LOWELL HISTORIC BOARD

PUBLIC HEARINGS

November 14, 2005 at 6:00 p.m.

 

 

MEMBERS PRESENT                                                             OTHERS PRESENT

 

Reynold Ilg, Chairman                                                               Keith Bourgeois, Rogers Homes

J. Matthew Coggins                                                                   Anne Cavanaugh, 136 Hanks Street      

Rachel Edlund                                                                           Jeffery J. Cook, Rogers Homes

Richard Lockhart                                                                      Patty Driscoll, Bridgewell          

Martha Mayo                                                                            Sheila Goggin

Wendy Pearl                                                                             Jim Jozokos, Paul Davies & Associates

                                                                                                Sangmoo Kim, Rogers Homes

                                                                                                Roland Mainville, Rogers Homes

                                                                                                JoAnn Menzia

                                                                                                David J. Plunkett, Rogers Homes

                                                                                                Steve Prebble, Varnum Realty

                                                                                                Mark Ready

                                                                                                Michael Ready

                                                                                                Timothy O’Grady Sheehan, 44 Hanks Street

                                                                                                Joseph M. Tucuer, Bridgewell

                                                                                                Elaine White, Bridgewell

                                                                                                Sarah Uhlendorf, Assistant Administrator

                                                                                                Stephen Stowell, Administrator

 

 

 

1.  PUBLIC HEARINGS

 

      A.  AND-06-02:  22 Wiggin Street

Application for an Historic Permit for demolition of existing building and construction of two, three unit, residential structures and associated site improvements.

 

The Chairman read the published Public Hearing Notice and declared the Hearing open to those wishing to speak in favor of the application.

 

The Chairman recognized Steve Prebble of Signature Architects, who acknowledged being authorized by Emile Houle to speak on behalf of Varnum Reality.  Mr. Prebble explained the condition of the existing building on the site and why it was proposed for demolition.   He said that the proposed structures consist of 3 ½ stories and a gable roof with garage door entrances to the rear.

 

The Administrator noted that Design Review wanted to ensure that the primary elevation of both buildings faced the street in one case and in the other, a paved walkway and landscaped area.  He said that this maintains the traditional arrangement of buildings having rear elevations facing rear elevations and the streetscape is not marred by curb cuts and garage doors.

 

Mr. Prebble said that the foundations would be concrete and that “Hardiplank” would be used to side the exterior, trim would be “Harditrim,” and asphalt shingles would be used for roofing.  He also explained the details of the gutters and downspouts, as well as the elevations of the porches facing the street that the Board requested at the October 11 meeting.

 

Having asked aloud 2 more times if anyone else wished to speak on behalf of the proponents and hearing no one, the Chairman declared the Hearing closed to proponents and opened the Hearing to those who wished to speak in opposition. 

 

Michael Ready introduced himself to the Board and stated that he felt proponents were often too eager to jump to demolition of structures which are structurally sound.  Mr. Ready stated that he visited the building and felt it was in fact a sound structure which was vinyl sided, for which he personally has experience rehabilitating similar buildings in the described condition.  He appealed to the Board not to vote for the demolition of the existing building based on the recently passed Neighborhood District standards and the proven support of the public and Lowell Sun in preserving historic neighborhoods. 

 

Having asked aloud 2 more times and hearing no one, the Chairman declared the Hearing closed to opponents and opened the Hearing to comments or question from Board members and the staff.

 

The Chairman asked the applicant if it was true that the building was a sound structure.  Mr. Prebble stated that he had only walked around the exterior of the building and felt that the foundation was in need of repair.  He added that he had not seen the interior of the building.  He noted that though the building may be a sound structure, it would cost a substantial amount of money to rehabilitate.

 

The Chairman asked if the building was currently occupied.  Mr. Prebble confirmed that it was not occupied. 

 

The Chairman added that their appeared to be a lot of overgrowth and lack of upkeep for a period of time.  Mr. Prebble stated that he was not certain how long the building had been vacant.

 

The Chairman stated for the record that 22 Wiggin Street was located in the Acre Neighborhood District which was established in 1999, and noted that the district is separate from the eight neighborhood districts created by the City Council on July 12, 2005 and that the Acre District is regulated by different standards.

 

The Chairman asked if the building was surveyed.  The Administrator said that it was not and detailed the demolition standards for the Acre Neighborhood District.  He stated that any project targeted for demolition by the Acre Plan was an automatic demolition.  The second was if it was in the National Park and Preservation District the presumption was to keep it.  Thirdly, since the rest of the neighborhood was not meant to be a true historic district, it was agreed that anything which had a survey form the presumption was to keep it, anything that didn’t was open to removal. 

 

Ms. Mayo stated that she recalled that was a very informal process.  The Administrator agreed and stated that at the time the standards were accepted, it seemed the best way to determine standards for demolition.

 

The Administrator added that pre-applications were coming out for the Massachusetts Historical Commission’s Survey Planning Grants and he intends to apply for funds to update the Acre and Pawtucketville neighborhood surveys. 

 

Mr. Coggins asked the applicant what was known about the existing building and if he knew when the addition was put on the building.  Mr. Prebble said he did not know when the addition was constructed.  Ms. Mayo stated

that they would not know much if the building had not been surveyed.  Ms. Pearl added that it would be helpful to survey every home in designated districts.  The Administrator agreed. 

 

There was brief discussion by the Board and Administrator about updating the information and surveys in the districts.  The Administrator respectfully reminded the Board that he agreed, but as of now, they needed to make their decision based on the current standard.

 

Ms. Mayo stated that it was important to do some research on the existing building because while it may not be structurally significant, it could be historically significant.

 

Ms. Pearl asked if the Board would then need to change the guidelines.  Ms. Mayo again stated her feeling of its importance to know the history.

 

The Administrator noted that the only other proposal coming before the Board in near future is the old George’s Pizza building on Broadway Street. 

 

Mr. Coggins asked if it would be possible to continue the Hearing in order to get a survey of the historical significance and structural condition.  Ms. Mayo agreed that she would prefer that.

 

The Administrator said that staff could do a report on the historical significance of the building. 

 

Mr. Coggins stated that the Chairman was correct that the Acre Neighborhood District and the eight new neighborhood districts were very different situations, although done in the same spirit.  He still would like to have more information on the existing building before making a decision.

 

Ms. Edlund agreed that it would benefit the Board to have a true report of the condition, rather than simply a cursory examination.  

 

Motion by Mr. Coggins, seconded by Ms. Mayo, to:

 

continue the Hearing and Board discussion on the application, AND-06-02, at 22 Wiggin Street to the December 12 Board meeting pending a survey of the historical significance and analysis of the structural condition of the existing building.

 

      Unanimously approved, 6-0.

 

      B.  AND-06-03: 94-106 Rock Street

Application for an Historic Permit for exterior rehabilitation, construction of an approximately 6,900 +/- square foot building on adjoining vacant lot, and associated site improvements.

 

The Chairman read the published Public Hearing Notice and declared the Hearing open to those wishing to speak in favor of the application.

 

The Chairman recognized Jim Jozokos of Paul Davies & Associates, architect for the project and representing Bridgewell.  Mr. Jozokos explained the mission of Bridgewell as an institution which provides housing for mentally ill patients, as well as runs a soup kitchen.  He further explained that the proposed project is to do minor repair work on the existing two-story brick building, as well as the construction of an approximately 6,900 square foot, 2 ½ story building on the vacant lot.  He also explained the current hazardous parking situation and how the proposal will relocate all parking to the rear of the structure, as well as put in new sidewalks and do landscaping.

 

Elaine White, from Bridgewell, further explained that they proposed to relocate the main entrance to the back of the building, as to minimize the impact of visitors congregating on Rock Street and in front of the building.  She also explained that they planned areas in the rear that people could privately congregate and that landscaping was also planned for the area.

 

Mr. Jozokos explained that they were proposing to use brick on three sides, possibly four depending on budget, to match the existing building.  He continued by explaining the use of double-hung, 1/1, aluminum sash with insulated glass windows, doors would be six panel metal units and roof will be asphalt shingles.  He again stated that the goal was to provide a continuum between the existing and new building by matching materials as closely as possible.

 

Having asked aloud 2 more times if anyone else wished to speak on behalf of the proponents and hearing no one, the Chairman declared the Hearing closed to proponents and opened the Hearing to those who wished to speak in opposition. 

 

Having asked aloud 3 times and hearing no one, the Chairman declared the Hearing closed to opponents and opened the Hearing to comments or question from Board members and the staff.

 

Ms. Edlund noted that she had visited the site and that she saw the people hanging out on a nice day and thought it would be great if they had a nice place to go, as in this neighborhood there currently is not a good place for them.  With that, she added that she was impressed with the proposal and wanted to commend the organization for what they are doing.

 

The Chairman asked the Board if there were any other comments or questions.

 

Mr. Coggins told the Chairman that he would be abstaining from the vote as the City of Lowell has a vested financial interest in this project.  The Chairman accepted Mr. Coggins statement as abstaining from the vote.

 

Motion by Ms. Mayo, seconded by Mr. Lockhart, to:

 

vote to issue an Historic Permit for the exterior rehabilitation, construction of an approximately 6,900 +/- square foot building on adjoining vacant lot, and associated site improvements.

 

·         Submittal, review, and approval of final design and construction details including, but not limited to, specifications for door and window systems, brick, paint colors, shingles, light fixtures, signage, and foundation treatment of new building (light sandblast) prior to commencement of work.  Material and color samples will be required for paint (on-site paint sample), brick and shingles;

 

·         Submittal, review, and approval of final details related to the site plan, landscaping, and other site features including, but not limited to, planting schedule, fencing, dumpsters/screens, retaining wall, signage and lighting; and

 

·         Submittal, review, and approval of any scope of work alterations and final details prior to commencement of work.

 

Work is consistent with sections 3.1, 3.101, 3.12, 3.13, and 3.2 of the Acre Neighborhood District Design Review Standards.

 

Approved, 5-0-1 (Mr. Coggins abstained).

 

      C.  DLHD-06-26:  250 Western Avenue

Application for an Historic Permit for construction of an approximately 12,782 +/- square foot industrial building on an existing vacant lot and associated site improvements.

 

The Chairman stated that the application had been rescheduled to be heard at the Board’s December 12 meeting.

 

      D.  RPND-06-02: 206 Rogers Street

Application for an Historic Permit for construction of two single units and seven duplex residential structures on existing vacant lots and associated site improvements.

 

The Chairman read the published Public Hearing Notice and declared the Hearing open to those wishing to speak in favor of the application.

 

The Chairman recognized attorney David Plunkett, representing Rogers Development.  Mr. Plunkett recognized Jeff Cook as the architect on the project and members of Rogers Development Associates LLC who accompanied him.  Mr. Plunkett explained that since the Board’s last meeting in which their proposal was denied, they have met with Historic Board staff, staff from the Department of Planning and Development and select member of the Historic Board to address the issues presented to them.  It was felt that the changes proposed, specifically concerning Rogers Street and the corner of Hanks Street, fulfilled the requests made by the Board to have it better fit the historical context of the street and site.

 

Mr. Cook stated that his associate Sangmoo Kim would be presenting the revised project.  Mr. Kim presented in detail each of the nine proposed buildings and how each building was associated with the larger site plan and streetscape and how it fit into the context of the neighborhood.  Mr. Kim detailed the proposed materials to be used, as well as proposed fencing, landscaping and parking for the site.  He noted that wood siding and trim would be used along with asphalt roofing shingles, windows would be 1/1 aluminum clad wood units, and that all doors would be either wood or fiberglass. 

 

The Chairman asked aloud again if anyone wished to speak on behalf of the proponents.

 

Mr. Plunkett added that since they were last before the Board on October 11, the project has received site plan approval from the Planning Board. 

 

Having asked aloud is anyone wished to speak in favor for a third and final time and hearing no one, the Chairman declared the Hearing closed to proponents and opened the Hearing to those who wished to speak in opposition. 

 

Michael Ready introduced himself to the Board and stated that he has been involved in this project for months now.  He expressed that he has been against this project from the start.  Mr. Ready gave a brief history of the property as an educational institution and felt that the property was never intended to be used for the purposes of building condominiums.  He asked the Board to strongly consider not approving this project, he added that among activists and preservationists, Lowell was known for approving everything eventually, and he appealed to the Board to not feel they have an obligation to approve this project.

 

The Chairman asked aloud again if anyone wished to speak in opposition.

 

JoAnn Menzia of 30 Hanks Street introduced herself and stated that she was opposed to the project.  She stated that the addition of all of the proposed buildings is too much for the street and community.  She added that the community was made up of beautiful old homes with unique architecture and that these buildings are not in tune with the buildings already there.  Ms. Menzia also stated that every 100-200 year old tree has been removed, with the exception of one, and that the area was already gutted by the demolition of the Alexis Sargeant House and that the addition of the many units does not fit the neighborhood.  She asked the Board to consider how they would feel if it was their community of 12 old homes and they proposed building 37 new homes in your community.  Ms. Menzia thanked the Board for the opportunity to speak.

 

The Chairman asked aloud again if anyone wished to speak in opposition.

 

Tim Sheehan introduced himself and stated that he has lived in his home at 44 Hanks Street since 1985 and that the reason he bought there was for the historical character of the neighborhood, of which he has been proud to maintain by caring for his own home.  He stated that he would have never have bought his home if what was proposed was across the street and that this proposal was a blow to the community.  He felt that it was too crowded and would be a disaster for the neighborhood and the city of Lowell.

 

The Chairman asked aloud again if anyone wished to speak in opposition.

 

Anne Cavanaugh of 136 Hanks Street introduced herself and stated that she appreciated the improvement that have been made on the project and felt that there were some details that she would like to be considered as the project goes forward, considering that it has received site plan approval.  She stated that in Neighborhood Committee review meetings the idea of adding chimneys was proposed, since every building in the neighborhood  does have a chimney.  She also asked that since all of the parking areas would be paved in asphalt, to consider making the walkways another material, possibly concrete.  Ms. Cavanaugh also asked them to consider a great landscaping plan to reduce the feel of it being too dense.  Her third request was to consider garage door which would add to the feeling of a carriage house which they stated they were aiming to have and to put extra consideration into the appearance of the garage doors in general.

 

Having asked aloud for a final time and hearing no one, the Chairman declared the Hearing closed to opponents and opened the Hearing to comments or question from Board members and the staff.

 

Ms. Pearl explained that in meeting with the applicant to discuss the corner at Rogers and Hanks Streets, it was clear that there were a lot of constrains of the property, that it was possibly zoned incorrectly, and it allows for this kind of development and at this point that is all the Board has to work with.  She stated that they have to apply the current standards for this district and that it is clear that whatever the decision is would be a compromise as the zoning for the property is what it is.  She stated that she felt the applicant has done all they can to maximize the setbacks, as well as adding a porch to the corner building to add mass to the building and then have the next building stepping back further to make the new buildings fit better with the existing buildings.  Ms. Pearl also noted that they agreed on a new allee of trees being planted in front of the buildings, which is not represented on the site plan, as well as additional large trees to be planted between the buildings.

 

Mr. Cook stated that the landscaping was represented on the plan.  Ms. Pearl stated that it was not exactly what they had talked about and that the allee seemed to be missing.  Mr. Cook confirmed that it was not shown on the plans but would be no problem to add.

 

There was clarification of the fence details pointed out by Mr. Cook and the Administrator.

 

The Administrator stated that as part of the conditions of the permit it states that the “Applicant to coordinate with DPD Design Planner regarding selection of trees and other plantings to ensure compatibility with site and approved plan” and that would certainly cover the issue of the allee.

 

Mr. Cook added that probably the biggest tree that they would be able to plant would be 3” in diameter, after that the chance of survival decreases.

 

The Chairman stated for the record that when he, Ms. Pearl, Historic Board Staff, and DPD met with the applicant about the project the concerns of the Board were addressed.  He also stated that prior to the first submittal, the Neighborhood Committee had met, and that though some minor issues were brought up, the proposal did meet the zoning guidelines and that the Committee felt the proposal was overall agreeable.  He added that the issues of chimneys was raised by him at that meeting, though he wished they had been addressed, he noted that they were not ultimately added. 

 

Mr. Lockhart stated that through proper landscaping the impact of the buildings and density could be greatly reduced.  He also asked of the applicant what the proposed lighting was.  Mr. Kim stated that fences would shield car headlights from neighbors.  Mr. Cook added that site lighting would consist of several posts and off of buildings.

 

Ms. Mayo asked if there was fencing all around the development.  Mr. Cook stated that there was not, that fencing would only be used to shield visible parking spaces and cars from the street.

 

The Chairman stated for the record that the work to be done on the existing buildings would not fall under the Historic Board purview.

 

The Chairman asked the Board if there were any other comments or questions.

 

Mr. Coggins commented that he appreciated everyone attending tonight.  He agreed most with Ms. Cavanaugh’s comments and that though the project has clearly come a long way, based on what the City Council approved and the community demanded, that the project is not where it needs to be yet.  Mr. Coggins stated that he could not support this proposal.

 

Ms. Pearl asked Mr. Coggins if there was anything in particular or any changes that he could recommend.  Mr. Coggins felt that Ms. Cavanaugh’s comments about the aesthetics were true and that in all of the talks about the neighborhood districts the purpose was to maintain the character of the neighborhoods and that he did not feel this did that yet.

 

The Chairman stated that there was question concerning the use of asphalt as a paving material and asked the applicant to expound on that.  Mr. Cook stated that they planned to pave the parking areas in asphalt and use gravel for the walkways. 

 

The Chairman asked for a motion. The Administrator stated that if there were more questions about aesthetics and design that the motion could be to continue, but he added that if it was continued that only the Board members present tonight could act on the application from this point forward.

 

Motion by Mr. Coggins to:

     

continue the Hearing and Board discussion on the application, RPND-06-02, at 206 Rogers Street to the December 12 Board meeting pending improvements made to the esthetics of the design to better fit the character of the neighborhood.

     

Mr. Plunkett stated that this proposal has gone through many hours of review by Mr. Parrott, the Administrator, staff at DPD and the architects and that he would ask that be considered.

 

The Chairman stated that in the recommended motion one condition states “Submittal, review, and approval of final design and construction details including, but not limited to, specifications for door and window systems, railing systems, paint color, shingles, light fixtures, and foundation treatment prior to the commencement of work,” that the “Wood siding and trim be smooth” and that he noted that the Board does have many of the issues of aesthetics which will have to come before the staff at least before final approval.  He stated that he felt the issues expressed were covered in the recommended motion.  He felt that with all the work that has been done and the zoning issues present, that the project is where it needs to be.

 

Ms. Pearl stated that she would support a continuance if the Board could specifically pinpoint a section of the guidelines to give the applicant direction, and that saying it doesn’t feel right is not constructive.  She stated that the previous issue was orientation and setback and that has been pushed as far as it can be.  She added that short of saying units have to come off the site, which we cannot do, she didn’t know what to do to free up the site.  She again stated that if the Board can point to something specific, she would support a continuance, but if not than she could not support it.

 

Mr. Coggins withdrew his motion for a continuance.

 

Mark Ready asked the Chairman if he could speak and was respectfully denied.

 

Ms. Edlund stated that there has been significant improvement of the quality of the presentation and increased detail in the plans and she appreciated their work.  The Chairman agreed with her comments.

 

The Chairman asked if there was a motion.

 

Motion by the Chairman, seconded by Ms. Edlund, to:

 

issue an Historic Permit for construction of two single unit and seven duplex residential structures on existing vacant lots and associated site improvements at 206 Rogers Street in the Rogers Fort Hill Park Neighborhood District conditional upon the following:

 

·      Submittal, review, and approval of final design and construction details including, but not limited to,

specifications for door and window systems, railing systems, paint color, shingles, light fixtures, and foundation treatment (light sandblast) prior to commencement of work.  Materials and color samples will be required for paint (on-site paint sample) and shingles;

 

·      Wood siding and trim to have smooth (not raised grain) surface.  Sample of final selection to be submitted

     for review and approval prior to purchase and installation;

 

·      Submittal, review, and approval of final details related to the site plan, landscaping, and other site features

including, but not limited to, planting schedule, fencing (including replication of historic fence along Rogers Street), paving, dumpsters/screens, signage, and lighting prior to commencement of work.  Applicant to coordinate with DPD Design Planner regarding selection of trees and other plantings to ensure compatibility with site and approved plans;

 

·      The applicant withdrawing any appeal or legal action against the Board relevant to the Board’s decision

regarding RPND-06-01 at Public Hearing on October 11, 2005 and dated/filed at the City Clerk’s office on October 17, 2005; and

 

·      Submittal, review, and approval of any scope of work alterations and final details prior to commencement

     of work.

 

Work is consistent with sections 3.10, 3.20  and 3.30 of the Rogers Fort Hill Park Neighborhood District Design Review Standards.

 

           The Chairman asked for a roll call vote.  The Administrator read the roll.

     

           Coggins – N       Edlund – N       Ilg – Y        Lockhart – N       Mayo – N                   Pearl - Y 

 

      Denied, 4-2.

 

      Motion by Ms. Edlund, seconded by Mr. Lockhart, to:

 

reconsider the denied application, RPND-06-02, at 206 Rogers Street.

 

      Unanimously approved, 6-0.

 

      Motion by Mr. Coggins, seconded by Mr. Lockhart, to:

 

vote to continue the Hearing and Board discussion on the application, RPND-06-02, at 206 Rogers Street at the December 12 Board meeting.

 

      Unanimously approved, 6-0.

 

      The Public Hearings were closed at 7:05 p.m.

 

 

 

 

LOWELL HISTORIC BOARD

REGULAR MEETING

November 14, 2005 at 6:00 p.m.

 

 

MEMBERS PRESENT                                                             OTHERS PRESENT

 

Reynold Ilg, Chairman                                                               Sarah Uhlendorf, Assistant Administrator

J. Matthew Coggins                                                                   Stephen Stowell, Administrator  

Rachel Edlund                                                                          

Richard Lockhart                                                                                 

Martha Mayo                                                                           

Wendy Pearl                                                                            

 

 

2.   MINUTES

 

Approval of the Minutes of July 11, August 8, September 12, and October 11, 2005.

 

Motion by Mr. Coggins, seconded by Ms. Edlund to;

 

      continue the approval of the submitted Minutes to the Board’s December 12, 2005 meeting.

 

Unanimously Approved, 6-0.

 

The Administrator stressed the importance of the minutes for the October 11 meeting as the proposal for 206 Rogers Street is being appealed.  He added that a section of the tape from that meeting was also missing and would have to be reconstructed by himself and the Board and for them to pay particular attention to that when reviewing them.

 

3.   OTHER BUSINESS

 

A.  Administrator’s Report

 

The Administrator stated that he and the Assistant Administrator have been taking digital photographs of violations and are gearing up to send out several Request for Compliance letters in the coming weeks.  He added that this process is also a training exercise for the new Assistant Administrator and that an update of the targeted violations will be provided soon.

 

The Administrator updated the Board on the progress at 26-28 Lawrence Street and that interested parties have been contacted to check on their status and that he felt they should probably do is have the RFP redone and redistributed.  He added that the funding for the project was 50% Massachusetts Preservation Projects Fund and 50% federal HOME funds.  The HOME funds require that the use be affordable housing unless the HOME funds are reimbursed.  One of the organizations that has expressed interest, Common Ground develops affordable housing.

 

The Administrator stated that FY06 review and permitting activity is holding steady with FY05.

 

The Administrator presented a talk on Lowell’s mill architecture for the Boston Society of Architects’ Historic Resources Committee on October 13.

 

Planning has begun on the fifth annual Doors Open Lowell which will be held May 4-6, 2006 as well as the Doors Unhinged! component of the event.

 

Staff is assisting the Merrimack Valley Catholic Charities with their upcoming Christmas House Tours being held on December 11.  Work has included providing historic research for the homes that will be open that will be used in materials related to the event.

 

B.   Board Member Items/Inquiries

 

Ms. Mayo asked for an update on 506 Market Street.  The Administrator stated that he had talked to Mr. Gray concerning the property and Mr. Kazanjan’s status and would be getting back to him.  Ms. Mayo reminded the Board that this property has been in question for five years.

 

The Board wished Mr. Aucella a quick recovery from his recent illness.

 

The Board began a discussion regarding the status of the proposal at 206 Rogers Street and what members were interested in seeing with regard to it.

 

Ms. Pearl stated that she needed clarification, since the site plan was driven by the zoning, she asked if there were other options that would have meet the Board’s standards. 

 

Ms. Edlund stated that the Board could still look at what is happening massing wise and that was part of the community’s problem with the project.

 

The Administrator said that so far the Board and staff has been able to meet with DPD staff to create a comprehensive project, and the fear now is that the applicant may decide to breakup the site and build one building at a time, in which the Board could possibly lose control in the overall look and composition of the site. 

 

The Administrator noted that with the continuance, that only a 48 hour public notice would be required to meet regarding the proposal and that only the six members present tonight would be able to act on the proposal. 

 

Ms. Pearl stated that the massing is hard to sell because all of the buildings in the area are huge.

 

Ms. Edlund stated that floor plans are awful and felt they determined the type of buyer for these homes and that is not the type of buyer for this neighborhood.

 

The Administrator stated that the plans were actually done with the buyer for the neighborhood in mind.  Ms. Edlund stated that they would not get that buyer.

 

Mr. Lockhart asked for a clarification of the term massing.  Ms. Edlund stated that it referred to the scale of the building and volume. The Administrator noted that they did try to emulate the scale of the proposed buildings with those found across the street.

 

Ms. Mayo stated that she did not feel they matched the massing of the other buildings in the neighborhood and on the site.

 

The Administrator stated that staff is now looking for direction from the Board as to what needs to be improved upon in these plans.

 

Ms. Pearl stated that she felt at the October Board meeting it was the consensus that the back part of the site plan was pretty much resolved and had a rhythm keeping with the neighborhood.  Ms. Edlund asked for specification as to which part she was referring to.  Ms. Pearl confirmed she was referring to Hanks Street and the northern part of the site plan. 

 

Ms. Mayo asked if there were other spaces in the city which should have been zoned for institutional, which were not, and how they dealt with it.  The Administrator noted that this area was unique because it was in the middle of a large two-family zoning area.  He said that the new zoning was in response to the City trying to close up some loop holes which were existing and develop zoning that was more responsive to community and neighborhood character and that he felt they did a good job of achieving that.

 

Ms. Pearl stated that the issue of zoning was a major concern as this site plan is not a traditional example of what they Board prefers to see, but since it is allowed by zoning, the Board must work within different parameters. 

 

The Administrator asked Mr. Lockhart if he could clarify the Planning Board’s request to add additional parking spaces, above and beyond the normal number required by zoning.  Mr. Lockhart confirmed that the Planning Board did increase the rate from 2.5 to either 2.7 or 2.8 to satisfy the needs of visitor parking for this project.

 

The Administrator asked the Board to think about suggestions for the applicant and to get back to staff concerning their thoughts.

 

Ms. Edlund stated that they definitely needed to see additional site plan information, including lighting and accuracy of the landscaping and trees.

 

Ms. Pearl suggested that they do a streetscape illustration.  The Board all agreed that an illustration from a person’s point of view would be very helpful.  The Administrator noted that Mr. Cook has done streetscape images in the past for projects.

 

4.   ADJOURNMENT

 

      Motion by Mr. Coggins, seconded by Ms. Mayo, to:

 

            adjourn the meeting at 7:25 p.m

 

_________________________________

 

Sarah Uhlendorf, Assistant Administrator

Stephen R. Stowell, Administrator

Lowell Historic Board