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

Plan Number: T06PI00023
Parcel: Unknown

Address:
7600 S KOLB RD

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: PIA SUBMITTAL

Plan Number - T06PI00023
Review Name: PIA SUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
05/15/2006 GARY WITTWER DOT LANDSCAPE REVIEW Denied 1. Please submit the approved NPPO site plan.
2. Please submit the irrigation plan for the common area. Note: Private irrigation lines are not allowed under public roadways.
05/15/2006 LANCE PETERSON DOT STREET MAINTENANCE REVIEW Denied We have reviewed these plans and have the following comments:

1. Sheet 3 of 11 - Detail B - This detail shows a 3.5 foot landscaped area. Who will be responcible for the maintenance of this area?
2. Sheet 3 of 11 - Detail D - Please verify that truncated domes should be used on mid-block curb access ramps too.
3. Sheet 7 of 11 - Notes - There is a note 2, but I could not find it in the plan area on this sheet.

No further comments. 5/15/06
05/18/2006 Estevan Tineo DOT ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied May 18, 2006: La Estancia De Tucson Phase I (T06PI00023):
The following comments, at a minimum, must be addressed in the next submittal.

1. The proposed Phasing does not match the approved Tentative Plat? Per City Development Standards and Land Use Code, each Phase must comply to all applicable City Standards and "stand-alone". Revise accordingly.
2. Sheet 1 of 11: Provide project title on the top of the sheet.
3. Sheet 1 of 11, Provide the Book and Page under the Project Title.
4. Sheet 1 of 11: Remove the City of Tucson Development Review signature line.
5. Sheet 2 of 11: Remove general note 25.
6. Sheet 2 of 11: provide floodplain use permit number, note 20.
7. Sheet 3 of 11: Provide 5' sidewalk (Typical).
8. Sheet 3 of 11: Call out type of pavement mix for proposed pavement sections.
9. Sheet 3 of 11: Provide access ramp for detail F.
10. Sheet 3 of 11: Section C indicates no-parking? Per City Development Standards parking must be provided on both sides of the street. Revise accordingly.
11. Sheet 4 of 11: Per City Standard Details (Detail 306, note 10), gutter depression must be outside of roadway pavement section (for safety). Revise accordingly.
12. Sheet 6 of 11: Details indicates portions of storm drain to built on separate plans? How will runoff be conveyed off the roadway?
13. Sheet 7 of 11: How will access be provided to Via Arroyo Largo if connecting roadway are not built?
14. Sheet 7 of 11: provide access ramps at about station 180+00.
15. Sheet 7 of 11: Provide access ramps at about station 183+00.
16. Sheet 8 of 11: How will access be provided to Via Arroyo Azul & Via Cabana if Via Bombachas is not built?
17. Sheet 8 of 11: provide access ramps at about station 312+50.
18. Sheet 8 of 11: provide access ramps at about station 315+00.
19. Sheet 9 of 11: provide access ramps at about station 317+00.
20. Sheet 9 of 11: Plan view indicates floodplain within the r/w and in the roadway within Via Pampas Morenas? The floodplain must not be within the r/w or roadway, revise accordingly (Typical).
21. Sheet 9 of 11: provide access ramps at about station 319+50.
22. Sheet 10 of 11: provide access ramps at about station 343+50.
23. Sheet 10 of 11: Provide access ramps at about station 345+00.
24. Sheet 11 of 11: Plan view indicates floodplain within r/w and roadway? Floodplain must not be within r/w or roadway, revise.
25. Sheet 11 of 11: Provide 2' (minimum) separation between sewer and stormdrain (typical).
26. Sheet 11 of 11: Storm drain SD24 and SD25 (how about MH-E8) to be built on a separate plan? Storm drain must be installed to conveyed roadway runoff per City Standards and Codes, revise.
27. General Note: Please add the following note: Contractor shall maintain emergency vehicular access during construction activities.
05/19/2006 DALE KELCH DOT TRAFFIC REVIEW Denied Traffic Engineering REJECTS this PIA submittal:

1. Show no parking sign in detail C/3.

2. Sheet 7/11, Sta 177+02, 16.5' lt has a no parking sign called out. This should be an R1-1 sign.

3. Sheet 8/11, Sta 310+30, 16.5' lt has a no parking sign called out. This should be an R1-1 sign.

4. Sheet 9/11, Sta 321+28, 16.5' rt has a sign depicted that is not called out. It should be an R1-1. This same sign is not depicted on sheet 11. It should be.

5. Sheet 10/11, Sta 340+79, 13' lt and 346+70, 13' lt have signs depicted that are not called out. Both should be R1-1 signs. The sign at 346+70, 13' should also be depicted on sheet 11.

6. Sheet 10/11, Sta 346+45, 13' lt has a sign depicted that is not called out. It should be a no parking sign.

D. Dale Kelch, PE
Senior Engineering Associate
Traffic Engineering Division
(520)791-4259x305
(520)791-5526 (fax)
dale.kelch@tucsonaz.gov
05/22/2006 TAMI HAUSER UTILITY CLEARANCES COT STREETS DIVISION Denied SUBMIT UTILITY CLEARANCE LETTERS
05/22/2006 TAMI HAUSER PIA COORDINATOR CUSTOMER CALLED Completed
05/22/2006 TAMI HAUSER ENGINEERING REVIEW Needs Review
05/22/2006 TAMI HAUSER PIA COORDINATOR OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed
05/22/2006 TAMI HAUSER UTILITY CLEARANCES COT WATER NEW DEVELOPMENT Denied SUBMIT UTILITY CLEARANCE LETTERS
05/22/2006 TAMI HAUSER UTILITY CLEARANCES PC WASTEWATER MGMT Denied SUBMIT UTILITY CLEARANCE LETTERS
05/22/2006 TAMI HAUSER UTILITY CLEARANCES QUEST COMMUNICATION Denied SUBMIT UTILITY CLEARANCE LETTERS
05/22/2006 TAMI HAUSER UTILITY CLEARANCES TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER CO Denied SUBMIT UTILITY CLEARANCE LETTERS
05/22/2006 TAMI HAUSER UTILITY CLEARANCES COX COMMUNICATION Denied SUBMIT UTILITY CLEARANCE LETTERS
05/22/2006 TAMI HAUSER UTILITY CLEARANCES SOUTHWEST GAS CORP Denied SUBMIT UTILITY CLEARANCE LETTERS
05/22/2006 TAMI HAUSER UTILITY CLEARANCES EL PASO NATURAL GAS Denied SUBMIT UTILITY CLEARANCE LETTERS
05/22/2006 TAMI HAUSER UTILITY CLEARANCES KINDER MORGAN ENERGY Denied SUBMIT UTILITY CLEARANCE LETTERS