Planning Board

City of Lowell - Planning Board Planning Board Meeting Minutes Monday, May 19, 2025 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 Tenczar Member Walker Associate Member Sar Associate Member Cardoso Silva Members Absent Member Cheng Others Present Peter Cutrumbes, Assistant Planner A quorum of the Board was present. Chairman Linnehan called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM I. Minutes for Approval 4/24/2025 G. Frechette motioned to approve the minutes with the following condition: 1. The minutes shall be revised to indicate the applicant for 23 West Fifth Street requested to withdraw without prejudice. 2. The first sentence of the Flood Plain Overlay District section of the minutes shall be revised to say: “G. Frechette noted that residents with properties located in a special flood hazard area cannot close on a mortgage to a federally insured lending institution.” D. Tenczar seconded. The vote was unanimous (5-0). 5/5/2025 T. Linnehan motioned to approve the minutes and G. Frechette seconded. The vote was unanimous (5- 0). II. Continued Business Public Shade Tree Hearing: 42 Magnolia Street 01854, 486 Andover Street 01852, 14 15 21 and 54 Barasford Avenue 01852, 320 Varnum Avenue 01854, 51 Wedge Street 01851, and 406 Parker Street 01851 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) tree located at 42 Magnolia Street, one (1) tree located at 486 Andover Street, one (1) tree at each of the above addresses on Barasford Avenue, three (3) trees at 320 Varnum Avenue, one (1) tree located at 51 Wedge Street, and one (1) tree at 406 Parker Street. The removal of these trees is necessary to maintain the integrity of the public sidewalk and roadway. Each area was treated as its own hearing DPW Commissioner Paul St. Cyr and Engineer Daniel Lewis appeared on behalf of the City for all addresses. D. Lewis discussed the replanting plan. The replanting locations are based on the best available utility information. Barasford Avenue The City is proposing to take down 5 trees and replace them with 12 trees. Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: Steve Conant of 34 Barasford Ave. The current trees do not present a tripping hazard. Walks on the sidewalk every day. Understands the roots may impact utilities. Feels the burden of proof to take down a tree is not met here. Thinks it could have been evaluated more closely. There were also some trees up the street that have come down and not been replaced. Eli Ketchum of 15 Barasford Ave. Not necessarily in opposition. Thinks it is a good plan. Just suggested maybe using concrete sidewalks in the future. Discussion: D. Tenczar appreciated the comments from Mr. Conant. He is unsure the trees present a real hazard. The replanting plan should have been sent over much earlier to allow more time to look at it. Understands what DPW is doing. Wants the replanting plans to be filed with the application next time. It is important for the Board to be informed of when trees are replanted. L. Walker said she does not think the trees look diseased or damaged, or that they pose a threat otherwise. Thinks the City should consider creative ways to save trees. Cambridge has some examples. G. Frechette said he would like to get replanting materials in a more timely manner. Asked for more details about the sidewalks. D. Lewis said the goal is to make the sidewalks ADA compliant. G. Frechette asked what the design of the sidewalk will be in order to incorporate the trees and prevent future sidewalk issues with these new trees. D. Lewis said the new tree boxes are three feet wide, ten feet long, and three feet deep of soil. The new sidewalks will come further out into the roadway. P. St Cyr said expanding the sidewalks is also a part of traffic calming. It will improve pedestrian safety by narrowing the roads. The replacement trees are being chosen because they are not deep rooted which presents utility challenges. They are also going to check if the trees need to be removed during actual construction. There is a chance they do not. They will provide a follow up report as well. G. Frechette asked if by this point they have the design for the sidewalks. P. St Cyr said essentially yes, but things also change when field work begins. G. Frechette said in the future he would like to see how the sidewalk will be designed to accommodate the trees. Noted the tree ordinance says the trees must be replanted in accordance with the Manager’s policy on replacement plans. T. Linnehan asked if there can be any reconsideration for saving the tree at 15 Barasford. D. Lewis said root trim may be an option to save the tree. They won’t know if they can keep it before removing the sidewalk. Motion: G. Frechette motioned to approve the tree removals and replanting plan with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall take all reasonable measures to preserve the tree located at 15 Barasford. 2. The applicant shall design the new sidewalks to allow for the survival of the newly replanted trees while also preventing future damage to the sidewalk. D. Tenczar seconded. The vote was unanimous (5-0). 486 Andover Street: Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition Steve Conant of 34 Barasford Avenue also spoke against removing the tree. The tree is healthy, but no question it is pushing the sidewalk up. Thinks there may be creative ways to save the tree. Does not believe there are concerns about traffic sightlines. Discussion: G. Frechette noted that the tree lined street significantly contributes to the aesthetics of the neighborhood. There is a replacement tree right around the corner on Barasford. The state of the sidewalk makes it difficult to save the tree but the Board can condition that an effort will be made. Motion: G. Frechette motioned to approve the tree removal and replanting plan with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall take all reasonable measures to preserve the tree 2. The applicant shall design the new sidewalks to allow for the survival of the newly replanted trees while also preventing future damage to the sidewalk. L. Walker seconded. The vote was unanimous (5-0). Parker and Ruth Streets: Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: Steve Conant of 34 Barasford also spoke. He said he is not explicitly opposed, but that the trees are critical for enhancing the aesthetics of Ruth Street. Discussion: G. Frechette asked if the utility does not allow saving the existing tree, would they move this tree or plant a completely new one? D. Lewis said they would move the existing tree. L. Walker asked if tree boxes will be used for all of the replantings. D. Lewis confirmed. G. Frechette asked why the newly proposed trees are further down towards Wedge Street. D. Lewis explained that there are no conflicting utilities in that area and fewer conflicting driveways. G. Frechette would like one of the replanted trees to go on Parker Street. Motion: T. Linnehan motioned to approve the tree removal and replanting plan with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall place one of the replanted trees near the corner of Park and Ruth Streets 2. The applicant shall design the new sidewalks to allow for the survival of the newly replanted trees while also preventing future damage to the sidewalk. G. Frechette seconded. The vote was unanimous (5-0). 320 Varnum Avenue: Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: None Discussion: D. Tenczar asked that future applications and replanting plans have the common names of the trees, show the layout of the sidewalk, and demonstrate they have made all reasonable steps to save the trees. He also asked that the replication policy of the City Manager be clarified. Motion: G. Frechette motioned to approve the tree removal and replanting plan with the following condition: 1. The applicant shall design the new sidewalks to allow for the survival of the newly replanted trees while also preventing future damage to the sidewalk. T. Sar seconded. The vote was unanimous (5-0). 51 Wedge Street: Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: None Discussion: None Motion: G. Frechette motioned to approve the tree removal and replanting plan with the following condition. 1. The applicant shall design the new sidewalks to allow for the survival of the newly replanted trees while also preventing future damage to the sidewalk. D. Tenczar seconded. The vote was unanimous (5-0). III. New Business Site Plan Review Revision and Special Permit Amendments: 190 and 198 Plain Street The Lowell Planning Board will hold a public hearing to hear all interested persons relative to an application by Lowell Dev, LLC to revise their Site Plan Review approval and amend their Special Permits for a project at 190 and 198 Plain Street. The applicant was granted approval on December 4, 2023 to construct three separate restaurant buildings. They are now proposing to increase the size of Buildings 1 and 2 and reduce the number of parking spaces. 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: John Geary, the applicant’s attorney, Lawrence Bassett the real estate director from LLC, Chris Shea the Project Engineer from DiPrete Engineering, and Derrick Roche the Traffic Engineer from Vannase and Associates. J. Geary introduced the application. This is a revision to a Site Plan Review approval and Special Permits approved in December of 2023. The proposed use is allowed by-right. Layout of the property has changed because the fast food tenants have changed. Have worked with all requisite City departments on these updated plans, including LRWWU and LFD. The original approval was for a Popeyes, a Taco Bell, and a Smoothie King. Taco Bell and Smoothie King have pulled out. They are being replaced by Starbucks and Chipotle. The square footage of these buildings is changing. Building 1 (Chipotle), will be 2325 square feet of space. The original approval was for Popeyes to go here with 2,000 square feet. Building 2 (Starbucks) will be 2500 square feet. The original approval was for Taco Bell at 2030 square feet. Building 3 is the location of Popeyes at 1500 square feet. This building was originally approvaed as Smoothie King with 2045 square feet. Popeyes is now going to be drive through only. Total building area is only 250 square feet more than the previous approval. 4 less parking spaces than what was approved in 2023. 44 spaces total. The site is across from the Target plaza and in proximity to the exit ramp from the Lowell Connector. Borders residential properties on the easterly end. J. Geary summarized staff comments. Representatives of both new tenants confirm the layout and parking are ok for their respective businesses. The project is only required to have 26 parking spaces for the Special Permit under Section 6.1.5 of the Zoning Ordinance, but are offering 44 spaces. They are happy to consider any improvements to landscaping that City staff may have. The project also falls within the Ayer City Urban Renewal Plan. Feels the project meets the goals of this plan. Previous use was a tax-exempt entity, so this will increase property tax revenue. The existing neighborhood is primarily national brand retail and fits in the area. Have met with Deputy Chief Crabtree regarding LFD’s concern for fire vehicle access. Wants access to loop around Buildings 2 and 3. Have provided a new site plan that allows for this. In agreement with the City Transportation Engineer’s remarks. Christine Shea of DiPrete Engineering. She discussed the existing conditions of the site. Very little landscaping on the site today. This plan will be an improvement. Impervious surface will be decreasing. It is actually two parcels divided by an access road labeled as Eaton Street. DPD asked about considering different species of trees or plants and they are happy to do that. LFD asked if vehicles would travel over curbing or landscaped materials. C. Shea explained that the swept path analysis showed both the tires and the body of the trucks. The body would pass over the curbing or landscaped materials, but the tires would not. The plantings in those areas would have to be low height plantings. Plan shows the LFD’s largest vehicle. Happy to work with LRWWU to meet their stormwater standards. DPD asked about green infrastructure being added to the project. Applicant is amenable. D. Roche discussed the traffic assessment. The assessment looked at weekday morning peak hours, weekday evening peak hours, and Saturday midday peak hours. The site is expected to produce 81-190 new peak hour trips to the site, as well as the same number of pass-by trips (people who are already going by the site and deciding to stop in). This is a reduction of traffic compared to original plan. They are agreeable to the Transportation Engineer’s comments. Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: Denise Eaton of 14 Montreal Street asked about the traffic impact on Montreal Street. These traffic reports are based on Eaton Street, not Montreal Street. Thinks customers leaving drive thrus will come down Montreal Street to avoid Plain Street traffic. Concerned about rubbish from the buildings. Worried the businesses will not maintain their rubbish properly. Customers will litter. How will the landscaping address the screening of trash? C. Shea said there is going to be fencing as well as a landscape buffer along the sides of the property. She said there was a previous condition of approval to create signage that designates Montreal Street as only accessible one way. D. Eaton asked about the timeline. C. Shea said it would be fairly quickly after receiving the approvals. C. Shea said the dumpsters are enclosed with gates. J. Geary said that these are larger brands and their reputation depends on maintaining these dumpsters. Discussion: T. Linnehan noted that the previous condition of approval regarding traffic signage still applies. Asked about alternatives to Callery Pear trees. J. Geary said they will use alternatives. T. Linnehan states that the project should connecting to the drain at Target or at the intersection of Plain and Tanner streets, and also that a grease trap Operations and Management plan should be included. J. Geary confirmed. T. Linnehean stated that he found the transportation review satisfactory. G. Frechette asked about the curbing on the swept path analysis. C. Shea said that the curbing is going to be revised and the new path is being shown on the revised plan by the red line. G. Frechette asked if the dumpster is being removed to make room for emergency vehicles on the new swept path analysis plan. C. Shea said yes and that final changes will have to be approved by LFD. G. Frechette said he is in favor of continuing until getting a revised Site Plan with all of the LFD concerns addressed. Asked about considerations for pedestrian safety. Lots of mobile orders from Starbucks and pedestrians will be crossing from the separate individual parking areas at each building. C. Shea said they can add a bumpout that would take away a parking space but would increase pedestrian safety.. G. Frechette noted they should be providing an easy path for people to get to the crosswalk. C. Shea said they have actively worked with Starbucks on this site layout. G. Frechette noted the enclosure of the dumpsters and the screening by landscaping should adequately address visual trash concerns. Noted that national chains have a reputation to upkeep, and generally keep their site cleaner. D. Tenczar asked why there are no sprinklers. J. Geary said the size of the building does not require them. D. Tenczar asked how many seats there will be at Chipotle and Starbucks. Lawrence said Starbucks will have 55 seats, including the outdoor patio seating. Chipotle is 30 seats. D. Tenczar expressed concerns about parking and pedestrian safety. Seems like there will be heavy traffic and pedestrian volume on the site. They also need to consider employee parking, Asked for clarification on traffic in the area. Will it double the existing amount? D. Roche said yes. J. Geary said that most retail plazas face the same issues with pedestrians, but they are taking steps to address safety. L. Bassett said there will be 5 employees per shift at Popeyes, but that he does not have hard numbers for Starbucks or Chipotle. J. Geary noted that Chipotle and Starbucks have different peak hours. D. Tenczar said the seat counts indicate more parking may be needed. J. Geary noted that, on the other hand, businesses would not be investing the amount of money they are if they had significant concerns about the parking provided on the Site Plan. L. Walker said the development makes sense. Increases tax revenue and create more jobs. Supportive of the amount of vegetation that comes with the project. Asked about snow removal. C. Shea showed the snow storage areas for the site. During a significant storm, they would have to truck the snow off. T. Linnehan noted that it is unlikely seating will be completely full. T. Linnehan and G. Frechette asked for clarification on the condition of approval regarding signage from the 2023 approval. Motion: G. Frechette motioned to continue the application to the June 2 meeting. D. Tenczar seconded. The vote was unanimous (5-0). IV. Other Business V. Further Comments from Planning Board Members VI. Adjournment D. Tenczar motioned to adjourn and T. Linnehan seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 8:52 PM.