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 SUBMITTAL
Plan Number - T05PI00015
Review Name: PIA SUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 08/24/2005 | LANCE PETERSON | DOT STREET MAINTENANCE | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | I have reviewed these plans and have the following comments: 1. Sheet 2 - Notes - I did not notice the standard OSHA construction note. 2. Sheet 8 of 8 - Typical sections show sidewalk at 4' width. The City has been going to 5' on non-residential streets. Please verify that 4' will be acceptable for the Escalante section. No further comments. (August 24, 2005) |
| 08/30/2005 | GARY WITTWER | DOT LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Please submit approve NPPO. Inventory must include ROW. Please show inventory on plan and how bike path and walking path will work with existing vegetation. Provide mitigation plan if native plants will be removed. 2. On detail 8D - call out materials and give dimensions of bike path and walking path within the 25' ROW dedication. |
| 09/02/2005 | DALE KELCH | DOT TRAFFIC | REVIEW | Denied | Traffic Engineering REJECTS this PIA submittal: 1. Add General Note 37 to read “All non-signalized intersection street names must have E-W block number addresses for E-W roadways and N-S block number addresses for N-S roadways.” 2. Modify General Note 28 to read " ...Traffic Engineering at 791-4259 48 hrs prior..." 3. The symbol used for new street signs is not correct in accordance with Standard Details for Public Improvements, SD100, 2003 edition. This is typical throughout the plan set. 4. Clearly differentiate between new and existing signs in the legend. (see comment 3) 5. Add W14-2 sign at the project entrance. 6. Add R2-1(25) sign at the project entrance. 7. Remove R1-1 at lot 27. 8. Show additional no parking signs as denoted in redlines. 9. Add no parking sign detail as denoted in redlines. 10. Unless this had been previously approved, all new sidewalks are to be 5' wide vice the 4' as called out in these plans. The corresponding shy space is reduced to 2'. See DS 3-01.0 fig 2 for guidance. D. Dale Kelch, PE Senior Engineering Associate Traffic Engineering Division (520)791-4259x305 (520)791-5526 (fax) dale.kelch@tucsonaz.gov |
| 09/02/2005 | JBALDER1 | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Needs Review | |
| 09/02/2005 | THAD HARVISON | DOT ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | COMMENTS BY Richard Leigh PIA Plan T05PI00015 (First Review) Sierra Pantano, Lots 1 thru 42, Paving and Sewer Plans: S04-064 RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: PIA and Drainage Report. The Engineering - Permits and Codes Section has reviewed the PIA Plan and Drainage Report and does not recommend approval of the PIA Plan at this time. The Drainage Report is reviewed for PIA purposes. The following review comments need to be addressed in the next submittal. The attached comments are based on the information provided and is not meant as an all inclusive list of items that must be addressed but a check for general conformance to City Standards. The Engineer of Record (The Engineer preparing and certifying the plans, in this case EEC, Inc.) is responsible for the plans/design meeting all applicable Standards, Codes, Ordinances, and for any issues errors and/or omissions. 1. The minimum sidewalk width is 5' for any residential street and 6' for any arterial or collector roadway. Change all references to sidewalk width to reflect this. 2. Keynote 21 and 22 refer to incorrect Standard Details, correct all. Additionally, keynote 21 indicates a 3' transition, while 10' is required. 3. Indicate stationing for the all curb return BCRs and ECRs and termination of curbs and other structures. 4. All structures being built on private property that shown on the P.I.A plan, must be "x-ed" out with bold lines and marked NOT PART OF P.I.A. 5. Provide a detail for the proposed curb access ramps on the plan set. Additionally, call out Truncated Domes per ADOT Standard Detail C-05.30 sheet 7 of 7 as the detectable warning device. 6. Provide Utility Awareness Notification documentation. See Attached 7. Sheet 1: Provide recordation information (Book and Page) on cover sheet. 8. Sheet 1: Add plan number (I-2005-042) in title block. 9. Sheet 1: Provide administrative address on cover sheet. 10. Sheet 1: Use Permit and Codes title block see attached. 11. Sheet 1: Remove signature line for the "City of Tucson Engineer" 12. Sheet 1: Remove signature line for the "City of Tucson Street Maintenance" 13. Sheet 2: Add the following note: 14. The City shall not be held liable for any errors and/or omissions on these plans. Items not meeting City Standards shall be repaired/replaced at no cost to the City. 15. Sheet 2: Change General Paving Note # 36 from "Development Services" to " Department of Transportation Permits and Code Section". 16. Sheet 2: (Detail A/2) Provide all details for the proposed catch basin. 17. Sheet 2: (Detail A/2) S.R.P. is not permitted in the public rights-of-way R.C.P. must be used at the proposed catch basin. 18. Sheet 4: Provide a survey monument per COT Std. Dtl. 103 at the P.I. of the knuckle at Camino La Joya Pantano and Camino Ensanada Del Pantano. 19. Sheet 6: Cross Section call out E/8 refers to a 120' right-of-way roadway section, is this correct? 20. Sheet 6: Keynote 19 indicates the use of a curb terminal section at the southeast corner of Escalante Road and Camino Sierra Pantano. Wedge curb can be transitioned to a concrete header without the use of a curb transition "210". 21. Sheet 6: Indicate stationing for the curb return BCR and ECR and termination of curbs of the curb returns. 22. Sheet 6: A keynote for the curb access ramp at the southwest corner of Escalante Road and Camino Sierra Pantano has not provided. 23. Sheet 7: The proposed anchoring of barricade railing depicted on detail A/7 is not acceptable. Railing must be anchored into the piers of the sidewalk scupper per PC/COT Std. Dtl. 105. Additionally, railing must be located to allow for 6" clearance between 5' sidewalk and the railing. 24. Sheet 7: Refer to a COT standard detail for the sidewalk supper or if using modified scupper provide all details. Additionally, provide a revised hydraulic analysis for the proposed configuration. 25. Sheet 8: Provide a thickened edge detail for the pavement edge on Escalante Road. 26. Sheet 8: Cross section D/8 indicates improvements in the shoulder of the roadway but no details are provided. 27. Sheet 8: Cross section E/8 and G/8 are not referred to in plan set, remove if not used. 28. Sheet 8: Provide a shoulder a minimum of 8 feet wide with a slope at 2% along the striped paved section of Escalante Road, depict on cross section C/8. 29. Sheet 8: Detail H/8 incorrectly depicts gutter line. Gutter line should be continuous see COT Std Dtl 210. 30. The hydraulic analysis provided for the catch basin on Camino Ensanada del Pantanowas incorrect. The value used for the wetted perimeter was not representative of the proposed catch basin, see Section 10 (10.6.1) of the COT Drainage Design Manual. Provide a revised hydraulic analysis for the proposed catch basin 31. Sheet 8: Add cross section call out for detail A/1 on detail H/8. |
| 09/07/2005 | JBALDER1 | PIA COORDINATOR | CUSTOMER CALLED | Completed | |
| 09/07/2005 | JBALDER1 | PIA COORDINATOR | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |