Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

🎵 🎵 ¶¶ Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. ¦ ¦ Thank you. ¶¶ Thank you. ¦ ¦ Thank you.

Good evening and welcome to the Lowell Planning Board for September 10th, 2026. This meeting is being broadcasted live on Channel 6 and also on the Lowell LTC YouTube page. Starting off tonight's meeting, the first thing on the agenda, is the August 17th, 2026 minute. I'm gonna make a motion to continue that to our next meeting due to the fact that we have short staff on the board members this evening. So I'm gonna make a motion to continue that till September 24th, our next meeting. All in favor? Aye. Any opposition? Hearing none, those minutes will be continued to that date. The next matter is a site plan review and special permit. 123 University Ave. TLG le LLC has applied to the low planning board seeking site plan review inspection permit approval to convert the existing building at the above address into a mixed use building with 2 ground floor commercial unit. In 12 studio apartment, the subject property is located in a traditional mixed use zoning district, the polls will be quiet site plan review approval from the low planning board for section 11 dash 4. for residential development with more than three residential units and special permit approval from the Lowell Planning Board for Article 12.1 for the construction of greater than 11 residential units. We did receive a request from the applicant in writing requesting that this matter be continued to the October 5th matter. It was a request to the board. Any questions on the continuance?

No.

If not, I'll make a motion to continue until October 5th. All in favor say aye. Aye. Chair votes yes as stated. Any opposition? Hearing none, that motion carries. That matter will be continued until October 5th. Moving along on the agenda, we have a site plan revision and special permit. for 331 Davidson Street. 22 Heard Street LLC has applied to the Lowell Planning Board seeking site plan review and special permit approval to convert an existing four-story commercial building to four C3 residential units at 131 Davidson Street and 129 Howe Street. The subject property is located in the downtown mixed-use Zoning District, that proposal requires site plan review per Section 11.422 to construct a development with more than three dwelling units and a special permit per Article 12 for the use. So... So Matt, since we only have three people here and you're looking for a special permanent as well, you're gonna need all three votes. So if you'd like a continuous, we could entertain that. Or if you wanna go forward, it's whatever your pleasure.

I would like to go forward. Okay. If at some point during the meeting where we're not meeting of the minds with the site plan and everything that we were asked to do, then we may request a continuance if that's needed. Okay. So for the record, my name is Matt Hammer with Lamplex Engineering. 60 Fletcher Street, Lowell, Mass. I'm glad that Caleb was able to join us tonight after reviewing the proceedings from the prior meeting, of which it was requested that we do a little bit of work on the parking area It was requested of us to provide a solid fencing, that it would be a white vinyl fencing, which we've added to the plan. Additionally, it was requested that we provide a fenced-in dumpster area, which has been provided on the plan. Details for that fencing are shown on the plan as well. We were also requested to provide some landscaping, even though we have minimal areas to do so we provided a landscaped area in this little portion here which was available to cut the pavement out and to make a landscaped area which will predominantly be shrubs put into that area and that's shown here and we would work with dpd to improve that or take recommendations at the time that that's going to be installed which could be a condition of the permit as well. The other aspect would be we would remove that existing chain link fencing and that would actually give us a little bit more area at the back of the parking area also for some additional snow storage as well. That's the primary change to the site plan. Additionally, we have a full plan set that's been provided to the board. And I'll walk through the changes that were requested in order to work on what was deemed spruce up the front entranceway. not in a landscape sense, but partially in a landscape sense, where we're going to provide two planter units in front of the entranceway. We're also going to propose two wall-mounted light fixtures on either side of the entranceway.

good evening scott brown the architect for the project oh i'll let the architect uh uh go through his uh front entrance way improvements please wasn't able to make the last meeting um but uh am aware of some of the comments that were made at the last meeting again for the record scott brown the architect for the project with a office in Newburyport, Mass. So we have made some minor changes as a result of the comments from the last meeting. They are minor, but I do think they make a major difference. So this is the front elevation of the building as we would see it from Davidson. And as you all are probably aware, the existing building has two sort of uninviting front entrances at the moment. And it is our plan to abandon one of those entrances and consolidate them into uh a one entrance located here um so what we've done uh since the last submission is that we've added a couple of things and matt had just made mention of those we've provided a couple of wall mounted light fixtures on either side of the door specification sheets for those fixtures are now on this drawing I'm not sure if you folks saw this sort of entry canopy that we're proposing. I'm not sure if you saw that in the last submission, but we do have this sort of curved entry over that, curved canopy over that entry. The one thing that we did do, which I think makes a huge difference, is we were previously proposing both of these entrances to remain black. uh to be a black metal product and we have since uh altered that uh where this entrance is white to match the windows uh because this is well actually this is not an entrance it's uh the existing entrance that we're abandoning so this is going to be white to match the windows and the new entrance is going to be a a wood color something that's a little more inviting And on either side of that entrance, we are proposing sort of two planters on the ground. We do have to be careful about the size of these because this is a five foot wide sidewalk and it is an accessible path. So we have to maintain clearances. So those are really the only changes to the front elevation. This is a building that is in excellent shape. There's not a lot that we need to do to the exterior, which is a good thing. So west side elevation, this is as you would see the building from the adjacent parking lot. This is also considered the right side. The front entrance here is on the left. Again, not a lot that we need to do to this side. We are making some major changes at the roof. There's two giant mechanical units that are being removed. So that's going to be a major improvement to this building. All of the fenestration is staying and so with the exception of some, you know, selective repointing and the addition of some flood vents, we're making very few changes to this elevation. No lighting is proposed on this side of the building. This is our rear elevation as you would see it from our parking lot. There's an existing street light that is not far from this side of the building. So we're hoping with a combination of that and the addition of two light fixtures on this side will provide enough lighting for a parking lot. And that light fixture is the cut sheet for that is there. These will both be dark sky compliant. And like the other elevations of building, again, very, very little we're doing here. There is one window that we're modifying here. You can see this line because that kernel window sort of cuts through a floor level. And we're actually shortening that and infilling that with masonry. Finally, coming full circle. as you would see the building from Howe Street. Again, removing the giant rooftop mechanical units. On this side, we do have a street light on this corner of the building, like I just previously mentioned. a street light also on this corner of the building we do have an existing entrance and exit here so we're providing a new light fixture above that but that is the only new light fixture that we're providing on this elevation and that cut sheet is there and again with the exception of some selective repointing and the addition of flood vents very very little work on this elevation. So with that, when the time comes, if and when the time comes, I'll be happy to answer some questions. Thank you very much.

Thank you, sir. Thank you very much, Scott. So as you can see, see from the work that was done from the architect that we provided a significant amount of additional lighting in order to provide the lighting needed for folks getting out of their vehicles and coming into the building and along the building. So, we feel as though we've addressed that particular request. Additionally, Part of DPD's comments recommended four conditions, and we have no problem with all four of those conditions. They have mainly to do with the utilities to the building, which would normally be done in order to bring the building up to full compliance with sewer water and being compliant with any building codes, which was also cited in the fourth condition from the fire department. With those changes and the revised plans that were submitted, we felt as though, we feel as though that the request being made by the, from the last meeting had been met. We've gone through the special permit requirements with the board with a full narrative. And we can open up to any questions that the board may have related to where we're at now with these changes.

So Matt, we just got an email late this afternoon. I don't know if you got it. I did.

Yes, I saw that email.

I'm just in a meeting. So I reckon then I'll let you respond if you could. I didn't see it. So these gentlemen told me it would say they could come in at 5 o'clock, 10 o'clock, whatever. Yes, I have read that. Yeah. Yeah. So this is from Terry Ryan, parking director. After watching the planning board meeting where 131 Davidson Street was discussed, I wanted to reach out and let you know that the Davidson lot is used daily by MCC under contract with the City of Lowell. The students fill the lot daily when school's in session. In addition to the daily use, the lot is used to support events at the Lowell Memorial Auditorium with frequent weekend events such as dance and gymnastic competitions. So if you could just go over there. Parking requirements and I mean, I know you went over the last time, but since we got this letter, I'd like to have you address that if you would please.

Sure. So thank you. So we in no way meant to imply that we had any sort of parking agreement or any parking specific to the direct parking area that's adjacent to this site. We just recognize that there is a parking area directly adjacent to the site, as well as other parking areas adjacent to the site, namely the Lower Locks parking garage, which currently is underutilized at the time being. We also have within walking distance the parking garage on John Street as well. But specifically in the zoning district, parking is actually not required. So we've made reference to that in our narrative. We're not in any way saying that the parking area directly adjacent to our site is what we're utilizing in order to suffice the parking requirement, because as I've previously said, it's not a requirement. We just wanted to make note that we do have a lot of parking around. and we have multiple opportunities to utilize that parking for anyone who wants to decide that they want to have a vehicle in these units i should make mention specifically that these are very small units we have a range of size of units and we're anticipating that a good portion of these units likely will not need parking some people may not want to have vehicles living in a small unit living in the downtown district so I've made mention in our narrative the zoning ordinance which identifies that in this district it's not required to have parking, which is similar to other repurposed buildings in this area that have not needed or required to have parking that have been issued permits for the conversion of office to residential, namely the buildings up on Merrimack Street, as well as Central Street. A number of those buildings have been repurposed from office to residential and parking was not required in the issuance of those special permits for those particular sites. Thank you.

So at this point in time, I'm going to open up to the public. Anybody here like to speak in favor of this project? In favor, in favor, in favor? Hearing none. Anyone like to speak in opposition? In opposition? In opposition? Hearing none. I'll turn it over to the board members. Caleb, can I start with you?

I feel like maybe. I'll go first then. I'm not here. Okay.

So, as indicated last time, he did the presentation and indicated that he didn't need the parking and parking was nearby available. And some of the board members wanted to see the landscaping plan, which he came back with. want to see more of the snow storage plan which they came back with they wanted to see more um the trees are possible either in the front or on the back or on the side if possible on what's it um the side street there um with the wheat Street I think no it's on the other one I'm sorry um and what was the other concern let me just check back here on my note give me one second um So the question came up was that they landscaping lighting. Lighting in the parking area as well as any lighting they can put on the side of the building. Pack a lot screening. And the trash or dumpster which was we found out was indicated it was a dumpster and it was. It's on site and they showed with that is in that screen now. And indicated we went over the staff comments at the last meeting as well. And then we got continued for those. Matters to be addressed by the board members and is indicated. The planning staff has requested proposed conditions for matters. One with the engineering. Actually 3 with the engineering one with the 5th 5th apartment which we obviously that hand out. Number one with the applicant shall also perform the video inspection. of the existing sewer service to conform its condition and determine whether it is suitable for reuse of the proposed 43 units. The applicant said they will go along with that recommendation. The applicant shall replace the sidewalks around the building with new concrete sidewalks meeting current city and ADA standards. The work shall include a wheelchair curb ramp. with a cast-iron detectable warning panel, detectable. Proposed 3, the applicant shall obtain all required permits from the engineering department prior to commencing work, including trench, street opening, water connection, and sewer connections. And the fire department requested the applicant shall comply with all current 780 CMRs, 527 CMRs, 100 as well as And that pg regulations that apply per occupancy use and the applicant said they were in favor those conditions and I think that covers all the matters addressed by planning staff So As far as I'm concerned, I think they met the request from planning staff as well as what the board members requested last time when we continued to tonight to update the matters as indicated. So I think they satisfied at least my concerns on any project on this matter. Thank you. Any questions? I don't have any questions right now. No? Okay. Caleb?

Yeah, I think I agree with the Chair that it seems like most of the requests are addressed. I just have one or two questions. I think regarding the parking requirement, i agree with the chair as well not an issue but i i know but the parking director mentions there is a contract and i understand like from the site plan you might take one space for the dumpster so if would that be a problem just wondering i will not okay Because I think the director said that he would attach something, but I couldn't find it. So I figure it's for your client to figure it out, to not break any contract. Thank you for the answer. Secondly, I recall a member asking about the sizing of the dumpster, and you mentioned if it's not big enough, then... there will be daily collection, et cetera, so.

That could very well be. So, essentially, This area will be able to handle two roll-away dumpsters. So, you know, we anticipate that they're going to need to be dumped probably twice a week. Okay. But if they need to be more frequent than that, then that's going to have to be the case. You know, the city does have some jurisdiction over, you know, dumpsters. So... If it needs to be emptied more, then that'll be the case.

OK. Because I recall we have one case that they have a dumpster issue before. And so I'm just wondering if the board feel like we need to address it in any conditions or not. I will think that I posed the same question about snow storage, because I see snow storage on the edge, but it is limited. Yep. So whether, I mean, we should add in a condition to address like trucking the snow out if needed?

It will have to be trucked off if there's, you know, usually we get a few snow storms where, you know, you need to go to extra measures to ensure that the snow is removed from the site. they'll have to remove this snow from the site if, in fact, we get a few big snowstorms.

Okay. I think, do we need a condition? Probably not.

Okay. We already met the, what we requested to do the last time.

Yeah, otherwise, I think I like the new architecture enhancement with the limited space you have around the building. So thank you. Thank you very much.

Do you have anything to add? I'll make a motion to approve the site plan with the following conditions. I'll stop by the ones that were proposed by planning staff, the ones I read earlier, but I'll read them into the record as well. Proposed condition by the Engineering Department is requesting condition number one, the applicant shall also perform a video inspection of the existing sewer line to confirm its condition and determine whether it is suitable for reuse for the proposed 43 residential units. Proposed condition two, the applicant shall replace the sidewalks around the building with new concrete sidewalks meeting current city and ADA standards. The work shall include a wheelchair curb ramp with their cast iron detectable warning pad. Condition number three, the applicant shall obtain all engineering permits from the engineering department prior to commencement work, including trench, street, opening, water connections, and sewer connection permits. From the fire department fire department proposed condition for the abolition shall comply with all current 780 CMRs 527 CMRs 1-100 as well as NFPA regulations that apply per occupancy type. I'm sure I know Matt you understand what all those CMRs stand for. I know you've been here plenty of times in the past. You don't have any questions on those like you said you agree with that. I would also add the condition that I was indicated that the dumpsters be screened and pick up to be as necessary as needed if needed daily as well. And for the vinyl fence to be put I believe in the back area of the parking lot. Right and And also if snow storage gets too heavy, that snow storage shall be trucked out if the snow is needed to free up any parking spaces. Any board members have any comments on those or anything else I'd like to add? If not, that's my motion for the site plan. Second. Motion second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Chair votes yes. Any opposition? Hearing none, the site plan is approved. Three in favor, none against. I'll also make a motion to approve this special permit with the exact same conditions that was outlined and approved on the site plan. Second the motion. Motion made and seconded. All in favor say aye. Aye. Chair votes yes, that's indicated by making the motion. And any opposition? Hearing none, the special permit is approved. Three in favor, none against as well. We understand the concerns for the parking, but it's indicated it doesn't need any parking in that zoning district. but as indicated, they're about parking areas in the Joaquin vicinity.

Thank you so much, Chair and members of the Board.

Thank you very much. Have a good night. Okay. Okay, moving along on the agenda, our next matter is 70 Storm Questabs. This is for a site plan review, 70 Stormcrest Avenue, because the Engine Enterprise INC has applied to Lowell Planning Board seeking a site plan review approval to demolish the existing single-family home and construct two duplexes resulting in four residential units at the above address. The subject property is located in a suburban multifamily zoning district. The proposal requires site plan review approval for Section 11.4 for development with greater than three residential units. May we hear from the applicant, please?

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good evening to all. For the record, my name is John Geary of Geary and Geary LLP, 32 Church Street, Lowell, Mass. I'm here tonight representing the applicant and owner of 70 StrumQuest Avenue, Cassandian Enterprise, Inc. With us tonight, we have Alan Cassandian and David Gray from Cassandian. We have Matt Hammer, who just stepped out for a moment, from LandPlex. And we have Angie Verge, our landscape architect. In advance of tonight's hearing, we have provided the Board with three different plans. We have provided the detailed site plan. We have provided the architectural plans, which include the floor plans, the elevations, as well as a rendering of the building situated on the lot. And we have also provided a landscape plan. We're here tonight seeking site plan review pursuant to section 11.4 of the city zoning ordinance in order to redevelop this property from its current use as a single family home into four units, two duplex buildings totaling four dwelling units. The lot consists of 14,363 square feet of land area, and it's located within the suburban multifamily zoning district. The use, that is the four units, is an allowed use within the SMF district. As I mentioned, the proposal includes two duplex buildings, which is four townhouse-style dwelling units. Each unit will contain 1,500 square feet, approximately 1,500 square feet of living space, two bedrooms, one and a half baths. Each unit will have the typical garage under, which is customary for a townhouse-style unit. Access to the units will be through Weed Street. The buildings will face one another across a central drive aisle. Each unit will have three parking spaces. There will be one parking space in the garage and two parking spaces along the side of each unit. So we're providing more than sufficient parking. The applicant intends to create a condominium, establish a unit owner organization, and the plan is to sell the units hopefully to owner occupants. Trash and recycling will be handled through city services with the typical bins. The recycling trash bins will be brought to the curbside for pickup, and once picked up, they'll be brought back to the units. We have reviewed the staff comments that were submitted for this project. Staff notes the application meets the criteria pursuant to 11.4 for site plan review. There are several proposed conditions, most of which relate to engineering. We've had the opportunity to review all of those conditions, and we would have no issue conditioning any approval upon those conditions. As I noted this, this proposal is otherwise zoning compliant. There's no, we're not seeking any relief from the zoning board of appeals. The, the four units is as of right in the SMF district. So that's a synopsis of the project with that. I'll turn the project over to Matt so he can go into some detail with the plans and then we'll, we can hear from Angie. Thank you. Thank you, counselor.

For the record, Matt Hammer with Lamplex Engineering, 60 Fletcher Street, Lowell, Mass. So we have Stromquist here. And we have Weed Street here. Weed Street dead ends down at the end here. And there's an existing single family dwelling that'll be removed, obviously, in various outbuildings, sheds over here, as well as a curb cut off of Weed Street. The site is fairly level and sloping down into this corner here. We have utilities on Stromquist and Weed Street as well. So this is a suburban multifamily zoning district. The minimum lot area is 20,000 square feet and this existing is 14,463 square feet in size. This is a layout plan. We've been separating the sheets to make them more clear. This layout sheet essentially shows the layout of the four units here and here with a curb cut off of Weed Street. as well as walkways to get to the front entrances of these two units here from Stromquist to the existing sidewalk along Stromquist. Additionally, we were able to utilize areas next to each of the units to provide two parking spaces. on the side of each unit, as well as a parking space and a garage on each unit. So the primary entrance drive will remain clear of any vehicles. Vehicles will need to go into the garages or park along the sides of the units so as to not obstruct anything in the access drive to access the two duplexes. There'll be a sidewalk to get around to the back of these units, which is shown here and here. And there's also walkways along the sides of the units along Stromquist. There's plenty of snow storage areas along the access drive and the parking areas. So we have plenty of snow storage for all the different areas that need to be cleared of snow. This is a utility plan showing the utilities coming in to the site. There was one of the comments that talked about the water services. There'll be an easement provided to the water department in order for the shutoff valves to each individual units, which is common. And then there's proposed utilities for all the units that come in off of this access drive. There was a sewer line that came out to Stromquist that we showed here, and we have no problem with the condition that was mentioned in the comments to provide that sewer service out onto Weed Street. But that's something we typically work with the city on the utilities when the site's being constructed anyways. But we have no problem with that condition that was mentioned in the comments. We have full drainage here shown as infiltration trenches along the drives, at the end of the drives, as well as a subsurface infiltration system for the roof runoff for all the units. And that's essentially the site plan. I can turn it over to the landscape architect if you wanna, you can have Ms. Virge go through the landscape plan with you as well.

good evening my name is Angie verge landscape architecture and design in Carlisle Mass I prepared the landscape plan for 70 Stromquist project so the existing conditions on the site are pretty much void of any vegetation the only tree in the area is this large ash tree that's not in the butters property So we are proposing five new shade trees, which will be a great improvement to the area for the streetscape, for the neighborhood, and overall for the property to help provide some shade to the additional paving areas that we're going to be introducing. We're proposing red maples and red oak, which are all native to Middlesex County. We're also proposing some shrub plantings at the main entrances along the foundations of the two buildings, and also some shrub plantings of evergreens along the property line, some grasses as well. Per staff comments, they did ask for more diversity in the plantings. We had a pretty simplified plant list, so I have since gone from three shrub species to six. So we have increased that diversity, and the majority of the proposed plants on this plant list are Massachusetts and eastern U.S. native plants. We do have areas of turf proposed, and as Matt mentioned, designated snow storage areas at the end of each of the driveways. And overall, the green space that's proposed on this plan is about 38% of the total lot. So I welcome any questions or comments. Thank you.

Thanks, Angie. Mr. Chair, we believe that we have established, you know, by our application submissions, the plans that were presented tonight, that we clearly meet the criteria for site plan approval. So we are respectfully asking for approval this evening, but we're here. We're happy to answer any questions or address any concerns. But that's all we have for right now, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Counselor. At this point in time, I'll open up to the public.

Anybody here this evening like to speak in favor of this budget? In favor? In favor? Hearing none, anyone like to speak in opposition? In opposition? In opposition? Hearing none. I'll turn it over to any board members who have any questions. You want to go first, Caleb, or?

Sure. Sure.

Yeah, go ahead. Can I see a verdict? Sure. Okay. When you come on the approach, I can flip it to anything you want to look at.

I just want to take a peek at it. It looks really big. Yeah, that's all I wanted to see. That was me. And it's going to be over on time. We're not going to have apps in.

So just to be clear, the idea is to condominiumize and sell the units. The hope is that the units will all be unoccupied. These are typically not units that investors would buy.

Thank you. Anybody else want to speak? Anybody else? Anybody else? OK. Back to the board.

Caleb? Yes. There's some question about the size. Just want to ask Matt or attorney Gary. So how tall is the building story-wise? And does that fit the zoning dimension requirements?

Yeah, the building, I believe, is 35 feet high, three stories. It meets the dimensional requirements of the SMF district. The proposal is fully dimensionally compliant. OK, thank you.

Yeah, just want to be on the record on that one. Yeah, I think I like the landscaping plan. And thank you for Ms. Birch for changing the design, revising the design to DPD comments. I think the rendering doesn't do justice because they haven't put the trees up.

Yeah, really just to get a sense of what the building looks like.

But I like the design. And again, stressing that there is no sewing relief requested. One thing I noticed on the rendering is that the balcony on the back building appears to be on the reverse side. And just want to make sure, to verify whether that's a mistake or. You see what he's talking about?

Right above where the white car is? And he's looking at that balcony.

So there's decks that come off of the first story.

Okay.

Yeah.

And do they face each other toward the center driving aisle or do they face different sides?

Yeah, so they face different sides. So for instance, this view right here is the actual garage side. So those would face each other, the decks.

both building will, the ducts will, okay.

And then where there's a doorway, entranceway, there's an extension that comes out over the door entrance. Okay. To give it some more detail there.

Yeah, I think the rendering might be too small to emphasize, but okay, I think as long as it's clear.

It's more clear on the elevations.

On the elevations.

Yep.

Thank you. And... Yeah, and then I recognize, like, there's the underground retention base, retention, how do you call it? Yep. Subsurface infiltration. Infiltration, and then there's also infiltration trenches.

That's correct.

Yep. And one of the conditions proposed has to do with the stormwater permits. Have you engaged them?

So that's a typical condition that's made for all projects that any project that goes through the city in terms of a new project needs to obtain what's called a stormwater permit. And that stormwater permit is issued through the wastewater division as well as engineering input to approve that stormwater design prior to construction.

Okay.

So have that happened yet or what happens when it went at the time they go in file for permits for construction, that's when that stormwater permit is a requirement prior to issuing a building permit got it.

Thank you. So I'm not from sure you have no problem putting that conditions on the approval. Yes, not a problem at all. Mr. Garrett mentioned. Can you tell me a little bit about the fencing around here? I know there seems to be existing fencing, right?

So this fencing is going to be removed along this edge, and it's going to be replaced with this robust landscape plan. Okay. Yeah, for screening.

That's the white vinyl fence, right?

Right. That's correct.

And... And it's on your property, I suppose?

We can't take a fence down unless it's on our property.

Got it. Have the applicant talked with a neighbor about that?

The white vinyl is going to stay. That is the neighbor's fence.

Oh, I see.

Oh, excuse me. Yeah, sorry, Matt. So that's going to stay. And as Matt said, the robust landscape plan will also provide additional screening.

got it how about on the back side uh there's no fencing there's no fencing okay yeah um and it's very bushy there right now right yes so I suppose yeah and then it will open up okay um You haven't heard from the neighbors about any concerns?

We've not heard any concerns.

OK. All right. Thank you.

You're welcome. Thank you.

I just have a question. So when you say you have three parking spots, one in the garage, and each unit has two spots, is that one, do you park the car one?

One here in the garage.

OK. And then two on the side. Two on the side. Side by side?

No, end to end.

Tandem faction.

Which the parking spots that are adjacent to each unit are for that unit only. So they can manage those tandem spaces easy enough.

I think the findings look nice. I think it will add to the neighborhood. I know it indicated a lot now is a lot of overgrown trees. I'm kind of familiar with this I know we have some products. In the state would recently I believe we just had one week 3 and then we had another one. A couple streets down I believe and then yeah, if you had the other way we had with the first development that we have to prove last. We don't know that one. Yeah, I know it's a dead end street. I was up there took a lot of pictures. I think it will spice up the neighborhood with the landscaping is indicated. I like the landscape and how they address the concerns that Caleb mentioned. Obviously, you know, we have the adequate parking. I have no problem with that. You meet you meet all the requirements you don't need any the only instance was side job find out we have we had any setbacks and to help me see that. The staff that you comply with all the requirements for the site plan. I know there's a couple of conditions here by engineering fire department stormwater wastewater water department. I believe there's a question on trash and we have to ask questions that you pick up. OK, yeah, didn't mention about the tweet, the shrubs in the back. You address that. Yes, I think you addressed all the questions raised by. City staff. Was there anything else I wrote down? OK. That's all I have to say. Thank you. We need a motion for a site plan approval.

Chair, I'll make a motion of site plan approval with the eight conditions suggested by staff. Should I read it out?

Sure, that way it is. Okay. And for the records that are just having people refer to the document. Okay.

Proposed Condition 1, the applicant shall obtain all required permits from the engineering office prior to commencing work, including but not limited to trench, street openings, sewer, water, and driveway permits as applicable. All work shall be subject to the required engineering department inspections. Condition two, any utility trenches within the existing roadway shall be restored in accordance with city standards, including milling and paving the trench area in one continuous patch. Condition three, the existing water and sewer services shall be cut and kept at their respective mains after demolition of the existing building. Condition four, the applicant shall comply with all current 780 CMR 527 CMR 1.00, as well as any NFPA regulations that apply per occupancy type. Condition five, the applicant shall obtain a stormwater permit from the LRWWU for the subservice infrastructure system. Condition six, the applicant shall connect the project's sewer line to the existing 10-inch PVC main on Wheat Street using the existing line as directed by the LRWWU. Condition seven, the applicant shall have an HOA agreement recorded for the shared sewer service. Condition 8. The applicant shall have all new lines inspected when being installed by the Water Department. And that will be all.

I second that. Okay, motion was made. Second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Chair Wojcicki. Any opposition? Hearing none, the motion is approved. Motion carries. Thank you.

Thank you. Appreciate your time.

Matt, can I just ask a procedural question? So, when does the... Demolition permit going to see the right you do a lot of them if it's the opposite. When did the when you take a building now when does that permit go through. So how does that and all the family. So you start off with a demolition permit that goes be before you before you get this to and then the pocket. That's correct. I think that wasn't sure if he had to get the building from the first before you okay, but that is my question. Thank you.

No, and thanks for the windows on the side.

You too.

Okay, moving along the agenda. Let me get this out of your way, Caleb. Let's see, we got my paperwork in order here. Thank you, Alan. You're welcome. Okay, moving along on the agenda, we have a zoning amendment curb cut requirement. Zoning amendment curb cut requirements in accordance with Master General Law Chapter 48, Section 5. The Lowell Planning Board will hold a public hearing to hear all interested persons relative to an ordinance. to amend the Code of Ordinance, City of Lowell, Massachusetts, with respect to Chapter 290, therefore entitled Lowell Zoning Code by amending Section 6.110, entitled Table of Dimensional Requirements for off-street parking to extend the maximum curb cut to the traditional single-family, traditional two-family, and urban single-family zoning district. Do we have anybody here this evening who is speaking on behalf of the zoning cut chain? Okay, yeah, no problem. Thank you, Dylan. Dylan's just going to open the door, which was closed, so we could be heard. Okay, so anybody here tonight presenting this matter? No applicant present? I noticed nobody else in the room, nobody on Zoom.

There's not, no. If you have a question about what the ordinance does, I can certainly answer that.

I'm sorry, I stood out here with the echo in the back.

I do not believe there's anyone here to present, but if you have any questions about the ordinance, I can certainly answer that.

All right. So what I'll do is I'll read our comments first, then I'll open up and see if anybody here doesn't want to speak. So let's see, we have comments from city staff, from Ms. Dylan Ricker, who's our senior planner, who's present with us this evening. The city of Lowell is proposing to amend the zoning as indicated to those zones. The curb cut requirement applies to all driveway openings regardless of whether a curb is present. The proposal would extend the maximum allowed curb 15 feet to 20. After all, the mentioned requirements for parking areas and driveways would remain the same, including setback requirements to property line. Matt from Kirk up to a limited under zoning ordinance for the following reason preservation of on street parking traffic flow for us to be in a cycle of safety and neighborhood of a static. Why the curb cuts cause a reduction in on street parking is cause part of the street cannot block the driveways allowing. Why the curb cuts allows properties to increase faith bases on their property and further reduce existing green space. And then the current driver regulations property owners may expand the driveways to with beyond 15 as long as they do so at least 3 feet into property and maintain compliance with all zoning regulations include that back. minimum landscape open space requirements dpd staff has concerned that allowing wider curb cuts would further reduce existing green space in the three zones as mentioned and would reduce the amount of off-street parking we look down and all the other city departments have no comments comments excuse me except for engineering comments um And they didn't say why, but the engineers are in favor of this change. There's not any specific reason. I called the engineers department. I spoke with one of the engineers, Joe Cady, and he talked about why they're in favor of the change. He said, in their opinion, they're the ones who do a lot of the driveway permits. If the driveway permits were 20 feet, it would take more cars off the street. He says usually if you have like a 20 by 20 lot, And you only have a 15 foot curb coming in you can only get the one car then you can open up the two So you can really only get three cars if you had a 20 by 20 lot with the 20 foot I've got a 20 foot curb cut then that could open up and you could do the four parking cars And see what else so they indicated that A lot of people now packing on the curbs now and on the sidewalks now and then if they pack on the sidewalk for a period of time, even though might just be do it and they come in and ask if they can pave it and indicate that you have to apply with the curb cut. Comments one way or another. Anybody here this evening like to speak in favor of the zoning change. favor in favor and favor hearing none anybody like to speak in opposition uh the amendment to the zoning change in opposition opposition hearing none at this time i'll turn over to board members uh they have any comments i know we have i'm not sure what triggered this but usually when something comes to us for recommendation there's usually somebody was either denied a curb cut or something of that nature, or someone brought it forward for some denial that they might have had, I guess. I mean, usually people just don't sit at home and walk around and say, that curb cut should be a little bigger. So I guess it has to do with the denial of some of the driveway curb cuts is what I understood from the engineering department. So that's just my feedback from what I gathered from staff and engineering. So I know Caleb has a chart up there looking at that. uh i think what those three zones are the only ones that in the 15. yes um all others like single uh um suburban single family is 20 and then all other stones are 20. oh actually all this other stones are more or more than 20 or 20 more than 20. so like 20 or more right yeah those are the only three zones i got 15 right yes which are a little more consistent in some of the other zones maybe yeah um Yeah. You got so right now in the 15 year that PSF TTF USF is 50. The SSF is 20. You have TMF 25. and the U. N. B. T. M. U. 25. S. M. U. S. M. T. M. U. 25 historic. Late industry those of all. So without much input from anybody, we have them from staff and what I hear from engineering. Go ahead, Caleb.

Yeah, I do want to note that there seems to be special provisions that in all sewn curb cuts serving single family and two family residents shall have a maximum curb cut of 15 feet. which may extend up to 24 feet by right if all parking facilities serving the structure are paved with a pervious service. So I mean, it seems like there's a way that they, maybe they live in a multifamily, but if they are in single and two family, then a parent law, they will have to tear up the existing one if it's not pervious and change it all to pervious and they can get up to 24 by right. So there is that.

So we can recommend these changes, right?

Yeah. So basically, so this comes before us for recommendation like any other zoning change. Then we vote in either in favor of the zoning change or not in favor. And then that goes back to the city council and the city council makes the ultimate decision after public hearing by the council. So the planning board is a non-binding recommendation to the city council, basically on any zone change or amendment to zoning.

You know, you call and you found out that, you know, we can help with, you know, relieving them if these changes take place. You know, less cars on the street. I'm in favor of it.

Caleb, do you have any thoughts on that?

Well, one thing I noticed on looking over the zoning map, these three zones are the tightest, the smallest lot width. And so I can see why DVD staff has concern about taking away on-street parking and also with regard to green space. My staff didn't point out that they can do it wider if they have free fit in anyway. So that also kind of cutting the green space anyway, but it just maybe ultimately is on street versus off street parking. I think one thing that occurs to me is like, well, how much does that five feet make a difference, right? I mean, I know in SSF, it's 20 already, so.

I mean, for some people, it makes a whole lot of difference, you know? I mean, if they tighten, you know, if they need it.

Yeah, if you look at a driveway, I'm thinking, do you add five feet to one side, or do you just do two and a half feet each side, depending on where your driveway is, right? I mean, if your driveway's on the property line, You're not going to the right if it's a budding on the line. It has to go the other way. But if it was in the middle, a couple of feet either way. But yeah, so question is, one would get more cars off the street. This way, you get less on the street.

And one question I want to, Dylan, I want to ask, like, have anyone asked about this special provisions that if they make it curvy as they can make it wider?

we very rarely got inquiries about that specific section is very the majority of driveways are not for previous year or some they'll say but it's not super common.

I recall it's the new subdivision near Bell Rica, right? That have the new pervious thing. But I think one thought is that that provision is in there already. It's just not being used. And I think that address at least some part about The width. Yeah, the width. And there is a way that it's more than even 20 that we're looking at, right? This is up to 24. And actually, there is a second part to that provision. Even if you have in previous provisions, park a driveway, you can go to ZBA for a request. So I mean, there seems to be a way to get even more. But I understand. I mean, that's like a little hurdle to jump.

Yeah. So I mean, again, I mean, it's the stuff that you have to take. But if you're recommending that these things is bear rather than, you know, put somebody through that.

Those steps, you know, would be... Yeah, but what I'm... I understand, and I agree, yeah. But I think if we change it here, it kind of defeats the intention of having this in there, right? I mean, somebody seems like have... put a lot of thoughts into it.

Again, this is the recommendation. So, you know, so they can turn around, you know, and somebody would, you know, say, you know, city councilor would be like, oh, no, we don't, you know.

Good idea, but I think at least whether I support it or not, or recommend it or not recommend, I want to point this out to city councils. Look at that, right? Is the ordinance added in 2010? Pretty recent. So I mean, 10 years ago. So I hope that they at least consider that before they make their decision on whether to change it. So at least I would like to put that on the recommendation. Yeah. In some way, I agree with putting more cars off the street. I think that's a great thing. But I put on the Jerry hats and think about why do people do, you know, write the ordinance the way, zoning ordinance the way it is.

One thing I did think about was trying to get more cars off the street. During the winter when we have storms, people can't park on the street. Oh, that's right. So now they have to go to the garages, but I don't think the garages can actually hold all of them. So at least, as opposed to 20, it helps get more cars off the street. Yeah, the flexibility, you know, flexibility to... Yeah, because as we know now, some people just park on the grass, park on the dirted driveway, and sometimes with a dirted walkway, I meant to say, and sometimes with a dirted curb, I mean, with dirted sidewalks, as I say, even though it's not cemented, you know, a paved, I should say, they still park there like i think yeah and as you said sometimes it's just a um like a dirt sidewalk and then they park on that dirt and then sometime after a period of time they start putting like um um i don't know like some type of um yeah um like um what do you want to call it? Some type of blocks I should say. Then they'd have to park on there, even though it's still in the sidewalk, which it shouldn't be, but it does happen. I mean, we see people park on sidewalks. I know like on the bottom of on East Melmeck Street, but two slopes come down. It's a little tight there. If you put two cows on one side, a lot of people the park right on the sidewalk, but it still prohibited the park on the sidewalk. So, yeah, so it's, I understand both sides of the argument. I wish we had somebody presenting to us explaining what they feel the necessity of this would be, but I don't think we ever pushed it forward. If they could explain a little bit more their reason, and it could help sway us one way or another, but by just looking at the comments from the department and listen to the city engineer, it's pros and cons both ways.

Chair, so on the engineering comments that they mentioned, any on-street parking blocking the driveway?

all the driveway permits they have to give out. And basically this would allow more cars to be off the street. What they're saying like when they, more like when you have a 15 footer and then if the driveway opens up, if it goes back a long way, they say it's no problem. Especially if it was strict all the way. But they said sometimes they see the 15, then they go to 20. So you, only get the one copy on here so one example was if you had 20 and 20 and just a 15 coming in you don't have that other one to the right so um but that was from doing all the driveway permits that they get um they bought they got a lot of them for the driveway yeah but um and then you know they did look at the zoning ones i mean the areas that was requested um I mean, it's almost, we can send it to council with a non-binding recommendation indicating that we didn't have any public input. We didn't have any presentation from the applicant. We did hear from planning staff who understand their reasoning of landscaping and cars off the street. After speaking with engineering, we understand their understanding of trying to get more cars off the street the planning staff says you know you're giving more street parking in the landscaping and as caleb brought up there's a couple of ways now to help prevent that if they look at that zoning changes there um so i think once before i forget when jerry was present with us it was for zone change and we didn't give a recommendation why then of course when we went to city council they were upset at the planning board because they didn't give us a recommendation why but a lot of times it goes to them if they like our recommendation they adapt it if they don't They just ignore it. I shouldn't say ignore it, just brush it away or just don't vote for it. Because one time, I wish the planning board told us. We don't know who proposed it. If they told us why, it would make our rational decision a lot easier. I imagine someone from the council floor made the motion to send it to us. And if we had that If we focus with understanding why, it would help make our reasoning process a little easier.

I think if you make a recommendation, we make it too complex. would be a lot of debate, you know what I mean? But if, I mean, they're asking to expand it to the 20. So, you know, I mean, it's a good idea and, you know, let them do it. I mean, let them do the job, say, hey, you know, I know there's different stuff to get where, you know, what people want it. But at the same time, I mean, they wouldn't propose these things if it's, you know, they see that, you know, they like that. or choose to do that, I think.

Yeah, I think, well, I'm still on the fence. Not really, but no, I agree with you that we're looking at just the number right now.

Yeah, yeah, the number.

We're not cooking whether it changes 18 or 22, but the question also was where 20 is.

There had to be somebody asking a lot of questions about how to get there.

and to get there is you know you make it a less of a you know anyway yeah for me it's just i feel like if there's a way to do it right now i mean this is this is going to override that i mean so so until i know if there's more details about why that's a problem I kind of want to keep it the way it is that's my take

What do you think Mr. Chapman?

Yeah, I'm stuck in the middle, to be honest with you. I mean, I respect the opinions of both the engineer and the planning department. I mean, I like the idea of getting more cars off the street. That's important. I think, especially, like I said, whenever we have a snowstorm and, you know, cars don't get moved and they're plowed in. And if you can get them off. I'm always in favor of getting cars off the street.

Yeah. I, you know. I mean, speaking from the experience, I, you know, at one point or another, I've gone through myself, you know? So I know how hard it is to, and then, you know, the city, I mean, Yeah, you know, you have to go through all that stuff. You have to justify certain things to get there, you know. And so, you know, definitely they can say no, you know. But if you give them that, it's there. You can do it, you know. And that way, you know, I understand that it's really, you know, people don't ask it too often. But when they do, right, ask to get that, you know, the 20 feet. They don't ask it too often, but are they asking too often, asking to have the...

The engineering department said it comes in a lot. Oh, yeah, so... They said they come to the driveway permits. They get a real lot every year. Yeah, so it's, you know, this... I forget the numbers that they quoted, but he said they get a lot of them every year. Yeah, so they, you know, I mean... for a driveway permit, which figures it.

So if that's the case, why would you unfollow? Do you, so they had to go through the zoning to, So we know how many had to go through that.

We have a number I I don't have a number I know that. People have requested. Variance isn't been granted variances to expand their curb got beyond 15 feet. I don't know the exact number though.

But this this often does a lot that people have asked.

um there's a good amount of requests not everyone requests a variance but yeah so that's the case you know i mean that's uh well uh here it says uh if it's only up to 24 with a in previous pavement that is a special permit from zba

a lot of them they changed the zoning a while back so they could come here and do a special permit in the site at the same time that was changed not too long ago really um to save the applicant one step um if they've already come in here for the site plan a lot of times they could do to ask a special payment from us as well

yeah but then like the criteria is will not be detrimental to the neighborhood character availability on on-street parking that's interesting storm water management and municipal infrastructure yeah Hmm.

We have to have.

All 3 both side, you know, also news majority. Yeah, yeah, I'm. And I made a motion. Let me give me one more thought here. I'm thinking if we made a recommendation to not make a recommendation to the city council for the following reasons. One was that we had no applicant present to discuss the reasons for the zone change. We had no public input in favor. are against the zoning change to help give us more information to make an intelligent decision. We've heard from two bodies from the work in the city planning staff indicating they're not in favor of the zone change due to the fact it would take maybe less on-street parking and interrupt landscaping. where the engineering department on their comments indicated they're in favor of the 20 feet because they give out all the building permits for driveways, permits for driveways, And then they're understanding the 23 would get. Off the street. More safety. So torn between the 2 decisions from the city department and not him for many applicant moving the recommendation forward to us and the fact that we had no input from the public with their decision which usually we weigh heavily we haven't heard that so to the fact of insufficient information in two different opposite recommendations from planning staff and engineering department uh the board is turning to make a decision without further information presented on either side of the recommendation does that sound reasonable uh you guys want to vote one way up and one way down and then we can send it either way any thoughts on that caleb uh what do you think i'm okay with that motion You okay with that? Yeah, that's fine. Do you understand what I'm stating or do you want me to repeat it? I understand. I wrote it down. Okay. So basically, there's nobody here presenting it. No input from the public that we rely on heavily. We have two different recommendations. One from planning staff indicate and get cars off the street and helps the landscaping. And then after speaking with Joe Cady, the engineering department, they indicated by not allowing it, they were against it. I can't go. I'm sorry. Planning staff was against the 20 feet and engineering was in favor of the 20 feet because of the amount of the driveway permits that they issue and the applications that come before them, they feel it would get more cars off the street, which would be a better safety issue. So torn between... those two reasons and the fact that it indicated no one present to present the zoning change and no public input the board member forwards no recommendation because they wish they had a lot more information so I'll make that in the confirmation motion that we don't make a recommendation at all because we turn between those reasons

Chair, if I may.

Absolutely.

I mentioned about the three estrichs.

Sure, if you could put that in.

And asked if they still would like to consider, I think they should give more thought of the mechanism that involve stormwater, previous service. And CBS CBA as well. So I mean if. They can share more input with us.

Yeah, so I'll add that is the motion. I'm Dylan, which is being cited here under table 6.1.10. I'm asking it number. 2 and 3 OK. Right and those are 2 year highland 3 or just number 3 and 7 or 3.

Yeah, OK.

So you second that?

And with that, I will second the motion.

Motion made and seconded. All in favor say aye. Aye. So if you have any questions on that, Kaylin, I mean, not Kaylin, I mean Dylan, if we wish we had more information from the public and the applicant on why they don't change, conflicted reports, the board wish we had a lot more information to make a more intelligent decision. Therefore, we'll give a non-recommendation. Thank you. All right, moving along on the agenda. Any of the board members have any further comments? Hearing none, I'll make a motion to adjourn. Aye. Moved and seconded. All those in favor say aye. Aye. We have adjourned. Good night and thank you everyone.