TSF. Approximately 3.5 acres. One of the largest undeveloped lots in the City. Abuts Tewksbury on one side and abuts TTF on the other via Hollis Street. Not only is Hollis Street in the TTF zone, it is all two-family homes on 8,000 sq ft lots. Developer is proposing 11 lots, all with two-families on them. 22 units total. The site is also in the area of two large apartment buildings. DPD noted it is an opportunity for missing middle housing referenced in Lowell Forward. 50% of housing stock in City built before 1940, need newer housing. Need to get creative with the zoning code to align with today’s community needs such as housing. ADUs are legal in the TSF, but applicant does not want to use that as a hammer to bargain with. It wouldn't be good development practice. City Law Department said not spot zoning. Plan is to build a private road and create an HOA. Would allow neighbors to have a body to go to make a complaint. Developments will always add vehicles, that is true. But does this outweigh creative housing solutions? It is a logical extension of the district. City DPD approves of the change. Is logical. Logical extension. Encouraging homeownership helps neighborhood stability. The developer met with the neighborhood to discuss the project. Project gives the new generation ability to build wealth. Speaking in Favor: Melody, Woburn Street. Doesn't feel traffic is a legitimate concern. If there is traffic, it is because there are single driveways which requires street parking. Hollis Street will always be a cut through. The development would only be 44 cars, and cannot be blamed for the traffic. It is a giant open field right now, better use. Totally unaffordable to live in Lowell right now. It is important to increase housing stock. Lorraine, lives downtown but grew up in that area. Kids these days don’t have backyards or communities to play in. These lots would provide families homes and open space for children. Traffic is all people commuting to-from work. Not all day long. Housing is unaffordable. Luis, Lakeview Ave, spoke in favor of the project. Works with the City. Necessary to increase housing stock so more people can buy homes. George Farrington 98 Cosgrove Street. In favor. Will provide more homes for people to purchase. Ronnie from 130 Bowden Street. In support because it makes housing more affordable. Would like to own a home one day. Need more housing stock. Rents and home prices too high. Michaell Platt, Agawam Street in support. Picks up a coworker near the lot at 71 North Billerica Road. The lot is an eyesore. Has not had traffic issues. Building more homes in Lowell important. Lot would be substantially cleaned up by this project. Speaking in Opposition: Brenda Richarson of 70 N. Billerica Road in opposition. The project is not low income housing. Developer never addressed neighborhood concerns about parking. Many residents of Hollis Street park on the street and adjacent streets. Frequently bumper to bumper traffic on her street. Proposed driveways only fit two cars, where will people park cars? Homes generally have more than 2 cars. The lot is not an eyesore, there is never trash there. First time she saw trash was last week when someone dropped mattresses on the site. Lots of wetlands on the site. Could create problems. Claudia Estrela 60 N. Billerica Road. Supports everything Brenda said. Will be more than two cars per unit. Could be up to 66 cars. No trash ever there until last week. In favor of new housing but not this many units. Stacy Decker 110 Hollis Street said this is not affordable housing. Lot has always been well taken care off, has never seen trash. Lived on Hollis Street since 1984. Children never able to ride their bikes or walk down the street. Lots of traffic. Neighborhood very dense and congested. These concerns have not been addressed by developers. Project is outside of the neighborhood character. Javier Bettencourt 65 N. Billerica Road in Tewksbury. Abutter to the project on Tewksbury side. Concerned about how a project would affect the water table. His is low. Dealt with basement water damage, backyard overflows, etc. Too much work going on around wetlands. Sharon Marren 109 Hollis Street in opposition. Not opposed to new development but concerns about how this would affect her property. Hollis Street is a cut through and has significant traffic issues. Tractor trailers and drivers going around 495 use it. Congested parking on the street. Project would bring at minimum 44 cars to N. Billerica Road. Any plans to mitigate traffic issues? Concerns about the water table as well. Proposal could increase water damage to the adjacent properties. Yard has never been an eyesore. Cindy Smith 25 Hollis Street expressed similar concerns. Lived there for 40 years. Seen car accidents. Parking congested due to the apartment buildings. Cellars have flooded. Concerned about wetlands. Barbara Stuart concurred with her neighbors and spoke in opposition. Discussion: T. Linnehan stressed that the Board is not voting on the project itself, just a zoning change. He explained the developer will have to go to the Conservation Commission, which may downscale the project. If they change the zoning, the developer could still change the conceptual plan. Their recommendation is also non-binding to the Council. G. Theodorou stated that the zoning ordinance needs to reform and align with community needs like housing. Document meant to be flexible. Know they don’t have a right to make a development that would harm neighbors. Know they will have to go to ConCom. Would need further engineering. The exact issue today is to debate if it is a logical extension of the two-family zone. G. Frechette said this is a close call. Referenced the adjacent lot sizes and land use. Not a single lot in the was smaller than the TSF lot size of 7000 square feet. TTF lot area required is 6000 square feet. Property is currently TSF, so not sure lowering the requirement to 6,000 via the zoning change matches development patterns in the neighborhood. However, as clearly seen on Hollis Street, the proposed duplex use does. Some development should take place on the property, it is underutilized but a development allowed by TTF dimensional requirements may not be best. G. Theodorou said single family homes opens up the problem of ADUs. This could make the development even more dense. C. Cheng noted that Hollis Street has many two family homes. He has some concern about lot sizes, but feels the zoning change is reasonable. He stressed that they are not voting on the project. Any project would have many obstacles. Noted to residents that they can speak to the City about traffic calming measures, and any proposed development would have their Transportation Demand Management plan closely examined. D. Tenczar expressed opposition. Echoed C. Cheng’s comments about traffic calming. Stressed the conceptual plan is meaningless. TTF would allow 6,000 square foot lots, which is significantly smaller than anything in the neighborhood. Doesn’t match the existing development patterns. G. Theodorou clarified that the requirement is actually 8,000 square feet for a two-family, matching the development patterns on Hollis Street. The Zoning Ordinance requires 4,000 square feet per dwelling unit. G. Frechette noted this fits the development pattern more than the Board’s previous assessment. As TSF has a minimum of 7,000 square feet, the 8,000 square feet for now that would actually increase the required lot size. In TSF they could also have an ADU, making the development even more dense. This would affect the opinion. Motion: C. Cheng motioned to issue a positive recommendation, seconded by G. Frechette. The vote was unanimous (4-0). IV. Other Business Election of officers The Board voted to elect their officers for the upcoming year. Chairperson: T. Linnehan (nominated by G. Frechette, seconded by D. Tenczar), the vote was unanimous (4-0) Vice Chair: G. Frechette (nominated by T. Linnehan, seconded by C. Cheng), the vote was unanimous (4- 0) Second Vice Chair: C. Cheng (nominated by T. Linnehan, seconded by G. Frechette), the vote was unanimous (4-0). NMCOG: G. Frechette (nominated by T. Linnehan, seconded by D. Tenczar), the vote was unanimous (4- 0). V. Further Comments from Planning Board Members VI. Adjournment G. Frechette motioned to adjourn, and D. Tenczar seconded. The time was 9:40 PM.