City of Lowell -Planning Board

Planning Board Minutes

Monday, June 5, 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, Second Vice Chairman

Mary Burns, Member

Others

James Errickson, Associate Planner

Roll Call of Neighborhood Groups

None present

Public Hearings

Site Plan: 975 Varnum Avenue

The Lowell Planning Board will review an application by Sisters of Charity of Ottowa and D'Youville Elderly Housing Corporation for site plan approval for the development of the property located at 975 Varnum Avenue. The proposal includes the construction of a 42-unit (41 one-bedroom, 1 two-bedroom), affordable elderly housing project, as well as a three-story building that will hold a community room, offices, lounge, laundry facilities, on a portion of the D'Youville Senior Care Campus. The project will include 47 parking spaces on the 1,590,281sqft lot located in the SSF (suburban neighborhood single family) zoning district. This project requires site plan approval from the Planning Board under Section 11.4 of the Lowell Zoning Ordinance.

In Favor:

James Flood (81 Bridge Street): Representing Sisters of Charity and D'Youville. The sisters own the property, and D'Youville is doing the project. With me tonight are John Noonan and Bob Varier. We are before you tonight for Site Plan Review. What we would like to do is extend the existing facility for congregate senior living. The project is to demolish the existing buildings and construct a new building, with 42 units, a laundry room, lounge, etc. We have 47 new spaces, which will be more than adequate, since most of these people will not have cars. We will also be in front of the ZBA for a variance for height and a side yard variance. So we are going to connect the buildings. I am sure this board can understand the need for elderly housing. This is located on an LRTA bus route, and the existing site has a lot of the facilities that the elderly need. The landscaping and architectural design will beautify this site. I have reviewed the comments from the staff, and one of the main concerns is in regards to the existing entrance. We want to keep this entrance, and we have some ideas for better delineating this property. We will propose to move the sign of the Kelly Circle, add some landscaping to the entrance, and provide additional landscaping for the site. I have also submitted to you a traffic study, which would indicate that this proposed project does not add any significant traffic to the area. I am here with the engineer and the architect. We have presented to this Board before, and we are here to answer any of your questions.

John Noonan (Engineer): We are proposing to remove the existing building along the easterly property line. I have drawn a site plan that shows what we are trying to do. We will remove this existing house and building. It will be the assisted living to the front portion of the lot. We will be removing the existing house and add parking to the side. Our entrance will be located near the existing entrance. The drainage facilities will not be altered. We will actually have a net reduction of drainage on the site. We are proposing improvements to the existing system. The new drainage system will be connected to the existing drainage system. There is plenty of room here for cars to move in and out of the various parking spaces.

Bob Varier (Architect): We are the architects for the proposed development. We did the first building for Ed Buyer, and we have been here for many, many years. We met with the neighbors; they are very happy with our design. We made some concessions, and we are opening the entrance to the buildings, adding some fencing. In addition, we will be adding more planting to the buffer along the property lines with the neighbors. In taking down the existing building, we added 40 percent more landscaped area to the site. Therefore, our 30-foot buildings are actually below the heights of the neighboring houses, due to their elevation. We will use the facilities from the nursing home that will provide food and supplies for our tenants. The architecture of the building is quite simple, very residential in scale. It has its own entrance, a gabled roof.

Jerry Frechette (80 Dunbar Avenue): I am the Chairman of the Pawtucketville Citizen's Council and am also on the board of the rear gardens located near this facility. I am here this evening to discuss what we feel is favorable about this project. We made sure we reached out to the direct abutters. For all the reasons mentioned, the neighbors were in favor of the project. The height of the building is a major concern. In the City's Master Plan, preserving the neighbors is very important. This project is in a residential neighborhood. Although this does exceed the heights of the zoning, it does not exceed the height of surrounding buildings in the neighborhood, and it is also located further off the street. We also appreciate the buffer of landscaping of the site. The Board also felt it was important to remember that the non-residential street is located near this site, and this is a major concern. I don't think anyone expects this to generate much vehicular traffic. One issue that we did want to go on record for is the proximity of the access road to Kelley Circle. I do want to commend the applicants, who have tried to address this issue in a cost affective manner. I want to thank D'Youville for their community support. I must say that I admit that I have turned down the wrong road there. The concern is that this will be primarily for elderly housing. The concern that we have that without creating distance between the two drives, that that may present some confusion between the two. If the Board reasons that if this is sufficient, the Board should ensure that the project does not hinder safety at that site. I would ask the Board to take a look at this and consider this in considering this decision.

In Opposition:

None

In Discussion:

M. Burns: I think it is a good project. Anything we can do for the elderly is a good thing. The only issue is from the review form is from the Conservation.

J. Flood: Yes, we will file a notice of intent.

M. Burns: For Kelley circle, you will move the signage?

J. Flood: I believe the concern was regarding turning down the wrong street, and the moving of the sign should take care of that. Steve Curran will take care of this. We will also fence in D'Youville.

R. Lockhart: So you are making a clear delineation to that site?

J. Flood: Yes, we will do that, and to do any more will take away funds from the project.

R. Lockhart: The internal traffic pattern: what do you foresee as happening, and the need for additional signage? Also, will there be additional truck turnaround on the site?

J. Flood: We would like to keep this side of the site as a two-way drive. The other entrance is primarily for deliveries.

J. Noonan: Currently, the entrance is here; it comes in, goes around and loops around. This internal road is all 20 feet width, and 24 feet wide with parking. This is sufficient. There aren't any problems whether it is one way or two ways.

R. Lockhart: What type of deliveries are you talking about?

J. Noonan: It will likely be a typical box truck. They don't have the need to large tractor-trailer trucks.

R. Lockhart: The only other comment that I can make is that there is no Fire Department comment.

T. Linnehan: I want to thank the applicant and the neighborhood group for meeting on a couple occasions. It makes our decision better with regard to discussing the issues. I know one issue is in regards to Kelley Circle. Could this be one way going in here?

J. Flood: It won't work because of another neighbor that would not like to have it.

T. Linnehan: Well, it seems that most of the traffic comes in by the first entrance, and the other one further down does not get much traffic. Now if you change that sign for Kelley Circle, you will change that sign. You also talked about fencing, and that will be simple signage.

J. Flood: We would be glad to work with staff to work around that.

Motion:

Member Richard Lockhart motioned to APPROVE the site plan with the following conditions:

Member Mary Burns seconded the motion.

All members voted in favor of APPROVAL (3-0). Member Joseph Clermont removed himself from the hearing due to a conflict of interest.

Site Plan: 378 Gorham Street

The Lowell Planning Board will review an application by Drake Petroleum Company, Inc. for site plan approval for the redevelopment of the property located at 378 Gorham Street. The proposal includes the demolition of the existing gas station on site, and the construction of a new 1,500sqft building, as well as new pump islands and canopy. Associated landscaping and parking also accompany this project located on a 13,040sqft site in the UMU (urban neighborhood mixed use) zoning district. This project requires site plan approval from the Planning Board under Section 11.4 of the Lowell Zoning Ordinance.

In Favor:

Ron Fortune (Applicant's Representative): Consulting and design; I represent the owners of the property. They are looking for the replacement of the underground tanks, which lead to the redesign of the facility. The site is small; it has three streets to encounter, and a multi family directly behind it. As read, the facility is being completely demolished, and the development will install a new store and three dispensers under the canopy, new tanks, etc. This is a typical store, and I have a plan that is revised to represent the improvements that were discussed with the department. This is a simplified plan. The background sign shows the lines of the facilities. The new tanks are shown, the canopy is laid out in the front with three pump islands. There is planting of small trees. There is a stockade fence along the backside to mitigate lighting to the rear. There is a three-foot wrought iron fence with brick posts. There is fencing along the dumpster. There is wrought iron by the dumpster. The area around the store will be with pavers and a type of vertical granite curbing, the front portion of the property is a three-foot height fence that ties into the monument sign. It cleans up a sore spot for the area and the corner.

In Opposition:

None

In Discussion:

M. Burns: There is no Fire Department approval, and so if we can check on that. Both of my issues have been addressed. The waterline is one concern. I think it is a good project, and I think it will make the neighborhood neater. I just want to see Fire Department approval.

R. Lockhart: I have a few things. First of all I think you did a nice job with the land. One concern is the snow storage in the winter. It is hard to visualize.

R. Fortune: In between the dumpster area and the building will hold most of the snow. Anything else we will have to take off site.

R. Lockhart: With the convenience store you will have additional walking traffic, do you plan on improving that?

R. Fortune: I am not certain about the extent of the condition of the sidewalks, we will have to rebuild much of the Auburn Street side, along Gorham street we will need to rebuild. I am not certain to the condition of the rest of the neighborhood. Every part of this site will be rebuilt.

R. Lockhart: A couple of weeks ago, I noticed about a dozen cars parked along the back of the gas station along the fence. I took a ride by there today, and I counted between 15 and 20 cars there. I am wondering if that is consisting neighborhood resident parking. Did you meet with the neighborhood group?

R. Fortune: I did not, but they would be parking there on their own accord.

J. Clermont: The curb cut along Auburn Street is about 80 feet wide. There is a note in our packet about a variance required for the Auburn Street side. How do you anticipate the traffic flowing out onto Elm Street?

R. Fortune: The biggest concern with a site like this is in regards to delivery of gas. This is similar to the existing traffic pattern. I am not sure if this is a painted or a raised berm. The turning onto Elm Street is not really changing.

J. Clermont: I know you have not met with any of the neighborhood groups, but have you received any comments from the neighbors? What are the hours of operation?

R Fortune: We have received general positive feedback. And we will see how the market works regarding to hours.

T. Linnehan: I think with regards to the monument sign that is to the corner of the Gorham and Elm Streets. Is that the one that says 2 by 8 feet height? Will that block the turning onto Elm or out of Elm?

R. Fortune: The fence locks into the sign, and I think the traffic should be fine.

T. Linnehan: I think this is an improvement to the site. I know you have done your job there. And I think this will beautify this entrance to the City.

Motion:

Member Joseph Clermont motioned to APPROVE the site plan with the following conditions:

Member Richard Lockhart seconded the motion.

All members voted in favor of 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: Pilot Perkins LLC

Project: Multi-family - 193 Units

Zoning: INST (Institutional Mixed Use)

Required Review: Site Plan & Special Permit

In Favor:

J. Flood: There are two petitions here: Pilot Perkins, and Perkins LLC. I will start with the building. This is that last step in the Lawrence Mills conversion. I have Eden Milroy, the architect, the engineer, etc. So it will be before you for SPR and SP to allow the conversion of the units into rental units. We are also requesting a license from the City of Lowell to allow us to access property on a portion of Perkins Street, due to the elevations of the City. We will also petition to Lowell to make this street a one-way street. If we improve this area, it will be better as a one way. Across the street is a parking lot. What they intend to do is to close two of the existing curb cuts. We will be appearing before the Board of Appeals for parking. When they originally purchased the site, the parking requirement was 0.75 spaces per bedroom, and now it is 2 spaces per unit. We will also request a variance for trash pick up for just the day of the pick up. I think we are not going to change the building. We will landscape the area, and that is basically the project.

Eden Milroy: I am partner in both Pilot Perkins LLC and 40 Perkins LLC. I wanted to speak for a moment about Perkins Street itself. This project is a major historic rehab, and when looking at the history of Perkins Street, that actually the other side of the street was at one time residential. Photos show that that street was quite a grand tree lined street. And we want to restore that. Though there will be more people there, it will be much quieter than there is today.

In Opposition:

None

In Discussion:

R. Lockhart: The curb cuts you talk about, are where?

J. Flood: At the present time, we will close the two here, and open one on Cabot Street. There is an exiting curb cut on Perkins Street. Where the parking lot is.

R. Lockhart: I know parking over there is a real issue, there is a lot of parking over there, and that will displace the parking. There is a new parking garage near the ballpark. Is that the University's? Where else will you park?

J. Flood: Well, all the other parking in the city is one to one, and I suppose you could go to the parking garage by the Arena.

J. Clermont: What do you propose for the size of the units?

E. Milroy: The average will be 940 square feet. There are 115 one-bedroom and 78 two-bedrooms.

J. Clermont: For that number of units, parking will be the issue. I would urge you to try to do what you can to maximize the parking. I don't know if you are married to the number of units.

E. Milroy: The number of units is an economic necessity. The project was planned around a 0.75 parking space per bedroom basis. We have 223 spaces. We could get a few more on that parking lot, but we wanted to bring that lot up to code with zoning.

J. Clermont: What is the use of the parking lot now?

E. Milroy: We purchased the property last June, and part of the agreement was to let UMass use the lot until February 2007, when their garage will be complete.

J. Clermont: I think the primary concern is parking, with the ballpark and the new facilities.

M. Burns: My only concern is the parking, and I am sure that that will be addressed by the time the application comes to us.

T. Linnehan: So the building will be facing the parking lot. And if you look at there now, will the tracks come out? You also said that you need a license from the City of Lowell?

J. Flood: Yes, the tracks will come out. In this area, a portion of this brown area is in the public right of way. We want to use a portion of that for the site. We have no land in the back portion of the site.

E. Milroy: One of the difficulties with this site is that the state sold us no land with the building. It slopes a bit in the back. We have no land to work with.

T. Linnehan: To get approval you will need City approval for the road, ZBA for parking, Historic Board, and Planning Board. Is the building in good shape?

E. Milroy: Yes, the exterior will stay the same, and the only real change is the new entrance. But we are restoring that building. Parts of the building are in really good shape. As soon as we purchased it we immediately went in and completed stabilizing. We have already replaced a portion of the roof and other parts of the building. I think we caught it just in time.

T. Linnehan: I have no further questions. Thank you.

No formal action was taken on the above issue

Old Business

None

ZBA Notices:

Sorbi Robert L Sorbi Pamela (98 Hoyt Avenue)

J. Clermont: Motion to recommend APPROVAL.

R. Lockhart: Second the motion

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

Parent James R Fleming Katherine M (20 Circuit Ave)

M. Burns: Motion to recommend APPROVAL.

R. Lockhart: Second the motion

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

Justin Thibeault (46 Hayes Avenue)

J. Clermont: Motion to recommend APPROVAL.

M. Burns: Second the motion

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

D'Youville Elderly Housing Corporation (1039 Varnum Avenue - aka 975 Varnum Avenue)

M. Burns: Motion to recommend APPROVAL.

R. Lockhart: Second the motion

Three members voted in favor of APPROVAL (3-0-1), with J. Clermont removing himself from voting due to conflict of interest.

These minutes were approved by the Planning Board on August 21, 2006

J. Clermont: Motion to approve

R. Lockhart: Second

All members voted in favor (4-0).

________________________________________________________

James Errickson, Associate Planner/Planning Board Administrator

Planning Board Minutes

June 5, 2006 - Page 7