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: PREAPPLICATION LABELS
Plan Number - T21PRE0120
Review Name: PREAPPLICATION LABELS
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 05/19/2021 | AWARNER1 | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Completed | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Planning and Development Services Department, Plans Coordination FROM: Anne Warner, RLA PDSD Landscape/NPPO Review PROJECT: 3210 S Cottonwood Ln, TEP Substation T21PRE0120 TRANSMITTAL DATE: May 19, 2021 UDC Article 7.6 Landscaping and Screening The Unified Development Code (UDC) requires all new development or an expansion of greater than 25% of an existing development submit a landscape plan, UDC 7.6.2. Preparation of the landscape plan shall adhere to UDC 7.6.4. and Administrative Manual 2-10. UDC Article 7.7. Native Plant Preservation An approved Native Plant Preservation Plan Sections 7.7.4 is required or a request for an exception from the Native Plant Preservation requirements in accordance with Sections 7.7.3.D.3 & .4 of the Unified Development Code (UDC) is required prior to Grading Plan approval. UDC Technical Standards Manual – Section 4-01.0.0. Commercial Rainwater Harvesting and Section 5-01.0.0 Landscaping and Screening If you have any questions about this transmittal, Contact Anne Warner at (520) 837-4969 or by email anne.warner@tucsonaz.gov |
| 05/26/2021 | AWARNER1 | ZONING | REVIEW | Completed | CDRC Thursday Pre-Submittal Transmittal PDSD Zoning Review FROM: Anne Warner, RLA Planner PROJECT: 3210 S Cottonwood Ln, TEP Substation PARCEL: 119-18-030A T21PRE0120 TRANSMITTAL DATE: May 27, 2021 1. Development must comply with the Administrative Manual Section 2-06 - Development Package. 2. The proposed use is TEP Substation, Utilities Land Use Group, which is an allowed use in the R-1 zone with a Special Exception procedure, subject to Use Specific Standards in the UDC 4.9.11.A.1, .2, .5, .8, .9, .11. 3. The Use Specific Standards directs that; a. the setback of the facility, including walls or equipment, shall be 20 feet from any adjacent residential zone, b. the use is not allowed to have service or storage areas. c. Any building shall be in keeping with the character of the zone in which it is located. The Design Review Board (DRB) shall review all applications and make recommendations to the Zoning Examiner. The DRB shall review architectural style, building elevations, materials on exterior facades, color schemes, new mechanical equipment locations, lighting of outdoor areas, window locations and types, screening, landscaping , vehicular use areas , and other contributing design features. d. The use shall be located wholly within an enclosed building or within an area enclosed on all sides with a masonry wall or compact evergreen hedge, not less than six feet, nor more than ten feet, in height. e. The use is limited to power substations with an input voltage of no greater than 138 kilovolts. 4. The property is within the Avigation Easement & Disclosure Area for the Tucson International Airport. 5. The street setback from Cottonwood Lane is 10’ or ¾ (H), whichever is greater. The allowed maximum height is 25’. 6. The parking requirement for the Utilities Use Group is 1 space per 500 SF of Gross Floor Are, with a minimum of 2 spaces per facility. 7. The comments provided are preliminary and are not to be assumed as a complete review of the proposal. During the Development Package review process, a full review will be made by Zoning to assure compliance with the applicable UDC development criteria and Technical Standards. If you have any questions about this transmittal, Contact Anne Warner at (520) 837-4969 or by email anne.warner@tucsonaz.gov |
| 05/26/2021 | SBEASLE1 | TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT | REVIEW | Completed | 250 - 310 pm - T21PRE0120 - 3210 S COTTONWOOD LN - Site Special Exception TEP Substation 1. This parcel is on a boundary of Tucson Water's service area and is currently served by Tucson Water. 2. Tucson Water has no objections to the proposed erosion hazard setback reduction. 3. Any questions, comments or concerns about these comments may be directed to: Tim Rowe, P.E., Civil Engineer Tucson Water, New Development Section 310 W. Alameda St. P.O. Box 27210 Tucson, AZ 85726-7210 (520) 837-2106 |
| 05/26/2021 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Completed | Reducing the EHS requires a variance from the floodplain board. |
| 05/27/2021 | MROSS2 | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Completed | None |
| 05/28/2021 | SBLOOD1 | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Completed | DATE: May 27, 2021 SUBJECT: TEP Substation Pre-submittal Drainage Review REVIEWER: Elizabeth Leibold, Department of Transportation & Mobility LOCATION: 3210 S COTTONWOOD LN ACTIVITY NUMBER: T21PRE0120 SUMMARY: It is acknowledged that growth in this area of the City has triggered the need for this transmission substation, and some TEP infrastructure is already nearby to this parcel so that existing infrastructure helps to establish this site. With the feeders at Ajo Way, this parcel provides an ideal location for TEP's proposed project for utility uses. Other parcels had been looked at for the site. However, this project site is susceptible to a safety related erosion hazard along the Santa Cruz River. Applicant will need to clearly address the floodplain and erosion hazards for the project, including technical engineering justification and erosion hazard calculations per Tucson Code, and as discussed with Floodplain Administrator. DTM Engineering does not recommend approval at this time. PRE-SUBMITTAL COMMENTS: 1) Tucson Code Sec.26-8(b)(4), UDC Sec.8.3.1.A.2&3, 8.4.1.E.6: Regarding four items in the pre-submittal variance inquiry: 1) It is highly recommended that prior to formal variance request submittal to the Floodplain Administrator, that the following comments are addressed using the best layout for the infrastructure that sets the improvements as far from the top of bank as possible. 2) Concurrent review submittal for STAC and Development Package reviews is allowed however, the response from Floodplain Administration and PDSD will be provided after recommendations are made by STAC per Tucson Code. 3) Detention / Retention waiver can be included in Development Package submittal, with provision for first flush. Typically, the request for waiver, or the request and documentation with response from PDSD Engineering or Floodplain Administration, is placed within the drainage report for the first submittal. Keep in mind that first flush requirement may still be required by PDSD Engineering. 4) See the following considerations regarding a variance for the proposed project within the Erosion Hazard Setback of the regional watercourse: i) Any proposal to lessen the 490-feet setback required by Tucson Code Section 26-7.1 Table 1 will need to acknowledge and address how the project is still viable due to the following: (1) Historical aerial photographs show migration through the middle of the site 70-years ago. (2) Previous uses of the site for sand and gravel pit activities may have changed consistency of soil compaction and may increase potential for erosion risk. (3) Consideration of project's impact to the existing closed City of Tucson Ryland Landfill located on opposite side of bank of the Santa Cruz River. (4) Explain how proposed Critical Facility meets requirements for utility features such as generators or other machinery that will need to be elevated above the 500-year floodplain per Tucson Floodplain ordinance freeboard requirements. ii) Project's variance application should address the following considerations per Tucson Code 26-12(d): (1) The danger that materials may be swept onto other lands to the injury of others; (2) The danger of life and property due to flooding or erosion damage; (3) The susceptibility of the proposed facility and its contents to flood damage and the effect of such damage on the individual owner; (4) The importance of the services provided by the proposed facility to the community; (5) The necessity to the facility of a waterfront location, where applicable; (6) The availability of alternative locations for the proposed use, which are not subject to flooding or erosion damage; (7) The compatibility of the proposed use with existing and anticipated development; (8) The relationship of the proposed use to the comprehensive plan and floodplain management program for that area; (9) The safety of access to the property in time of flood for ordinary and emergency vehicles; (10) The expected heights, velocity, duration, rate of rise, and sediment transport of the flood waters expected at the site; and, (11) The costs of providing governmental services during and after flood conditions, including maintenance and repair of public utilities and facilities such as sewer, gas, electrical, water system and streets and bridges. iii) Per Tucson Code Section 26-12 (e), the project shall meet all of the following conditions for a variance approval: (1) A showing of good and sufficient cause. (2) That the variance is the minimum necessary, considering the flood hazard, to afford relief. (3) That failure to grant the variance would result in exceptional hardship to the applicant. An exceptional hardship is one that is exceptional, unusual and peculiar to the property involved. Mere economic or financial hardship alone is not exceptional. Inconvenience, aesthetic considerations, personal preferences or the disapproval of one's neighbors likewise cannot, as a rule, qualify as an exceptional hardship. All of these problems can be resolved through other means without granting a variance, even if the alternative is more expensive, or requires the property owner to build elsewhere or put the parcel to a different use than originally intended. (4) That the granting of the variance will not create a danger or hazard to life or property in the area, or result in increased flood heights; additional threats to public safety; extraordinary public expense; the creation of a nuisance; the victimization of or fraud on the public; and that the variance is not in conflict with other city ordinances or regulations. (5) That special circumstances, such as size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings of the property would cause strict application of the regulations to deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by similar property in the floodplain or erosion hazard areas. (6) That, for the repair, rehabilitation or restoration of structures listed in the National Register of Historic Places or the State Inventory of Historic Places, upon a determination that the proposed repair or rehabilitation will not preclude the structures' continued designation as a historic structure and the variance is the minimum necessary to preserve the historic character and design of the structure. (7) Upon a showing that the use cannot perform its intended purpose unless it is located or carried out in close proximity to water. This includes only facilities defined as having "functionally dependent use". (8) That a reduction in erosion hazard set back is determined based on current flow rates, channel geometrics, bank soil conditions and follows the approaches recommended in relevant technical manuals. iv) It is recommended that each of these considerations be thoroughly addressed in the variance submittal. v) At this time, the proposed 200-feet EHS does not have sufficient justification. Geomorphological study, sediment capacity, historical information and peak flow data through the site, and any county methodology must be supplemental to thoroughly addressing City methods in section of the City of Tucson Drainage Manual. Keep in mind, it is important that the best layout be provided before submitting for STAC recommendations and M&C consideration of approval of a variance. A revised layout should be considered including: (1) Relocation of the interceptor swale to flow counter-clockwise around proposed fill pad was offered in the meeting today would provide area to shift the proposed TEP infrastructure further northwest. (2) Showing minimum 2-feet offset at property boundaries for cut or fill slopes shall be included in the planview. (3) Show minimum access width requirements on planview around proposed infrastructure. (4) Provide EHS calculations and engineering justification in hydrology report as discussed with Engineering Administrator, including exhibits showing both floodplain limits, regulatory erosion hazard setback and proposed reduced variance erosion hazard setback. In particular, also show and label regulatory erosion hazard setback along the Santa Cruz River to extend a minimum 200-feet upstream and downstream from both sides of parcel. (5) Work with TEP on a substation layout that minimizes footprint area to meet City erosion hazard setback safety requirements. (6) Critical Facility requirements for utility features such as generators or other machinery that will need elevation above the 500-year floodplain. 5) Armoring the channel was discussed in the pre-submittal meeting. An acceptable erosion hazard protection improvement would provide 100-year protection that extends from existing soil cement located upstream of parcel at approximately 400 feet south of subject parcel and extend beyond downstream side of parcel with a key-in at a distance from top of bank at floodway of 490-feet, and would include appropriate toedown to scour depth. Please call me if you have questions at 429-4905. Elizabeth Leibold, P.E., CPM, CFM Civil Engineer Engineering Division Department of Transportation & Mobility City of Tucson |