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.
Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: REVISION - DEV PLAN
Permit Number - D08-0001
Review Name: REVISION - DEV PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 06/03/2009 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 06/04/2009 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Denied | 4 JUNE 2009 D08-0001/COSTCO 407 AT GRANT ROAD. REVIEWED BY RON BROWN SITE ACCESSIBILITY CODE REVIEW 2006 IBC/ICC ANSI 117.1 DENIED: SEE COMMENTS BELOW SHEET DR-1.1 A. As per 2006 IBC/ICC/ANSI 117.1, a marked crossing is "A crosswalk or other identified path intended for pedestrian use in crossing a vehicular way." In conjunction with Section 406.12 "Marked crossings that are raised to the same level as the adjoining sidewalk shall be preceded by a 24-inch (610 mm) deep detectable warning complying with Section 705, extending the full width of the marked crossing and Section 406.14 ". Where detectable warnings are provided on curb ramps or at raised marked crossings leading to islands or cut-through medians, the island or cut-through median shall also be provided with detectable warnings complying with Section 705, are 24 inches (610 mm) in depth, and extend the full width of the pedestrian route or cut-through." A marked crossing is to be preceded by and terminated with a Detectable Warning thus providing a beginning warning of hazard area crossing and an end warning of that hazard area. This provides for a detectable and safe passage for visually impaired persons to cross a vehicle way, PAAL, and is required by code as part of an accessible route to the accessible entrance of a building from all accessible parking spaces. 1. Please provide marked crossings as defined above, for each group of newly modified accessible spaces shown on sheet DR-1.1 to the accessible route at the front entrance of the building. 2. Shown on the Site Plan, Sheet DR-1.1, is what looks like a 2' wide, Detectable Warning strip around the newly remodeled entrance. Please clarify the purpose for this strip because it is not required by the building code, the accessible code and COT development standards. It is in fact, non compliant with ICC/ANSI 117.1 because it does not allow for a functioning marked crossing with detectable warnings as defined above in Paragraph "A". If intended as a pedestrian/vehicle separation, the zoning code, as per section 2-08.4.0, specifies the use of curbing, grade separation, barriers, railings, or other means, except at crosswalks, as meeting the requirements for that separation. Please reference Zoning comments. Please delete the Detectable Warning strip around the front entry except as required at the marked crossings. B. Accessible routes connecting accessible parking and leading to marked crossings must be concrete as per Zoning requirements. This affects all double sided accessible parking groups which number in three on the site plan. Reference Zoning comments. C. The one marked crossing with a "Dog Leg" presents a complicated and more hazardous crossing than one that is perpendicular to the flow of traffic and the entry accessible route. 1. Relocate the marked crossing West to the next parking aisle and make a direct connection to the front entry accessible route. D. The new marked crossings in front of the auto repair bays need detectable warnings at both ends as per paragraph "A" above. E. At Detail 5/DR-1.1, Note 1; change 36" to 84" above finished grade. F. Change all "ADA" references to "Accessible" or 2006 IBC, Chapter 11 and ICC/ANSI 117.1, 2003 Edition. G. Delete all Detectable Warning strips shown at the end of accessible parking aisles that are not part of a marked crossing. END OF REVIEW |
| 06/09/2009 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 06/09/2009, TO: Patricia Gehlen FROM: Laith Alshami, P.E. CDRC Engineering SUBJECT: Costco Addition D08-0001, T13S, R14E, SECTION 36 RECEIVED: Development Plan and Drainage Statement on June 03, 2009 The subject project has been reviewed. The revised Development Plan can not be recommended for approval at this time. Address the following comments before the next submittal: 1- The new trash enclosure location does not appear to be accessible. Relocate the trash enclosure or lay it out at an angle to facilitate access. 2- Provide the P.A.A.L. width west of the truck loading spaces. 3- Item #5 of the "Revision #2 to the Development Plan" letter states that the produce(r) cooler will be shifted 11 feet to the west. It appears that it is proposed to be shifted 11' to the east. Is this correct? RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Revised Development Plan |
| 06/09/2009 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Costco Addition - Revision D08-0001 Development Plan (1st Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: June 9, 2009 DUE DATE: June 17, 2009 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed. 1. Section 5.3.8.2, LUC, permits a maximum of one year from the date of application to obtain approval of a development plan. If, at the end of that time, the development plan has not been approved, it must be revised to be in compliance with all regulations in effect at that time, and must be resubmitted for a full CDRC review. The one-year expiration date for this development plan is January 14, 2009. 2. D.S. 2-05.2.4.D.3 There is a parking area access lane (PAAL) width dimension of 23.08' northwest of the fuel center. Per LUC Section 3.3.7.2 the minimum width of a two-way PAAL is 24'-0". 3. D.S. 2-05.2.4.K As the handicapped parking area has been reconfigured from the previously approved plan the following comments apply: a. Handicapped spaces located north of the building, the striped area, running east/west between the double row of handicapped spaces is required to be a sidewalk. b. Handicapped spaces located northeast of the entrance, striped area located along the north side of the four northern most spaces is required to be a sidewalk. c. Handicapped spaces located east of the building entrance, the striped area, running east/west between the double row of handicapped spaces is required to be a sidewalk. d. The striped area shown within the landscape island, directly east of the entrance is required to be a sidewalk. 4. D.S. 2-05.2.4.K Per D.S. 3-05.2.2.B.1 & D.S. 2-08.4.1.B provide a five (5) foot pedestrian refuge and at a minimum four (4) foot sidewalk along the north side of the proposed mechanical /maint. & produce addition. The 4.5 foot sidewalk does not meet the minimum 5'-0" pedestrian refuge requirement. 5. D.S. 2-05.2.4.K The striped area shown along the east side of the parking shown along the west side of the new receiving expansion is required to be a sidewalk. 6. D.S. 2-05.2.4.K The striped area shown along the south end of the parking shown along the west side of the new receiving expansion is required to be a sidewalk. 7. D.S. 2-05.2.4.K There is a striped area located near the northwest corner of the tire shop, please clarify what this striped area is for. 8. D.S. 2-05.2.4.T It does not appear that there is maneuverability for access to the proposed trash compactor If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact me at Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov or (520) 837-4956. I:\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\2008\D08-0001-R-2.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan and additional requested documents. |
| 06/10/2009 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Approved | June 9, 2009 To: Nathan Menard Mulvanny G2 Architect Thru: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Manager City of Tucson Development Services Department From: Tom Porter, Sr. CEA (520-740-6719), representing the Pima County Departments of Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department and Environment Quality Subject: COSTCO WHOLESALE, Store # 407 Expansion Development Plan –Revision 2 Submittal, D08-001 The proposed sewer collection lines for the above-referenced project have been reviewed on behalf of the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality (PDEQ) and the Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department (PCRWRD). This review letter may contain comments pertaining to the concerns of either Department. The following comments are offered for your use. The Pima County Department of Environmental Quality and Wastewater Management Department hereby approve the above referenced submittal of the development plan as submitted. Please note the following: Approval of the above referenced submittal does not authorize the construction of public or private sewer collection lines, or water distribution lines. Prior to the construction of such features, a Construction Authorization (Approval To Construct) may need to be obtained from the Pima County Environmental Quality. Also, air quality activity permits must be secured by the developer or prime contractor from the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality before constructing, operating or engaging in an activity which may cause or contribute to air pollution. |
| 06/11/2009 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | Provide revised landscape plans. |
| 06/23/2009 | ANDY VERA | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | There is not adequate maneuverability for the collection vehicle as shown. Recommend removing the parking spaces directly north of this area. Please provide corrections on resubmittal. If you have any questions you may contact Andy Vera at (520) 791-5543 ext 1212 or e-mail: Andy.Vera@tucsonaz.gov |
| 06/25/2009 | JWILLIA4 | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES June 25, 2009 Michael Pniewski Cardno WRG 9977 N. 90th Street, Suite 350 Scottsdale, Arizona 85258 Subject: D08-0001 Costco Addition Development Plan Revision Dear Michael: Your submittal of June 2, 2009 for the above project has been reviewed by the Community Design Review Committee and the comments reflect the outstanding requirements which need to be addressed before approval is granted. Please review the comments carefully. Once you have addressed all of the comments, please submit the following revised documents and a set of 6 DETAILED cover letters explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed: ALL BLACKLINES MUST BE FOLDED 6 Copies Revised Development Plan (HC Site, Engineering, Zoning, Landscape, ENV SVCS, DSD) 4 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (Landscape, Engineering, Zoning, DSD) Should you have any questions, please call me at 837-4919. Sincerely, John Williams Planning Technician All comments for this case are available on our website at http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/ Via fax: (602) 977-8099 |