The applicant is requesting a variance to the required setbacks to enable construction of a fifty (50') cell tower (Attachment 1). The proposed site is located near the southwest corner of Cool Drive and Oracle Road (Attachment 2), where an existing commercial building is developed.
Zoning Code section 25.1.B.5.ii.c., requires communication facility structures be set back two (2) feet for every one (1) foot in height from buildings, property lines and overhead wires. The proposed cell tower is fifty (50') feet in height, which requires a hundred (100') foot setback. This code requirement is for safety purposes, should the cell tower collapse.
In this specific case, the proposed cell tower is replacing a decommissioned tower located in the vicinity. All of the lots within the proposed replacement area are developed, narrow and do not have enough space to meet the required setbacks.
In summary, the variance request does not meet any of the five findings, as detailed in the discussion section fo this report. Although lot size and placement of the existing building creates challenges for locating the proposed cell tower; the situation could be resolved by placing a different type of communication facility (I.E. roof-top antennas or various small cells) or expanding the site search ring to include larger commercial lots, thus eliminating the need for a variance.
Based on the findings and analysis provided in the discussion section of this report, staff recommends denial of the request. |
Existing Site Conditions
- Located near the southwest corner of Cool Drive and Oracle Road (see Attachment 2)
- Lot size: ½ acre
- Zoning: C-1
- Structures on property include:
- One-story commercial building
- Covered parking lot
Zoning Code section 25.1.B.5.b.ii.c, requires communication facility structures be set back two (2) feet for every one (1) foot in height from buildings, property lines and overhead wires. The following chart shows the required setbacks and proposed setbacks for the cell tower:
| Setback |
Required |
Proposed |
| Property Line |
Buildings |
Overhead Wires |
| North |
100’ |
184’-6” |
10’ |
Over 100’ |
| South |
100’ |
78’-10” |
130’ |
72’ |
| East |
100’ |
70’-5” |
130’ |
Over 100’ |
| West |
100’ |
22’-7” |
50’ |
Over 100’ |
Items in bold above, represent proposed setbacks not in compliance with code requirements.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
State Law and the Oro Valley Zoning Code require the Board of Adjustment to determine that all of the following variance findings have been met in order to grant a variance. The required five findings are shown in italics below, followed by the applicant's and staff's comments for each. The applicant's complete responses are in Attachment 1.
1. That there are special circumstances or conditions applying to the property referred to in the application including its size, shape, topography, location or surroundings which do not apply to other properties in the district;
Applicant Comment:
The applicant has provided a search ring for replacing the decommissioned tower to maintain and improve both cellular coverage and data deficiencies. All commercial lots within the search ring are developed and do not provide adequate space to meet the setback requirements. Other properties in the area were either unsuitable, had unwilling owners, or require same variance request (see Attachment 1).
Staff Comment:
Minor communication facilities, in compliance with the Zoning Code, are permitted in commercial zoning districts. Although small, the size of the proposed lot is similar to all others within the site search ring. The applicant has the option to expand the search ring or use multiple, smaller facilities (i.e. roof-top antennas).
Lastly, the proposed placement of the cell tower is not due to topography or any other special circumstance. The applicant should seek a code compliant design and location. Therefore, the applicant’s request does not meet this finding.
2. That special circumstances were not created by the owner or applicant;
Applicant Comment
The applicant states the proposed cell tower is to replace a decommissioned tower in the area, which was not the applicant’s choice. The proposed cell tower can only be located within a specific radius of the decommissioned tower to maintain and improve coverage with one facility (see Attachment 1).
Staff Comment:
The lot sizes and placement of existing buildings within the search ring were not created by the applicant. Constructing a minor communications facility in the proposed location does not in itself require a variance. The requested setbacks, which are less than the required one-hundred (100’) feet, is a needed for this specific type and height of the facility.
Collocation on existing facilities or multiple roof-top facilities would be allowed in the replacement area. These options are not preferred by the applicant because they would be more costy than the one proposed facility.
Although the lot size and placement of existing developments in the search ring were not created by the applicant, the search ring radius and the type of facility chosen to save money, are the applicant's choice. The applicant should seek a code compliance design and location. Therefore, the applicant's request does not meet this finding.
3. Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights;
Applicant Comment:
The applicant states the proposed cell tower provides the property owners an opportunity to increase their parcel’s earning potential and provide a valued and needed service to the community (see Attachment 1).
Staff Comment:
As proposed, the cell tower is discernable and may obstruct views from surrounding uses. The proximity to overhead wires and buildings poses a safety hazard to property owners.
Additionally, unless code compliant, minor communication facilities are not a substantial right enjoyed by all property owners within a C-1 Zoning District. Therefore, the applicant’s request does not meet this finding.
4. That any variance granted imposes such conditions as will assure that the authorizing of the adjustment shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is located;
Applicant Comment:
The applicant states replacing the decommissioned tower is in the best interest of all surrounding properties by maintaining and maximizing cellular service in the area. Other properties in the search ring were either unsuitable, had unwilling owners, or require the same variance request (see Attachment 1).
Staff Comment:
All properties within the proposed area are small and would require a variance from the setback requirements. However, if the search ring was expanded, more suitable commercial lots may be available. Additionally, other types of communication facilities (I.E. roof-mounted antennas and small cells) may be code complaint within the search ring. Therefore the applicant’s request does not meet this finding.
5. That the authorizing of the variance will not be materially detrimental to persons residing in the vicinity, to adjacent property, to the neighborhood or the public welfare in general.
Applicant Comment:
The applicant states the proposed cell tower will meet and exceed all FCC requirements. In the event the tower falls, the collapsible design minimizes the risks to the community (see Attachment 1).
Staff Comment:
The proposed cell tower does not meet any of the required setbacks, which include proximity to buildings, property lines and overhead wires. In the event the tower falls, the collapsible design allows the pole to reduce to a third of its height, which still poses harm to the existing building and parking area located on the property. Therefore, the applicant’s request does not meet this finding.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Public Notice has been provided as follows:
- Notice sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject properties.
- Notice posted on the property.
- Notice posted online at www.orovalleyaz.gov
- Notice advertised in the Daily Territorial.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
In summary, the variance request does not meet any of the five findings. Although the size of the lots and placement of existing buildings in the area prohibit the proposed tower from meeting the required setbacks, the situation could be resolved by using a different type of communication facilities such as roof-top antennas, etc. or expanding the search ring to include larger commercial lots, located to south of the subject property.
Based on the findings and analysis provided in the discussion section of this report, staff recommends denial of the request. |