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.
Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: SITE and/or GRADING
Permit Number - DP14-0109
Review Name: SITE and/or GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 06/24/2014 | RBROWN1 | ADA | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 06/25/2014 | MARTIN BROWN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 06/25/2014 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Old Pueblo Harley-Davidson Expansion Development Package (1st Review) DP14-0109 TRANSMITTAL DATE: June 27, 2014 DUE DATE: July 22, 2014 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments were addressed. This plan has been reviewed for compliance with the Unified Development Code (UDC) Administrative Manual (AM) Section 2-06. Also compliance with applicable development criteria for the proposed use as listed in the City of Tucson Uniform Development Code (UDC) and the UDC Technical Standards Manual (TSM). The review comments include the actual standard first with the applicable Administrative Manual section number and the following paragraph is the actual comment related to the specific item that must be addressed. If you need to review the sections listed below click on the link or copy it in the address bar of your internet program. http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Arizona/tucson_az_udc/administrativemanual?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:tucson_udc_az This link will take you directly to the section used for the standards review. The UDC & TSM requirements are in the Unified Development Code and can be viewed at the same web link as above Section 3.3.3.G.5.c UDC, An applicant has one year from the date of application to obtain approval of a site plan that complies with zoning and other development requirements in effect at the time of application, unless an ordinance adopted by Mayor and Council during this period states otherwise. A site plan application that has been in review for a period of one year and has not yet been approved is considered denied. To continue the review of a site plan for the property, a new site plan must be submitted that complies with regulations in effect at the time of re-submittal. The new submittal initiates a new one-year review period. One year Expiration date is July 22, 2015 SECTION 2-06.0.0: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE (TENTATIVE PLATS AND SITE PLANS) Section 2-06.1.0 GENERAL 2-06.2.0 APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS 2-06.3.0 FORMAT REQUIREMENTS 2-06.4.0 CONTENT REQUIREMENTS 2-06.1.0 GENERAL 2-06.1.1 PURPOSE This standard has been prepared for the purpose of informing applicants of the submittal and review requirements for development package documents to assure proper and adequate information is presented in a consistent manner, thereby providing the basis for an efficient and timely review. The development package documents are prepared in support of applications for building permits and related reviews. The information that is requested establishes the basis upon which the project will be approved and could affect what is required of the property in the future, should there be a proposal for expansion or for a different use of the property. This standard does not waive any applicable city regulations or codes. 2-06.1.2 APPICABILITY This standard shall be used for all site plans and tentative plats submitted to PDSD for review. 2-06.2.1 APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS Development Package applications are available from PDSD. Completed applications and accompanying materials shall be submitted to PDSD. Incomplete or inaccurate applications will not be accepted, nor will any application in which the pre-application conference or neighborhood meeting requirements have not been met. The types of documents and the specific number of copies required of each of the documents are on the PDSD website or may be obtained from PDSD. Resubmittals of development packages require a comment response letter that details how all previous comments have been addressed. Provide the same number of copies of the comment response letter as plans provided. The following documents and information shall be submitted upon application: 2-06.2.1 Application Form A completed application signed by the property owner or authorized designee; 2-06.2.2 Development Package A development package must be prepared to the format and content requirements described herein; 2-06.2.3 Related Reviews In addition to the plan process, a project may require review for other types of plans and documents. The applications for those processes are submitted to the appropriate department for review and approval. These related reviews can be applied for so that review can occur concurrently with the development package application. However, it must be understood that, should the related application be approved subject to conditions or denied, this may affect the; 2-06.2.4 Concurrent Reviews The development package is designed to allow for concurrent review of any site related reviews. Concurrent review means that all plans and documents needed for the review are submitted as one package. Examples of site related reviews include but are not limited to: site plans, landscape plans, NPPO plans, water harvesting plans, grading plans, SWPPP plans, floodplain use permits, and overlay reviews. Separate applications are often required for the different site related reviews even if the plans are submitted concurrently; and, 2-06.2.5 Fees Fees in accordance with Section 4-01.0.0, Development Review Fee Schedule. 2-06.3.0 FORMAT REQUIREMENTS 2-06.4.3 - The administrative street address and relevant case numbers (development package document, subdivision, rezoning, board of adjustment, DDO, MDR, DSMR, overlay, etc.) shall be provided adjacent to the title block on each sheet. 1. COMMENT: Provide the administrative street address adjacent to the title block on all sheets. 2. COMMENT: Provide the development package case number, DP14-0109, adjacent to the title block on all sheets. 2-06.4.7 - General Notes The following general notes are required. Additional notes specific to each plan are required where applicable. 2-06.4.7.A - Zoning and Land Use Notes 2-06.4.7.A.3 - If the plan/plat has been prepared in conjunction with a rezoning application, add the following note next to the existing zoning note: "Proposed zoning is ____." List the applicable rezoning file number and conditions of approval. Also place the C9-__-__ (if applicable) and the plan/plat file numbers in the lower right corner of each sheet. 3. COMMENT: Provide the rezoning case number, C9-77-68, adjacent to the title block on all sheets. 2-06.4.7.A.4 - Identify the existing and proposed use of the property as classified per the UDC. List all UDC sections applicable to the proposed uses. 4. COMMENT: Revise General Note 3 to include the required use specific standards "4.9.9.G.1& .2". 2-06.4.7.A.8 - For development package documents provide: 2-06.4.7.A.8.a - Floor area for each building; 5. COMMENT: There appears to a discrepancy between the floor area square footage shown under "SITE CALUCLAITONS - LOT COVERAGE" and what is shown within the building footprints on sheet. "SITE CALUCLAITONS - LOT COVERAGE, EXISTING BUILDING A" shows 44,034, building footprint shows 32,962 & "SITE CALUCLAITONS - LOT COVERAGE, EXISTING BUILDING B (PROTION TO REMAIN/REMODEL" shows 30,697, and building footprint "EX. BUILDING B TO REMAIN 25,082 & "EX. BUILDING B REMODEL 5,325" are added together the total is 30,407. 2-06.4.7.A.8.b - Percentage and area in square feet of building and accessory building coverage; 6. COMMENT: Per UDC TABLE 6.3-4.A: DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS FOR THE C-1, C-2, C-3, OCR-1, & OCR-2 ZONES lot coverage is not applicable to this project. Remove the lot coverage from the plan. 2-06.4.7.A.8.c - Percentage of building, lot area, or vehicular use area expansion. If the building(s) or lot area have been previously expanded, those calculations shall be included; and, 7. COMMENT: Provide a building area expansion calculation on the plan. 2-06.4.8 - Existing Site Conditions The following information shall be provided on the plan/plat drawing to indicate the existing conditions on site and within 50 feet of the site. On sites bounded by a street with a width of 50 feet or greater, the existing conditions across the street will be provided. 2-06.4.8.C - The following information regarding existing private or public right-of-way adjacent to or within the site shall be provided: the name, right-of-way width, recordation data, type and dimensioned width of paving, curbs, curb cuts, and sidewalks. 8. COMMENT: Provide the right-of-way width, type and dimensioned width of paving, curbs, curb cuts, and sidewalks for Prudence Avenue. 9. COMMENT: Provide the type and dimensioned width of paving, curbs, curb cuts, and sidewalks for 22nd Street. 2-06.4.9 - Information on Proposed Development The following information on the proposed project shall be shown on the drawing or added as notes. 2-06.4.9.F - All existing zoning classifications on and adjacent to the project (including across any adjacent right-of-way) shall be indicated on the drawing with zoning boundaries clearly defined. If the property is being rezoned, use those boundaries and classifications. The basis for this requirement is that some zoning requirements on a project are based on the zoning classification of adjacent property. Also, in some instances, each zone has to be taken into consideration on property that is split by two or more zoning classifications, as each may have different requirements. 10. COMMENT: Provide all existing zoning classifications on and adjacent to the project (including across any adjacent right-of-way) on the drawing with zoning boundaries clearly defined. 2-06.4.9.H.5 - If utilizing parking area access lanes (PAALs), they shall be designed in accordance with Section 7.4.6, Motor Vehicle Use Area Design Criteria, of the UDC. 11. COMMENT: Between building A & B and at the entrance off of 22nd Street there appears to be gates, clearly identify all existing and proposed gates on this plan. 12. COMMENT: Per UDC Article 7.4.6.F.2.b Access lanes and PAALs must be setback at least two feet from a wall, screen, or other obstruction over six inches. That said provide a dimension from the proposed "TOWER" west the access PAAL. 13. COMMENT: Per UDC Article 7.4.6.F.2.b Access lanes and PAALs must be setback at least two feet from a wall, screen, or other obstruction over six inches. That said based on section "B" sheet 4 there is a proposed wall that runs north south west of the sidewalk. Provide a setback dimension from this wall to the existing PAAL. Also provide a PAAL width dimension from the required setback to the vehicle parking spaces to the west. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - Show all motor vehicle off-street parking spaces provided, fully dimensioned. As a note, provide calculations on the number of spaces required (include the ratio used) and the number provided, including the number of spaces required and provided for the physically disabled. The drawing should indicate parking space locations for the physically disabled. A typical parking space detail shall be provided for both standard parking spaces and those for the physically disabled. For information on parking requirements for the physically disabled, refer to adopted building and accessibility codes of the City of Tucson. Design criteria for parking spaces and access are located in Section 7.4.6, Motor Vehicle Use Area Design Criteria, of the UDC. 14. COMMENT: Detail A sheet 4 provide a dimension for the proposed wheel stop, see UDC Article 7.4.6.H.3. 15. COMMENT: Detail A sheet 4 it appears that the proposed accessible signage encroaches into the 2'-6" vehicle overhang. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - Show bicycle parking facilities fully dimensioned. For specifics, refer to Section 7.4.9, Bicycle Parking Design Criteria, of the UDC. Provide, as a note, calculations for short and long term bicycle spaces required and provided. 16. COMMENT: The long term bicycle parking calculation is not correct. Per Table 7.4.8-1: Minimum Required Bicycle Parking Spaces, RETAIL TRADE USE GROUP, Construction Material Sales, Furniture, Carpet, or Appliance Store; Heavy Equipment Sales; and Vehicle Rental and Sales, Long-Term Bicycle Parking Required, 1 space per 12,000 sq. ft. GFA. Minimum requirement is 2 spaces. Maximum requirement is 10 spaces. Based on the definition of Gross Floor Area (GFA) the long term bicycle parking is not broke out by use area as is the vehicle parking calculation. Until comment 5 has been addressed the required number of long term bicycle parking cannot be verified. 17. COMMENT: The short term bicycle parking detail, sheet 2, dimensions are not correct. Per UDC Article 7.4.9.B.2.f each required short-term bicycle parking space must be at least two feet by six feet. This dimension is measured from the edge of rack not center, see UDC Figure 7.4.9-C 18. COMMENT: The short term bicycle parking detail, sheet 2, dimensions are not correct. Per UDC Article 7.4.9.B.2.g A bicycle rack must be a minimum of two and one half feet from a wall or other obstruction. This dimension is measured from the edge of rack not center, see UDC Figure 7.4.9-C 19. COMMENT: Demonstrate on the plan/detail how the requirements of UDC Article 7.4.9.B.1.e are met for the short term bicycle parking. 20. COMMENT: Under the "LEGEND" remove the reference to "CLASS 1 & CLASS 2" bicycle parking as they are not longer applicable. 2-06.4.9.Q - Provide the square footage and the height of each commercial, industrial, or business structure and the specific use proposed within the footprint of the building(s). 21. COMMENT: Provide the height of Building "A" within the footprint. 22. COMMENT: Show the "EX. CANOPY" north of Building "A" on the plan and provide the height within the footprint. 2-06.4.9.R - Show on-site pedestrian circulation and refuge utilizing location and the design criteria in Section 7-01.0.0, Pedestrian Access, of the Technical Standards Manual. 23. COMMENT: Per TSM 7-01.4.1.A At least one sidewalk is required to a project from each street on which the project has frontage. That said clearly show the required sidewalk from the proposed expansion to Prudence Avenue. 24. COMMENT: Per TSM 7-01.3.3.B The areas within the development which must be connected include, but are not limited to, all buildings. That said clearly show the required sidewalk from the proposed expansion to Building "A". 2-06.4.9.S - Show existing or proposed pedestrian circulation along abutting rights-of-way (ROW). Such sidewalks must comply with accessibility requirements for the physically disabled and the design criteria in Section 10-01.0.0, Street Technical Standards, of the Technical Standards Manual. 25. COMMENT: Show the sidewalks within the ROW for both 22nd Street and Prudence Road. 2-06.4.9.W - Indicate the locations and types of proposed signs (wall, free-standing, pedestal) to assure there are no conflicts with other requirements and that minimal locational requirements can be met. Indicate if there are any existing billboards on site. Compliance to the Sign Code, Chapter 3 of the Tucson Code, is required. 26. COMMENT: Show the location of all existing/proposed signs on the plan. 2-06.4.9.X - Show compliance with landscaping and screening requirements by locations, material descriptions, and dimensions. Specific plant or hardscape material shall be detailed on a landscape plan. A detailed landscape plan is required. In accordance with Section 2-11.0.0, Landscape Plan Requirements. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please Steve Shields, (520) 837-4956 or Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package . |
| 07/07/2014 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | DATE: July 9, 2014 DUE DATE: July 22, 2014 SUBJECT: Old Pueblo Harley-Davidson Development Plan Package- Engineering Review TO: Baker & Associates Engineering Inc.; Attn: Michael Baker, PE LOCATION: 7501 E 22nd St; T14S R15E Sec17 REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: DP14-0109 SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning & Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed Development Plan Package, Drainage Statement (Baker & Associates Engineering, Inc., 13MAY14) and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (Baker & Associates Engineering, Inc., JUN14). Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the Development Plan Package at this time. This review falls under the Unified Development Code (UDC), Administration Manual (AM) and Technical Standards Manual (TSM). Refer to the following link for further clarification: http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Arizona/tucson_az_udc/administrativemanual?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:tucson_udc_az The following items need to be addressed: SITE PLAN: 1) AM Sec.2-06.4.1: Revise the development plan package to provide the phone number for the primary property owner of the project. Information shall be provided under the Owner/Developer Section. 2) AM Sec.2-06.4.3: The relevant Development Plan Package case number (DP14-0109) may be added to the lower right hand corner of the plan on all sheets. 3) AM Sec.2-06.4.3: Revise the development plan package to provide an administrative street address adjacent to the title block on each sheet. 4) AM Sec.2-06.4.7.C.2: Revise the development plan package to provide a note to read per the referenced section; "No structure or vegetation shall be located or maintained so as to interfere with the sight visibility triangles in accordance with Section 10-01.5.0, Sight Visibility, of the Technical Standards Manual.". 5) AM Sec.2-06.4.8.C: Revise the development plan package to dimension the existing width of the public right-of-way in plan view for Prudence Road. Provide right-of-way (ROW) width, type and dimensioned width of paving, curbs, curb cuts, and sidewalks for both right-of-ways in plan view. 6) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.1: Revise the development plan package to clearly label all existing and proposed gates on the parcel. Verify minimum PAAL and or access widths and revise all gates at driveway entrances so that they swing into the property and not out into the right-of-way. 7) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.2: Revise the development plan package to label and dimension the SVTs for all driveway entrances (to include both adjacent roadways), refer to TSM Sec.10-01.5.3 for line of sight matrix. 8) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan package to label or Keynote all proposed curbing around the vehicular use area. Verify that all areas of proposed curbing are clearly keynoted for construction purposes. 9) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan package and Detail A on Sheet 4 clearly dimension the required 2.5-foot overhang from the wheel stop to the sidewalk. Per the detail it appears that the proposed handicap accessibility signage encroaches within the 2.5-foot area, revise. 10) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan package to label and dimension the PAAL area adjacent to the Westside of the proposed wall and the proposed tower to verify the minimum 24-foot PAAL width with the required 2-foot setback. Per UDC Article 7.4.6.G.2.b Access lanes and PAALs must be setback at least two feet from a wall, screen, or other obstruction over six inches. The additional area is necessary to provide clearance for fire, sanitation, and delivery vehicles. 11) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.J: Revise the development plan package to include all dimensions for the MS&R Streets adjacent to the project. Provide and/or verify dimensions for future right-of-way, sidewalk area, intersection tapering (Prudence Road and 22nd Street), SVTs, etc. Verify that required improvements are not constructed within this area. 12) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.R: Revise the development plan package and Cross Section "B" to correctly reference the PC/COT Standard Detail for the proposed sidewalk. Currently the Section references #209 however it should reference #200 for sidewalk construction, revise. 13) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.R: Refer to comments from Ron Brown, RA Structural Plans Examiner for all handicap accessibility comments that may be associated with this project. 14) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.N.2: Revise the development plan package and the bubbler box detail to verify if filter fabric is required at the bottom of the river rock to help prevent sediment accumulation and blockage of pore space in the underlying soils. Verify that all infrastructures are constructed per the proposed Drainage Statement. 15) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.N.2: Revise the development plan package to verify that the 10-year flow event is contained under all pedestrian access paths at all discharge concentration points. This is to include the rock rip rap spillways located along the west side of existing Building A from the roof drain leaders if they are to be removed and replaced as needed. Providing a 6-inch water harvesting area for landscaping at these locations may help eliminate having to provide sidewalk scuppers within the right-of-way. 16) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.S: Revise the development plan package to dimension the widths for the existing sidewalks located in the adjacent right-of-ways. Verify that the existing sidewalks meet the accessibility requirements. 17) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.S: Per 2014 aerial photography there is a portion of the existing public sidewalk located at the southeast corner of the site that is buckled and does not meet accessibility requirements. Provide a revised development plan that shows this area to be reconstructed, verify with TDOT if the existing sidewalk width is acceptable or if a new 6-foot sidewalk will be required due to the required reconstruction. DRAINAGE STATEMENT: 18) TSM Sec.4-04.2.3.2.D: Revise the Drainage Statement to provide a discussion along with applicable hydraulic calculation sheets for all proposed drainage infrastructure. The discussion should address the proposed bubbler boxes, scupper, wall openings, valley gutter, revised rock spillway and the existing drainage concentration point of the existing catch basin. Verify that all points of discharge located at pedestrian access points contain the 10-year flow (this is to include the revised rock spillways located along the west side of the building that discharge across the sidewalk into the public right-of-way of Prudence Road. SWPPP: 19) CGP Sec.6.3(5)b: Revise the SWPPP Report Section II.3 to provide the gross area of the site under the Project Size Section. GENERAL COMMENTS: Please provide a revised Development Plan Package, Drainage Statement and SWPPP that addresses the comments provided above. Include a comprehensive response letter addressing in detail responses to all of the above comments. For any questions or to schedule meetings call me at 837-4929. Jason Green, CFM Senior Engineer Associate Engineering Division Planning & Development Services Department |
| 07/14/2014 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Completed | |
| 07/17/2014 | ZELIN CANCHOLA | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | July 21, 2014 SUBJECT: Old Pueblo Harley-Davidson Development Plan Package- Engineering Review TO: Baker & Associates Engineering Inc.; Attn: Michael Baker, PE LOCATION: 7501 E 22nd St; T14S R15E Sec17 REVIEWERS: Zelin Canchola TDOT ACTIVITY: DP14-0109 TDOT does not recommend approval of the The following items need to be addressed: SITE PLAN: 1) AM Sec.2-06.4.8.C: Revise the development plan package to dimension the existing width of the public right-of-way in plan view for Prudence Road. Provide right-of-way (ROW) width, type and dimensioned width of paving, curbs, curb cuts, and sidewalks for both right-of-ways in plan view. 2) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.1: Revise the development plan package to clearly label all existing and proposed gates on the parcel. Verify minimum PAAL and or access widths and revise all gates at driveway entrances so that they swing into the property and not out into the right-of-way. 3) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.2: Revise the development plan package to label and dimension the SVTs for all driveway entrances (to include both adjacent roadways), refer to TSM Sec.10-01.5.3 for line of sight matrix. 4) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.J: Revise the development plan package to include all dimensions for the MS&R Streets adjacent to the project. Provide and/or verify dimensions for future right-of-way, sidewalk area, intersection tapering (Prudence Road and 22nd Street), SVTs, etc. Verify that required improvements are not constructed within this area. 5) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.R: Revise the development plan package and Cross Section "B" to correctly reference the PC/COT Standard Detail for the proposed sidewalk. Currently the Section references #209 however it should reference #200 for sidewalk construction, revise. 6) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.S: Revise the development plan package to dimension the widths for the existing sidewalks located in the adjacent right-of-ways. Verify that the existing sidewalks meet the accessibility requirements. 7) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.S: Per 2014 aerial photography there is a portion of the existing public sidewalk located at the southeast corner of the site that is buckled and does not meet accessibility requirements. Provide a revised development plan that shows this area to be reconstructed. |
| 07/17/2014 | RONALD BROWN | H/C SITE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | SHEET 2 OF8 1. Reference the accessible parking layout to the large scale detail A/4. 2. Relocate the accessible parking signage to a position out side of the paved asphalt, just inside the concrete walkway. 3. All accessible route slopes are to comply with ICC A117.1, Section 403.3; 5% maximum running slope and 2% maximum cross slope. SHEET 4 OF 8 4. Detail A a. Relocate the accessible parking signage to a position out side of the paved asphalt, just inside the concrete walkway. b. Note a maximum of 2% grade slope in all directions is required in the accessible parking and aisle areas. 5. Provide a 5' x 5' turn around (ICC A117.1, Section 403.5.2) at the midway point on the accessible route to 22nd Street. END OF REVIEW |
| 07/22/2014 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1) UDC 7.6.4.B.1.a.3 "An unpaved planting area, which must be a minimum of 34 square feet in area and four feet in width, must be provided for each canopy tree." 2) AM 2-10.4.2 Revise the plant legend to include a differing symbol for the existing oleander shrubs. 3) UDC 7.6.2 "Expansion of existing development, as provided below: 1. Buildings Greater Than 10,000 Square Feet On sites where the gross floor area of the existing building(s) is more than 10,000 square feet, expansion in square footage of land area, floor area, lot coverage, or vehicular use area as follows: a. If the expansion is less than 25%, the standards of this section apply only to the proposed expansion. Existing development on the site is subject to the zoning standards in effect at the time the existing development received zoning approval. b. If the expansion is 25% or greater or if expansions as of February 15, 1991, cumulatively result in a 25% or greater expansion in land area, floor area, lot coverage, or vehicular use area, the standards of this section apply to the entire site. Provide the applicable expansion calculations to determine the extent of the applicability of the Landscape and Screening Regulations. |
| 07/22/2014 | JOE LINVILLE | NPPO | REVIEW | Passed |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 07/24/2014 | CPIERCE1 | REJECT SHELF | Completed |