City of Lowell -Planning Board

Planning Board Minutes

Monday, May 1, 2006 7:00 P.M.

City Council Chambers, City Hall

City of Lowell, 375 Merrimack Street, Lowell, MA

Note: These minutes are not completed verbatim. For further detail, audio recordings are available at the Division of Planning & Development, 50 Arcand Drive, Lowell, MA

Members Present

Thomas Linnehan, Chairman

Joseph Clermont, Vice Chairman

Richard Lockhart, Member

Mary Burns, Member

Others

James Errickson, Associate Planner

Roll Call of Neighborhood Groups

Jim Jozokos & Ann Marie Page - Centralville Action Neighborhood Group

Public Hearings

Definitive Subdivision Plan Approval: 118 Georgia Avenue (Conoyle Avenue)

The Lowell Planning Board will review an application by Leslie H. Tye & Delia Finneral for the approval of a definitive subdivision plan for a 100-foot extension of Conoyle Street to access a lot at 118 Georgia Avenue. The street extension is needed to create the minimum frontage required by zoning to access a lot located in the SSF (Suburban Neighborhood Single Family) zoning district for the construction of a single-family house. The applicant is seeking waivers from required sidewalk construction, granite curbing, drainage requirements, and road construction standards. This project requires Planning Board approval under Lowell's Subdivision of Land Regulations.

In Favor:

Attorney Daniel Tenczar (applicant's attorney): This is a single-family home. It is one, single-family home. It is being built by Ms. Finneral. She is trying to construct a ranch for her husband. This petition has been developed. The son has spoken with the neighbors. I think a lot of those neighbors concerns have come into play. I think consideration such as the width of the roadway has been addressed. The City Engineer requested it be 20 feet wide. The neighbors also noted that this is a lot that accumulates runoff from the surrounding lots. My understanding is that the engineer has designed a system that is better than what there is now. He had designed a system that will collect all site runoff. It will be stored and any extra runoff will go into an overflow system. Another concern is wooding, making sure that trees are kept in the area. It is my understanding that we have other departments' approval, and the City Engineer has made suggestions indicating desired changes.

Engineer (Ronald Close): I will quickly review the information regarding the Cultech system itself. There are details on the plans that lay out the details of the system. The system is designed for a 100-year storm. Mr. Curran requested that I increase it threefold. The system will handle three times the dimensional requirements for a 100-year storm. That means there will be five rows with five units of Cultechs per row. In your packet it shows the layout of the system. The system can handle 831 cubic feet of storage. I believe the storage can also handle up to 1000 cubic feet of storage. A 100-year storm would require 200 feet of storage. What would happen here is that the system would drain off the entire street area, including the lot and the house. That would be taken out of what used to flow into the Georgia Avenue and Conoyle Street low point. We are removing that from the runoff from the site. The overall outcome from this system should be a reduced outflow to the low point. There is an overflow system that comes out of the Cultech system, into a sewer system that will eventually connect into City sewer line.

T. Linnehan: The plans show a proposed turnaround easement. I do not believe that was on the plans before. Could you go over that?

D. Tenczar: Sure. This was requested by Steve Curran, who said that this needs to be in the document for public safety. That is on our lot.

T. Linnehan: So there are no other changes on the plans besides the drainage and easement? For the public, we have a note from the engineer that puts for the their approval of the plans.

Beverly Schultz (145 Sanders): I would like to support the current proposal. I appreciate the updated plan. The one thing that I would request is a condition that the applicant will seek abandonment by the City Council of the rest of Conoyle Street.

Walter Baylis (92 Lincoln Parkway): This project is right in my backyard. The man has a legitimate lot to be developed. He has extended himself to better the neighborhood. I will urge you to please accept the plan. And I assure you that we will be petitioning to the Council that we abandon the end of the Conoyle Street.

In Opposition:

Jim Carnevale (105 Georgia Ave): I thank the Planning Board for the opportunity to speak tonight. You have seen a petition that was signed by many concerned neighbors tonight. The main concerns still remain that there should be no waivers. I urge the Board that they do not grant the waivers, and that we approve a project without waivers.

Maria Maskaluk (22 Berchum Street): This lot is in my backyard. This home will be 35 feet in my backyard. Even though the builder has spoken to the neighbors, there is not one neighbor that wants that lot developed. Yes, we have enjoyed a wooded area. My concern is that the road that is already there is 28 feet wide; why is it being narrowed? The other question is that if the drainage system is so good, why is there a retaining wall around the house? I urge you to take a look at the lot in question, and this is your opportunity to prevent a project that is too dense for the site.

Normand Charette (12 Berchum Street): I would like to support both Jim and Mary's comments. I would like to reiterate the questions about the runoff, especially regarding the retaining wall.

In Discussion:

M. Burns: I want to thank the neighbors for voicing their concerns about having a house being built there. I am satisfied with the City Engineer's comments.

R. Lockhart: I have a few questions. Did you say that you are seeking no waivers?

D. Tenczar: No, we are not seeking any variances. This is an oversized lot, and we are trying to make this the least intrusive project for the site. It's his mother's place. We don't want drainage issues. We want a private lot. There were three waivers: sidewalk construction, granite curbing, and roadway width. Initially drainage was one of the things that was requested, however, this is not something that we are requesting. Mrs. Finneral does not want any drainage problems. This is a system that will withstand nearly five times the anticipated 100-year stormwater estimates.

R. Lockhart: Can you go over the details of the road width?

D. Tenczar: Initially, we had 16 feet width. The Engineer and the neighbors asked for wider, and we now propose a 20-foot width. The existing portion of the road is of varying widths; it's all over the place.

R. Lockhart: I don't recall seeing a retaining wall on the last set of plans.

D. Tenczar: Apparently its so you can place the system below the site. We have the engineer here to provide further details.

Engineer (Ronald Close): The retaining wall is actually a series of boulders that will be placed around a perimeter area to bring the grade up and pitch it back towards the street, so that all the runoff will go into the site. So the intention was to line the outside with boulders and keep the drainage on site. We picked the whole area up so that we were above the water table. We had to pick the area up and that was the reasoning for the stones to by placed along the outside. The back section is also being picked up. We designed it that way to facilitate drainage of the lot.

J. Clermont: Just a couple of points, if I could. I would also like to congratulate the neighbors and the builder for making the plans the best plans you could for this evening. I am satisfied by Mr. Curran's comments, and I think that you have covered your required drainage. I think the other issue would be the width of the roadway. We have some information that at the time of when Mr. Hogan's roadway was constructed, 15 feet was deemed sufficient for public safety at that time. Mr. Curran has given us the opinion that 20 feet is a proper width for the extension. I just have one or two questions. The new plans include Mr. Curran's request to have an easement? I assume there will be a document to the affect of this easement. And there will be Cape Cod berm for the site, and I wonder if this is for the site or the entire roadway? I have no other comments.

D. Tenczar: There will be a document for the easement and Cape Cod berm on the entire site.

T. Linnehan: My two concerns regard the street width and the ability to fit emergency vehicles down that road. With comments from the City Engineer, I am satisfied with those conditions. I also have concerns regarding the drainage and I am satisfied with Mr. Curran's comments. I remember that when Mr. Hogan came in front of the Board, it was believed that 15 feet would be wide enough, and I am comfortable with the 20 feet being proposed. And yes I am familiar with this site; I grew up in the area.

Motion:

R. Lockhart motioned to APPROVE the Definitive Subdivision Plan with the following conditions and waivers:

M. Burns seconded the motion

All members voted in favor of the APPROVAL (4-0)

New Business

Pre-Application Sessions:

The following individuals have requested for the Planning Board to provide a preliminary review of their proposed project at the addresses listed below. These are not public hearings. Each project will require a public hearing as noted below.

Applicant: East End Social Club

Project: 16 Townhouse Development

Zoning: UMU (Urban Mixed Use)

Required Review: Site Plan & Special Permit

In Favor:

Attorney Jim Flood (81 Bridge Street): I have with me tonight with Matt Hamor and my son. We're here tonight to preliminarily present to you our proposed plans for 16 townhouse units on West Third Street. We are willing to continue to work with the staff regarding the architectural and site plan designs. I think there are some good suggestions from the staff. The plan before you tonight is just preliminary. There will be plenty of room for snow storage and space for a dumpster. There are some details that must be added to the site. We had it designed to go along with the other homes in the immediate neighborhood, and along Forest View Ave. We are thinking of making the turn onto that roadway left turn only. I did meet with Anne Mary Paige, and I did note that we will meet with her organization. I'll turn it over to Matt for him to go over the details.

Matt Hamor (Engineer, Polaris Engineering): My name is Matt Hamor, and I worked on the engineering for this project. Basically, we are taking a paved parking lot and proposing to build 16 townhouse units. The existing lot is actually 4 parcels of 8 that are owned by the East End Club. We are proposing to have separate landscaping islands. We were discussing other plans from the Planning Department. We were thinking of doing a more common area, but this plan addresses the traffic flow of the site. The street façade will be incorporating bay windows, as well as some other architectural elements. We will be working closely with the Planning Department as well as with the architects to make sure the streetscape is complementary to the neighborhood. The two aerial photographs show you the housing on each side of the site, which includes row-style housing. If you are looking at the project from the opposite side, you will notice the condominium complex to the west of our project with a line of parking along the street. With this project the exiting will actually line up with these condos. One of the other comments that was made by DPD was the use of this portion of the East End Club's parking facility for this development would take away required parking for the Club. We feel that the Club's other areas should be sufficient for the Club's functions. There is parking adjacent to our property, and there is one on the back portion of the East End Club site itself. And on West Sixth Street, they have access to parking on two parcels there. Additionally with the plan, we want to incorporate a recreational area that will be common for the people living there. What we would like to do with the recreational area is landscape, working with the neighborhood group and DPD to provide proper landscaping. We have also incorporated an area to drop off mail, as well as an area for bicycle area or a bench. We would also like to do fencing along the entrance to West Third Street. And that is it.

In Opposition:

Jim Jozokos (58 Thirteenth Street): Just in general, I know it is a UMU district, and I know that this district does give a lot of leeway to what you can do. How big are the units, where are the decks, where are the second means of egress? It would be nice if they were to meet with the neighborhood group. The usable open space: is that the small space adjacent to the entrance? I don't think this is exactly green space in my opinion. I would like to just sit down with them and go over the plan, because it could be a great project.

Ann Marie Page (26 Freemont Street): Attorney Flood did call me today to inform me that the developers are willing to work with the neighborhood group. We would ask that you do make a public hearing. For this meeting I ask that you not make it on the third Monday of the month. If we were going to meet that would be a good idea. Today for the first time I did receive a couple of phone calls; they were negative. I did go by there today, and I saw 16 units, and it made me shake. But I do think we need to meet and listen.

In Discussion:

J. Flood: Yes, well we can make sure we file for the first Monday of the month.

T. Linnehan: Well if there is a conflict, we would be willing to change our meeting time to meet at another night other than the third Monday of the month.

M. Burns: Obviously my first issue is to make sure the East End Club parking is be taken care of. I did read the memo from Mr. Errickson, and I assume the developer and the applicant will meet all these comments before the submittal. I am happy to hear that you, Mr. Flood, are willing to meet with the neighborhood group. Do you know how large the units will be? What about second means of egress?

M. Hamor: These will be roughly 1,500 square feet, and the egresses will be onto West Third Street.

J. Flood: We do have the same concern regarding the parking on the East End Club site, and we will be sure to work with the Planning Department about it.

R. Lockhart: First I would like to say that this project is a good one. But I do have some concerns with parking. Parking around there with Bridge Street and the East End Club is a big, big problem. I know you are going to make sure the parking requirement for the East End Club is met. I think you can do a better job at laying out what you have here. You may be able to cluster these. Maybe vary the setbacks, make it more of an interesting layout, and in doing so you can blend the site into the neighborhood better. You are not blending anything into the neighborhood.

J. Flood: I think the final architectural designs will address that. Are you saying that you want to offset these units?

R. Lockhart: Yes vary it a bit, and maybe do a little less dense. Look at the density. Your traffic flow: I don't agree with what you have there. Forest View is no more than a driveway, and I think it is a two-way street as well. I would be in favor of entering and exiting off of West Third; that would be easier.

J. Flood: I think that could be done, and we would probably lose a unit. I think the flow of the traffic inside the development could be changed.

R. Lockhart: The final point is that we are proposing 20 percent green space. I fail to see that you are taking 20 percent of that space and make it a sizable area for recreation. None of that is really usable for recreation.

M. Hamor: What we are saying is that we are having green space. It is not your typical usable open space. It does incorporate landscaped areas. The other issue that revolves around green spaces is that the master deed of the condo association can manage the space.

R. Lockhart: That part of the neighborhood does not have much recreational space. I think it needs more space like that.

J. Clermont: Just a couple of concerns. I congratulate you for all the work you have done. How many bedrooms per unit? Are you anticipating any decks on the units?

M. Hamor: The units will have two bedrooms. We are thinking about incorporating the deck from this garage area. We feel this will lessen the effect of having the garage underneath, with the deck providing some shadowing. What we don't want to do is have a deck next to an adjacent deck. We want to spread them out.

J. Clermont: I guess I would reiterate some of the concerns regarding parking and traffic. I know by working with the neighborhood groups you will be able to work on a good plan. Sometimes less is more, and you can knock out a couple of units. I know you are not required to provide all the green space, but this is a special permit project, and it may be better to knock out a unit or two, increase the parking and make the green space a little more usable. Give the residents a place to have some recreation space. It will be a better project.

T. Linnehan: A couple of concerns that I have are regarding Forest View Ave. I drove down there with my Corolla and I was concerned about the width of the street. I am concerned about how close that back unit will be to the house next to the site.

M. Hamor: We think it is around 12 to 13 feet. This is not a boundary survey.

T. Linnehan: As I said, that side street is very narrow, so I do like the idea that was proposed to maybe do a horseshoe shaped throughway. And maybe you can come on and off of West Third Street. I am trying to envision going down that road with snow on both sides.

J. Flood: We appreciate that and I think we may loose a unit. I think we can move the entrance and we can probably cluster the units.

M. Hamor: We could loop the site around through here.

T. Linnehan: I did notice the parking on the site, and if you notice even further on that street there is a parking condo lot. When you come into the right you have a common recreation area. When looking down to the common recreation area, will that be high?

M. Hamor: No that will be the same as the rest of the lot. We thought the landscaped area would be a buffer for the wall there.

T. Linnehan: The houses will be facing West Third Street, and the back units will be how?

M. Hamor: Well, we have not completed the architectural drawings for the site.

T. Linnehan: The snow removal is along the back? And the crosswalk is where the striped walk is? The bike rack: will that be covered or have an overhang?

M. Hamor: Yes, we can do that.

T. Linnehan: I think the only question I have left is regarding parking, and how that will affect the East End Club. It will be tough to make sure the area has sufficient space.

No formal action was taken on the above issue.

Old Business

Update: Planning Board Bylaws

Motion:

J. Clermont motioned to approve and adopt the Bylaws as amended

M. Burns seconded the motion

All members voted in favor (4-0)

Motion:

J. Clermont motioned to nominate Member Richard Lockhart as Second Vice Chair of the Board

M. Burns seconded the motion

All members voted in favor (4-0)

Update: KC Estates Subdivision (Twiss Avenue & Maryland Avenue)

No formal action was taken on the above issue

Update: 724 Chelmsford Street

Motion:

J. Clermont motioned to accept the minor changes to the landscaping at 724 Chelmsford Street

M. Burns seconded the motion

All members voted in favor (4-0)

ZBA Notices:

Loft Properties (15 & 27 Kearney Square; 38 Prescott Street)

J. Clermont: Motion to recommend APPROVAL

R. Lockhart: Second the motion

All members voted in favor of APPROVAL (4-0)

Nextel Communication of the Mid-Atlantic, Inc. (175-A Olde Canal Drive)

J. Clermont: Motion to recommend CONTINUANCE due to this project first requiring Site Plan Approval by the Planning Board under Section 7.6.2 of the Lowell Zoning Ordinance

M. Burns: Second the motion

All members voted in favor of CONTINUANCE (4-0)

Veiga Joao M Veiga Delminda F (138 Pleasant Street)

J. Clermont: Motion to recommend DENIAL due to the proximity of the proposed car port to the property lines (its too close to the neighbors), and the negative affects this project will have on abutting properties and the neighborhood.

R. Lockhart: Second the motion

All members voted in favor of DENIAL (4-0)

John & Sally Ho (375 Broadway Street)

J. Clermont: Motion to recommend DENIAL due to the negative effects the project will have on the parking situation in the neighborhood. Further, the site is too small for the size of development being proposed.

M. Burns: Second the motion

All members voted in favor of DENIAL (4-0)

Dowling John F. (43 Doane Street)

J. Clermont: Motion to recommend APPROVAL

R. Lockhart: Second the motion

All members voted in favor of APPROVAL (4-0)

Grigg Brian Moran Terry (156 Riverside Street)

J. Clermont: Motion to recommend DENIAL due to the proposal being too dense for the surrounding neighborhood and the site.

M. Burns: Second the motion

All members voted in favor of DENIAL (4-0)

The Daly Group (6-10 Acton Street)

J. Clermont: Motion to recommend APPROVAL

M. Burns: Second the motion

All members voted in favor of APPROVAL (4-0)

These minutes were approved by the Planning Board on July 17, 2006

J. Clermont: Motion to approve

R. Lockhart: Second

All members voted in favor (4-0).

________________________________________________________

James Errickson, Associate Planner

Planning Board Minutes

May 1, 2006 - Page 2