Planning Board

City of Lowell - Planning Board Planning Board Meeting Minutes Monday, June 2, 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 Members Absent Member Cheng Associate Member Cardoso Silva 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 5/19/2025 G. Frechette motioned and D. Tenczar seconded the motion to continue the minutes to the next Planning Board meeting on 6/16/2025. II. Continued Business Site Plan Review and Special Permit - 558 Gorham Street 01852 LML Investments, LLC has applied to the Lowell Planning Board to construct two townhouses, one with 4 units and the other with 2 units, at 558 Gorham Street. The subject property is located in the Urban Mixed Use (UMU) zoning district. The proposal requires Site Plan Review per section 11.4.2 of the Lowell Zoning Ordinance for a development with more than three units, and Special Permit approval per Section 11.3.2 for four to six dwelling units on a single lot in the UMU zoning district. On Behalf: Kasey Ferreira, Applicant’s Representative Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: None Discussion: T. Linnehan noted that the Board did not have an opportunity to review the plans because they were submitted late. Because of that, the applicant has requested a continuance. G. Frechette said that the facades of the building facing Gorham Street were a concern. Some time ago we looked at design standards. One of them is definitely not a sideways townhouse condo with side wall facing the street especially in a traditional neighborhood. Bad development. K. Ferreira said new architecturals were also submitted. Single family house faces the street. Front porch facing the street. Three unit has been updated with windows and doors facing Gorham Street. D. Tenczar thanked the applicant for coming forward and updating us. Motion: G. Frechette motioned to continue the matter to the August 18 Planning Board meeting, seconded by D. Tenczar and passed unanimously, (5-0). Site Plan Revision and Special Permit Amendment - 190-198 Plain Street 01851 Lowell Dev, LLC has applied to the Lowell Planning Board 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, Applicant’s Attorney Chris Shea, Applicant’s Engineer Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: None Discussion: G. Frechette said if you look at the site plan there is a no through traffic sign. J. Geary said that was not a change from the last plan. It may have been a comment that got pulled over from the 2023 approvals. That is what we are proposing. G. Frechette said that’s why he was concerned about the minutes. G. Frechette said there was some suggested language conditions. J. Geary said that the letter from Jeff Dirk indicates that we are agreeable to all city transportation suggested mitigation measures including initial and additional comments from transportation engineer. We’ve agreed to every measure that was suggested. D. Tenczar said he appreciates what they have done with the plan. Cars will be queued up, 10, 13 and 10 cars. Alleviates some of my concerns regarding parking because there will be a significant area where cars will be out of the way. Popeyes will be drive through only. I think that’s helpful. I considered that these businesses know what they’re doing - these people don’t randomly put up places. Each place is guided, studied, there is a procedure. I’m relying on some of that based on their knowledge to alleviate my parking concerns. I like that the no through traffic sign onto Montreal helps the neighbors. Shade trees and landscape looks great. Also appreciate the reduced runoff on Plain Street. T. Linnehan said he does not have concerns about this. Agree with what transportation engineer says. Landscaping plan - did a good job of implementing that. Motion: T. Linnehan motioned to approve the site plan with the condition that they will agree to all transportation engineer comments dated May 13, as well as comments received from Mr. Dirk dated May 15. The motion was seconded by G. Frechette and passed unanimously, (5-0). T. Linnehan motioned to approve the special permit for the drive-through under Section 12.4.g(1) with the same conditions as the site plan. The motion was seconded by G. Frechette and passed unanimously, (5-0). T. Linnehan motioned to approve the special permit for reduced restaurant parking requirement under Section 6.1.5(5). The motion was seconded by L. Walker and passed unanimously, (5-0). III. New Business Public Shade Tree Hearing – 1650 Middlesex Street (Hadley Park) 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 one (1) 3” caliper tree at Hadley Park, 1650 Middlesex Street. The tree removal is necessary for the renovation and expansion of the playground. The replanting plan proposes three (3) new trees. On Behalf: Brianna Martinez, City of Lowell Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: None Discussion: T. Linnehan said thanks for the package, it made it easier to locate where the tree was. Amazed to see the big hole with the tree there. I’m in favor of the removal. G. Frechette said he wanted to give workers credit for respecting the tree ordinance. D. Tenczar said it is important that we do take this seriously and obviously the contractors took this seriously. City and contractors should be commended for all the work they are doing. It’s incredible how much work is getting done. It will be a great resource for residents. Great job, I’m in support. Motion: T. Linnehan motioned and D. Tenczar seconded the motion to approve the tree removal. The motion passed unanimously, (5-0). Site Plan Review and Special Permit - 534-556 Chelmsford Street 01851 Lowell Central Electric Co., Inc. has applied to the Lowell Planning Board for Site Plan Review and Special Permit approval to construct an eighty (80) unit residential development at 534-556 Chelmsford Street. The property is located in the Suburban Neighborhood Multifamily (SMF) zoning district and requires Site Plan Review approval under Section 11.4.2(2) to construct a development with more than three (3) dwelling units and a Special Permit under Section 6.7 for the proposed driveway dimensions. *D. Tenczar recused himself from this application and exited the Council Chamber* On Behalf: John Cox, Applicant’s Attorney Matt Hamor, Applicant’s Engineer Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: Douglas Hausler, Attorney on behalf of owners of 4 Quimby Avenue D. Hausler said the applicant would like access to the rear of 4 Quimby Ave through this property. Applicant has not agreed to do that. D. Hausler said they can’t get basic information from the applicant. T. Linnehan added that the application was approved by ZBA. D. Hausler said his client requested this information 6+ months ago but was told access was not going to be granted. Entrance into this mess is a result of the applicant’s unwillingness to date for my client to access the rear of their property. Perhaps it could be resolved to prevent a lawsuit. Client’s concern is access. I would like to see the Board to encourage the applicant to reconsider granting access. We are talking about 1-2 parking spaces. J. Cox said that Hausler’s claim that they are not willing to talk is false. Told him last week we would discuss. Joseph Tarmey, 8 Quimby Avenue. J. Tarmey said one of my biggest concerns was possible contamination of that area. Granted permits to store 10k gallons of fuel on the site. Tanks are long gone but I’m concerned that there was a leak at some point. Second problem was with traffic. Was a traffic study done? I have pictures on my phone that will show you a hampered traffic situation especially during peak hours. It is not possible to go through those lights through one light cycle. Have to wait two cycles. Adding 80-100 more vehicles is going to enhance traffic. J. Cox said he was here at the ZBA meeting the other night. As you see from DPD memo, this property is not in a historic board review district. We have filed a 21E report with the city. John Maria, Lowell Central Electric Co. J. Maria said his biggest concern was that access road would become a cut through to get to the Lowell connector. This is access to a future development at LHA but not access to Quimby and Lowell Connector. The reason they asked for access is that Quimby is undersized driveway that isn’t large enough for a development for residents and fire trucks. That’s why we helped them out. This is not a cut through provision. It will be gated. M. Hamor added that the access would be gated to allow emergency vehicles to go in and out if need be and the LHA if need be but not free flowing traffic. T. Linnehan asked to explain the 21E report. M. Hamor said yes one has been done. Lengthy document (600 pages long) provided to DPD this morning. Document tells you that there is no contamination is on the property. Would go to another stage if it was. We did approximately 4-5 test holes on property to ensure drainage would function as designed. Discussion: G. Frechette said he has a lot of experience with 21E reports. They look at history of the site. That is something that a buyer would be required to have. That is usually submitted to the lender. From that perspective, this project would not go forward without a 21E. Special Permit is for length of the driveway. All of the variances presented at ZBA last week. Site Plan Review - doesn’t give the Planning Board a lot of teeth. G. Frechette asked about trash. M. Hamor said concrete pad with full fencing. Dumpsters - two locations on site. Bicycle racks located along buildings. G. Frechette asked about screening for dumpster. M. Hamor said they would be screening the dumpsters using a full vinyl fence. G. Frechette asked why they have not proposed a white vinyl fence along the property line shared with neighbors. M. Hamor said yes, can be white vinyl. G. Frechette asked about safe emergency egress. M. Hamor confirmed that there would be no way for traffic to go through property. Could add sign that says no through way traffic allowed through property. G. Frechette asked if landscaping was still being finalized, M. Hamor said yes. G. Frechette asked about lighting. M. Hamor said they can work with DPD and the landscape architect on a lighting plan. G. Frechette asked if there are hydrants on the site. M. Hamor said anything proposed by LFD would be added to the project. G. Frechette asked if buildings would be sprinkled. M. Hamor said yes. T. Sar said he used to live around the corner. I cannot imagine how much more traffic there would be. In any given hour, traffic is horrendous coming in and out of there. I would want to see any way you could find at the entrance. M. Hamor said he is reminded of a conversation a couple years ago about this project. This was zoned Regional Retail. There was a discussion about how this property would affect surrounding roadways if it was a big box store. That would have provided a lot more traffic impact than the use we are proposing now. I have concept plans showing gas stations and other uses of this property. When we went to change the zoning, residential was lower impact than the retail use. T. Sar said it is important to work with the neighbors. Knowing that location, that is my feedback. L. Walker asked about snow removal plans. M. Hamor said the snow storage will be along the green areas on the edge of the property. I am concerned that we haven’t gotten comments from stormwater and engineering. I think i would be interested in hearing their comments, whether they have them or not. M. Hamor said he meets with these folks on a weekly basis. They have not raised any concerns to me about this project. Typically, a stormwater permit is required before it is constructed. Can assure you this project has a full drainage system to handle drainage on the site. T. Linnehan said they did receive comments from transportation engineer. Motion: G. Frechette motioned to approve the Site Plan with the following conditions: 1. A “no through way” traffic sign will be installed on the property; 2. The applicant shall submit a revised site plan showing that access to site from the adjacent Lowell Housing Authority (LHA) property will have a locked gate barring entry except for emergency vehicles; 3. The landscaping plan shall be approved by DPD prior to applying for a building permit and shall include arborvitae screening along the property line abutting residential properties on Quimby Ave; 4. The lighting plan shall be approved by DPD ensuring no external lights will affect abutting properties; 5. The project shall receive final approval from the Lowell Regional Wastewater Utility (LRWWU); and 6. The applicant shall comply with requirements of the City’s Transportation Engineer as outlined in the comment memo dated 5/22/2025: a. The applicant shall work with the City of Lowell for any possible redesign and implementation, signal timing, or coordination planning for intersection of Chelmsford and Plain Street; b. All new residents shall be provided a “welcome packet” detailing available public transportation services, bicycle and walking alternatives, and ride share and commuter coordination options; and c. The site entrance sign and any plantings shall be located outside of the required sight triangle for vehicles exiting the site driveway onto Chelmsford Street. Maintenance of landscaping and snow windows shall be below 3 feet in height within sight triangles. The motion was seconded by T. Linnehan and passed unanimously, (4-0). G. Frechette motioned to approve the Special Permit with the same conditions as the Site Plan. The motion was seconded by T. Linnehan and passed unanimously, (4-0). Site Plan Review and Special Permit - 278 Central Street 01852 BCFC Park LLC Inc. has applied to the Lowell Planning Board for Site Plan Review and Special Permit approval to expand the existing 27-unit building at 278 Central Street. The addition consists of additional living space, and no units are being added. The property is located in the Downtown Mixed-Use (DMU) and the Multi-Family Midrise Overlay (MFOM) zoning districts. It requires Site Plan Review approval from the Planning Board under Section 11.4.2(2) for an exterior expansion of a residential structure with more than three dwelling units, a Special Permit under Section 11.3.2 for the operation of a boarding house in the DMU zoning district, and a Special Permit under Section 4.5.3 to extend a non-conforming structure. On Behalf: Aiden Church, Applicant’s Attorney Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: None Discussion: T. Linnehan said they got historic board approval. I’m in favor of the site plan and special permit. L. Walker said this project went before the Historic Board and a permit was issued. Building is a 200-year old Greek revival building. T. Sar said no questions. G. Frechette complimented the attorney’s presentation. G. Frechette said in the narrative it says front and side encroachments. City engineering and legal should decide whether any easements are issued. G. Frechette said he likes the idea of it taking up more of the site. Developing that to put rear parking lot- will make area safer. The property is in need of a face lift. T. Linnehan read letter from abutter John Geary into the record in support of the proposed project. Property is in need of some structural work. Needs facelift. What you’ve requested will help the site look much better. I’m in favor of the plan. As indicated only request is to submit a full utility plan. Shouldn’t be an inconvenience. Motion: T. Sar motioned to approve the Site Plan Review application with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall submit a utility plan prior to applying for a building permit; 2. The applicant shall review with engineering and law to determine whether city should be issuing easement for the encroachment of building on Central Street and Green Street;  3. The applicant shall add a no parking sign along Thirsty First’s property line. The motion was seconded by L. Walker and passed unanimously, (4-0). T. Sar motioned and L. Walker seconded the motion to issue the Special Permit under Section 11.3.2 with the conditions as the Site Plan Review. The motion passed unanimously, (4-0). T. Sar motioned and L. Walker seconded the motion to issue the Special Permit under Section 4.5.3 with the same conditions as the Site Plan Review. The motion passed unanimously, (4-0). IV. Other Business V. Further Comments from Planning Board Members VI. Adjournment T. Linnehan motioned and G. Frechette seconded the motion to adjourn (4-0). The time was 9:05PM.