Household Hazardous Waste Day
Press Release - City of Lowell Seeks Applicants For Solid Waste & Recycling Advisory Committee
Document Actions
Minutes for Planning Board on February 05, 2007, 06:30 PM
|
|
City of Lowell -Planning Board
Planning Board Minutes
February 5, 2007 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
Jerry
Frechette, Member
Steven
Gendron, Member
Others
James
Errickson, Associate Planner
Minutes and Roll Call
Minutes: November 20, 2006
The Board voted unanimously to approve the minutes from the November
20, 2006 Planning Board meeting.
Public Hearings
Site Plan & Special Permit Review: 1975-1995
Middlesex Street, Millview Estates
The Lowell Planning Board will review an application
by Mill View Estates, LLC and Gala Simon Associates, Inc. for a project located at 1975-1995 Middlesex Street in Lowell. The proposal includes the modification of a
plan previously approved by the Planning Board in July 2005, which consisted of
converting an existing mill building into 54 residential units, and
constructing a 50-unit multi-family building and 38 townhouse-style units on
site. The new proposal includes the
demolition of the existing mill building, and the construction of a total of 74
townhouse-style units on site, with associated required landscaping and
parking. The project site is roughly
220,000 sqft is size, and is located in the SMU (Suburban Neighborhood Mixed
Use) zoning district. Special Permit
review is required under Article XII: Table of Uses and Site plan review is
required under Section 11.4 of the Lowell Zoning Ordinance.
The following individuals
spoke in favor of the project:
Greg Curtis (Applicant’s
Attorney), Al Gala (Applicant’s Engineer, Gala & Associates), Jack Sullivan
(Applicant’s Architect, Sullivan & Associates), Walter Green (1975
Middlesex Street), Stephen Moses (Riverside Townhouse Condo Association Trustee),
Scott Casper (Middlesex Street, Chelmsford)
In Favor:
Greg Curtis (Applicant’s Attorney):
This project was approved in July 2005 for the conversion of the mill
building. We commenced the construction
of the townhouses. After going through
research with architect and structural engineers, the existing mill building is
not feasible to convert. We are
therefore proposing to construct only 74 townhouse units. The number of cars
will substantially decrease. We will
add more green space and parking. It
will be pleasing for the neighbors and the city. Al Gala will now explain the changes.
Al Gala (Gala Associates):
This is our plan; an all townhouse project. The existing mill building in located here, with 38 townhouses in
this location. Once we found out that
the old mill building will not be used, we proposed to expand the townhouse
project. So, the entrance here is the
same. We expanded the current townhouse
project throughout the site. The green
areas are more extensive than before.
Jack Sullivan (Sullivan Architects):
Once we started to analyze the existing mill building, it is really
beyond a reasonable point of repair.
The mill building itself will be out of scale to the existing townhouse
developments. It is not practically
feasible for us to continue with this project.
Greg Curtis: Coming from Wood Street, it is mostly apartments or
condos, the only existing mill building is this one. At this point it makes more sense to tear down the building and
construct something new.
Walter Green (1975 Middlesex Street): I am a resident of Mill View
Estates. When notified of this change,
I met with the developers. They have
been consistent with the details of the project. They have kept up their end of the bargain, and I am behind this
project.
Stephen Moses (Riverside Townhouse Condo
Association Trustee): Trustee of
Riverside Townhouse Development, I am here to support the application. The development is an enhancement in the
neighborhood. The applicant has seen to
it that as many trees are preserved.
Our initial concern with the project is still a concern. We request that a fence be constructed along
the site with our project. We are also
asking the planning board to have the driveway nearest our project be used as
an entrance only, and the other driveway by Chelmsford be used for
exiting. We ask that the planning board
address the fencing, the traffic flow, the appearance regarding the townhouses,
and the drainage for the site.
G. Curtis: With regards to the fencing, in installing a fence, we are
opposed to a vinyl style fence. We
would like to put in a cedar style fencing, which is more stylistic. We are looking to put in metal posts. With regards to driveways, I have never
experienced the concern expressed. As
for the buildings, they are very appealing and architecturally variant.
Scott Casper (Middlesex Street, Chelmsford): I am the only resident from North
Chelmsford. My concern is that looking
at this mill building, I am wondering how much of this old building will be converted. I am just here to figure out how my visual
will be changed. I am not opposed to
the brick fence.
G. Curtis: The old building is coming down completely. We are not doing any building in
Chelmsford. We will be seeking to demo
the building in Chelmsford.
Stephen Moses (Riverside
Townhouse Condo Association Trustee):
We do have a problem with a stockade fence, for maintenance
purposes.
The following individuals
spoke in opposition of the project:
Michael Ready (130 Nesmith Street), Kathy McPherson
(1975 Middlesex Street, U#10)
In Opposition:
Michael Ready (130 Nesmith Street): I oppose the site plan and issuance
of a special permit, as it will include the demolition of a mill building on
site. In July 2005, the project was
approved for the conversion of the mill structure, under Section 8.1. This project was about as good as it could
go with bringing in new and keeping the old.
I’d like to propose that this project be postponed until Section 6.3.2
(20) of the ordinance is explained. This mill is very significant
architecturally.
Kathy McPherson (1975
Middlesex Street, U#10): I am strongly
in opposition of the demolition of the mill.
My husband and I were one of the first residents. We were told that the mill will be
restored. It will decrease our resale
value as well. The whole flow of the
site will be messed up. The mill gives
character to the whole situation.
General Discussion:
S. Gendron: Didn’t you do this analysis on the mill structure before
the board the first time?
G. Curtis: That was the intent,
but once they got into designing the units, and making a determination of what
it will require, the structural engineer noted that the internal site will need
to be torn down. It has suffered a lot
of damage. This is a free standing mill
in a residential district.
S. Gendron: There must have
been some structural analysis during the initial project.
J. Sullivan: Once we started the construction documents on the mill
building, we determined that the mill building would have to be torn down. We would have to make the structure able to
handle an earth quake. The structural
review does not happen until the construction docs are made.
S. Gendron: How many parking spots are on site in the new plan:
Paul Simon (Gala Associates): We have 163 required spaces, and we
provide 216 spaces, plus 13 visitor spaces.
S. Gendron: I thought the townhouses were nice. And you have allotted for additional
parking. I would like to see a vinyl
fence. The cedar fence is a pain to
maintain.
G. Curtis: I think that can be worked out. I’d like to note that whatever fence goes up will be maintained
by Mill View Estates.
R. Lockhart: I have a few questions, the first being, is if this
building going to be torn down, have you had any discussions with the historic
people regarding the mill structure.
G. Curtis: No. There is no
historic significance to this, other than the building is over 50 years
old. I discussed this with Steve
Stowell.
R. Lockhart: I think the history is great, and we want to encourage the
re-use of the good buildings in the city.
But in this case, I think the historic significance here is in
question. We have two letters before us
indicating that the building is not structurally sound. I do have a question regarding pedestrian
access. The right hand side has a
sidewalk, but on the left you do not have anything. I think pedestrian safety is an issue.
Al Gala: Basically, we are proposing to extend the sidewalk along the
street. The sidewalk is through
here. We are not showing a sidewalk on
this side, but we do not have a problem putting one in.
R. Lockhart: On the fence, I would like to see a cedar fence, which is
more attractive. The traffic engineer
has made some comments here about ADA compliance.
Al Gala: These are all residential units. We did have in the old plan handicapped parking. We have areas for visitor parking that could
be for ADA parking.
R. Lockhart: I think this needs to be addressed. And there are five items from the engineer.
Al Gala: We will address those.
J. Clermont: I think just
following up on Rich Lockhart’s point, there may be ADA requirements. The traffic engineer indicates that you may
need 7 spaces. You can check into
that. Could you address the facades of
the buildings facing the street?
Al Gala: What we have done, you will see that these three buildings are
already in place. In this plan, the new
townhouses are a mirror image of these.
The buildings you see here will be similar.
J. Clermont: So the front façade of the buildings are facing the River
Side Condos, and the decks are facing the side. There are some notes to follow up, that the applicant should
create an easement to access the drainage system on the site. Can you also comment on the lighting?
Al Gala: We have a detail
sheet, showing the type of lighting we are proposing. It is 8 feet to the base of the site. We have a landscaping and lighting plan. They are located in strategic locations for
pedestrians. They are very low
intensity lights. There are not
lighting on the buildings them selves.
J. Clermont: All utility meters will not be visible from the
street. Originally this project is
before us under 8.1. This is a strait
forward project, and you meet all the zoning requirements. I think I agree with Mr. Lockhart. We enjoy converting the old mill buildings
as much as possible, but some buildings are not able to be converted. There is a reduction in the number of units.
J. Frechette: I will just echo
some of Mr. Clermont’s comments.
Usually, one item that I look at is the parking, but that is
sufficient. Compared to the previous
plan, you are decreasing the number of units.
Also, I was at that meeting when it was originally approved, and I
recall the discussion with regards to the trees. I know no matter how good the intentions are this is difficult to
do. I think a fence is warranted. Also, 8.1 is there as a voluntary option for
a developer, to create more density to preserve the building.
T. Linnehan: I just have a couple quick comments; I do agree with the
rest of the PB members about 8.1. I am
happy to see about the extra parking.
The main concern is the traffic.
Right now, there is a reduction of 58 units. Consider 2 cars for every unit that is 116 units per day. This will create less traffic. A couple of conditions are the ADA parking
requirements, the easement, and a fence.
I also agree with the need for pedestrian access.
S. Gendron: I have to say that
I am torn on this project. I think it
is a good project, lots of open space, less parking, and traffic is a huge
concern. So the idea of reducing the
units is a positive thing. That said, I
do think as a city that we need to take special care to the mill
buildings. We have gotten a lot of
mileage out of the buildings. I do like
the mill. I can understand the concern
about the tearing down the mill building.
That mill makes this unique.
Regardless, there should have been some research about the keeping of
the mill building, and I am afraid I am not going to support this site plan.
J. Clermont: the city departments do report back to
us. All the departments have reported
favorably on this project.
Motion:
The Special Permit and Site Plan were approved with the
following conditions:
1.
No electric, water or gas meters shall be located in any location
visible from Middlesex Street.
2.
The applicant must incorporate all of the City Engineer’s comments,
and receive an affirmative comment from the City Engineer, and/or address
comments necessary to achieve approval from the City Engineer.
3.
The applicant must provide for pedestrian access to the site at the
western entrance of the site (the entrance closest to the Chelmsford town
line). Such pedestrian access must be
similar in style to pedestrian access provided at the eastern entrance, and the
applicant must provide DPD with a final set of plans showing such access.
4.
The applicant must provide a privacy fence along the eastern
portion of the site, which abuts the Riverside Condominium Association
property. The applicant shall discuss
the final fence design and height with the condominium association, and must
come to an agreement as to the type and height of fencing that shall be
installed.
5.
The applicant must update the site plans for the development to
ensure full compliance with ADA standards.
The City’s Traffic Engineer must provide final review and approval of
this compliance.
6.
The applicant must create an easement to the site to allow the City
to access the drainage system in the event of an emergency. The City of Lowell will have permission to
enter the site, repair the drainage system and charge the owners on the site,
in the event that the drainage system fails and is not repaired by the
condominium association.
The motion was
made by Member Joseph Clermont and seconded by Member Richard Lockhart. The motion to approve the special permit
passed with all members voting in favor (5-0).
The motion to approve the site plan passed with four members voting in
favor and Member Stephen Gendron voting in opposition (4-1).
Site Plan: 295 Varnum Avenue
The Lowell Planning Board
will review an application by Lowell General Hospital for site plan review of
the development of the property located at 295 Varnum Avenue. The proposal includes the construction of a
new 112-space parking lot, next to existing parking areas, to serve the Lowell
General Hospital campus. The site is
located in the PDMI (Planned Development Medical/Institutional) zoning
district. Site plan review is required
under Section 11.4 of the Lowell Zoning Ordinance.
The following individuals
spoke in favor of the project:
Winfred Brown (Applicant),
Jerry Foley (Applicant’s Engineer), Dick Carvel (5525 Varnum Avenue)
In Favor:
Win Brown (VP Administration of LGH):
The hospital is requesting an additional 112 parking spaces adjacent to
our existing parking. We are requesting
this expansion because we have expanded by 200 employees. We are at capacity in parking during the
week. We are proposing to expand our
day time parking. Currently we have
400+ employee spaces, and what we need is roughly 700 spaces. We have met twice with the PCC. We have been working to ensure that this
does not impact the visuals of the site.
We propose this as a short term solution until we can complete an
expansion project.
Jerry Foley (Applicant’s Engineer): Thank you again, the location is
here on the campus. This is the
entrance here, in a wooded area. Total
disturbance is approx 1.7 acres. You
can come in or out of either one, with 45 degree angle parking, with one way
throughout. Everything will sheet flow
here to a retention pond. This is
designed to retain the entire 100 year storm.
Dick Carvel (5525 Varnum Road): I am on the board of
PCC, and I am here to speak in favor of this project. Mr. Brown went over this in great detail with us at PCC. We found LGH to be a good supporter of the
neighborhood.
The following individuals
spoke in opposition of the project:
None
In Opposition:
None
General Discussion:
J. Frechette: I did speak to Mr. Brown regarding the proposal. I did also attend the meeting. All of the concerns from the neighborhood
have been addressed. My one comment;
for the time being this is adequate, but I think in this case the landscaping
is not as necessary. One of the
concerns is the traffic exiting the hospital, and Mr. Brown has been very
responsive.
S. Gendron: I was up there as well; it is tucked away and has a good
buffer. My only question is regarding
the City Engineer.
R. Lockhart: My only concern is about the drainage, that should be
reviewed by the City Engineer.
J. Clermont: I think the site is well thought out and designed.
T. Linnehan: I
think it’s a good project. It is just
going to be the parking for the employees. It is good that you went to the
neighborhood first. Regards to the
drainage we can make a motion to get final approval from the City Engineer.
Motion:
The Site Plan was approved with the following condition:
1.
The applicant must receive an affirmative comment from the City
Engineer regarding the adequacy of the proposed drainage system for the parking
lot development.
The motion was
made by Member Richard Lockhart and seconded by Member Stephen Gendron. The motion passed with all members voting in
favor (5-0).
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.
¨
Project Address: 35 Manufacturer’s Street
Applicant: Polaris Engineering
Project: Construction of 20 units
Zoning: TMU (Traditional Mixed Use)
Required Review: Site Plan & Special Permit
General
Discussion:
Jim Flood (81 Bridge
Street): Representing Dean Jenkins,
proposed developer, Matt Hamor, and Sandra Fishman. This is a vacant piece of property that is basically a dumping
ground in the neighborhood. It is the
hope of the applicant to develop 20 townhouse units on site. We are also proposing a gated
community. I think this will be a
benefit to the neighborhood. The plan
conforms with all aspects of the zoning.
We are here for your feedback.
Matt Hamor (Engineer): The plan is a combination of duplexes and
triplexes. We are proposing a one way
in and one way out. Everything in green
are landscaped areas. This will likely
have a subsurface drainage or surface drainage over here. The site is flat; it’s a dumping ground for
the neighborhood. By coming in with
this development, we believe that this layout is the best for the project.
R. Lockhart: The green parcel
in the back is just open space. It
might be a gated community?
J. Flood: It will use a card
system.
D. Jenkins: What I have
looked at from the start is a wrought iron fence.
T. Linnehan: Obviously you want something that is going
to work. You should likely work with
DPD.
M. Hamor: There is a parking area here, and at night
this area behind this fencing; there are obvious signs that something is here
for security measures.
R. Lockhart: As far as the parking, these are garage
parking. How is this determined?
J. Flood: That is based on
.75 per bedroom.
R. Lockhart: You may want to
extend the parking for visitors.
J. Frechette: The site of the dumpster?
M. Hamor: We are going to move that over here.
S. Gendron: The constraint here is the parking. Additional parking would be a benefit
here. This is right on the edge of the
lot are per dwelling unit requirement.
My feeling is that the LA per DU is intended to make sure there is
enough space, yet this lot is awkward.
I think you should consider the LA per DU on a square lot, not including
the land in the back. I think you
should provide more land area per DU.
D. Jenkins: If I may, it is a rectangular lot. But this has the ability to create a
playground area for the site.
S. Gendron: I do like the fact that you are separating
the units. This neighborhood is
incredibly dense. I think that it would
be good to clean up this site, but I would still like you to eliminate a couple
units. I think 2 bedrooms are better
than three bedrooms. I also think the
one way is not the best.
J. Clermont: I think the members have touched upon the
areas of importance. I think you could
run paving up that space in the back for more parking.
¨
Project Address: 76-80 Rogers Street
Applicant: Perry and Rogers, LLC
Project: Construction of 35 townhouse style units
Zoning: TMU (Traditional Mixed Use)
Required Review: Site Plan
& Special Permit
In
Discussion:
J. Flood: I am here on behalf of the developer. This is zoned TMU. The plan as presented tonight conforms to zoning. And I have been working with Tom and Diane
for over a year on this project. Their
initial intention was to renovate the building. After a year of review, this is not possible. We are proposing 35 condo units. Our proposal would be to have the
development off Rogers Street. We feel
that Rogers Street is a better way to enter the site.
J. Foley: This is an existing
conditions plan. Vicinity wise, we took
a step back from this site to look at area characteristics. We’ve looked at this plan from a number of
different avenues. This is what we are
proposing. Because it is a rectangular
space, we broke it up along Perry Street.
If you look at the zoning table I passed out, we have 10 parking spaces
more than are required.
T. Linnehan: I know when we
did the walk through on this site we talked about the part along Perry Street,
and how to address this streetscape here.
Can you address this?
J. Foley: The proposal will close
the curb cut on site. And place a fence
along Perry Street.
R. Lockhart: Do you have
planned decks for the units?
J. Foley: There are no plans
at this time.
R. Lockhart: I think you have too many units on this
site. I think if you drop down a couple
units, you can create more green space.
J. Flood: I think because of
the expense incurred to date that is not possible. They did cut the units down a little bit.
J. Frechette: You will have
some issues with turn around here for fire safety access. This is a key site in the area. It would have been nice to see something
incorporated with a TMU sense, and the surrounding neighborhood. It is a shame that Perry Street cannot be
incorporated.
S. Gendron: I’d like to
reiterate what Mr. Lockhart has stated.
I think the density of this is an issue. I think it is too dense for the neighborhood.
J. Clermont: Just a couple of
quick comments, have you been able to speak to the neighbors. I’d encourage you to do that. You have quite a few units in here, if you
can set a side some green space here that would be a benefit. The height you are proposing is 45 feet?
J.
Foley: Yes. They would be similar to
the units along Perry Street.
Other Business
The Board voted to cancel the February 22, 2007 meeting
due to there being no scheduled public hearings.
ZBA Notices:
All members voted in favor of
DENIAL (5-0)
All
members voted in favor of taking no action (5-0)
These
minutes were approved by the Planning Board on May 21, 2007
J.
Clermont: Motion to approve
J.
Frechette: Second
All
members voted in favor (5-0).
James Errickson, Associate Planner/Planning Board
Administrator