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 - T06PI00009
Review Name: PIA RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 07/03/2006 | DALE KELCH | DOT TRAFFIC | REVIEW | Denied | T06PI00009 La Estancia Spine Roads (Camino Boleadoras and Via Bombachas) due 7-19-06 Here are Traffic Engineering Comments on this plan set: Sheet 18/22, Signing General Notes: Rewrite Note 6 as follows: All warning signs shall be fluorescent yellow diamond-grade (DG-cubed or equivalent) sheeting. All school zones signs shall be fluorescent yellow-green Diamond Grade sheeting (DG-cubed or equivalent). All other sign panels shall have high-intensity prismatic Type IV sheeting. Sheet 18/22, Pavement Marking General Notes: Add note as follows: For all construction, all pavement markings and signing shall be installed and paid for by the project owner/developer. Sheet 19/22 Sta 33+23.93 (ostensibly): The callout for the station is inconsistent with this sign assembly placement. It is shown installed closer to sta 31+00. Sheet 19/22 Sta 33+23.93 (?): The “BEGIN” placard is installed beneath the Bike Route sign (not on top of it). Sheet 19/22 Sta 30+86: The “END” placard is installed beneath the Bike Route sign. Sheet 19/22, Wilmot/Cam. Boleadoras intersection. Ensure that the median nose does NOT obstruct the crosswalk. Crosswalk must be fully accessible. Sheet 19/22 Sta 35+94.45: Remove R3-9B. This is a repeat of the R3-9B located properly at Sta 38+23.70. Sheet 19/22 Sta 39+43.23: Remove R3-9B. TWLTL ends. Sheet 19/22 Sta 41+48/69. Advance placement of this Divided Highway warning sign (W6-1) is excessive. Use an advance placement value between 100 and 200 ft. Sheet 20/22 Sta 59+81.85. Remove Speed Limit sign. Sheet 20/22 Sta 60+45.85: Remove Speed limit sign. Sheet 21/22 Sta 89+84.52. Bike lanes will be extended on Kolb Road (per county). Placard should show arrows pointing left and right consistent with this plan. Sheet 21/22 Sta 89+83.33. Bike lanes will be extended on Kolb Road (per county). Remove “BEGIN” placard. Sheet 21/22, intersection of Kolb/Camino Boleadoras. Do NOT obstruct ped access with through cross-walk with median nose. Diahn L. Swartz, P.E., PTOE Traffic Engineering Project Manager City of Tucson 201 N. Stone Ave, 5th Floor PO Box 27210 Tucson AZ 85726-7210 (520) 791-4259 (520) 791-5526 Diahn.Swartz@tucsonaz.gov |
| 07/03/2006 | TAMI HAUSER | UTILITY CLEARANCES | COT STREETS DIVISION | Needs Review | SUBMIT UTILITY CLEARANCE LETTERS |
| 07/03/2006 | TAMI HAUSER | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Needs Review | |
| 07/03/2006 | Estevan Tineo | DOT ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | 7/3/2006 La Estancia De Tucson - Spine Roads T06PI00009, The following comments, at a minimum, must be addressed in the next submittal. 1. Sheet 1 of 22 (previous comment 1): Provide the Book and Page (recordation information). 2. Sheet 2 of 22 (previous comment 9): Provide the Floodplain Use Permit Number on this plan. The number must placed on the plan, see Development Services Department for this number. In addition, this number should have been issued already for grading plan approval. 3. Sheet 3 of 22 (previous comment 14): The cross sections call-out landscaping in the r/w. Since this landscaping is to be placed in the r/w then it must be made a part of this plan and reviewed by DOT landscape and Streets and Traffic Maintenance. Revise. 4. Sheet 4 of 22 (previous comments 29 and 31): Why was Detail I removed? Explain and revise. 5. Sheet 4 of 22 (previous comment 30): The detail call out a 4" gutter depression and 4" scupper opening? Doesn't the gutter depression provide extra scupper opening for the purpose of conveying more flow? Revise. In addition, provide cross-bars for scupper openings larger than 8". 6. Sheet 5 of 18 (previous comment 34): Indicate and call all ramps. The ramps are stationed but not called (what type?), will a mid block ramp be used for each ramp? Revise. 7. Sheet 10 of 22 (previous comment 39): Provide 100' vertical curves for changes in greater than 1%. |
| 07/03/2006 | TAMI HAUSER | UTILITY CLEARANCES | COT WATER NEW DEVELOPMENT | Needs Review | SUBMIT UTILITY CLEARANCE LETTERS |
| 07/03/2006 | TAMI HAUSER | UTILITY CLEARANCES | PC WASTEWATER MGMT | Needs Review | SUBMIT UTILITY CLEARANCE LETTERS |
| 07/03/2006 | TAMI HAUSER | UTILITY CLEARANCES | QUEST COMMUNICATION | Needs Review | SUBMIT UTILITY CLEARANCE LETTERS |
| 07/03/2006 | TAMI HAUSER | UTILITY CLEARANCES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER CO | Needs Review | SUBMIT UTILITY CLEARANCE LETTERS |
| 07/03/2006 | TAMI HAUSER | UTILITY CLEARANCES | COX COMMUNICATION | Needs Review | SUBMIT UTILITY CLEARANCE LETTERS |
| 07/03/2006 | TAMI HAUSER | UTILITY CLEARANCES | SOUTHWEST GAS CORP | Needs Review | SUBMIT UTILITY CLEARANCE LETTERS |
| 07/03/2006 | TAMI HAUSER | UTILITY CLEARANCES | EL PASO NATURAL GAS | Needs Review | SUBMIT UTILITY CLEARANCE LETTERS |
| 07/03/2006 | TAMI HAUSER | UTILITY CLEARANCES | KINDER MORGAN ENERGY | Needs Review | SUBMIT UTILITY CLEARANCE LETTERS |
| 07/17/2006 | LANCE PETERSON | DOT STREET MAINTENANCE | REVIEW | Denied | . |
| 07/17/2006 | LANCE PETERSON | DOT STREET MAINTENANCE | REVIEW | Denied | We have reviewed these plans and have the following comments: 1. Sheet 5, 6, 8, & 9 of 22 - Note 8 mentions Common Area B. Is this privately maintained, or to be maintained by the City? 2. Sheet 6 of 22 - Is there a plan to control the erosion at the sidewalk scupper? 3. Sheet 9 of 22 - There is an elbow in the drainage channel to the north of the road. Is there any bank protection there? 4. Sheet 11 of 22 - Note 5 - Will this common Area A/ Park be maintained by the home owners association? 5. General - There appears to be a large landscape portion to this project. Maintenance responcibilities need to be addressed. No further comments. 7/19/06 |
| 07/20/2006 | GARY WITTWER | DOT LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. I see that you have some notes on the front of the landscape sheet that address maintenance. It's not clear that the HOA will be fully responsible for landscape and irrigation within the ROW. This note on the plans does not make it legally binding. There must be other means incorporated, such as easments or common areas. What ever is done must be approved by our legal department. 2. The bullnose areas of each median should be concrete. This is a very difficult area to maintain from a safety standpoint. 3. The mesquite trees in the medians are located too close to the curb. They should be centered in the median. Branches overhanging the travel lane will cause damage to vehicals and the tree. There is a 15' clear zone in travel lanes. This is a City liability. 4. Private irrigation lines can not cross public roads. There is no way to get them "Blue Staked". This is not only a safety hazard, but could cause major damage to the street if hit by a utility company. |
| 07/25/2006 | TAMI HAUSER | PIA COORDINATOR | CUSTOMER CALLED; PLANS @ AMBASSADOR | Completed | |
| 07/25/2006 | THAUSER1 | CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE | REVIEW | Needs Review | |
| 07/25/2006 | TAMI HAUSER | PIA COORDINATOR | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |