Planning Board Minutes

April 2, 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, video recordings are available at the Lowell Telecommunications Corporation’s website at http://ltc.org.

Members Present

Thomas Linnehan, Chairman

Joseph Clermont, Vice Chairman

Richard Lockhart, Second Vice Chairman

Jerry Frechette, Member

Stephen Gendron, Member

Others

James Errickson, Associate Planner

T. Linnehan: Call meeting to order, request motion to take agenda items out of order to review the public hearings for the Repetitive Petitions first.

J. Clermont: So moved.

R. Lockhart: Seconded the motion.

All members voted to take agenda items out of order and hear the repetitive petition hearings first.

Public Hearings

Diane Perry (On behalf of applicant for 99 Rosemont Street): Our engineer is missing in action right now.

T. Linnehan: I will move on to the other Repetitive Petition.

Repetitive Petition: 278 Branch Street

The Lowell Planning Board will review an application to the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) by Peter Tea for variances and special permit to operate a restaurant without the required parking on the property located at 278 Branch Street.  On July 24, 2006, the ZBA took an “unfavorable action” on the previous proposal at that site.  In order for the ZBA to consider the merits of this new application, the Planning Board must consent that the new application contains specific and material changes from the first application.  The Planning Board will take this vote at the conclusion of the public hearing.

The following individuals spoke in favor of the project: 

Lean Tea (Applicant’s Daughter), Peter Tea (Applicant, 246 Branch Street), George Zaharoolis (15 Dabby Way), Tima Lihm (address unknown)

In Favor:

Lean Tea (Applicant’s Daughter).  My father would like to relocate his restaurant from two doors down from that same street, except that it is a new place that is bigger with off street parking.  We would like you to hear us on this repetitive petition.

George Zaharoolis (15 Dabby Way): I would like to speak in favor of this Repetitive Petition to be sent back to the ZBA for this petition.  I think there was some kind of miss understanding relative to the existing site of the restaurant.  The new location has extra parking, across the street has a park with parking, and there is street parking.  The present location does not have parking.  This new site will have some parking.  It will have a chance to expand.  It used to be a dry cleaners.  I think its new location will be better.  It’s a family owned business, and they do a decent job.

Coulig Craig (Address Unknown):  I am one of the employees for the last 19 years.  I feel that this restaurant is great within the Cambodian Community.  The owner donates to the community, and it is great within Lowell.  I support the relocation of the restaurant.  I support this move.

Tima Lihm (Address Unknown):  I came to Lowell is 1988.  I got a job, and started to know Mr. Tiege.  He is why I am here.  When he arrived, he had almost nothing.  They started the business.  He always supports the community.

The following individuals spoke in opposition of the project:

None

General Discussion:

S. Gendron: to clarify, what is before us is to determine whether or not there are changes.  We are voting on whether or not the changes are substantial enough to send back to the ZBA.  Looking at the application, has anything changed from the previous application that was denied from the planning board?

Lean Tea (Applicant’s Daughter): I believe there was a misunderstanding about the number of tables. 

S. Grendon: so in the previous application there was a misunderstanding in the number of tables.  And there is parking across the street.

Lean Tea (Applicant’s Daughter): yes, before there was a misunderstanding

S. Grendon: in my opinion I think this is worthy of a repetitive petition.

J. Frechette: There are two buildings, and you are removing 50 feet away to the other building.  How long has the business been in operation?

Lean Tea (Applicant’s Daughter): 8 years.  It is moving 50 feet.

T. Linnehan: I went up and visited this site, and he explained to me the situation.  I was informed that when the project came before the ZBA the first time, that the board members earlier voted that there is a material and substantial change.  They were also unaware, due to the language barrier, that the restaurant is just moving down the street, and will include additional parking.  I do believe that there will be substantial and material change. 

J. Clermont: find that this provides material and substantial change. 

Motion:

Considering the merits of the presented materials, the Board consented that the new application provided material and substantial changes from the original application.  The Board moved to grant the Repetitive Petition application, allowing the project to return to the ZBA with a new application.

The motion was made by Member Joseph Clermont and seconded by Member Richard Lockhart.  The motion passed with all members voting in favor (5-0). 

Repetitive Petition: 99 Rosemont Street

The Lowell Planning Board will review an application relative to a Repetitive Petition application by Therese M Beaulieu for the ability to subdivide the property located at 99 Rosemont Street into three parcels and construct two new single-family homes in the Flood Plain Overlay District.  On March 17, 2006, the Lowell Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) took an “unfavorable action” on a previous proposal at this site to construct a single-family home.  In order for the ZBA to consider the merits of this new application, the Planning Board must consent that the new application contains specific and material changes from the first application.  The Planning Board will take this vote at the conclusion of the public hearing.

The following individuals spoke in favor of the project: 

Patrick Flaherty (Applicant’s Engineer, Flaherty Associates). 

In Favor:

Patrick Flaherty: (Applicant’s Engineer, Flaherty Associates).  Representing the family as the engineer.  This project is located off Riverside Avenue.  There is a single house standing there now.  The idea is that that house is to remain.  The original petition that was denied had very irregular lot lines.  It was reported that the board did not have problems with construction in the flood plains.  But they did take objection to the old lot lines.  This is the general shape that was initially approved.  Rather than having regular lot lines in the rectangular.  The applicant chose these lines, I don’t know the reason, and I was not the engineer.  The board objected to this and denied the application. We went back to the board in January, and got a positive response.  The lot lines are more regular.  The buildings are going to stay the same.  The propose buildings will look like this.  We reconfigured the underground storage tanks.  Based on that we went back to the ZBA and they like this much more then the older system.  That vote was in Jan 07.  They all commented that this is a much better system and voted that there are material and substantial changes.  There are no variances required for this, but a special permit for the flood plane construction.

The following individuals spoke in opposition of the project: 

None

General Discussion:

S. Gendron: I have no concerns. Those changes are not only substantial and material; the proposal is much better than before.  It looks much better.

The remainder of the Board agrees with S. Gendron.

Motion:

Considering the merits of the presented materials, the Board consented that the new application provided material and substantial changes from the original application.  The Board moved to grant the Repetitive Petition application.

The motion was made by Member Steven Gendron and seconded by Member Richard Lockhart.  The motion passed with four members voting in favor (4-0).  Member Joseph Clermont removed himself from the hearing due to conflict of interest and did not vote on the matter.

Zoning Amendment: 150, 200 & 250 Western Avenue

The Lowell Planning Board will review an application relative to a proposed zoning amendment to extend the existing Artist Overlay District to include 150, 200 & 250 Western Avenue in Lowell.  The area is presently zoned LI (Light Industry), which will remain as the underlying zoning district.

The following individuals spoke in favor of the project: 

James Flood (81 Bridge Street), Karl Fry (Applicant/Owner), Maxine Farcus (Riverplace Towers), Megan Moore (226 Baldwin Street), Donna Burger (Chelmsford), Debra Dixon (200 Market Street), Lor Alexander (Lancaster, MA), Bill Braduly (122 Western Ave), Lianne Linlaung 28 Johnson Street), Ashley Well Smith (70 Austin Street), John Greenwald (24 Roberts Street), Lisa Bisson (Dracut), Jeane Bisson (Dracut), Leonard Hall (209 Bollard Street), Paula Richard (46 Highland Ave), Rebecca Wetmore (200 Mass Mills), Andrew Wetmore (200 Mass Mills)

In Favor:

James Flood (81 Bridge Street) representing the owner.  Right now it is a condo.  With me tonight is Carl Fry the manager of the facility.  We are here to request an affirmative endorsement to extend the overlay district.  It only encompasses our property of the old mill building.  This shows it, it will start along Fletcher Street, and just encompass our property.  We have established a condominium.  As this board is likely aware, there are artists working within the building, and they are working within the 3,4,5 floors.  If this request is approved, it is the intention of my client to construct residential units in unit 1 and unit 4.  We are restricting this to 54 units at most if this is approved.  I think the vibrant artist community; this is an opportunity for us to provide affordable units. 

Karl Fry (Applicant/Owner): when we started this project, I don’t think anyone believed would continue with the artists working space.  I understand your detailed memo from DPD that they cannot endorse the use of this site.  However, we have tried to find an industrial user, and they are not out there.  We will stipulate limiting the number of units to 54, and further stipulate that these units will be required to be sold as affordable. 

Maxine Farcus (River Place towers).  I am here with many of my colleagues, in support of the application.  Western Ave studios represents the largest concentration of working artists in Merrimack Valley, yet it is not in the artist overlay district.  We will have 106 studios that provide affordable workspace to artists.  This is a compatible mix of uses.  The use of this district has been effective to revitalizing downtown, but does not provide affordable artist live workspace.  We need to be in proximity to uses that are compatible mix of uses.  Artists in the Western Ave studio sign this petition. 

T. Linnehan: this notes that you are all in favor of the extension of the artist overlay district.

Megan Moore (226 Baldwin Street): with great respect of what you do, and with the artists community in attendance.  We are all prepared to speak for the record.  However, if you would like to allow us to just say our names for the record, we can do that as well.

T. Linnehan: That would be sufficient, please say your names for the record.

Donna Burger (Chelmsford)

Debra Dixon (200 Market Street)

Lor Alexander (Lancaster, MA)

Bill Braduly (122 Western Ave)

Lianne Linlaung 28 Johnson Street)

Ashley Well Smith (70 Austin Street)

John Greenwald (24 Roberts Street)

Lisa Bisson (Dracut)

Jeane Bisson (Dracut)

Leonard Hall (209 Bollard Street)

Paula Richard (46 Highland Ave)

Rebecca Wetmore (200 Mass Mills)

Andrew Wetmore (200 Mass Mills)

The following individuals spoke in opposition of the project:

None

General Discussion:

J. Frechette: First I would like to thank everyone for coming here to speak on the issue.  Part of deliberating on this, We do have to look at the city’s master plan, and the Acre Renewal plan, however, the reality is that the light industry is hard to attract into the city.  Part of the challenges of relocating industry within the city is to ensure compatible uses.  But my concern is the potential conflict between the industries and the people living in an artist condominium.  I know we are having conflict between residential and retail in the downtown area.  So I can understand this, the function right now is to zone for an artist use, but you re looking to have this be residential for the artists.  It is being used as artists use space, what is the benefit.  I am concerned of potential conflicts. 

Karl Fry: The building is actually a combination of 5 different buildings.  This building back here is the part being used for artists.  This is another mill building.  I would point out that in the 2.5 years, we have supported every tenant in Lowell, and we still have vacant space, and we are suffering.  We are relocating a warehouse from the JAM area.  We put in an elevator to make it attractive to industrial users.  We have this fully leased.  The center section is 20,000sqft.  This section is sold to Alpha Imaging.  The building that we can’t find a tenant for is this 80,000 sqft area in the end.  This entire side of the building is a canal, western ave is the entire front of this building, with a parking lot and railroad tracks.  There is noting here that will bother those working or living here.  The owner of Alpha Imaging is delighted by the fact that we are in here to request this mixing. 

J. Frechette: Do you anticipate some of the artists to move out of the space of current artists and into the new space?

Karl Fry: We have a waiting list for the current space.  And I would be delighted if these artists would move here.  The price for these units is on the very low end.  We might loose some of the studio tenants, but right now we have a waiting list for these.

J. Frechette: As it is frustrating to preserve the industrial space, I think this takes into account the concerns of the industrial zones, and I think it actually lays out quite nicely. 

R. Lockhart: Would this plan that we have in front of us, does this include the old Joan Fabric building on Western Ave?

Karl Fry: The only building would include the Western Ave studio.  It is the one building that is included.

James Flood: yes it is the old Jones Fabric building.

R. Lockhart: If I owned light industry, I would look for new space first, and the demand for this space is not there. 

T. Linnehan: It will stay light industrial, but this will allow the artists into the zone.

S. Gendron: in the DPD memo, it notes the need to keep Western Ave industrial.  Are there any plans to correct that situation with the Western Avenue?  I must say I didn’t realize we had such a concentration of artists in that building.  Honestly when I came here tonight, I didn’t see how this would survive.  This is a little different that I was anticipating.  And as Mr. Frechette pointed out, this is an ideal for the LI, but we have to let the current situation go forward.

J. Clermont: I understand we don’t want to set a precedent for this area, but in this case, I would be in favor of the proposal to extend the artist overlay district.

T. Linnehan: This is off of Dutton Street, but when you come over the site, this is very secluded.  By looking at this site, I thought about adding the overlay district, this would be an attractive site.  With keeping the underlying light industry, we are still keeping the possibility for light industry.

James Flood: I wanted to make one more comment, the difference between this project, is that this will be restricted to artists only.  So I think this will truly be an artist live workspace

R. Lockhart: In this particular case, it is well substantiated that this industrial zone is not working. 

S. Gendron:  Request that the city explore opening Western Ave to Dutton Street.

Loud applause from audience…

Motion:

Member Richard Lockhart motioned to recommend APPROVAL of the proposed zoning change for 150, 200, 250 Western Avenue.

Member Steven Gendron seconded the motion.

All members voted to recommend APPROVAL of the proposed zoning change for 150, 200, 250 Western Avenue (5-0).

Special Permit: 1881, 1883, & 1857.1 Middlesex Street

Per order of Land Court, the Lowell Planning Board will review an application by Middlesex Partners Limited & Lexy Development for special permit review concerning driveway length in conjunction with the development of the property located at 1881, 1883, & 1857.1 Middlesex Street.  The project 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.  A special permit is sought to allow access to the site via a 426-foot long driveway, through a curb cut located at 1881/1883 Middlesex Street across from Dingwell Street.  The current petition is being heard for special permit review under Section 6.7.2 of the Lowell Zoning Ordinance.

T. Linnehan: To clarify, this has been before the Board several times.  The site plan was approved in June of 2006, the special permit was denied at that time.  The application was again before the board in November of 2006, but was again denied.  The matter went to litigation in land court, and was sent back to the Planning Board.  (Reading court order into record)  If the finding is unfavorable, this matter will go back before land court.  The Board must be determined whether the driveway provides safe and reasonable access for fire police and emergency vehicles.

The following individuals spoke in favor of the project: 

Attorney James Flood (81 Bridge Street, Applicant’s Attorney), Katie Bomengen (Hancock Associates, Applicant’s Engineer), Peter Weis (Chairman of the Board for Bradford Industries)

In Favor:

James Flood (81 Bridge Street, Applicant’s Attorney):  I think you are all familiar with this site.  I represent the developers.  With me are the developers, the engineers, and transportation engineer.  As the Chairman noted, the project is before you tonight regarding the driveway length.  The proposed drive is 426 feet in length, 24 feet wide.  I have resubmitted to the board tonight letters from the police department, from trinity ambulance, from the fire department, and Anne Barton back in July, noting that the drive will provide safe and reasonable access to the site.  I think based on the statements from those city departments; this proposed driveway is safe and reasonable.  I will have Katie go over the plan, but I think we’ve met our word.

Katie Bomengen (Hancock Associates, Applicant’s Engineer): What we have done is we have a 24-foot driveway.  We’ve added guardrails along the rail.  We’ve added a 6-foot high chain link fence.  There is still a sidewalk along the entire site.  There is a proposed bus shelter at the end of the site. 

Peter Weis (Chairman of the Board for Bradford Industries):  It was interesting to hear the artist’s note that light industry is not coming to Lowell, and I believe that is true.  I came to Lowell with an idea, and made a 100 million dollar industry in Lowell.  We are involved in the automobile business.  We’ve been in Lowell a long time.  We can’t afford to stay in this property.  We have a lot of work to do within our business.  We are very anxious to expand our Lowell industry.  We are one of the last manufacturing industries in Lowell.  The other day I was driving down Middlesex Street and there was an 18-wheeler who came by to pick up, and I stood there for several minutes while he was trying to get into our property.  We would really appreciate if the board approves the project.

The following individuals spoke in opposition of the project:

William Emrick (1852 Middlesex Street), Patricia Emrick (1878 Middlesex Street), Anne Dahlma (1959 Middlesex Street), Nancy Judge (Highlands Neighborhood Association)

In Opposition:

William Emerick (1852 Middlesex Street): I would like to thank Mr. Linnehan for visiting the neighborhood.  I am opposed to this special permit.  I don’t think the road is the problem. The problem is the neighborhood.  It takes several minutes to get into my driveway.  The entrance to my driveway is hard.  Emergency vehicles can get down that road no problem.  Right now that intersection is not safe as far as the road goes.  It is a private road.  What about the commuter rail line proposed to extend to Nashua.  Mr. Ready, he was nice enough to put his best foot forward, and right now I feel I have to get more involved.  Even as it stands now, the traffic will get worse.  We are getting young people in the neighborhood.  And most of the others are retirees.  Right now I think it is a bad idea.

Pat Emrick (1878 Middlesex): Mr. Chairman, I am here in opposition of the project.  The proposed road will require the demolition of the duplex at 1881 Middlesex.  This will destroy the neighborhood, and will increase the vibration of the railroad.  The safety of children and elderly will be in jeopardy.  The roadway will be an invitation of illicit activity.  There will be a great increase in traffic.  I also have something here from my daughter.

T. Linnehan: this is a petition to the Board in opposition of the project, and is signed by 15 people, roughly.

Anne Dahlma (1959 Middlesex Street): I am not much of a public speaker.  My friend mentioned the railroad, I had a friend who rented out her condo, and the couple that rented it was out of there in three weeks, the noise was just too great.

Nancy Judge (Co chair Highland Neighborhood Association):  I was asked to get involved in this project.  Over the past few days I have taken a ride through the area.  The traffic is horrendous.  We have seen many changes.  What were once the suburbs of the City has now become condo city.  When is enough, enough.  There are very few single-family homes left.  I would just like to ask this board to take into account our concerns before adding 120 condos.

General Discussion:

James Flood: I’d like to ask that the record be stricken to just those comments that take into account the roadway length with regards to Section 6.7.2. 

T. Linnehan: Yes, we are here just for the roadway length.  The court case states this, and I think the Board members here tonight will take this into account. 

J. Frechette: As I can recall, when this was before us originally, as I look at this, and again under 6.7.2 section, this is subject to this special permit.  This is one of the few times that we have comments from an ambulance company.  Many site issues were brought up.  One condition that I would like add would be speed bumps, and I think this will add to the speed of traffic down this road.  I have a great deal of respect to neighborhood groups, I would recommend that you speak with the Lowell Police Department, and see about getting some enforcement, and you have to stick with that.  However, as I see what we are charged with here this evening, my opinion I think the shelter and the speed bumps will make this very safe.

J. Clermont: Just to follow up with what Mr. Frechette, tonight we are discussing just the special permit.  The developer in my opinion is not asking for any special considerations.  But our bylaws say we must determine whether this is a safe driveway.  In this case we received response from fire, police, and trinity ambulance, and because of this I would still be in favor of granting the special permit.

R. Lockhart: Think we have received substantial information that this is a safe road. 

S. Gendron: I feel that I am here to try to do what is right to do for the City.  Tonight we are charged with the safety of the driveway.  But I think it is our job to look at the bigger picture and look at external factors.  The Fire and police department looks at narrow considerations.  And for them this roadway is safe.  But I think we can look at a wider scope.  And in this case this includes traffic.  It is backed up all the way to the rotary.  This particular site, we are looking at 128 units.  There are a lot of cars going to this site.  Getting onto Middlesex Street will not be an easy task.  The bridge there creates a huge concern.  The area is very congested with the commercial and public space in this area.  In my opinion this does relate to the length of the road.  I brought along the newspaper article regarding the difficulty of traffic in Lowell, and it includes a list of 100 top intersections in Northern Middlesex.  And the number 2 intersection is Wood and Middlesex.  Traffic is horrendous at this spot.  And when we talk about access for emergency vehicles, seconds can determine a lot.  I mean no disrespect, but I need to think on behalf of the neighborhood.

T. Linnehan: Some of the concerns I have with regards to the roadway are the same as when this project was before the site before.  I think we have to look at the whole site itself.  The main concern I have is regards the to roadway.  When you look at the site, you have to look at all around the site.  We have testimony that there will be at least 350 people in those units, and if there is a fire there, how will they get out.  I have to give Mr. Flood a lot of credit for getting the endorsement of this project noting it is safe.  With emergency access, and I see cars parked there.  There are cars parked there all the time.  If the other entrance is not maintained and cars are not towed from there, this will pose emergency concerns.  My concerns are the same as before. I know in the past I am the only dissenter.  If there is a fire back there, and people cannot get out of that site, and I cannot find a specific finding with that many units that the roadway is safe with that length in that congested neighborhood.  I cannot find that that is safe for fire, police, and emergency vehicles.  I don’t think the plans project what is actually happening on the site today.  I think this has a lot to do with my vote. 

R. Lockhart: Motion to approve the SP for length of road, and I think the way it is designed with the speed bumps, and the letters, from a design perspective it is safe.  It is easy to speculate that this will create traffic problems, but I don’t think this is correct.

Motion:

Three members of the Board voted in favor of the project with two members (Member S. Gendron and Member T. Linnehan) voting against (3-2).  The motion failed to obtain the four votes required for a special permit. 

The special permit was DENIED for the following reasons: 

A special permit under Section 6.7.2 is required for all driveways exceeding two-hundred (200) feet in length.  In order for a special permit to be granted under this ordinance, the Planning Board is required to make a specific finding that said driveway “will provide safe and reasonable access for fire, police, and emergency vehicles.”  The dissenting members did not feel that this project’s driveway provided safe and reasonable access for the following reasons: 

1.       The amount of traffic on the proposed main access driveway, as generated by residents of the 128 units, will create an unsafe condition for those residents as well as for those persons traveling and residing along the surrounding roadways.

2.       The site is surrounded by an active railroad line, the Merrimack River, and wetlands, further emphasizing the importance of unobstructed access to the site via the proposed main access driveway and the secondary emergency access drive.

3.       Petitioner offers insufficient evidence to satisfy concerns that parking on the proposed main access drive (by residents or visitors) may obstruct ingress and egress to and from the site.

4.       The secondary emergency access drive, although currently bearing a posted prohibition on parking, is seldom clear of cars.  Cars regularly park on this secondary emergency access drive thereby limiting the ingress and egress to the site in the event that the proposed main access drive may be unavailable. Petitioner has offered insufficient evidence to satisfy these concerns.

5.       During heavy snow events, ingress and egress to the site via the proposed main access drive will be significantly impacted and limited as snow removal vehicles and bulldozers removing snow block access to the site.

Zoning Amendments and Additions

In accordance with M.G.L. Chapter 40A, Section 5, the Lowell Planning Board will consider ordinances to amend “The Code of Ordinances City of Lowell, Massachusetts,” with respect to Appendix A thereof entitled “Zoning.”  Changes, clarifications, and additions are proposed regarding ballpark advertising signage, parking standards for take-out restaurants, deck setback and floor area ratios in selected districts, home occupation regulations, further definition of the applicability of single family homes and commercial additions for site plan review, and other clarifications to the wording of various sections of the Lowell Zoning Ordinance.

During the general discussion phase of the hearing, Richard Sousa (101 Ursula Street) spoke regarding the proposed changes.

Motion:

Member Joseph Clermont moved and Member Richard Lockhart seconded and the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to recommend approval of the above-referenced ordinance, with the following considerations:

1.       Addition to Article II: Definitions – RESTAURANT, TAKE-OUT: Add to the definition, “as defined under 12.4 (g) in Article XII: Table of Uses in the Lowell Zoning Ordinance”

2.       Under Section 5.1 TABLE OF DIMENSIONAL REGULATIONS: Consider lowering FAR to 0.3

3.       Amendment to section 6.3.2: Add a section in the ordinance that would standardize ballpark signage, paying specific attention to sign’s size, material, means of affixing a sign to a fence.  The main intention of the Board is to ensure signs are safely hung and are made of appropriate materials.  Further, the Board encourages requiring all ballpark signage to face internally to the ball field.

ZBA Notices:

110 Burnside Street (Guthrie Richard)

J. Frechette: Motion to recommend DENIAL due to the proposed development being too cumbersome for the site and the requesting of too many variances

J. Clermont: Second the motion

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

685-689 Lawrence Stree