City of Lowell -Planning Board

Planning Board Minutes

Monday, November 20, 2006 6:30 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

Joseph Clermont, Vice Chairman

Richard Lockhart, Second Vice Chairman

Jerry Frechette, Member

Steven Gendron, Member

Others

James Errickson, Associate Planner

Roll Call of Neighborhood Groups

Approval of Minutes: October 2, 2006

Roll Call of Neighborhood Groups

Public Hearings

Repetitive Petition & Special Permit: 1881, 1883, & 1857.1 Middlesex Street (continued from October 2, 2006)

The Lowell Planning Board will review an application by Middlesex Partners Limited & Lexy Development for repetitive petition and special permit review of the development of the property located at 1881, 1883, & 1857.1 Middlesex Street. The proposal includes the demolition of the existing buildings on site and the construction of 128 housing units in four (4) buildings on a 402,930sf lot, with associated parking and landscaping. The site will be accessed via a 426-foot long driveway, through a curb cut located at 1881/1883 Middlesex Street across from Dingwell Street. On July 17, 2006, the Planning Board voted to approve the site plan 3 votes to 1. The special permit for driveway length was therefore denied because it required 4 `yes' votes. The current proposal requires a repetitive petition review to determine that the new application contains specific and material changes from the first application, as well as special permit review under Section 6.7.2 of the Lowell Zoning Ordinance for driveway length. Repetitive petition and special permit applications will be heard concurrently for this project.

In Favor:

James Flood (81 Bridge Street, applicant's attorney): I am here representing Middlesex Partners. We are before you tonight for a special permit for Section 6.7.2 for a driveway in excess of 200 feet. With me are Steve Beati the applicant, Dick Sutton, Katie Bomengen the engineer, and Jeff Derk the traffic engineer. The plan as presented tonight proposes a driveway of 426 feet. From the last time in front of the Board, we discussed widening the width to 28 feet. We had discussions with the city's Engineer, Fire Department and DPD and it was understood that 24 feet is acceptable. However, we are willing to go to 28 feet if necessary.

As the Board is aware, the special permit is for the driveway length. We have a letter from the fire department noting the roadway is safe for access, and from Trinity Ambulance noting that the driveway is safe for access. We have also retained services from Stuart's Automotive Inc. in order to tow any vehicles that may be blocking the secondary access drive. In addition, under the new plan, we have provided a drop off area for school bus children.

Katie Bomengen (Hancock Associates, applicant's engineer): Hello, I work for Hancock Associates. To show you the whole development, this is the index sheet. The main piece of the parcel is in the back with an access drive in this location, with an emergency access, which is the existing access to the site here. The driveway as proposed is 24-feet wide. The entire length is 426 feet. There is a sidewalk that runs the entire length of the driveway. There is a fence proposed where there are wetlands along the driveway here. There is a bus waiting structure at the beginning of the access point along Middlesex Street. We have the emergency access drive that loops around the entire site. We have a contract to make sure the secondary access drive stays clear at all times. This takes care of the engineering of the driveway.

Jeff Dirk (Transportation Engineer): Hello, I am Jeffrey Dirk. We prepared the traffic study for the project. The traffic study was prepared in accordance to state standards. We look at several pieces of data when assessing the traffic of a site. We researched data throughout this site and the larger geographic area. There is no significant crash data in this area according to state or local data. We also look at the speeds of traffic and site lines when entering and exiting the development. We measured this during a 24-hour period. We are required to assess future trends as well. And then we establish the characteristics of the traffic for this site. During peak hours there are 75 proposed trips, including everything, for traffic both in and out of the site. The 24-foot width is a standard width for driveway length. We find the site lines at where the driveway is proposed exceed design standards and requirements. Our general findings show that the design of the site was completed safely and correctly.

J. Flood: I think initially when we reviewed the traffic study Anne Barton noted that 24 feet is sufficient.

Dick Sutton (Bradford Industries) I am here from Bradford Industries, I am the president, and have been running business in Lowell since 1965. With trends within the automotive industry, we must keep out costs low. Because of the technology we produce, we have continued our expansion. However, with the need to continue to grow, we have needed to consolidate our properties. Therefore we must sell our property at Middlesex Street. We plan to consolidate our business in order to continue to grow our business in the future.

Brian Bush (Heritage Properties): I am the president of Heritage Properties 1201 Westford, abutter to property. We manage 260+ apartment units on Middlesex Street. As an abutter, we believe the residential use would be better suited than the industrial use of the site. I think that in light of the fact that most of the property along this street has been developed, and it is suited for residential use.

Steve Conant (34 Barasford Avenue): I am actually here for a portion of the meeting after this hearing for the Lowell Parks Conservation Trust. I would just like to say Bradford Industries has been a great public citizen with regards to our organization.

In Opposition:

William Emerick (Dingwell Street): I brought handouts the last time I was here. I also have some pictures. These are the cars parked along Middlesex Street. If you look to the left of the proposed driveway, there is only 200-300 hundred feet. And between those five buildings I know there is not more than 500 feet. With all the traffic parked there, there is no visibility. I don't know how many parking spaces are for the other apartment complexes along here, but there are cars parked in front of the site throughout the day. Over last 30 to 40 years they have added 683 apartments/condos along that street. The integrity of the neighborhood is already destroyed. It's a beautiful project on the plan; I just feel the neighborhood cannot handle any more.

Eleanor Clement (1887 Middlesex Street): This driveway is going to be right next to my driveway. I have 4 grand-children that live with me. I agree with my neighbor about the traffic. I think the bus stop will be more dangerous in the morning.

William Emerick (Dingwell Street) Here are some other pictures for review. As you can see there is a lot of new apartments on Middlesex Street there today that were not there before. We are adding way too much growth to this site.

Patricia Emerick (1878 Middlesex Street): My main concern is taking down the duplex, which will take down the character of the neighborhood. The taking down of trees will add to the noise of the train. It takes me 5 minutes to enter my driveway. There were 3 accidents between July and August, and last summer there was a child injured in front of my house. There is a predator in the neighborhood. As far as the school busses, I feel the parents will park on Middlesex Street in the dark. I think this will be a great disservice to our neighborhood.

Joseph Boachie (1873-1875 Middlesex Street): I have opposition with this project for safety sake. The idea of creating a driveway across from my parking area is not safe. It will create a great harm for the traffic. The lady before me talking also mentioned the railway with the impact of noise it will not be safe for any building in the area. I think we also must consider how we want people to live.

Mary Doney (1892 Middlesex Street): I would like to oppose the meeting tonight, Mr. Linnehan is not here. I would like to continue the meeting. Mr Linnehan went by and talked with us for 2 hours. I would like to know if any of these board members have gone by to see this place. I think these new board members should go there to check this place out.

Michael Ready (Nesmith Street): I oppose the issue of this project. The demolition and the traffic that it will increase. The municipal facilities are insufficient. The historic character of this neighborhood will be ruined. Parking is very difficult in this area. The proximity of this site to Rourke Bridge and other commercial areas is key. The resident sentiment that I see from this project is that the industrial site is much better than the proposed residential use. Issuance of this SP will result in the conversion of industrial property to residential use.

Stephen Moses (1961 Middlesex Street): I think Bradford Industries is a good company. The problem is that what is being proposed is a deadly solution. The proximity of the access to this site is across from Dingwell street, and I think that is dangerous.

In Discussion:

J. Clermont: Before beginning the Planning Board's review of the project, we have certain documents to enter into the docket as well. These include minutes from previous meetings. We have also received several letters:

Conservation commission has provided a letter of approval for width of roadway; Capt. Weber has presented a letter dated November 16th stating that the 24 foot driveway into Drakes Landing is safe; Stewert's Automotive has presented a letter regarding an agreement for the towing of vehicles in the easement areas and the main access drive; Trinity Ambulance presented a letter noting that the driveway provides safe and reasonable access for all emergency vehicles; Lt. Meehan, from Police, sent a letter stating that he has reviewed the plans and the access and egress is more than adequate for police purposes.

I'd like to incorporate these documents into record.

S. Gendron: What are the options for the applicant should this not be approved?

J. Flood: This is the safest entrance to the property. The zoning says that if the roadway provides safe access for emergency access, then the special permit is to be granted. This provides this access.

S. Gendron: Well I don't buy the width argument. This is the roadway, and this is the access drive. I just want to ask the traffic engineer, you said we have 60 - 70 vehicles coming in and out of here.

Jeff Dirk: Yes, during peak times.

S. Gendron: Well it is safe to say that there will likely be 250 cars. I just don't quite understand the estimates.

J. Dirk: This is just to say the trips will be during peak times. And this is based on studies.

S. Gendron: Honestly I don't like this project. I just don't think that we need 128 units. I think the existing roadway is very congested. That light backs up to the former landfill. This is one of the most congested areas in the City. But I think 128 units are wrong. It represents a continuing deterioration of the neighborhood. I honestly think it would be wrong for us to approve an exception to approve the driveway length. I am not about to vote for any exceptions to our current laws for a development of this magnitude.

J. Frechette: Could you point out the location of the bus stop?

K. Bomengen: The location of the bus stop is here at the edge of the entrance to the site. It is 4 feet off the street, and the structure itself 5 feet in width.

J. Frechette: Approximately how many children will that house? And what is the lighting for that area?

K. Bomengen: Potentially you could have 18 children, there are lights down the entire length of the driveway.

J. Frechette: Are the lights designed to minimize spray throughout the neighborhood? And the sidewalk is the whole length of the drive? Are there are speed bumps?

K. Bomengen: Yes, the lights are designed to be downward facing, and there were speed bumps but they have been taken out per the City Engineer's request. We can provide them if the Board sees it is necessary.

J. Frechette: Did conservation have preference regarding the width?

K. Bomengen: The area holds a certain volume of water. They understand the safety concerns and are willing to entertain the 28 feet, but they would appreciate it to be less, to 24 feet.

J. Frechette: I think there are some good points to make note of here. This is not a variance it is a Special Permit. Further, it is not a Special Permit based on the table of uses, which means Section 11.3.2a for review of projects through the table of uses is not part of our review process here. This is a Special Permit for the maximum distance of the roadway. The reason for this is that if you are going to put a 200-foot driveway, the City needs to be sure that it will be safe. This is not because it is illegal. The site plan has already been approved. The Special Permit is designed for the Planning Board to look at the conditions of the road, and to determine whether or not it is safe. Do we feel it is safe with regards to the residents of the site, the neighborhood and the children in the development and the surrounding area. When I look at the area, I would not want to be a truck driver. I think the existing conditions are terrible, and this will improve the existing conditions. But I think, and Attorney Flood knows what I think about roadway width, when you talk about a City street, I think it is imperative that it meets the required width. But we are not talking about a City street. We are talking about a roadway, a driveway. I am aware of the DPD preference. The flow of traffic will be based on the conditions of the road. It is known that the wider the street, the higher the traffic speeds. That is why I have a preference for speed bumps. University Heights has 200 units, and it has 23 feet width, but that has speed bumps.

R. Locklhart: I have a couple of comments. To respond to the lady, I can't speak for these gentlemen, but we all try to visit these sites, particularly if it is a large project. We spend as much time as necessary to make an informed decision on each and every project. I have a question for Bradford Industries. Do you plan to consolidate your jobs to the Rogers Street facility?

Dick Sutton: There will be no jobs lost. We hope to grow into the future. It is extremely difficult to run a manufacturing facility in this day and age. This project is a critical project for our company. We want to make sure this is safe. Our trucks are not the only ones that come to our site. The overall traffic from trailers is much more dangerous than anything that will happen because of this project. That road gets backed up and some of that congestion is possibly due to the tractor-trailers. This project is a life-blood for our business. We need to take the capital from this project for our future growth. I think the neighborhood is going to change for the better. You are going to have a project with a fresh access road. The overall traffic problems will be much better than it is today. We have worked with the City with everything that has been asked of us. We have a long history. We are really hoping for a positive move. This project will be much safer than the current situation. We have looked at using that site for many other uses, but residential makes the most sense.

R. Lockhart: I just want to point out that the plans are signed by the School's traffic division commander, I think that this relates to the bus stop, and states “I also believe that appropriate measures have been made for the pick up and drop off of children.” Would you also be willing to post signs for no parking for the fire lanes?

J. Flood: Certainly we can do that.

J. Clermont: We need to make a specific finding that the driveway will provide safe a reasonable access to the site. We are here for the length of the driveway. We do have correspondence from fire, police and emergency, stating that the roadway is adequate for safety measures. The applicant has noted that if the desire of the Board is to go to 28 feet, they can adjust the plans. I have no problem with the 24 feet, however. I certainly thank the neighbors for their time. In addition to the main access drive, there will be another access drive that will remain, which is being used now for access. Some had concerns about traffic on that site, which will have to be addressed. Will speed bumps be acceptable to be incorporated into the plan?

J. Flood: We have no problems with that.

J. Clermont: The traffic engineer reviewed the traffic plan and it was considered an appropriate study. I am in favor of the project.

S. Gendron: I want to follow up on visiting the site. I did visit the site, and one thing that I think is that Mr Frechette and I are in a disadvantage. I do feel fully informed. I just like to reiterate my respect for Bradford Industries. It is my job to take a look at the proposals before us, and I feel that 128 units will create a lot of traffic on that road. I am not convinced that the road will be safe. I am just not convinced. And I am not going to support it.

R. Lockhart: Based on the documentation from the fire department, the police department, and the fact that the applicant has provided for a towing service, and a letter from Trinity Ambulance, I would motion to approve the length of the roadway.

J. Frechette: I'd like to add a speed bump condition. At least into the entrance into the roadway. I have no problem at leaving the roadway at 24 feet.

J. Clermont: I'd like to add to that as well. We had some conditions discussed through the discussion, and I'd like to add the conditions of the Site Plan review into this Special Permit as well. We already received the fire department approval.

R. Lockhart: I'd also like to include that both the access drive and the fire lanes be signed `no parking'.

Motion:

Member Richard Lockhart motioned to APPROVE the Special Permit with the following conditions:

Member Jerry Frechette seconded the motion.

Three members of the Board voted in favor of the project with one member voting against (3-1). The motion failed to obtain the four votes required for a special permit.

The special permit was DENIED for the following reasons:

New Business

Concord River Greenway Update

The Lowell Parks and Conservation Trust will provide an update regarding the Concord River Greenway. The park will link the city's largest park area, Shedd Park and Rogers Fort Hill Park, to the center of the city and a network of walkways that have been developed by the Lowell National Historic Park.

Steve Corrant (Lowell Park & Conservation Trust): I am one of the founding members of Lowell Parks and Conservation Trust, here to talk to you about the Concord River Greenway. The greenway is a hidden jewel of Lowell. For the last several years, we have been doing projects to promote the river. We have taken over will over 2000 people down the concord. Slowly through the help of the city and many friends, we have developed the greenway. This will link downtown to the fort hill park and the Lowell cemetery. This past year, the city purchased a parcel, about 3 acres from Lawrence street to Bradford industries. What we have development is a walkway from Lawrence to the heart of the city. And from there along the river and out to the Dracut state park.

Jane Calvin (Lowell Parks & Conservation Trust): We are working on phase one of the project. Phase two will connect out to Crosspoint and into a regional trail. The trail will have a numerous purpose. I've passed out an aerial photograph for the greenway. The Guilford parcel was acquired through a grant for the Rt 3. expansion project. The City has been a fantastic partner on this. This will be a City park in the end, however, we see ourselves as the ones to make sure the project is completed. To date, we have received many grants for this project, including one for public art along the greenway. However, we are still looking for more funds to ensure the project's completion.

S. Corrant: I've done planning for a number of years now. And there will certainly be some changes along the Concord River because of this project. We certainly feel development can be beneficial to the project and should highlight the project. We are here tonight so that when those projects come before the Board, the project can highlight the green way project and the River.

General discussion between the Board and the representatives from Lowell Parks & Conservation Trust.

Old Business

Update: Site Plan 185 Woburn Street

The Board will review a proposed minor change to the site plan regarding the project located at 185 Woburn Street. The applicant is seeking an adjustment to one of the curb cuts onto Woburn Street to allow for gas-delivery trucks to more easily exit the site. The Planning Board approved this project in October 2005.

The Board voted unanimously to approve the proposed changes to the site plan for 185 Woburn Street.

ZBA Notices

26 Phillips Street (Ward Karen J)

J. Frechette: Motion to recommend DENIAL due to:

R. Lockhart: Second the motion

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

96 Dingwell Street (Pastrana Julio)

R. Lockhart: Motion to recommend DENIAL due to:

S. Gendron: Second the motion

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

These minutes were approved by the Planning Board on February 5, 2007

S. Gendron: Motion to approve

R. Lockhart: Second

All members voted in favor (5-0)

________________________________________________________

James Errickson, Associate Planner/Planning Board Administrator

Planning Board Minutes

November 20, 2006 - Page 7