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 - T06PI00009
Review Name: PIA SUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 03/02/2006 | GARY WITTWER | DOT LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Please submit your approved NPPO plan. The plan must include all areas to be disturbed within the ROW. 2.Please submit a copy of you landscape and irrigation plans for common area. NOTE: private irrigation lines can not be placed under public roadway. 3. What is the surface treatment of the median islands? Bullnose areas should be concrete or pavers. The medians should be landscaped and irrigatied to TDOT standards |
| 03/06/2006 | LANCE PETERSON | DOT STREET MAINTENANCE | REVIEW | Denied | We have reviewed these plans and have the following comments: 1. Sheet 3 of 18 - Pavement Section #2 - Where is this used? 2. Sheet 4 of 18 - Detail E - Need to specify truncated domes for the curb acess ramp. 3. Sheet 6 of 18 - Note 5 - Could not find this call out on the plan portion of sheet 6. 4. Sheet 9 of 18 - Note 6 - Could not find this call out on the plan portion of sheet 9. 5. Sheet 10 of 18- Note 8, 16 - Could not find these call outs on the plan portion of sheet 10. 6. Sheet 11 of 18 - Two Storm Drain Manholes are missing call out information. 7. Sheet 11 of 18 - One storm drain inlet call out is missing information. 8. Sheet 11 of 18 - Missing curve data call outs for approximately three locations on this sheet. 9. Sheet 14, 15 - Drainage Structrures - Is there any erosion protection for the oputlets of these structures? 10. General Note - There needs to be acess to the drainageways for the purpose of maintenance. 11. General Note - Landscaping- Maintenance of landscaped areas should be shown to be the responcibility of the Home Owners Association. No further comments. 3/6/06 |
| 03/07/2006 | Estevan Tineo | DOT ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | (3/1/2006) Las Estancia De Tucson - Spine Roads T06PI00009 The following comments, at a minimum, must be addressed in the next submittal. 1. Sheet 1 of 18: Provide the project title at the top of the sheet, title must include Book and Page, and Phase. 2. Sheet 1 of 18: The hatching scheme used to distinguish between the phases is not clear, use a different type of hatching scheme that is clear when reproduced. 3. Sheet 1 of 18: Provide project administrative address on the cover sheet. 4. Sheet 1 of 18: LEGEND: Include a description for the Existing and Proposed Floodplain, the descriptions should mention "Existing Floodplain based on Firm Panel # and date", and "Proposed Floodplain based on CLOMR and date" 5. Sheet 1 of 18: If the sewer is to be installed with these plans, then include a signature line for Pima County Waste Water. 6. Sheet 1 of 18: Remove the "City of Tucson Development Review" signature line. 7. Sheet 2 of 18: GENERAL NOTES, replace note 25 with note 19 under the PAVING NOTES. 8. Sheet 2 of 18: PAVING NOTES, remove note 11. 9. Sheet 2 of 18: PAVING NOTES, for note 20, provide the floodplain use permit number. 10. Sheet 2 of 18: PAVING NOTES, Mix No.2 only for interior roads not all roads. 11. Sheet 3 of 18: For Typical roadway cross sections A, B, C, E and F provide roadway name. 12. Sheet 3 of 18: For Typical roadway cross sections A, B, C, E and F provide roadway stationing (From Station #### to Station ####). 13. Sheet 3 of 18: For Arterial and Collector pavement sections provide Mix No. 3 on top (1.5 inches typical) and the remaining courses No.1 mix. 14. Sheet 3 of 18: The cross sections call-out landscaping behind the sidewalk within the right-of-way, however the plans do not include Landscape Plans? If Landscape is proposed in the r/w then include the landscape plans in the PIA submittal. Please see DOT Landscape if Landscape will be allowed in the right-of-way. 15. Sheet 3 of 18: Per the City Grading Ordinance provide a 2' (minimum) buffer between the cut/fill hinge point and the right-of-way line. 16. Sheet 3 of 18: Call-out curb reveal for each proposed new curbing on each typical roadway section. 17. Sheet 3 of 18: Call-out type of curbing. 18. Sheet 3 of 18: Clean-up the call-out for the median opening (6?). 19. Sheet 4 of 18: Remove detail D (Typical Lot Grading). 20. Sheet 4 of 18: Why is a no-parking sign included in the Plans? Were DSMR's obtained for no-parking areas? 21. Sheet 4 of 18: Detail E, indicate 5' sidewalk. 22. Sheet 4 of 18: Detail E, include ramp profile view detail. 23. Sheet 4 of 18: Detail E, include truncated domes. 24. Sheet 4 of 18, Detail K, where is this detail used? Also, the curb should be extended and a standard type ramp provided. 25. Sheet 4 of 18, Detail H, ELEVATION view, call 5' wide ramp. 26. Sheet 4 of 18, Detail H, SECTION H-H, include vertical curbing behind landing. 27. Sheet 4 of 18, Detail H, SECTION H-H, indicate 12:1 maximum ramp slope. 28. Sheet 4 of 18, Detail H, CURB ACCESS RAMP DETAILS, provide 5' landing. 29. Sheet 4 of 18, Detail I, provide details on how curing will transition into proposed scupper. 30. Sheet 4 of 18, Detail I, Does the "a" value include the proposed gutter depression? 31. Sheet 4 of 18, Detail I. According 32. Sheet 4 of 18, Detail I, This detail indicates scuppers on-top of box culverts, is this the case for every scupper indicates in Detail I. If not then detail each typical type of scupper installation. 33. Sheet 5 of 18, indicate new sidewalk (Typical). 34. Sheet 5 of 18, indicate and call-out ramps (Typical). 35. Sheet 5 of 18, indicate how new improvements will tie-into existing infrastructure (Typical). 36. Sheet 5 of 18, Plan View, Shouldn't Sta. 31+99.27, 0.5'LT be #####, 0.5'RT? 37. Sheet 6 of 18, Plan View, call out station and offset for proposed scupper (16), Typical. 38. Sheet 6 of 18, Plan view indicates detailed water-plan information, typically a separate water plans are submitted to City Water for review and approval, please revise accordingly. 39. Sheet 10 of 18, provide 100' vertical curves for changes in profile grade greater than 1%, Typical. 40. Sheet 11 of 18, Plan View indicates various symbols with no call outs?, revise (Typical). 41. Sheet 12 of 18, Is floodplain contained or overtopped the roadway?, please revise. 42. Sheet 12 of 18, Plan view indicates an "interim" inlet? At what phase will this inlet be removed? (Typical). 43. Sheet 14 of 18, For culvert @ Sta 38+20,31, include cut-off walls at box inlet and outlet, typical. 44. Sheet 14 of 18, For culvert @ Sta 58+39.7, detail storm drain connection into box culvert, in addition will connection adversely impact the structural integrity of the box culvert? Typical. 45. Sheet 14 of 18, For culvert @ Sta 74+86.17, detail storm drain connections into box culvert, in addition will connection adversely impact the structural integrity of the box culvert? Typical. 46. Sheet 15 of 18, For culvert @ Sta 81+23.9, detail storm drains connection into box culvert, in addition will connection adversely impact the structural integrity of the box culvert? Typical. 47. Sheet 15 of 18, Is the proposed wall transition structurally sound? Typcial 48. Sheet 16 of 18, Detail B, provide railing along interim inlet. 49. Sheet 16 of 18, Detail B, Who will maintain the interim inlet? 50. Sheet 16 of 18, Detail B, call out location of interim inlet. |
| 03/13/2006 | THAUSER1 | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Needs Review | Submit Utility Clearance Letters. |
| 03/13/2006 | THAUSER1 | ENGINEERING | UTILITY AWARENESS NOTIFICATION | Needs Review | Submit Utility Clearance Letters. |
| 03/15/2006 | DALE KELCH | DOT TRAFFIC | REVIEW | Denied | Traffic Engineering REJECTS this PIA submittal: 1. There is no signage that I can find anywhere in this plan set. Resubmit showing locations of no parking signs, R1-1, R2-1, R4-7 and other signs as may be necessary. 2. Show no parking signs in sections where appropriate. 3. The symbol in the legend indication no parking sign location is incorrect. Use the appropriate symbol for new signs as designated in SDPI, SD100 2003 edition. D. Dale Kelch, PE Senior Engineering Associate Traffic Engineering Division (520)791-4259x305 (520)791-5526 (fax) dale.kelch@tucsonaz.gov |
| 03/23/2006 | THAUSER1 | PIA COORDINATOR | CUSTOMER CALLED | Completed | |
| 03/23/2006 | THAUSER1 | PIA COORDINATOR | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |