Planning Board Minutes

Monday, December 18, 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

Attorney John McKenna, City Solicitor’s Office

Public Hearings

Zoning Amendment: 550-570 Bridge Street

The Lowell Planning Board will review a proposed zoning amendment to extend the existing TMU (Traditional Neighborhood Mixed Use) zoning district to include the area of 550-570 Bridge Street.  The area is presently zoned NB (Neighborhood Business) and comprises 550 Bridge Street and 570 Bridge Street.  The area is located at the corner of Bridge Street and West Sixth Street in Lowell.

The applicant requested to continue the public hearing in order for the project to be heard by a full Board.

Motion:

Member Steven Gendron motioned to CONTINUE to the January 4, 2007 meeting

Member Richard Lockhart seconded the motion.

All members voted to CONTINUE (4-0)

Site Plan & Special Permit Review: 685-686 Lawrence Street

The Lowell Planning Board will review an application by the Frawley Realty Trust for site plan approval and special permits for the development of the property located at 685-689 Lawrence Street.  The proposal includes the construction of twenty-four (24) residential units, with associated landscaping and parking.  Four (4) units will be located in the existing building at the corner of Lawrence and Andrews Street, nine (9) units will be located above a portion of the building on Andrews Street, and eleven (11) new townhouse units will also be constructed along Andrews Street.  This project is in the TMU (Traditional-Neighborhood Mixed Use) Zoning District and requires Special Permit review under Article XII and Site Plan review under Section 11.4 of the Lowell Zoning Ordinance.

The applicant requested to continue the public hearing in order for the project to be heard by a full Board.

Motion:

Member Richard Lockhart motioned to CONTINUE to the January 4, 2007 meeting

Member Jerry Frechette seconded the motion.

All members voted to CONTINUE (4-0)

Site Plan & Special Permit Review: 136 Hildreth Street

The Lowell Planning Board will review a revised application by Specialty Home Builders LLC for site plan and special permit review of the development of the property located at 136 Hildreth Street.  The revised proposal includes the construction of four (4) residential units.   The revised site plan also includes one new curb opening, parking for fourteen (14) vehicles, site utilities, and landscaping on an 11,446 square foot lot.  Said revised project is located in a TMF (Traditional Neighborhood Multifamily) zoning district.  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.

The following individuals spoke in favor of the project:

Scott Owens (applicant’s attorney) Richard Colangelo (applicant)

In Favor:

Scott Owens: I believe this is before the Board for discussion tonight.  We did bring copies of the renderings for the project for your review.

The following individuals spoke in opposition of the project:

Regina Faticanti (169 Bunker Hill Ave), George Heller (145 Hildreth Street), Ann Reynolds (147 Hildreth Street), Maureen Kelleher (37 Unsworth Street), Rita Kelleher (119 Unsworth Street), Anne Marie Page (26 Fremont Street)

In Opposition:

Regina Faticanti (169 Bunker Hill Ave): I have a concern with the height.  We all have ranch style house.  The front of this building will be 50 feet tall facing the house.  The driveway will face my driveway on Bunker Hill.  There is a traffic issue along Hildreth Street.  This will create a large traffic problem.  There is also a water problem.  Another concern is that this landlord is an absentee landlord.  And I do not want more of the same. My offer is that you send this back to the City Solicitor to fight this case. 

Maureen Kelleher (37 Unsworth Street):  If I may approach I do have some photos.  Exhibit 1 is a photograph that shows the monstrosity on Hildreth Street.  That building on the corner has never been taken care of at least in the last two years.  The zoning changes that happened recently were partially instigated by Hildreth Street.  There have been many units constructed in this area that have overrun the area.  From what I understand there are 4 units and 14 parking spaces, which means it will be building and cement city.  That is not the character of the neighborhood.  I ask that you send this back and have the city fight for us.  We can’t fight the way the city should be fighting for us. 

Ann Reynolds (147 Hildreth Street): Just a couple of issues, the height issue is key.  The land is roughly 10 feet above the street, and the building is 38 feet, so the peak will be roughly 48 feet.  Last, is my understanding of what the court hung their hat on was that the application of a particular set of zoning laws.  To me that was more of an application of the appropriate law. 

Anne Marie Page (26 Fremont Street): I am president of CNAG.  When this project started, this developer did meet with the neighborhood group on occasion.  Do we want more condos on Hildreth Street?  No.  It was the main reason for the changes in zoning.  We want you to take a good luck at the green space.  14 parking spaces do not seem safe.  These spaces need to be looked at, and when all the snow does come, where is it going. 

George Zaharoolis (Dabby Way):  I happen to know this project.  This project concerns me.  My understanding is that this is a revised set of plans.  If this is so, then I think the criteria for special permits should be enumerated.  Second the zoning requirements are 4000sqft per dwelling unit.  If this is the case, then two units will fit nicely. One of the purviews of the Board is that they have the right to justify what goes into the neighborhood.  I don’t understand why there is any reason legally this project cannot be turned down.  I think it is wrong, and by appealing it this project should not go forward. 

General Discussion:

Attorney John McKenna: The case at hand was the plan that was before the Board at the most recent public hearing.  The decision made by the Court was that this be approved by the Planning Board.  One of the rights of the judge is to have a new trial for a project.  This project remained in a TMF zone, rather than a single-family zone.  The judge made her decision based on her facts. 

S. Gendron:  For the petitioner, if I can ask a few questions regarding the site.  The topography does offer many questions.  I sat there on Bunker Hill looking at the retaining wall looking at the height of the building.  I am just curious, if you have taken a look at the topography, and can change that so that the heights of the buildings are as overpowering in the neighborhood. 

Richard Colangelo: The proposed change is to lower the height.

J. Frechette: Are you going to change the retaining wall?  Will you do a facelift to the wall?

R. Colangelo: We have not planned a facelift.

J. Frechette:  And the mature tree will you keep that?

R. Colangelo: Yes we will keep that.

J. Frechette: You do not have an exit on Bunker Hill, and the only forms of egress are onto Hildreth Street.

R. Colangelo: Correct.

S. Gendron: I am a rookie here, I’d like to defer.

R. Lockhart:  The height, there is no dimension on here, how high is it?

R. Colangelo: 32-feet.

R. Lockhart: And how does that compare to existing building?

R. Colangelo:  Well, it is about the same height as the existing building.

R. Lockhart: But you cannot provide us with the heights of those existing buildings?  How are you handling the trash?

R. Colangelo:  It will be handled by private pick up.

R. Lockhart:  And will there by decks for this plan?

R. Colangelo: I believe they are on the plans.

R. Lockhart:  I’d like to make a comment on the neighborhood character.  With all respect to the judge, I think the best people to make a determination regarding neighborhood character would be the neighbors.

J. Clermont: One of the major focuses is the height of the building.  I think the judge specifically referred to our decision as it related to height.  She indicated that we could not consider the height because it did not fit the criteria.  I’d like note that this decision is on this case only.  It will not apply to any case as we move forward.  It has gone before the Court, and the judge is not allowing us to use height as a determining factor.

J. McKenna:  Correct, the judge determined that height was not to be used in judging this case.

J. Clermont:  The plans that we are reviewing are the same set of plans as that of June 2006. 

R. Colangelo: The building facing Bunker Hill is a smaller building, we tried to keep that building in character with the neighborhood. 

J. Clermont:  These buildings do not have front porches. 

R. Colangelo: It has a roof over the doors, which may classify as a porch.  The depth of it is not for a porch. 

J. Clermont:  You intend to construct the windows on the side of the doors.

R. Colangelo:  Yes, again, we worked with the DPD.

J. Clermont:  Can you clarify again where the decks are, and where are the electric and water meters?

R. Colangelo: we did discuss that briefly, and that will be at the ends of the buildings, with screening.

J. Clermont:  Do you have proper screening as well?

R. Colangelo: Yes, it will be one similar to one in the neighborhood, a white vinyl privacy fence.  Standard 6 feet.

S. Gendron: I wanted to talk about the parking a little bit.  There are 14 spots?

R. Colangelo:  Well each one has parking spaces, and you can see them on the plans. 

S. Gendron:  So if I am on the street, I am looking at a building and it seems that the building will be roughly 40 feet tall from the street.  I am sensitive to the neighbors.  I think we need neighbors like these to fight for the neighborhood.  I was up in that neighborhood, and it is a nice neighborhood.  The other thing that concerns me about this situation is this court order.  And the decision is essentially made. 

J. McKenna:  Obviously, it goes through a process, this proposal has been to the Board 4 times.  Once you are denied, there are certain criteria that the judge looks at, and her decision is final.  We look at the court’s decision and try to improve our by law.  Height from abutting properties, maybe that is an area to look at in our by law.  Certainly every project is looked at from the perspective of zoning.  We tried to express the neighborhood concerns to the judge.  Unfortunately this is not in the single-family zoning district.  The board cannot go beyond her decision, but certainly, the process can allow for reasonable conditions.

S. Gendron: This decision is pretty clear.  What happens if I go against that?

J. McKenna:  Well the judge may hold you in contempt.

S. Gendron:  What can we do?  What about the issue of height?  Would it feasible for you to excavate that property?

R. Colangelo:  We actually did lower the building, and we do plan on excavating the building a few feet.

S. Gendron:  What about the design of the building?  Can that be a bit more consistent with the neighborhood? 

R. Colangelo:  I’d have to look at the market. 

S. Gendron:  Just going back to the traffic, you mentioned that the traffic would not exit onto Bunker Hill.

R. Colangelo:  We changed the plans the accommodate traffic onto Hildreth.

J. Frechette:  I specifically asked you about the topography of the site.  I personally find the wall to be very unsightly; I’d like to have the wall fixed up.  Could you clarify that?  The tree is not located on our plans, but I think it is crucial to the site, it adds scale to the buildings.

R. Colangelo:  The full set that was provided did show existing conditions with the tree, and we can fix up the wall.

J. Clermont:  In this case, the judge said we have to review the previous plans, and have them be approved.  With reasonable conditions of course.  I know the city did look at this to determine whether to appeal this decision.  And correct me if I am wrong, but the neighbors will also have the right to appeal this decision tonight.  In fairness to the city solicitor, a lot of thought must go into whether to appeal a judge’s decision, though I do not personally agree with the decision.  I think it was fairly tried by the office. 

J. Frechette:  I do know as a result of this, there were some revisions of the Neighborhood Character Special Permit requirements.  And since this time, there have been revisions to the zoning.  We are now able to cite specific sections of zoning for such decisions.

S. Gendron:  I don’t think I have enough information.  I’d like to see more details regarding height. I’d like to see a plan that will do something with that retaining wall.  I don’t think anyone objects to the development on that site, but I feel as though the neighborhood has valid concerns.  And I believe a reasonable constraint is to see all that information.  I’d motion to continue this to get more information regarding the heights and traffic.

J. Clermont:  We can continue to January 4^th.  Or to a later meeting since that meeting will be a busy meeting.

R. Colangelo: I guess my concern is that once we submit additional information, we will be asked to provide additional information.  We got his court order in August, and it has taken us 4 months. We’d like some clear guidelines.

J. Clermont:  That is fair enough. 

J. McKenna: We can facilitate this.  With regards to the time frame, hopefully we can continue this until January 18^th. 

Motion:

Member Steven Gendron motioned to CONTINUE the project to the January 18, 2007 meeting to allow the applicant to provide the Board with more detailed information about the project.

Member Jerry Frechette seconded the motion.

All members voted to CONTINUE (4-0)

Site Plan Review: 94-106 Rock Street

The Lowell Planning Board will review an application by Middlesex North Resource Center, a subsidiary of Bridgewell, Inc., a non-profit educational corporation serving disable individuals, for Site Plan Approval for a project located at 94-106 Rock Street.  The proposal includes the rehabilitation of an existing building with site laundry facilities, a recreation/community room, and 12 bedrooms.  The proposal also includes the construction of a new 6,900 sqft building with 12 efficiency units, classroom and office space, as well as a fifteen (15) space parking lot and associated landscaping.  The project is located in the UMF (Urban Neighborhood Multi Family) zoning district, and requires Site Plan approval under Section 11.4 of the Lowell Zoning Ordinance.

The applicant requested to continue the public hearing in order for the project to be heard by a full Board.

Motion:

Member Jerry Frechette motioned to CONTINUE to the January 4, 2007 meeting

Member Steven Gendron seconded the motion.

All members voted to CONTINUE (4-0)

New Business

Adoption of MA DEP Stormwater Management Policy Handbook: Volume I  & Stormwater Technical Handbook Volume II

The Board unanimously voted to adopt the MA DEP Stormwater Management policy handbook.

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.

¨       Project Address: 672 Chelmsford Street

Applicant: Daniel Sacco / Polaris Engineering

Project: Construction of 2 units on lot with 2 units

Zoning: TMU (Traditional Mixed Use)

Required Review: Site Plan & Special Permit

No formal action was taken on the above matter.

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 Jerry Frechette motioned to adjust the first condition of approval associated with the expansion project for Lowell Catholic High School, with the following conditions:

1. The back gate of the Lowell Catholic High School parking lot will be opened during the half-hour time period from 2:15 to 2:45 in the afternoon, and during any other school dismissal period.
2. A Lowell Catholic staff person is required to man the gate during the half hour time period when the back gate to the site is open.
3. The back gate must remain locked during nights and weekends, and shall be unlocked when school is in session, Monday thru Friday, 6:30am to 3:00pm.
4. Lowell Catholic High School shall provide a set of keys to the Fire Department for the locks on the back gate.

Member Richard Lockhart seconded the motion.

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

These minutes were approved by the Planning Board on May 21, 2007

R. Lockhart: Motion to approve

J. Clermont: Second

Four members voted in favor, with Member T. Linnehan abstaining due to absence at the meeting (4-0-1)

________________________________________________________

James Errickson, Associate Planner/Planning Board Administrator