Planning Board

City of Lowell - Planning Board Planning Board Agenda Thursday, September 7, 2017 6:30 p.m. City Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, City Hall City of Lowell, 375 Merrimack St, Lowell, MA MEMORANDUM DATE: September 29, 2017 TO: Planning Board CC: Christine McCall, Senior Planner Eric Slagle, Development Services Director FROM: Patrick Burns, Associate Planner RE: September 7, 2017 Planning Board Meeting – Minutes A quorum of the Board was present. Others present: Patrick Burns, Assistant Planner A call to order was made by Chairman Linnehan at 6:35 p.m. Chairman Linnehan, Member Frechette, Member Boyle, Member Malavich, and Member Snetsky were present. Member Lockhart was absent. I. Minutes for Approval 6/5/2017 Member Boyle made a motion to approve the June 5, 2017 meeting. Member Snetsky seconded the motion. The Board approved unanimously, (5-0). II. New Business Site Plan Review & Special Permit: 192 Suffolk Street An application by McLane Middleton on behalf of Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless for Site Plan Review and Special Permit approval. Located at 192 Suffolk St. in the Urban Mixed Use (UMU) zoning district, the applicant proposes to install wireless antennas and supporting equipment on the rooftop of the existing building. The proposal is subject to the Special Permit Criteria under Section 11.3.2 pursuant to Section 7.6 - Telecommunications Facilities, Site Plan Review pursuant to Section 11.4, and any other relief that is required of the Lowell Zoning Ordinance. Speaking on behalf of the applicant: Victor Manougian, Attorney Mr. Manougian noted that he made two submittals: July 14th and a supplemental letter on July 17th per the Assistant Planner’s request. Mr. Manougian also submitted updated photos as part of the visual analysis portion of the application. The new photos included a view from the Northeast direction. The project is a coverage and capacity site, the project include two antennas and two low radio heads within the two stealth faux chimneys. The conduits will run along the side of the building and will be pained to match the exterior. There is no other equipment on site. Dan Brown presented the Coverage Maps to the Board. The map showed the existing LTE coverage in the area. The green and yellow areas show where Verizon provides acceptable coverage. The center of the map is the proposed site. The proposed site fills in coverage for the area and absorbs traffic and improves services in the area. The second map shows the added coverage shown by the yellow areas. There was also a map of existing Verizon facilities within a 5 mile radius per the Section 7.6 ordinance. Victor spoke about the submittal requirements of Section 7.6. He stated this project is different from building a tower because we’ve leased just our area of the building for the equipment. We do not have room in our leased area for additional antennas. If the landlord wants to lease space for further antennas, he can if he wants to elsewhere on the building. It is Mr. Manougian’s understanding that the Historic Board does not want colocation and they want stealth facilities. Despite the submittal saying, “N/A,” Dan Brown did provide map coverage of the facilities in the area with his presentation. #8 of the submittal requirement was fulfilled with the new photo simulations submitted at the meeting. Regarding #9 of the Section, the applicant is seeking a waiver for cost of removal because it is a very minimal cost and is on private property. Additionally, because it is part of their lease with the landlord to remove the facility if Verizon vacates the property before, during, or after the lease they are seeking a waiver. #10. The applicant stated that Verizon submitted their FCC licenses and any Verizon installation has to comply with FCC regulations or they would be fined, despite writing “N/A” on the application. Regarding Co-location, the applicant’s response to this section is bolstered by the RF report. No other freestanding tower within the maps shown would reach the gap area which is why he cannot co-locate on another building or existing tower. The applicant also requested a waiver of a maintenance guarantee because the site provides no hazardous situation. There is no other equipment besides the antennas and the wiring going up to the roof. Under Section 7.6.9, the applicant stated they will comply with regulations if we abandon and no longer need this site. The building has room for additional antennas but our leased space only provides room for our antennas. It is up to the landowner to lease space to another carrier. The Planning Board Chairman said that we have to comply with zoning code and show how the applicant can provide for colocation. Chairman Linnehan asked the applicant to address his waivers as it should be easy to comply if it is a low cost. The applicant stated that they have no problem with posting a removal bond and that a condition could be made. Speaking in favor of the project: None. Speaking in opposition of the project: Mr. Castillo of 238 Suffolk Street. He had a concern over safety of installing the antennas on the roof of the building. The Design Engineer for the project stated that a structural investigation needs to be conducted. A structural analysis will be done prior to any installation of the antennas to ensure there is no risk of the structure falling through or over the roof. Discussion: Joe Boyle: We cannot base decision on public health because telecom facilities do not pose a hazard to public health. We are here to talk about occupational safety. Have you done an occupational safety inspection? Applicant: Not yet, that will be part of the installation before a building permit. Member Boyle also asked about the applicant’s statement saying “no access to the roof.” The applicant stated that there is a hatch to get to the roof with no ladder to it. Member Boyle thought that this was acceptable. He also noted, in terms of the occupational safety, there should be a condition to include an inspection prior to a building permit. Member Boyle further discussed co-location and towers. He stated that this section was intended to apply to towers, not antennas. We do not want more co-location on these buildings with these faux chimneys. He stated that he felt that our ordinance does not require co-location to rooftop installations. Member Frechette stated that looking at the zoning ordinance, in this instance, the equipment or lack thereof is unique. Usually, the generators and cabinets are the issue, but in this instance, these are not incorporated. Member Frechette asked Mr. Manougian if he was agreeable to a surety estimate to 115 %. Mr. Manougian affirmed that he was. Member Linnehan asked about the safety of the antennas and anchoring the structures to the roof. The Engineering team will submit the structural analysis with the application for the building permit. The equipment weighs about 50 pounds. The wind is the concern for the antenna and making sure it is anchored to the roof.  Member Snetsky asked if the Board could adopt a similar restriction to the Historic Board. There was discussion about the FCC which limits prohibiting co-location once there is an antenna or other facility on the roof. Mr. Manougian and the Board agreed that rooftops are included under facilities and towers when discussing co-location under FCC requirements. Member G. Frechette made a motion and was seconded by Member R. Malavich to approve the Site Plan Review under Section 11.4.2 (6) with the following conditions:  The applicant shall submit a surety estimate equal to 115% of the cost of removal of the telecom facility to be conducted by the applicant satisfactory to the Planning Department and to be held in the form determined by the Planning Department whether in line of credit, bond, or whatever deemed appropriate.  The applicant shall perform an FCC Occupational Analysis prior to installation and be in full compliance. The motion passed unanimously (5 – 0). Member J. Boyle made a motion and was seconded by Member R. Snetsky to approve the Special Permit under Section 7.6 with the same conditions as the Site Plan Review:  The applicant shall submit a surety estimate equal to 115% of the cost of removal of the telecom facility to be conducted by the applicant satisfactory to the Planning Department and to be held in the form determined by the Planning Department whether in line of credit, bond, or whatever deemed appropriate.  The applicant shall perform an FCC Occupational Analysis prior to installation and be in full compliance. The motion passed unanimously (5 – 0). III. Other Business Preliminary Discussion: 467 Gorham Street A proposal to construct a mixed use building with a drive-thru business on the first floor. The subject property is located in the UMU zoning district. Attorney Morris Mason presented the project. This is a redevelopment of the former Hynes Tavern. Mark O’Hara is the Civil Engineer for the project. The attorney stated that if you look at the initial plan, you’ll notice piece of land owned by the City of Lowell. These eight spaces are leased by Enterprise Bank. These spaces will be maintained but will not be used for this project. Attorney Mason stated that restriction of a right turn only was a response to the Traffic Engineer’s comments. Member Boyle stated the design was not in character with an urban environment. The property is in the Urban Mixed Use (UMU) district. The applicant stated that the project was designed to match the Enterprise Bank next door. However, Member Boyle stated that the bank should not  be the model because it was suburban. The other buildings in the neighborhood which are more urban in scale, should be the model. Member Frechette also commented on the design of the building. He noted that the only building that is setback is the enterprise bank. The proposed building should be brought closer to the street. He also commented that we would like to see updated comments from Nicolas Bosonetto regarding the ‘no left turn’ on S Highland Street. There was further discussion that the design did not lend itself to pedestrian use. The Board agreed that they can give their thoughts on the project, but Nicolas’ thoughts will impact their decision on the project. Member Snetsky asked the distance to the LRTA garage. He also stated that he would want input from the Traffic Engineer on the impact to traffic going from S Highland to Thorndike Street. He encouraged the applicant to have further discussion with Mr. Bosonetto prior to filing. Member Frechette suggested looking at the Dunkin Donuts at the DCU building on Bridge Street. He noted, the Centralville Master Plan took concept of urban development to have parking in the rear and buildings be closer to the street. Originally, the building was denied, but the applicant made changes to the layout and eventually got approved. Annual Meeting Election of Officers: The Planning Board will elect officers for the 2017/2018 Board Year. Positions to be elected include Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson, Second-Vice Chairperson, Representative to NMCOG, and Representative to the Historic Board. Election for Chair: Member Frechette made a motion to appoint T. Linnehan for Chair for the 2017/2018 Year. Member Malavich seconded the motion. The Board approved unanimously, (5- 0). Election for Vice Chair: Member Linnehan made a motion to appoint J. Frechette to be Vice Chair. Member Malavich seconded the motion. The Board approved unanimously, (5-0). Election for Second Vice Chair: Member Linnehan made a motion to appoint R. Lockhart to be Second Vice Chair. Member Frechette seconded the motion. The Board approved unanimously, (5-0). Election for Representative to NMCOG: Member Snetsky made a motion to appoint J. Frechette. Member Malavich seconded the motion. The Board approved unanimously, (5-0). Election for Representative to the Historic Board: Member Frechette made a motion to appoint R. Lockhart. Member Malavich seconded the motion. The Board approved unanimously, (5-0). Planning Board By-Laws The Planning Board will discuss an amendment to their by-laws to include language for the Associate Member. The Board proposed no changes to the amendment. IV. Further Comments from Planning Board Members No comments V. Adjournment Member Malavich made a motion to adjourn the September 7th meeting at 8:08 PM. Member Snetsky seconded the motion. The Board approved unanimously, (5-0).