City of Lowell -Planning Board

Planning Board Minutes

Monday, October 2, 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

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

Repetitive Petition & Special Permit: 1881, 1883, & 1857.1 Middlesex Street

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.

T. Linnehan: What we have first tonight is to consider the repetitive petition and then a special permit. We will determine whether there will be material and specific change on this project and these determine the merits of the special permit.

In Favor:

James Flood (81 Bridge Street): I am here representing the developer. I have the applicant with me tonight as well as the engineer and the traffic engineer. We are before you tonight for a special permit for the driveway length. Based on the denial from the previous review, we feel that there are material and specific changes to this project. We have increased the fire lane pavement area around the site to 18 feet, we have provided a 6-foot high fence along the roadway, we have also provided for a bus stop at the end of the driveway. We did speak with the school department and they will not make pick-ups in the development.

T. Linnehan: Do you want to offer additional information?

J. Flood: The fire department has reviewed the plans and we also provided a flow test to the engineers and water department and both were approved.

J. Clermont: Can you show the changes on the plans?

Katie Bomengen (Engineer): We have added an 18-foot fire lane around the site. We have added a school bus stop at the beginning of the site, and a 6 foot high chain link pedestrian safety fence for safety of pedestrians. Those have been the specific changes. There is also a guardrail in areas that are not at the wetlands areas. In certain areas, there is a fence, and when you get on the other side, there is a guardrail.

T. Linnehan: So what is before us is to determine if the changes are specific and material.

There was a vote on this project on July 17th where the site plan was approved but the special permit was denied. There were conditions proposed and the site plan was approved with those conditions. At the first meeting, I asked that the fire department provide a letter, but they did not. I voted against the project because of the safety concerns of the driveway length. Please remember that right now we are going forward with determining whether the project provided material and substantial change from the first submittal.

In Opposition:

William Memerick (Dingwell Street): What you have before you is the layout of Middlesex street. In the last several years, Middlesex Street has been developed into several apartments complexes. I have several pictures for your review. So what is going to happen here, if they get a proposal for a road and you cannot see the children? Since the August meeting and the September meeting, there were 4 accidents. And that is a regular occurrence. So they can make all the changes they want to, and the street will not be safe.

Patricia Emerick (Dingwell Street): Traffic is already dangerous. I am interested in the children, pedestrians, etc. I have been familiarized with the drug problems in the neighborhood. I think this will intensify. Also, the closing of the road, for the emergency vehicles, I see that as becoming a parking lot.

Michael Ready (130 Nesmith Street): I specifically will address whether or not the developers have presented specific and material changes. I am somewhat surprised at how little they have offered here. They have extended the fire lane to 18 feet. As far as I can tell, that is pertaining to what happens once you get down that driveway. The proposed driveway is wedged between two houses. That fire lane has nothing to do with the roadway. The 6 foot high fence, the water in high rain levels will wash over that driveway. I think anything less than a bridge that takes into account the actual height level is not a material and specific change. The bus stop area, there was not a lot of clarity with regards to where the area will go. Things are very tight there, will the stop go before a set of duplexes. The roadway is still 426 feet long. Nothing has changed. They have not presented another opportunity to put through another roadway. They roadway is too narrow, too long. I don't believe that this plan as presented is ready to go forward. This neighborhood is presented with high density; there may be a good case that concerned citizens that live have concerns. There is quite a bit of land back there that is ripe for development. That property needs proper access. He has a difficult opportunity here. There could already be two roadways here. I want to preserve the mill project. Why does the mill have to come down? There is a great opportunity for a riverside, lower density project. As a friend of the family, I think that the developer has not made the case that there are specific and material change to the site plan. I reiterate that only because those watching this that there is a state law that hold them to a height level of accountability that these changes are material and specific.

In Discussion:

J. Clermont: First step of this analysis is whether or not there are specific and material changes. I certainly think there are specific changes. There is a wider fire lane, there is a fence, and we have additional pedestrian walk ways along the entrance way and land in the front for a bus stop. I'd make a motion that there are specific and material changes.

R. Lockhart: I concur with Attorney Clermont. I would like one clarification. There was a question about the bus area. The design of that, can you just take us through that portion of the plans?

K. Bomengen: Yes, we did speak with the school department. What we are proposing to do is to pick up children on our side of the street on Middlesex Street. The safest way to pick up children is to pull up along this site, and make everyone stop on the street. There is a sidewalk for the length of the entryway.

M. Burns: Most of my concerns have been addressed. I do like the expanded fire lane, and think the driveway is safer for the children. I believe it is probably safer for traffic to stop.

T. Linnehan: How wide is the road, the main access road going into the site?

J. Flood: The roadway starts off at 24 feet, and after crossing the wetlands it goes to 20 feet.

K. Bomengen: It is 24 feet at the opening of Middlesex Street, and the first 290 feet are 24 feet. It is actually wider at the entrance due to the radii. It is 2o feet wide over the wetlands area. The sidewalk is 5 feet wide.

T. Linnehan: Is that the whole 426 feet?

K. Bomengen: Yes

T. Linnehan: How have you addressed the issues of the fire department?

K. Bomengen: Well the concerns that the fire department had were in regards to around the buildings.

T. Linnehan: At the last hearing I did not receive a letter specifically regarding the roadway.

K. Bomengen: Yes I spoke with Captain Weber and he has provided a letter regarding the driveway length.

T. Linnehan: Yes he said that the access way should be acceptable. Should. I still have concerns over this. He also mentions that there should be a water flow test complete.

K. Bomengen: And since then the water flow was forwarded to the fire department and the city engineer. I have that letter.

T. Linnehan: On the roadway, where will all the snow go?

K. Bomengen: The snow will be pushed. Obviously we will need to keep the sidewalks clear. And if necessary, backhoes will be used to keep this site clear.

T. Linnehan: What is the typical sized street in Lowell? 28 feet. That is what we need on this site. We look for something to be 28 feet. What do you think the average fire truck width is? The average fire truck is 10 feet wide. And that is 10 feet bumper to bumper. I used my tape measure. I went to an abutting town, and he gave me the information. So that is what I am looking at.

K. Bomengen: Well the typical parking space is 8.5-9 feet wide.

T. Linnehan: So if you have two cars coming, and a fire apparatus, it is going to be very difficult for emergency situations.

K. Bomengen: Yes, and I believe that there is a letter from the fire department regarding access to this site.

T. Linnehan: Yes, well that would be sufficient if we have more than one emergency vehicle going there. But we also have police, ambulance, etc.

J. Flood: I don't remember any project where you have received letters from the police department. If the fire department is satisfied then I don't see why the police would not be satisfied.

T. Linnehan: Well, we cannot get emergency fire access to 350 people then we will have a problem. How are the people going to get out? Most streets have other streets to take out of the neighborhood. If the project works, then it works. If you want it done right then we need to look at this more.

J. Flood: Do you want the roadway wider?

T. Linnehan: Yes, that roadway is a common driveway, it is going to be difficult for all people to get in there.

J. Flood: We can make the driveway wider. If you want 28 feet, we can accommodate the width.

K. Bomengen: We feel that this proposal is adequate, but if you want it to be wider, we can make the access wider.

T. Linnehan: From your traffic study, you were told that there would be 790 vehicle trips a day. What I said is that we are talking about 790 vehicle trips a day, not cars but trips. He also went on to say, that the road should be similar to Dingwell Street. That street does not handle 128 units. Also, Dingwell is a one-way street. So you don't have cars coming from both directions. The concerns I have are that Dingwell Street is much wider and it is a one-way street. We will still have the children walking up the sidewalk. We talked about that there is emergency access by way of an easement. And that access now, and I know on that road says there is no parking. I was there yesterday morning, and I counted 5 cars on that road and a flat bed pickup truck. So when we look at the site, my concern is getting in and getting out of the site. Is the emergency access way going to be plowed? The site plan was approved, and the special permit is for the driveway length. First we must determine if this plan has material and substantial change.

J. Clermont: To recap, briefly, I share your concern regarding the fire safety. But that is one of the things we look at with this plan and every plan. I am comfortable that the letter from Capt Weber regarding the width. Secondly we have a second letter from the fire department signed by Capt Weber and this says that I have approved the site plan and have no objections with regards to fire department the fire lane, the fence, and the bus stop. I think that that is sufficient and that there are specific and material changes. That is my motion.

R. Lockhart: I second.

Motion:

Member Joseph Clermont motioned to APPROVE the repetitive petition noting that the proposed project offered material and substantial change from the previously denied project.

Member Richard Lockhart seconded the motion.

All members voted to APPROVE the Repetitive Petition (4-0)

J. Flood: We can proceed tonight, with the condition that we will go to a 28-foot wide roadway. Or we can wait and get the conservation commission approval. I can go forward with the changes. I know last time we would have to get approval from conservation. I don't want to waste everyone's time, so if it the Board wishes we can continue to a meeting one month from now. I think it might just be a minor change.

Motion:

Member Joseph Clermont motioned to allow the CONTINUANCE of the project to the November 20, 2006 Planning Board meeting

Member Richard Lockhart seconded the motion.

All members voted to CONTINUE the Special Permit (4-0).

New Business

Old Business

Lowell Catholic High School Administrative Adjustment

The Planning Board will discuss an adjustment to one of the conditions of approval associated with the expansion project of Lowell Catholic High School, which was voted on by the Board in August 2004. The adjustment will address concerns regarding traffic and public safety during school dismissal.

Motion:

Member Mary Burns motioned allow a temporary adjustment to the first condition of approval associated with the expansion project for Lowell Catholic High School, with the following conditions:

Member Richard Lockhart seconded the motion.

All members voted to APPROVE the temporarily adjustment to the condition of approval for the Lowell Catholic High School expansion project (4-0).

East End Social Club of Lowell

The East End Social Club of Lowell has requested time to meet with the Planning Board to discuss the proposed development of land recently reviewed by the Board on September 7, 2006.

No action was taken on the above item

ZBA Notices:

109 Industrial Ave (Robert Moynihan, Jr.)

R. Lockhart: 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 January 4, 2007

J. Clermont: Motion to approve

R. Lockhart: Second

All members voted in favor (5-0).

________________________________________________________

James Errickson, Associate Planner/Planning Board Administrator

Planning Board Minutes

October 2, 2006 - Page 5