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 - IPC
Plan Number - T09SE00056
Review Name: REZONING - IPC
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11/24/2009 | MATT FLICK | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Completed | The request contains adequate information to determine Cragin-Keeling Area Plan compliance, and a plan amendment is not required. |
| 11/30/2009 | TERRY STEVENS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Rezoning Division Re: Acceptance of Information for Plan Compliance (IPC) AT&T - Grant Road 785 E. Grant Rd - C-3 Zoning Special Exception Case Number - SE-09-56 1. The proposed use falls under the LUC Sec. 2.5.4.3 Special Exception Land Uses, Commercial Services Use Group, Sec. 6.3.5. Communications "34", subject to: Sec. 3.5.4.20.B, .C, and .E.1, or Sec. 3.5.4.20.B, .C, and .E.2, or Sec. 3.5.4.20.B, .C, and .F.2, or Sec. 3.5.4.20.B, .C, and .G 2. The submitted plan, showing the proposed new cell tower is not acceptable to continue the review for the zoning examiner's report. 3. The provided plans do not meet the LUC requirements for the following: a. LUC Sec. 3.5.4.20.E.1.c. A new tower is set back at least two (2) times the height of the tower structure from the boundary of any other property zoned residential or office. b. LUC Sec. 3.5.4.20.E.2. a. The antennae are collocated on an existing wireless communication tower. c. LUC Sec. 3.5.4.20.F.2. c. A new tower is set back at least two (2) times the height of the structure from the boundary of any property zoned residential or office. d. LUC Sec. 3.5.4.20.G. b. New towers require a minimum separation of one (1) mile from any existing tower, regardless of ownership, unless documentation establishes that no practical alternative exists. e. Provide documentation clearly indicating that this site has an excess of parking spaces in order to delete the indicated three parking spaces. f. Contact the landscape reviewer (Joe Linville) in regards to screening requirements of mechanical equipment from a residential zoned property. g. The enclosure as indicated on the site plan is considered a structure and must meet the requirements of the LUC for setbacks from the property line. Per LUC 3.2.6.4 the required setback from the east property line for the enclosure with a wall height of 8' is 12'. Should you have questions, contact me at 837-4961 please. Terry Stevens, Lead Planner City of Tucson, Development Services Department |
| 11/30/2009 | DAVE MANN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 11/30/2009 | JHERSHE1 | COMMUNITY PLANNING | REVIEW | Denied | PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES SE-09-56 AT&T - Grant Rd. C-3, ZELP (Ward 3) Cragin-Keeling Area Plan and General Plan 11/24/09 jsh (adequate information for plan compliance) Introduction - This request is to install a cell tower facility, including a new 55-foot high stealth monopalm, in the parking lot of a shopping center at the northeast corner of E. Grant Road and N. 1st Avenue. The monopalm and ground equipment would be located inside an approximately 27' x 20' lease area in the northwest portion of the shopping center, in an area with C-3 zoning. The lease area will be enclosed by an 8-foot high CMU block wall, and covered with a sun canopy. Access is proposed from N. 1st Avenue. Area Zoning and Land Uses- The northeast and northwest corners of the Grant/1st intersection are both zoned C-1/C-3, and are developed with shopping centers. The lease site is surrounded by a Firestone tire sales and automotive service facility to the west, in C-3 zoning; a gas station with a food mart to the southwest, in C-1/C-3 zoning; and a McDonald's restaurant to the south, in C-1/C-3 zoning. The Firestone business fronts on 1st Avenue, the gas station is at the corner of 1st and Grant, and the McDonald's fronts on Grant. Southeast of the lease site is the rest of the shopping center, in C-1 zoning. To the east and northeast are single-family residences in R-1 zoning. The closest residential parcel is about 45 feet east of the site, across an alley. Properties south of Grant Road are developed mostly with single-family residences in R-1 and R-2 zoning, except at the southeast corner of Grant and 1st, which is zoned C-1, and developed with a few small businesses. According to the Major Streets and Routes Plan, both Grant Road and 1st Avenue are arterial streets. Land Use Plan Policy Summary - The site is within the bounds of the Cragin-Keeling Area Plan. Policies in that plan and the General Plan provide policy guidance. Cragin-Keeling Area Plan policies support new development that will improve and preserve the quality of life in residential areas. General Plan Land Use policies (Element 2) protect established residential neighborhoods by supporting compatible development, including non-residential uses, where the scale and intensity of use is compatible with adjacent uses (Policy 3 and Supporting Policy 3.9). General Plan Community Character and Design policies (Element 4) specifically address telecommunications (telecom) facilities. If possible, telecom facilities are to be located, installed and maintained to minimize visual impacts and preserve views. Policies promote coordinating efforts between involved entities to improve the appearance of cell tower facilities. Visual impacts of the proposed facilities will be a key consideration during the review process (Policies 3.7 and 4.6). To increase opportunities for all to have access to high-quality telecom services, telecom providers are encouraged to install infrastructure in older as well as newer neighborhoods (Action 5.5A). Sufficiency of Information to Determine Plan Compliance - The applicant attended a rezoning pre-submittal meeting on June 17, 2009. At that time, it was noted that staff would not support a Zoning Examiner's Legislative Procedure (ZELP), or the current proposed tower location. A ZELP is needed because the location does not meet the required setback from adjacent residential properties (two times the height of the structure, or 110 feet). If the structure could meet the setbacks, a Limited Notice Procedure could be used. Staff noted that the property owner has a large site, and recommended that the proposed facility be moved to another location within the shopping center. The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on October 6, 2009. No one attended. Prior to the meeting, the applicant received an email from the president of the Northwest Neighborhood Association. He expressed concern about the visual impact of the monopalm, and said there are no palm trees in the immediate area. He thought it would look out of place by itself, on the edge of the parking lot. After the meeting, the applicant received an email of support from another neighbor. A Design Compatibility Report (DCR) was submitted with the application. The palm tree inventory indicated there are about 42 palms in the vicinity, including 15 in the southeast corner of the shopping center, near the bank. No tree heights were provided. The DCR indicated that the equipment area will be partially screened from view from both Grant Road and 1st Avenue by buildings, and it will be enclosed with an 8-foot high block wall. Also, there is a 35-foot monopole operated by Verizon on the shopping center property, however, there is no room for additional equipment in that area. The proposed location is within 50 feet of a single-family residence, to the east. The facility would be at the edge of a parking lot that serves as a buffer between the commercial buildings and the homes. Although a stealth design has been provided, the proposed location does not appear to be consistent with plan policy direction regarding protecting established neighborhoods. Staff understands that co-location with the existing facility is not feasible, however, it is unclear why no other location on the shopping center site with less impacts to single-family residential development, is feasible. For example, can the facility be moved closer to a building, rather than on the edge of the parking lot? Alternatively, can it be moved near the bank, which has several palms, and is not near single-family residences? A plan amendment is not required, however, the proposal does not appear to be consistent with land use plan policy direction. Summary - A plan amendment is not needed, however, the proposal does not appear to be consistent with plan policy direction regarding protecting established neighborhoods. Staff recommends the applicant contact Michael Wyneken (837-4955) to discuss these comments. LAND USE PLAN POLICIES Cragin-Keeling Area Plan Residential Policy 2 is to improve and preserve the quality of life in residential areas. General Plan Element 2 Policy 3 is to protect established neighborhoods by supporting compatible development. " Supporting Policy 3.9 is to support nonresidential uses, where the scale and intensity of use will be compatible with adjacent uses, including residential development, neighborhood schools and businesses. Element 4, Supporting Policy 3.7 requires that, whenever possible, telecommunication 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. " Policy 4 is to design and maintain streets to enhance their overall functional and aesthetic quality. Supporting Policy 4.6 is to promote the coordination of efforts of government, private developers, and utility firms to improve the appearance of necessary above ground utility lines and structures. " Policy 5 is to promote neighborhood identity and visual character. " Action 5.5.A is to consider incentives for telecommunications providers to install infrastructure, not only in newer areas, but also in older neighborhoods to increase opportunities for all citizens to have access to high-tech telecom services. F:\Shardir\UPDfiles\DevRev\CASE_REVIEW\SP-EXCPT\SE09-10\SE-09-56i.doc |