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: PIA RESUBMITTAL
Plan Number - T05PI00002
Review Name: PIA RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/09/2006 | DALE KELCH | DOT TRAFFIC | REVIEW | Denied | Traffic Engineering REJECTS this PIA submittal: 1. Sheet 3/8: At the SWC of Avenida Convento/Congress is a sign facing eastbound traffic on Congress that is called out as an R1-1. I believe this should be an R3-5R sign. 2. Show the above mentioned sign on sheet 8/8. D. Dale Kelch, PE Senior Engineering Associate Traffic Engineering Division (520)791-4259x305 (520)791-5526 (fax) dale.kelch@tucsonaz.gov |
| 01/09/2006 | TAMI ACHONG | PIA COORDINATOR | CUSTOMER CALLED; PLANS @ AMBASSADOR | Completed | |
| 01/09/2006 | TACHONG1 | DOT ENGINEERING | UTILITY AWARENESS NOTIFICATION | Completed | Menlo Park Mercado District (T05PI00002) Please note the following comments (at a minimum) that must be addressed in the next submittal: 1. Sheet 1 of 8: Provide the Book and Page 2. Sheet 1 of 8: The improvements along Congress Street should be installed on these plans, the improvements along Congress Street should be considered as "Offsite" improvements. 3. Sheet 1 of 8: The plan view indicates a r/w of 84' for Clearwater Dr, but detail 1 of 6 indicates 62' of right-of-way? Please revise accordingly. 4. Sheet 1 of 8: Revise some of the general notes as included on the red-line plans. 5. General comment: Provide a minimum 2' separation between storm drain and sewer line per City Standards. 6. General comment: Detail on plans each type of ramps to be used, include truncated domes per Federal Standards. 7. Sheet 2 of 8: Indicate existing 5.5' X 11' Conarch on plan view. 8. Sheet 2 of 8: Provide vertical curves for longitudinal changes in grade greater than 1%. 9. Sheet 2 of 8 : Call out City concrete header detail for Clearwater entrance. 10. Sheet 2 of 8: Call out City concrete curb terminal section detail for Clearwater entrance. 11. Sheet 3 of 8: Provide manholes every 300-feet for proposed storm drain (Typical comment). 12. Sheet 3 of 8: Provide detail for storm drain laterals connection into storm drain trunk line (Typical comment). 13. Sheet 4 of 8: Please clearly indicate private and public improvements by placing the following note on plan and profile views: "NOT PART OF P.I.A." (Typical comment). 14. Sheet 4 of 8: Indicate extent of right-of-way on plan and profile view (Typical comment). 15. Sheet 5 of 8: The "Private Alley" detail indicates in plan view a portion of the Avenida Del Convento but the profile plan does not? Please revise accordingly. 16. Sheet 6 of 8: Please indicate 6" or 8" curb reveal (Typical comment). 17. Sheet 6 of 8: Detail 1, move footer from right-of-way. 18. Sheet 6 of 8: Detail 1, 30' TEMP Easement, Temporary easement? 19. Sheet 6 of 8: Detail 2, include slope of proposed channel. |
| 01/09/2006 | TAMI ACHONG | PIA COORDINATOR | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed | |
| 12/15/2005 | TAMI ACHONG | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Needs Review | |
| 12/23/2005 | LANCE PETERSON | DOT STREET MAINTENANCE | REVIEW | Denied | We have reviewed these plans and have the following comments: 1. Sheet 2 of 8 - The new catch basins are shown along the centerline in the profile section and should be on the gutter line. 2. Sheet 3 of 8 - None of the catch basins shown on the plan are shown on the profile. 3. Sheet 6 of 8 - Detail 3 & 4 - The majority of catch basins on the roadway are type 5 and the detail only shows type 4 catch basins. Please clarify. No further comments 12/23/05. |
| 12/28/2005 | GARY WITTWER | DOT LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Sleeving: I am unable to find any cross ref. to sleeving on the Civil plans. This is strongly recommended. 2. Page 2 lower left corner. There is a refernce to a D.G. path. Is this in the ROW? I can not locate. 3. Sheet 6: Show location of Pressure Regulators on the plans. 4. Sheet 6 - Irrigation Legend -emitters for trees shall be Rainbird XBT-20-6, Shrubs shall be XBT-10-6. Remove 3/4" poly reference and Rainbird Flush Cap. 5. Emitter lines should be shown. 6. Tree and shrub line schematics should be different. Hard to read. 6. Sheet 7. The "MF" Mainline Filter notation needs to be reversed. The sump needs to be identified. 7. Sheet 7 note 6. This will be lost when it goes to bid. Cross ref. to sheet E-2 and ask the Electrical Eng. to provide service to controller. 8. Sheet 7, Irrigation Notes: #13. Needs to match irrigation schedule. I suggest that you use both the XBT-20-6 and XBT-10-6 ( 1 and 2 gal. per hr.) Note #10 - Automatic flush valve noted is for poly. Omit this portion of the note. Note #11 This will be hard to do with multi port emitters. Why not have (2) one gal. emitter ports on all 5 gal shrubs. Note #12. If all trees are to be 2-gal. per Hr. this note needs to change. 9. Page 10 - Detail #4 the emitter pit boxes should be plastic not concrete. Detail 8 - show conduit for 110 v. wiring to be solid up to breaker inside cabinet. Detail #10 FYI - Senninger P.R. is shown backwards. 10. Sheet 11 - Detail 7 - Delete - Proper detail is shown on sheet 10 - #4. Detail #11. Is screen wall to be located in ROW? I can not find location on plans. 11. Sheet 12 - Irrigation Specifications. #4. This note indicates that the contractor is required to provide all sleeving. That conflicts will notes on sheet 1. 12. Sheet 12 - Planting Note 8. Finish grade should be 1/2" below top of sidewalk or curb. 13. D.G. compaction is required. |
| 12/29/2005 | Estevan Tineo | DOT ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Menlo Park Mercado District (T05PI00002) Please note the following comments (at a minimum) that must be addressed in the next submittal: 1. Sheet 1 of 8: Provide the Book and Page 2. Sheet 1 of 8: The improvements along Congress Street should be installed on these plans, the improvements along Congress Street should be considered as "Offsite" improvements. 3. Sheet 1 of 8: The plan view indicates a r/w of 84' for Clearwater Dr, but detail 1 of 6 indicates 62' of right-of-way? Please revise accordingly. 4. Sheet 1 of 8: Revise some of the general notes as included on the red-line plans. 5. General comment: Provide a minimum 2' separation between storm drain and sewer line per City Standards. 6. General comment: Detail on plans each type of ramps to be used, include truncated domes per Federal Standards. 7. Sheet 2 of 8: Indicate existing 5.5' X 11' Conarch on plan view. 8. Sheet 2 of 8: Provide vertical curves for longitudinal changes in grade greater than 1%. 9. Sheet 2 of 8 : Call out City concrete header detail for Clearwater entrance. 10. Sheet 2 of 8: Call out City concrete curb terminal section detail for Clearwater entrance. 11. Sheet 3 of 8: Provide manholes every 300-feet for proposed storm drain (Typical comment). 12. Sheet 3 of 8: Provide detail for storm drain laterals connection into storm drain trunk line (Typical comment). 13. Sheet 4 of 8: Please clearly indicate private and public improvements by placing the following note on plan and profile views: "NOT PART OF P.I.A." (Typical comment). 14. Sheet 4 of 8: Indicate extent of right-of-way on plan and profile view (Typical comment). 15. Sheet 5 of 8: The "Private Alley" detail indicates in plan view a portion of the Avenida Del Convento but the profile plan does not? Please revise accordingly. 16. Sheet 6 of 8: Please indicate 6" or 8" curb reveal (Typical comment). 17. Sheet 6 of 8: Detail 1, move footer from right-of-way. 18. Sheet 6 of 8: Detail 1, 30' TEMP Easement, Temporary easement? 19. Sheet 6 of 8: Detail 2, include slope of proposed channel. |