City of Lowell -Planning Board

Planning Board Minutes

Monday, July 17, 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

Approval of Minutes: April 20, 2006; May 1, 2006; and May 15, 2006

Motion:

Member Joseph Clermont motioned to recommend APPROVAL of the minutes as presented.

Member Mary Burns seconded the motion

All members voted in favor of APPROVAL

Public Hearings

Site Plan & Special Permit: 1881, 1883, 1887.1 Middlesex Street (Continued from June 19, 2006)

The Lowell Planning Board will review an application by Middlesex Partners Limited & Lexy Development for site plan and special permit review of the development of the property located at 1881, 1883, & 1887.1 Middlesex Street. The proposal includes the construction of 128 housing units in four (4) buildings on a 402,930sf lot, with 288 parking spaces and associated landscaping. The site will be accessed via a 24-foot wide curb cut located on Middlesex Street across from Dingwell Street. This project requires site plan approval under Section 11.4 and special permit approval under Section 6.7.2 of the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. Site plan and special permit applications will be heard concurrently for this project.

T. Linnehan: At our last meeting the Board did take comments from the applicant, the various departments in the City, and the neighbors. The Board will take into account the deliberations of that meeting. There was a concern about traffic, to address which Attorney Flood requested to have a traffic study complete and reviewed by DPD. The Board members still have minutes from what was noted last time to use in deliberations for this meeting.

In Favor:

James Flood (81 Bridge Street): Since out last meeting, we have been to the Conservation Commission. I received a letter today from Brian Bush and I think Katie has addressed all of the issues that the Board, staff and City Engineer had regarding the project.

Katie Bomegen (Hancock & Associates): Since we were here last, we did go to Conservation Commission and we did make revisions to the plans that were discussed at that meeting. They have asked for a flood storage area, some additional plants in this area and some maintenance to be completed. We have taken into account all the city engineer's comments. We did talk with Captain Weber about changing width of fire lanes to 18 feet, and those changes are in the plans. There were also some changes to plans to take into account the DPD comments, including using different materials for the fire lane. The majority of what we did do is to complete a traffic study of the area.

Bob Vernas (Transportation Engineer): I am a professional engineer in the Commonwealth. We were asked and we have conducted a study to look at the impacts, if any, would be of the dwelling units. We have submitted that, and your staff has reviewed it. We basically do three of four things. We measure the current conditions, we count the cars, we measure the current width of the streets, we look at accident research, we measure sight lines, and we generate traffic usage estimates. I will quickly go through the highlights. We did this for the 128 units with 288 spaces and one access drive and an emergency street. We studied 5 intersections and four streets: Middlesex, Princeton, Dingwell, and Wood. The things that we would recommend to the City are included in the report, but those are for existing conditions. We identified four existing projects that were to be included in this area over the next few years. We also analyzed this proposal. On a general basis it will generate 790 vehicle trips; that is not 790 automobiles, just trips. We than incorporated that into the existing street system. Then we analyzed the levels of service of the streets. What we found that there is no level of service change with this project. And only one intersection may need to be updated. We don't have information of the existing site during full employment, but we used present day estimates. We made several recommendations for the access drive. We ask that it will be similar with regards to Dingwell Street. We recommend a similar size, signage, etc. We recommended that the intersections of Middlesex and Wood Streets and Princeton and Wood Streets could have their phasing and timing adjusted to improve efficiency. The study was reviewed by staff, and there is a letter there for you. The staff indicated that the study was done properly, the geographic scope and technical criteria were sufficient, and the recommendations were accurate for the impacts of the study. To sum this up, we are saying that for a variety of reasons—mainly that we have very low volumes during peak hours—that with some minor changes the increase could be accommodated, and we're not going to exacerbate or worsen any of the existing situations at the two signalized intersections.

Brian Bush (1201 Westford Street) (in letter read by Chairman Linnehan): Dear Mr. Chairman and Members of the Planning Board, I have reviewed the revised plans and comments for the proposed “Drake's Landing” project at 1881-1887 Middlesex Street as submitted by Hancock Associates. As you may recall, Heritage Properties and its affiliates own and manage the buildings at 1861 and 1867 Middlesex Street, which directly abut the proposed project. In addition, we own and manage an apartment complex directly across the street at 1840-1844 Middlesex Street. The purpose of this letter is to express to you my support of this project. I think the proponent has proposed a project that, being residential, is much more consistent with the use on this portion of Middlesex Street. The current industrial use is the only industrial use on Middlesex Street between Wood Street and Chelmsford town line. Conversion to residential use on this site will reduce the incompatibility of the industrial and residential use in the neighborhood, particularly by reducing large truck traffic through the neighborhood. As an abutter, the developer and the engineer have also addressed a few comments that I have had regarding the direct impact on our property at 1861and 1867 Middlesex Street. They have addressed these issues to my satisfaction and have done so in a cooperative, neighborly fashion. I support this project and I think it would be an excellent use as proposed. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this matter. [signed] Brian Bush

In Opposition:

Bill Emrick (1852 Middlesex Street): I am in opposition to this because this area is being converted from single-family homes into many multi-family homes. There is already a ton of people and traffic. The quality of life has totally diminished. All we have are apartments and traffic.

Carl Johnson (38 Dingwell Street): I oppose because of the safety concerns regarding the apartment streets. There is a safety issue. The Rourke Bridge is congested, so I see a problem with the additional residents.

Michael Ready (130 Nesmith Street): I am before you this evening as an independent activist to preserve Lowell's architectural heritage. I practically grew up in this area, which was practically 40 to 50 years ago a small farm. I believe the developer and engineer have done a very poor job at being fully disclosive of the intension of this development and the consequences of it So, I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that this applicant proposes to demolish a 19th century Greek revival factory and a 19th century home. This area has received one of the highest density development than anywhere else. I am pretty sure that Middlesex Street has not changed since it was an access road to lake regions of Tyngsboro. I find that the traffic engineer's conclusions to be hard to believe. For the record, the traffic engineer is hired by the developer and paid by the developer. Everyone is very concerned by this development. The only access point for this site is to use the existing access drive or use the one they are proposing. I do not believe that the infrastructure of that location can handle the new traffic. I was asked to look over the situation by the developers. Regarding the traffic study, July is probably the slowest month of traffic in the City. School is out. The study was not conducted by the City. He mentioned two drives for the study. Which two drives did he study?

Mary Doney (1892 Middlesex Street): On June 28th the traffic box was placed on site. It was taken away June 29th. We don't know if those are the right figures.

Patricia Emerick (1878 Middlesex Street): I have additional signatures from last time. I am in opposition to this. I have been in the city for 70 years. There is a lot of elderly people and people with children walking. Safety is a big issue. Plus the neighborhood is a very nice neighborhood.

T. Linnehan: This is a petition from members of the neighborhood in opposition to the project. All the names and addresses are on the petition.

In Discussion:

R. Lockhart: The status of the emergency access road is that what it is at this point? Is it gated? Has the Fire Department reviewed the site?

K. Bomegen: It has been gated. The access drive has been reviewed and approved by the Fire Department.

R. Lockhart: How do you propose to handle trash?

K. Bomegen: The trash will be located inside the garages of each building and removed privately.

R. Lockhart: To address the concerns of the neighbors regarding safety, did you not say you would incorporate some signage into this site to control that? Can you just go through that?

Bob Vernas: What we propose is mostly some retiming and rephrasing at the signals. That's something for the City to do. The signage on site will be up to the standards of the City of Lowell and Mass Highway.

R. Lockhart: Can you make any comments regarding safety?

Bob Vernas: I think the gentleman's argument about the land use is just that; its certainly not traffic impacts. He made some excellent points, but with all due respect the facts do not support his speculation. The traffic generation will be about one a minute, very unnoticeable. Even with a parking lane taken out, the width on Middlesex Street is adequate. We count year-round, adjusting the study to an annualization study. We know what June is with school out as compared to January. And with regards to whether the box is broken, that happens; but during peak hours, we have people sitting in cars to study the traffic. We count for three hours at each location, with 24-48 hour counts by the box. The counts then are accurate by virtue of the redundancy.

R. Lockhart: I'd just like to make a comment regarding the traffic study. I want to point out that the acting transportation engineer for the City of Lowell says, “In short I agree with her recommendations with the report, the added traffic will not drastically impact the street.” I have a hard time disagreeing with that.

M. Burns: At the last meeting, my big concern was traffic. I know the reputation of this firm and the comments from the traffic engineer who concurs with this traffic study. Although I am not totally in favor, I am not totally opposed. I do want to make sure we have some type of special fire lane for the site. I hope the landscaping will be done correctly. We all know that there will not be an additional industrial use. Housing is what is needed, and that is an appropriate site.

J. Clermont: I also want to thank the neighbors for coming out. I had just a couple of questions to follow up. For the traffic study, you mentioned monitoring it for a year and suggesting signalization?

Bob Vernas: I would suggest that once the project is complete, we would monitor it for a while and make sure everything is working well. Then we would suggest some signalization of the street to be suggested to Mass Highway.

J. Clermont: So basically, if they find that there is an increase of the traffic what happens then?

Bob Vernas: We would have you consider that the signal is probably an old signal and we would recommend various changes.

J. Clermont: With regards to the emergency access, which is the current access. That is an easement, and is that a permanent easement that will be maintained for emergency access?

K. Bomegen: The easement comes out to Middlesex Street here, and what we are going to do is leave this section as it is, and decrease the size and gate both entrances.

J. Clermont: But is the easement a permanent easement for the site?

J. Flood: Yes, it is a permanent easement. We have those rights.

J. Clermont: Just for the benefit of the neighborhood, we did receive some responses back with regards to some of the comments raised by the neighbors, the City, and Heritage Properties. And in regards to these concerns, each of these comments was addressed in a letter from the engineer to the Planning Board.

T. Linnehan: If I understand correctly, for 128 housing units will have 63 going in and out in the AM, and 74 in and out in the PM during peak hours. How would the children make it to Middlesex Street? So they will have to walk out the access drive along the sidewalk, which is 400 feet long?

K. Bomegen: The access drive is 400 feet long and we would be happy to place a fence to protect this area. The Fire Department did not comment on the access drive.

T. Linnehan: The Fire Department did not provide any comments regarding the access drive, correct?

J. Flood: Well, I did try to get in touch with the Fire Department reviewer, and he is on vacation.

Bob Vernas: One of the things that we have done—and we will work with the School Department on this to see what we can do—we can get the bus on site and we can make a designated area. The other thing is that we can provide a drive pull-in area, and they can pull in right at the opening of the access drive. And in the immediate area, we will ask for a no parking area around the mouth of the area. The corner radius is quite wide. There is plenty of room for a standard school bus.

T. Linnehan: I have been out there and I don't see where a bus can stop there now. So if there is a bus there, the children will have to walk out that area, and wait for the bus. So there are wetlands in the development.

K. Bomegen: There is a flooded area. That we will be replicating.

T. Linnehan: Where are the common areas?

K. Bomegen: This area here is a common area, and so are the areas around the buildings and between the buildings.

T. Linnehan: The concerns I have are the roadways going in are way too long. The parking is not sufficient. You are demolishing one neighborhood to create a new one. I have been thinking about it and these people that live in the area, and I think this will definitely have an impact on this neighborhood.

R. Lockhart: Is the entry roadway lighted?

K. Bomegen: Yes, there is lighting along the way, as shown on the lighting and landscaping plan. The lighting is located on the same side as the sidewalk.

Motion:

Member Joseph Clermont motioned to APPROVE both the site plan and 6.7.2 special permit with the following conditions:

Member Richard Lockhart seconded the motion.

Three members voted in favor of approval (3-1), with Thomas Linnehan voting to deny the approval. The site plan received the three votes necessary to be approved. However, the special permit is DENIED due to it not receiving the four votes required from the Board.

Site Plan & Special Permit: 82 Riverside Street

The Lowell Planning Board will review an application by Merrimack Riverside Realty, LLC & Arthur Fosse, Jr. for site plan and special permit review of the development of the property located at 82 Riverside Drive. The proposal includes the construction of five (5) new townhouse style units on a 28,623 square foot lot located in the TMF (Traditional Neighborhood Multi-family) zoning district. The proposal also includes the conversion of the site's existing two (2) family house into a single-family dwelling, for a total of six (6) units on the site, with associated landscaping and required parking. This project requires site plan approval under Section 11.4, special permit approval under Section 9.4: Neighborhood Character Special Permit, and special permit approval under Article XII of the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. Site plan and special permit applications will be heard concurrently for this project.

At the request of the applicant, this matter was continued to the August 21st Planning Board meeting.

Motion:

Member Richard Lockhart motioned to CONTINUE this proposal to the August 21st Planning Board meeting.

Member Mary Burns seconded the motion.

All members voted to CONTINUE (4-0).

Site Plan & Special Permit: 900 Lawrence Street

The Lowell Planning Board will review an application by Canalside Realty Trust for site plan and special permit review of the development of the property located at 900 Lawrence Street. The proposal includes the demolition of the existing building on site, and the construction of sixteen (16) new townhouse style units on a 29,589 square foot lot located in the TMU (Traditional Neighborhood Mixed-Use) zoning district. The existing parking lot will be modified to include 35 parking spaces for the project. This project requires site plan approval under Section 11.4 and special permit approval under Article XII of the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. Site plan and special permit applications will be heard concurrently for this project.

In Favor:

James Flood (81 Bridge Street): For the applicant, representing Canalside Realty Trust. I think you are familiar with this property. We were before you back in July of last year to renovate and the existing building. Since that time we have chosen to demolish the building and redevelop the project as a row of sixteen townhouses. We think this is better. Each of the units will have a basement, first floor with a kitchen, living, and dining area and two bedrooms. We have plenty of parking on site. Because we have to demolish the building and rebuild on site, we will have to go back to the Zoning Board of Appeals for their approval.

Chris Lorrain (President of LandTech): Approximately a year ago, this project was approved with this rendering. The new project incorporates the already approved aspects of the previous building. This new project does have a reduction of drainage, though not of a substantial amount. Therefore we have left all the stormwater management on the site from the previous plan. It is serviced by a water quality inlet so that there will be some treatment to the stormwater as opposed to the lack of any treatment as of now. As the hearing notice identified, there are 35 parking spaces still in the original configuration. The service is for 16 units. There is a more or less landscaped courtyard before each unit.

J. Errickson: Just to clarify, this is a brand-new project and any previous approvals do not transfer to the project before us tonight. You can still act upon the other approval, but the Board must make a decision on this project before us here.

T. Linnehan: For clarification: if we don't approve this, you have the prior approval of the last plan which you can develop on.

J. Flood: The reason we are here is because we feel this is more conducive to the neighborhood and more feasible. We have no problem with incorporating the comments from staff. I think this design is better suited for the site itself. We are here to answer any questions.

In Opposition:

None

In Discussion:

R. Lockhart: There is a park directly across the street; there will be people walking to that park. I think it would be nice to add a crosswalk to access that park.

J. Flood: If that is what you would like, that is fine.

R. Lockhart: The plans note a four-foot tall stockade fence to be proposed along the back portion of the lot along the eastern portion of the site. I assume that is for safety and aesthetic purposes as well?

C. Lorrain: Yes.

M. Burns: This is for 16 units and there are 35 parking spaces? The trash will be private? I know this area is in desperate need of improvements.

J. Clermont: Have you applied for the variances at this point? I am not opposed to this project. We approved the 16 units to be approved last time; it will certainly dress up the area. I am concerned how this project is being approached. We have an ordinance that says you can rehab an existing building based upon what's there now, and that's what you have your initial approval on. If that building were to be gone, you couldn't put 16 units there anymore. I think 11 units was the computation. So the concern I have is if we are taking a look at another project later on, I wouldn't want to give the impression that a renovation can be approved only to then have the building torn down. This particular project, I have no concern, However, I would like to see the variances approved prior to this approval. I would like to see that addressed for the Board of Appeals. It's a different criteria than what we deal with here. If they were in favor of the variances, then I wouldn't have a problem with the project.

J. Flood: As you know, under the new Zoning Regulations we can't go in front of the Board of Appeals until we come here, because any conditions you place on it have to be included in their variance.

J. Clermont: I think that under Section 4.5.7, reconstruction after demolition is only after the ZBA has granted a special permit.

J. Flood: But under the Zoning, anytime that we have to get site plan approval and then go to the Board of Appeals, we have to come here first. And any variance they issue has to include your conditions. I don't know the section, do you James?

J. Errickson: In this case, it's a unique situation and I would like to refer it to the legal counsel. The general process by which we handle approvals that go before both the Planning Board and the Zoning Board Appeals is that the Planning Board makes it's decision and that is then included in the decision of Zoning Board of Appeals. We can review the process by which a variance should be sought separate from the special permit. Maybe the variance should be sought first, then the site plan review and back for special permit. I would rather have our legal counsel review such a process before we act upon it, however.

J. Flood: Any approval you grant would be subject to us obtaining the appropriate special permit and variances necessary from the Zoning Board of Appeals.

J. Clermont: I understand what you are saying. This may be talking about a specific situation where site plan review is not required, but it says in the event of demolition and reconstruction, special permit will be required from the Board of Appeals prior to any demolition. That's talking about the demolition special permit, not the variances. So I'm not certain under these circumstances if you'd have to go there or come to us first.

J. Flood: I don't have an answer for you; I wish I did. That has been our procedure; we always come here first.

J. Clermont: I'm more thinking about what precedent we are setting here. Again though, I have no objection to this specific project.

T. Linnehan: Did you receive the comments from Mr. Errickson regarding the trash removal, electric meters, water meters, final landscaping, approval Conservation and ZBA. Are you in agreement with all those requests?

J. Flood: I believe I said it earlier. I have no problems with that.

J. Clermont: I understand there were probably conditions of approval on the previous approval for this earlier version of this project. We should probably incorporate those conditions into this decision as well.

T. Linnehan: The conditions from before can be incorporated by reference to this and if it turns up that any of them are not appropriate to the changed plans, you can come before the Board again to work that out.

J. Flood: That is fine.

Motion:

Member Mary Burns motioned to APPROVE the site plan and special permit with the following condition:

Member Joseph Clermont seconded the motion.

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

Site Plan & Special Permit: 1320 Gorham Street

The Lowell Planning Board will review an application by Stephen McGuire for site plan and special permit review of the development of the property located at 1320 Gorham Street. The proposal includes the addition of a duplex style building on the 8,250 sqft lot where there exists a single family dwelling, for a total of three units on the site. The proposal also includes required parking and landscaping. The site is located in the TMU (Traditional Neighborhood Mixed-Use) zoning district. This project requires special permit and site plan review under Section 9.4 and Section 11.4 of the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. Site plan and special permit applications will be heard concurrently for this project.

In Favor:

Kenneth Lania (Applicant's Engineer): With me tonight is Mr. Flood. We were before you last month with a preliminary hearing. We were before you regarding our proposed building and site plan. Since that time we have had the opportunity to make a revision with the plan. We were also able to meet with the neighbors at a neighborhood meeting. I would like to pass out some revised plans. Originally when we came before you, we requested the approval of a traditional style townhouse project. We have since changed that and we are proposing a two-and-a-half story duplex. Each unit would be 17 by 34 feet. We would provide two parking spaces per unit. We have incorporated the comments from the Board and we are proposing a more traditional style house to better fit the neighborhood. I spoke with Mr. Curran today, and we will provide a recharge system on the site. He mentioned that that would handle the site sufficiently. The utilities will come off Corbett Street. I believe the DPD staff noted that we did not turn in the architectural plans; we have those this evening. We wanted to make tweaks to the plan if the neighborhood had concerns. Most of the concerns with the neighborhood were regarding parking and other issues at that intersection. We can do a number of things in that site since it is in the TMU district, but the owner would prefer a residential to match the surrounding neighborhood. We have a tenant at that site now. We have provided snow storage on the site. We do provide the required usable open space on the site. At this time, I'd be glad to answer any questions that you have.

In Opposition:

Joyce Burgess (33 Corbett Street): I have lived in the neighborhood for 59 years. I have seen that corner, and it is such a hazard. Between the package store, the variety store, and traffic coming out of Spencer Street towards Corbett Street, it is a traffic nightmare. I realize that this building is not to blame, but this all impacts my quality of life. The turnover on that commercial site is very high. One of the things I notice is that the street is listed as being 40 feet wide. The street is 28 feet wide with 6 feet of sidewalks on each side. If you park a car on the side of the street, you can't get two cars by at one time. During the wintertime it is even worse. Even with proposed snow storage, it will still impact the intersection negatively. Corbett Street is like a free way. I am not opposed to having expansion, but this is not the place to have it. We have 177 units going in on Gorham Street. The traffic constantly increases.

Donald Ouellette (10 Cosgrove Street): I agree with Joyce one hundred percent. I think the design is not going to work. Where are the kids going to play? There is going to be 20 feet to play between houses. This is not enough. The snow storage is not sufficient. The traffic is just incredible on that corner. There isn't enough parking for any visitors.

Paul Hogan (125 Dalton Street): I agree with everything that Joyce said. I speak on behalf of my mother and sister, who live on Cosgrove Street. If these buildings are built, the occupants will want to park on the street adjacent to the building. If they did park on the street, I think it will be too congested. The road is too narrow with parking on the sides of the street. I understand that there is an ordinance to oppose parking at the intersection of streets. I would like to propose “No Parking” signs at that intersection. There are a number of new buildings along Gorham Street by the Lowell Connector, an area with a very high traffic flow already. People trying to get onto Gorham Street, I think they will have an extremely hard time once all this traffic comes along. I was wondering if there could be a representative from the City to come to the Sacred Heart neighborhood meeting to discuss the traffic. So, my main concerns are the narrowing of the intersection from the parking, and the general concern about the huge increase of traffic from the other developments.

Joseph McNamara (26 Cosgrove Street): I have been a resident of Swede Village for 40 years. When I moved into the neighborhood, I had space for just one car but ended up with a number of cars in my driveway just from my household. My family has since moved away, but the parking is just crazy. This is just a small lot that used to serve as a garden. Now they want to put a duplex at that corner. Granted the traffic problems are not the fault of the current developer. The plans are beautiful and I can only say it's a shame he didn't come sooner. But we have to deal with what we have now, and that is not the place to put the duplex. You will just create a similar situation as Wright Street from Pawtucketville all over again. And I oppose this completely. My neighbors oppose the project as well. I think the package store has an illegal exit. Now they are adding housing there and they will be parking on Gorham Street.

Cindy Keefe (31 Corbett Street): I agree with what everyone has said. Everyone at the meeting opposed the duplex going up on the site. The workers from the liquor and convenience store park in the area in front of the proposed lot. It is just the worst place to put a duplex.

Barbara Hoar (35 Corbett Street): I agree with everything that has been said. I am in opposition to this project.

In Discussion:

R. Lockhart: I have some serious concerns after listening to the neighborhoods. The character of the neighborhood is one of larger lots with single-family houses. It seems totally out of character to put a duplex next to a single-family home on a questionable corner. A lot of the numbers might work out here, but it is too congested.

M. Burns: This is just not appropriate for the site. This is not what was intended by the City Council with the zoning changes.

J. Clermont: This particular project is under Section 9.4 special permit, and we have to deliberate whether it will enhance the character of the neighborhood. It may be a nice project, but not on this site. I think this will detract from the character of the neighborhood.

T. Linnehan: I basically have the same concerns as my colleagues do. I was down there the other morning looking at the site. The house on there now is a large house. It was difficult to envision how the new construction would fit on the lot. I did notice a lot of traffic in this area. Most of it comes from the liquor and convenience stores, though I realize that is not the fault of the applicant. There is no curb cut from Gorham Street all the way past the variety store. There is a lot of traffic in that neighborhood. I think the duplex is too big for the lot.

Motion:

Member Richard Lockhart motioned to DENY both the site plan and special permit due to the project not matching the neighborhood character. The surrounding neighborhood is characterized by 1 and 2 story single-family houses on small lots. This project is proposing more units than are typical on one lot in this neighborhood.

Member Joseph Clermont seconded the motion.

All members voted in favor of DENIAL (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: Connector Park Holding Company/National Developments

Project: Construction of Lowe's Home Improvement Store

Zoning: HRC (High Rise Commercial)

Required Review: Site Plan

In Discussion:

George Eliades, Jr. (133 Market Street): I am here with Brian Clancy from National Development and Ken Staffier from VHB. I think this will be a fabulous addition to Lowell. Lowe's is a Fortune 50 company and has been rated one of the top retail operations in the country. And they want to bring a 160,000 square foot retail center to Lowell, not to southern New Hampshire, Tewksbury, Billerica, or Tyngsboro. I am happy that they are doing this. I think it is important to note that this is not new. Months ago, Mr. Clancy spoke with the City about their intentions regarding the site. Since that time, Mr. Clancy has met with the DPD and the neighbors to discuss the project. I know it is tough to place this business on this site. But I would like to remind the City that more than 50 years ago, that site was designed for commercial district, and though it has taken a while, we are finally seeing that area take hold. This will bring in 130-150 full-time jobs and 30-50 part-time jobs on the site. When meeting with DPD, they asked us to make a very wide traffic study, and work on how all of those particular areas may be impacted by this project. We are working on that now. We are also working with the folks at the tower and at the Ninety Nine Restaurant to see if we can get some other traffic improvements on the major intersections. We think most of the traffic will come off of the Lowell Connector, and most of the traffic will come onto Composite Way.

Ken Staffier (Vanasse Hangen Brustin, Inc.): The site is 790 Chelmsford Street. To give you some perspective the site is abutting the Connector, and has the existing Fred C. Church Insurance building onsite. The site currently has the Eltech building. The building itself will be perpendicular to Chelmsford Street. Access to the north of the site is from Chelmsford Street via Wellman Street. We are looking to maximize Composite Way as the main access to the site. We feel the majority of traffic will come off the Connector and follow Industrial Avenue. We are looking to signalize the intersection at the site. We have received some preliminary comments from the department, and we will look at providing screening along Chelmsford Street as well as required screening onsite in the parking area. We have a plan now that meets zoning, but we would also like to address the concerns of the neighborhood.

G. Eliades: We hope you like our plan. We would prefer to keep this as a Composite Way type of project. Most of the traffic will come off the Connector. I will be glad to take into account any suggestions or concerns. We are meeting with the neighbors on Wednesday night.

T. Linnehan: We know you are meeting with the City tomorrow at ten o'clock and that you have met with the neighbors about this project. I think you did a good job about trying to downgrade the site from being a large project on Chelmsford Street. You are going to get local traffic along Stevens and Chelmsford Streets, but that's to be expected.

G. Eliades: On Chelmsford Street itself there will be landscaping and there is a slope into the site.

K. Staffier: Yes, there is a depression into the site, and we will be providing screening. We will be at a similar height to the current building. We also took a look at the drainage and sewerage.

R. Lockhart: You mentioned Eltech. Are there any other active businesses up at that site that will displaced?

G. Eliades: Eltech is the only business there that will be impacted, and we are trying to relocate the business to somewhere else in Lowell.

M. Burns: First I would like to applaud Lowe's for coming to the City. I think this is great to have the entrances onto Composite Way.

J. Clermont: I think this project will be a fantastic one, and I think moving this one forward is a good thing. When you meet with the neighbors, is it primarily the business side or the residents?

G. Eliades: The folks that we spoke with are mostly on the Chelmsford Street side. We have been dealing with the neighborhood association. The discussion has focused on the lighting and noise and other such issues.

Applicant: East End Social Club & West Third Construction, LLC

Project: Construction of 15 townhouse residential units

Zoning: UMU (Urban Neighborhood Mixed Use)

Required Review: Site Plan & Special Permit

In Discussion:

James Flood (81 Bridge Street): We are before you tonight with a redesigned plan. We have not met with the Centralville neighborhood association yet. I spoke with Anne Marie Paige and I did mention that we would not go before the Board before meeting with them. We have reduced the project by one unit and changed the traffic pattern. I will have Matt explain it to you. I think some of these comments are similar to what we had before. I think we would like to have some comments from the Board to clear up the final traffic plan.

M. Hamor: We have removed one end unit here, and we have removed an entrance onto Forestview Avenue. We have also provided in this revised plan some more architectural detail along West Third Street. We will have similar changes to the architecture detail. You can see some significant architectural changes to these buildings. If you look at this rendering, you can see the details of the buildings here as well as the streetscape.

Conrad Gauthier: I would like to speak in opposition. That is a picture of the street we are talking about. CNAG had a meeting tonight, so we are not here in force. We are opposed to this plan. There are a lot of reasons for this. First off, though, the East End Club has been great to all of the neighborhood groups. Even still, we feel that this is way too much for the neighborhood. The neighborhood is full of single family and duplex homes. This type of building is totally out of character for this street. If you look at this plan here, you can see the single-family houses. And it shows this row of trees that will be missing. This street does not have a ton to offer, but it does have a nice row of trees. And the reason they are there is because when the East End Club decided to put a parking lot on that site, they had to buffer the lot from the neighbor. The rear units here do not have a buffer from the parking lot at all. On this plan here, the houses are so close to the street that these trees will have to be removed. It has been our experience that street trees are not taken care of by the people who live in front of them but must be maintained by the City. These are like a row house. If you had this row house in Boston they would have trees. We think there should be yard space for children to play. We think there should be street trees and setbacks. We think there should be only 8 or 9 units there. Forestview Street is a narrow street.

J. Flood: I heard what he said, but this proposed development more than satisfies the zoning. We have enough open space. The location of the buildings is based on your streetscape plan. This is a concept that we thought that the City wanted.

R. Lockhart: I have to agree with Mr. Gauthier. I don't think you are adding to the character of the neighborhood. It is going to have a negative impact. Maybe a few less units would be better with different grouping. I am sure appropriate landscaping is needed. The useable open space that you supplied is not very usable.

J. Flood: In order to hide the parking spaces, as the City encourages us to do, we need this layout. We are just trying to be consistent.

R. Lockhart: I would like to see some diversity rather than the row house.

M. Burns: My only comment is that it is better; it's not great. I am still not convinced about the parking at the East End Club. I need to be assured that they have met their parking requirements so that the neighborhood doesn't have any additional traffic. I agree with the neighborhood group about the height of these buildings being out of character with the rest of the area. Also, if I may ask Mr. Errickson a question, whose idea is it to create all these streetscapes without taking into account what the neighborhood is.

J. Errickson: If you refer to the memo I presented to the applicant a while ago and also the one I prepared for tonight, there were some questions and concerns about this project and regarding alternative layouts that, as a department, we think may address some of the concerns the Board is asking, as well as the neighborhood group. This recommended keeping current street trees, limiting number of units for the site, taking into account the architectural character of the neighborhood, etc. We can provide comment on this streetscape specifically if you would like, though I prefer not to do so in the middle of this hearing. There are a number of things that could be improved in this plan, obviously. Some of the ideas behind the urban streetscape were to provide a landscaping strip in front of the units, pushing the row houses back a little bit to provide some sort of frontage that could include the trees currently there. Maybe working with the layout so it is not just a row house, perhaps breaking that style into four or five different housing blocks. This is all in the memo I provided to you tonight. The department is willing to work with the applicant and the neighborhood group to provide a better landscaping and an improved layout for the site itself.

M. Burns: I'm only asking the question because developers come to us with these projects which most likely will dress up the neighborhood. But a lot of times they are a whole level over what is already there. So I'm just questioning how we can fix this so they are not always so foreign to the surrounding buildings. This looks like a whole story over what is around it. It's just something I think we should think about down the road. I'm not sure we can do it for this project, but it's something DPD should