Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you cannot find what you are looking for please submit a records request.

Inspection History Details

Permit: T13OT00163

Parcel: 10611015B


Addresses:

3501 N FREEWAY

Inspection Status: Approved

Inspection History: SIGN SITE REVIEW

Date Description Inspector Results Comments
09/12/2014 SIGN SITE REVIEW Approved LEERAY AND HEATHER MET WITH CONTRACTOR, SCOTT FROM MARANA SIGNS. ALL REVIEW COMMENTS ADDRESSED. LEERAY ADVISED PHOTOCELL ACCEPTABLE NO TIMER NEEDED 24 HOUR BUSINESS. ADEQUATE SHUT OFF SWITCHES PROVIDED ON SIGN CABINET, AT TOP OF POLE AND AT PANEL. NO SPECIAL INSPECTION REQUIRED PER ERIC NEWCOMB, PER USE OF TEK SCREWS. OK TO RELEASE PERMIT. PERMIT MUST BE RELEASED NO LATER THAN 9/16/14 PER VARIANCE AND COURT CASE CONDITIONS.
09/10/2014 SIGN SITE REVIEW Continued PLANS DELIVERED TO SIGNS DIVISION BY JASON MURRAY ON BEHALF OF MARANA SIGNS. REVIEW CONTINUES.
09/05/2014 SIGN SITE REVIEW Continued THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ARE REQUIRED STILL ON THE PLANS TO RELEASE THE SIGN PERMIT (AS WAS SENT TO THE COURT FOR THE COMPLIANCE HEARING 9/5/14)

1) ADD CURREN,T PROPOSED, AND TOTAL SIGN AREA OF THE FREEWAY SIGN TO THE CONSTRUCTION DIAGRAM.

2) ELECTRICAL: SHOW DISCONNECT SWITCH LOCATION(S), LIST CIRCUITS AND VOLTAGE (AMPS SHOWN).

3) SEE LEERAY HANLY FOR COMPLIANCE WITH CURFEW - THIS IS A 24 HOUR FACILITY? TIMER REQUIREMENTS WOULD BE ADDRESSED THROUGH LEERAY'S REVIEW OF THE OUTDOOR LIGHTING CODE.
07/18/2014 SIGN SITE REVIEW Continued HEATHER THRALL TESTIFIED AT COURT HEARING FOR SIGN VIOLATION CASE T11DV11254 TO ADVISE COURT OF STATUS OF VARIANCE REQUEST AND EXPLAIN THE VARIANCE CASE, AND THE ADDITIONAL TIME NEEDED TO WAIT 30 DAYS FOR ANY APPEAL OF THE VARIANCE PRIOR TO STAFF ISSUING A PERMIT.
07/16/2014 SIGN SITE REVIEW Continued FREEWAY SIGN HEIGHT TAKEN FROM ELEVATION OF NEAREST ADJACENT FREEWAY TRAVEL LANE, WHICH MADE FREEWAY SIGN NONCONFORMING FOR HEIGHT WHEN THE NEWLY CONSTRUCTED FREEWAY TRAVEL LANES WERE LOWERED - INCREASING THE SIGN HEIGHT BY CODE BUT NOT BY REALITY. THUS, A VARIANCE WAS SOUGHT UNDER CASE T14SA00170 AND WAS GRANTED JULY 16, 2014 TO ALLOW FREEWAY SIGN HEIGHT TO BE MEASURED FROM THE PRIOR FREEWAY TRAVEL LANE ELEVATION, WHICH WAS 15+ FEET HIGHER THAN THE NEWLY RECONSTRUCTED FREEWAY SYSTEM (WHICH CREATED OVERPASS FOR PRINCE). ILLUMINATED ARROW CAN REMAIN. THERE ARE OTHER CONDITIONS OF THIS VARIANCE CASE AS WELL. NO ELECTRONIC MESSAGE CENTER, NO FURTHER SIGN AREA ADDED, ETC. SEE NOTICE OF DECISION.
01/22/2014 SIGN SITE REVIEW Denied ONGOING CONCERN REGARDING SIGN HEIGHT WAS ADDRESSED IN DETAILED LASER INSPECTION WITH CONTRACTOR ON SITE IN OVERSIZED BUCKET TRUCK ON 1/14/14. GRADE MEASUREMENTS TAKEN BY DAVID ROBERTS WERE CONFIRMED AS ACCURATE BY ADOT. SIGN IS 55.25 AT BASE OF SIGN AND IS 52.48' AS MEASURED FROM FREEWAY TRAVEL LANE (SOUTHBOUND) ELEVATION AND IS NONCONFORMING. ARROW MUST BE REMOVED OR ENTIRE SIGN MUST BE BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE SIGN CODE. PROSECUTOR AND CONTRACTOR INFORMED IN EMAIL 1/22/14.
10/09/2013 SIGN SITE REVIEW Correction Required STRUCTURAL APPROVED.

SIGN INSPECTOR CHECKING SETBACK OF SIGN - MUST BE 20' SETBACK FROM FREEWAY CURB.
ELECTRICAL AND OUTDOOR LIGHTING CODE REVISIONS NEEDED:

REVIEW BY RAY MAJUTA

ELECTRIC DENIED:
1) 2011 NEC 600.4 - PROVIDE VOLTAGE & AMPERAGE
2) 21011 NEC 600.6 - PROVIDE A DISCONNECT FOR SIGN & SHOW LOCATION
3) 2012 CITY OF TUCSON ODLC -501.2 IS LIGHTING CONCEALED OR ENCLOSED?
4) 2012 CITY OF TUCSON ODLC - 501.3.2. IS COLOR RATED TEMP OF LAMP 4400K OR LESS?
5) 2012 CITY OF TUCSON ODLC 501.6 HOW IS CURFEW REQUIREMENT MET? (OPEN 24 HOURS?)
6) 2012 CITY OF TUCSON ODLC 403.4 DOES CONTROL DEVICE FOR CURFEW REQUIREMENTS MEET REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SECTION?
7) ESCRIBE LAMPE TYPE. AND ENSURE ABOVE INFORMATION/NOTES ARE ON PLANS.
09/30/2013 SIGN SITE REVIEW Correction Required STRUCTURAL APPROVED.
ELECTRICAL AND OUTDOOR LIGHTING CODE REVIEW UNDERWAY.
09/25/2013 SIGN SITE REVIEW Continued REVISION RECEIVED.
06/28/2013 SIGN SITE REVIEW Correction Required Contractor provided engineer's statement indicating the sign structure can support the added "arrow" cabinet. Additional engineered drawings and calculations are needed to show the mounting of the arrow to the sign structure. Advised also that exposed LED's require electrical and OLC review need further electrical details.
02/11/2013 SIGN SITE REVIEW Correction Required ARROW ADDED TO LEGAL FS SIGN / SIGN HAS BEEN INSTALLED WITHOUT PERMITS / DOUBLE. FEES APPLY / VIOLATION ACTIVITY # T12DV11254