Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you can not find what you are looking for please submit a records request.
Plan Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: REZONING - ZE HEARING
Plan Number - T08SE00035
Review Name: REZONING - ZE HEARING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 09/09/2008 | MCASTRO2 | DOT ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Completed | No objections. Andy Dinauer |
| 09/09/2008 | MARK CASTRO | REZ AGENCY REVIEW | ADOT | Completed | ADOT has NO COMMENT on the New Special Exception Douglas Kratina |
| 09/10/2008 | JOHN BEALL | COMMUNITY PLANNING | REVIEW | Completed | DEPARTMENT OF URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN SE-08-35 AT&T - Speedway Blvd. C-1 Special Exception ZEFNP Pantano East Area Plan and General Plan 9/10/08 Full Review drcorral This Special Exception request is to allow a new cellular communications facility, which includes AT&T wireless communication services, and City of Tucson emergency services and traffic surveillance. The site is located in a City park and ride facility located at 9490 E. Speedway. The applicant proposes replacing an existing 30-foot-high light pole with a 65-foot-high light pole with a six-antenna array, which will be flush mounted and stacked. The associated ground equipment will be located behind a 20' by 20' foot (400 square feet) leased area which will be enclosed by an eight-foot-high decorative masonry wall. The site is located at the southwest corner of Speedway Boulevard and Harrison Road, zoned C-1 with adjacent R-2 zoning to the west and south, remaining intersections of Speedway and Harrison are zoned C-1. Policy Summary The Pantano East Area Plan (PEAP) and the General Plan provide land use guidance for the subject parcel. The City of Tucson's Design Guidelines Manual lends additional design guidance. The PEAP supports the requested land use when the use is located on an arterial street and the proposed use is integrated with other commercial uses. The PEAP and the General Plan both support the requested land use when visual appropriate design elements and buffering techniques, to mitigate the potential negative impacts of more intense development on established neighborhoods, are employed. Discussion The applicant proposes replacing an existing 30-foot-high light pole with a 65-foot-high light pole with a six-antenna array, which will be flush mounted and stacked. The original proposal was for a standard antenna-mounting array at the 63-foot centerline with a 65-foot overall height. However, to achieve a stealth design, the proposal changed from the standard antenna mount to a stacked canister concealment design at the 57-foot and 62'-8"-foot centerlines of the pole replacement. The proposed design does not negatively impact the neighborhood, as there are existing utility poles that in the vicinity which exceed the 65-foot height. The associated equipment cabinets will be housed in a 20' by 20' foot (400 square feet) leased area surrounded by a decorative masonry wall which shall be painted to match existing uses. Policy 4.6 of the General Plan states that utility firms are to improve the appearance of necessary aboveground utility lines and structures. As such, staff will be placing a condition that the monopole be painted with non-reflective paint as a means of minimizing the visual impact. Furthermore, to improve the appearance of the compound area, staff will be requesting landscaping around the perimeter of the compound that shall include trees and drought-tolerant vegetation. Recommendation The proposed special exception can be supported and is in general compliance with applicable policy and the intent of the Pantano East Area Plan the General Plan, and the Design Guidelines Manual. The following special exception conditions are recommended to support applicable policies. 1. Monopole shall not exceed sixty-five feet in height. Relevant Policies · PEAP Policy 1.B.iii. · GP Element 4, Policy 3., 3.7 · GP Element 4, Policy 5, 5.5, 5.5.A 2. Antenna mount to a stacked canister concealment design at the 57-foot and 62'-8"-foot centerlines of the pole replacement Relevant Policies · PEAP Policy 1.B.iii. · GP Element 4, Policy 3., 3.7 · GP Element 4, Policy 5, 5.5, 5.5.A 3. Monopole shall be painted with non-reflective paint tones. Relevant Policies · PEAP Policy 1.B.iii. · GP Element 4, Policy 3., 3.7 · GP Element 4, Policy 5, 5.5, 5.5.A 4. Eight-foot-high decorative masonry wall shall be graffiti resistant and shall be painted to match existing uses. Relevant Policies · PEAP Policy 2.B.ii. · GP Element 4, Policy 3., 3.7 5. Equipment compound area shall include exterior landscaping that will consist of trees and drought-tolerant vegetation. Relevant Policies · PEAP Policy 2.B.ii. · GP Element 4, Policy 3., 3.7 · GP Element 4, Policy 5., 5.5, 5.5.A · Design Guidelines Manual (1.B.3.d) Plan Policies PANTANO EAST AREA PLAN The Pantano East Area Plan area extends east of Pantano Wash to Houghton Road, and south of Tanque Verde Road and Tanque Verde Creek to Golf Links Road. The Plan provides guidelines for future growth while protecting existing development. Policies applicable to this request are as follows: Policy 1. Promote commercial developments in appropriate locations in the area. Implementation Techniques A. Locate commercial uses at the intersection of major streets, where commercial zoning already exists. Regional, community, and neighborhood level commercial uses should be located at the intersection of arterial streets. Neighborhood and community level commercial uses may also be appropriate at the intersection of arterial and collector streets, if carefully integrated with surrounding uses. B. Rezoning to commercial uses should be based on all of the following: i. the demonstrated need for commercial zoned land in the area; ii. the site is located on an arterial street; iii. the proposed use is integrated with other adjacent commercial uses; iv. the adjacent uses are adequately buffered. Policy 2.B. Ensure future commercial developments be: i. restricted to limited number of access points; ii. integrated with adjacent commercial development; and iii. designed in harmony with adjacent residential uses. VI. DESIGN GUIDELINES A. GENERAL SITE DESIGN Guideline 5. Design any development that will be adjacent to lower intensity uses to have similar spatial, mass, scale, and height elements to harmonize with surrounding residential and nonresidential uses. B. FREESTANDING WALLS Guideline 2. Utilize decorative materials (such as tile, stone, or brick), coarse textured covering materials (such as stucco or plaster), colors that are predominant in the natural desert landscape, or a combination of these techniques. Guideline 6. Design masonry walls in such a manner that they will not impede storm water runoff. General Plan Element 4:Community Character and Design, Policy 3: Preserve scenic views of natural features and community landmarks. Supporting Policy 3.7: Require that, whenever possible, telecommunications facilities be located, installed, and maintained to minimize visual impact, preserve views, and be consistent with the City's adopted land use plans and policies. Cabling and fiber optics should be installed underground where possible, and the visual impact of cellular towers will be a prime consideration in the City's acceptance and approval. Design Guidelines Manual e. Design Context and Neighborhood Character (1.B.2.e) Intent - improve the character of new projects and reinforce existing architectural character in established neighborhoods. Solution - harmonize new buildings with existing buildings by incorporating design elements of the adjacent architecture including the following: · Scale and massing of structure · Finishes, materials and colors s:\caserev\SP-ECPT\SE08-09\ SE-08-35 AT&T - Speedway Blvd. |
| 09/11/2008 | MARK CASTRO | REZ AGENCY REVIEW | PIMA CNTY WASTEWATER | Completed | The PCWMD has no objection to the proposed special exception to replace an existing 30-foot light pole with a new 65-foot light pole. Don Willhoit Sr. CEA, Capacity Management Section Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department |
| 09/12/2008 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Completed | The Landscape Review Section recommends that to enhance the visual appearance of the streetscape, street landscape borders, per LUC 3.7.2.4.A, be installed along the entire street fronting property lines adjacent to MS&R's Speedway Blvd and Harrison Road. A landscape plan and an irrigation plan detailing required improvements are to be provided as part of the review process. |
| 09/12/2008 | TERRY STEVENS | ZONING | REVIEW | Completed | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Rezoning Section FROM: Terry Stevens Lead Planner PROJECT: AT&T - Speedway 9490 E. Speedway Special Exception Case Number - SE-08-35 zoned C-1 TRANSMITTAL: September 12, 2008 1. 1. The proposed use falls under the LUC Sec. 2.5.3.3 Special Exception Land Uses, Communications "8", limited to wireless communication towers and antennae, subject to: Sec. 3.5.4.20.B, .C, and .E.2, or Sec. 3.5.4.20.B, .C, and .F.1, or Sec. 3.5.4.20.B, .C, and .G Development designator "8" requires or allows the following: Minimum site required = 43,560 sq. ft Floor area ratio = 0.15 Lot Coverage = 20% Maximum building height = 25 feet Interior perimeter yard indicator = FF Zoning has reviewed this proposal for compliance with The City of Tucson Development Standard Land Use Code (LUC). Off-Street Parking: One technician parking space required. Off-Street Loading: 0 required Bicycle Parking: 0 required Pedestrian Access: Not required. The following comments need to be made available at this time. An ingress/egress easement is required for access to this site for the technician parking space. Utility easements and lease area including the cell tower are not indicated on this set of plans. A Design Development Option variance (DDO) may be required for the 8' walls of the enclosure. A 21' setback from the back of future curb is required from both Speedway and Harrison Rd. There may be a possible conflict between future sight visibility triangles and the proposed walled enclosure. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Terry Stevens, (520) 836-4961 or email Terry.Stevens@tucsonaz.gov. |
| 09/15/2008 | JULIE YBARRA | SIGNS | SIGN CODE REVIEW | Completed | the above referenced case is located in Multi Family District of the Tucson Sign Code. However no sign permits will be issued and no signs can be placed on a cell tower. |
| 09/16/2008 | MARK CASTRO | REZ AGENCY REVIEW | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Completed | CASE: SE-08-35 AT&T - Speedway Blvd COMMENT: NO OBJECTIONS OR ADVERSE COMMENTS Vehicle Trip Generation: Daily: NOT AVAILABLE ------------------------------------------- KoSok Chae, Ph.D. |
| 09/22/2008 | ANDY VERA | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Completed | ES has no objections to this request as it pertains to solid waste disposal. |
| 09/22/2008 | MCASTRO2 | TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT | REVIEW | Completed | Water Availability letter received. |
| 09/23/2008 | MATT FLICK | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Completed | DSD Engineering has no objection or adverse comment to approval of the Special Exception. |
| 09/24/2008 | DAVE MANN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 09/24/2008 | MARK CASTRO | REZ AGENCY REVIEW | OTHER AGENCIES | Completed | 9/09/08 The Tucson Airport Authority has reviewed the above referenced project and has no comments or concerns. Thank you for the opportunity to review this project. Judy Alexander, CAE Sr. Director Regulatory & Environmental Studies Tucson Airport Authority |
| 09/24/2008 | MARK CASTRO | REZ AGENCY REVIEW | OTHER AGENCIES | Completed | 9/09/08 Pima County has reviewed the above-referenced Special Exception and has no comments to offer at this time. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Arlan M. Colton FAICP Planning Official, Pima County Development Services |
| 09/24/2008 | MARK CASTRO | REZ AGENCY REVIEW | OTHER AGENCIES | Completed | 9/09/08 The TDOT Transit Divsion is in full support of this project since this is on our property. We have reviewed plans carefully and find them acceptable. Thomas Fisher Project Manager City of Tucson Dept. of Transportation Transit Services Division |
| 09/24/2008 | MARK CASTRO | REZ AGENCY REVIEW | OTHER AGENCIES | Completed | 9/22/08 TEP Land Management has no comment regarding the light pole replacement and height increase. Shannon Breslin Sr. Environmental and Land Use Planner Tucson Electric Power |
| 09/24/2008 | MARK CASTRO | REZ AGENCY REVIEW | OTHER AGENCIES | Completed | 9/24/08 No concerns/comments. CSO Becky Noel Tucson Police Dept |
| 09/24/2008 | MARK CASTRO | REZ AGENCY REVIEW | TDOT RTA | Completed | No comments received. |
| 09/24/2008 | MARK CASTRO | REZ AGENCY REVIEW | SCHOOL DISTRICT | Completed | No comments received. |
| 09/24/2008 | MARK CASTRO | REZ AGENCY REVIEW | PARKS & RECREATION | Completed | Parks and Recreation has no comments. Glenn Hicks Capital Planning and Development Parks & Recreation Dept., City of Tucson |
| 09/24/2008 | MARK CASTRO | REZ AGENCY REVIEW | OFFICE OF CONSERVATION & SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT | Completed | No comments received. |
| 09/29/2008 | MARK CASTRO | REZ AGENCY REVIEW | TDOT STREETS | Completed | no objections from Streets Sandra Zurbrick |
| 10/01/2008 | JOSE ORTIZ | DOT TRAFFIC | REVIEW | Completed | TDOT-Traffic has not objections to the referenced Special Exception |