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

Permit Number: DP14-0147
Parcel: 117062000

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: DEV PKG - RESUBMITTAL

Permit Number - DP14-0147
Review Name: DEV PKG - RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
09/22/2014 AROMERO4 START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
09/24/2014 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Reqs Change CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: AC Hotel Broadway
Development Package (2nd Review) Revised
DP14-0047

TRANSMITTAL DATE: September 24, 2014

DUE DATE: October 03, 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 September 01, 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

2-06.5.0 FLEXIBLE LOT DEVELOPMENT (FLD) - ADDITIONAL 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.

CONTENT 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. Zoning acknowledges that you have submitted for DRB, provide the required information on the plan with the next submittal. COMMENT: As project will require review for Rio Nuevo District (RND), Downtown Area Infill Incentive District (IID) Provide the appropriate case numbers adjacent to the title block on each sheet. Contact Russlyn Wells, phone 837-4948 or email Russlyn.Wells@tucsonaz.gov for RND & IID requirements. Until the IID and RND are approved the development package cannot be approved.

2-06.4.7.A.8 - For development package documents provide:

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.A - Provide site boundary/subdivision perimeter information, including bearing in degrees, minutes, and seconds, with basis for bearing noted, together with distances in feet, to hundredths of a foot, or other functional reference system.

2. Until a building permit has been started zoning cannot put a hold on the building permit or certificate of occupancy. Until such time that a building permit has been started this comment stands and the development package cannot be approved. COMMENT: As the proposed site is made up of five (5) parcels, 117-06-187D, 117-06-193B, 117-06-193C, 117-06-197A & 117-06-2000 a lot combination is required. Provide a copy of the approved Pima County Combo Request from with our next submittal.

2-06.4.9.H - Proposed Traffic Circulation

2-06.4.9.H.2 - Show future and existing sight visibility triangles (SVTs). On a designated MS&R street, the sight visibility triangles are based on the MS&R cross-section.

3. Until the TSMR is approved the development package cannot be approved. COMMENT: If applicable show the required SVTs on the plan.

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.

4. There is still a Keynote 11 shown on the plan for a bollard to remain near the access lane, either provide a dimension to the bollard or remove the keynote. COMMENT: Per UDC Section 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. The additional area is necessary to provide clearance for fire, sanitation, and delivery vehicles. That said provide a dimension from the existing bollard to the access lane.

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.

5. COMMENT: Clarify why there are two (2) different "TYPICAL PARKING" details shown, one on sheet 4 and one on sheet 5. One showing a 2.5' dimension from the wall to the striped access isle, the other with a 2.5' dimension for the wheel stop.

6. Until the IID is approved the development package cannot be approved. COMMENT: After discussions with staff provide a vehicle parking space calculation based on UDC Table 7.4.4-1 MINIMUM NUMBER OF MOTOR VEHICLE SPACES REQUIRED for all existing and proposed uses on site. Under this calculation provide a note stating "PER UDC SECTION 5.12.5.B.6 ZERO (0) VEHCILE PARKING SPACES REQUIRED." Provide the IID case number and date of approval. Also remove the reference to MDR-10-01 as the IID will govern.

2-06.4.9.H.5.c - Show all loading zones, vehicle maneuverability fully dimensioned, and access route. Provide as a note the number of loading spaces required, the number provided, whether the loading space is a Type A or B as provided in UDC Section 7.5.4.

7. Until the IID is approved the development package cannot be approved. COMMENT: After discussions with staff provide a loading space calculation based on UDC Table 7.5.5-A REQUIRED LOADING AREAS for all existing and proposed uses on site. Under this calculation provide a note stating "PER UDC SECTION 5.12.5.B.7 ZERO (0) LOADING SPACES REQUIRED." Provide the IID case number and date of approval.

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.

8. Zoning acknowledges your response but cannot approve the development package until the comment has been addressed. COMMENT: Zoning acknowledges that short term bicycle parking is proposed within the right-of-way. The proposed layout will need to be approved by COT Bicycle Coordinator, Ann Chanecka, 837-6691, Ann.Chanecka@tucsonaz.gov. The location will need to be approved by the COT Transportation Department.

COMMENT: Keynote 21 Sheet 2 calls out "NEW SHORT TERM BIKE RACKS" on the previously submitted plans short term racks were shown in the ROW along the 5th Avenue ROW south of the proposed access lane. The racks appear to have been removed but the Keynote is still pointing to that area of the plan.

COMMENT: Along Broadway there now appears to be short term bicycle parking proposed but the Keynote pointing to what appears to be racks is Keynote 28, "NEW CONCRETE CURB", clarify.

9. This comment was not addressed. Keynote 9 sheets 4 & 5 reference bicycle racks located within the parking garage. My comment has nothing to do with bicycles shown in the ROW as shown on detail "A". COMMENT: Sheets 4 & 5 Keynote 9 states "NEW SHORT TERM BICYCLE RACK PARKING. SEE DETAIL A, SHEET 6, detail A Sheet 6 looks nothing like the racks shown on sheets 4 & 5. Provide a detail for the short term bicycle parking shown on these sheets.

2-06.4.9.O - All applicable building setback lines, such as erosion hazard, floodplain detention/retention basins, and zoning, including sight visibility triangles, will be shown.

10. Zoning acknowledges your response but cannot approve the development package until the comment has been addressed. COMMENT: Along the east and south side of the proposed building there is "NEW BUILDING OVERHANG" shown within the right-of-way. A temporary revocable easement is required. Contact COT Real Estate Office.

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.

11. This comment was not addressed. 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, unless there is no vehicular access from a street because of a physical barrier, such as a drainageway or an unbroken security barrier (e.g., a wall or fence). The sidewalk should be located to minimize any conflict with vehicular access to the project. That said show the required sidewalk to Arizona Avenue.

12. This comment was not fully addressed. The area along the north side of the building where the columns are called out must be a minimum four (4) foot wide sidewalk. There is a dimension showing "3.5'" on the north side of the column, this does not meet the four (4) foot requirement and the dimension does not line up with the edge of curb. It does not appear that the area between the proposed building and the column will meet the required four (4) foot width, provide a dimension. COMMENT: Per TSM 7-01.4.3.A Width. All sidewalks must be a minimum of four feet wide and installed to avoid any obstruction which decreases the minimum width to less than four feet. That said provide width dimensions for the sidewalk shown along the north side of the proposed hotel.

13. COMMENT: Per TSM 7-01.4.0.B A sidewalk is required adjacent and parallel to any access lane or PAAL on the side where buildings are located. That said a four (4) foot sidewalk is required between the existing walk-in cooler and the access lane.

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
09/24/2014 JASON GREEN ENGINEERING REVIEW Reqs Change DATE: September 25, 2014
DUE DATE: October 03, 2014
SUBJECT: AC Hotel Broadway Development Plan Package- 2nd Engineering Review
TO: Cypress Civil Development
LOCATION: 151 E Broadway Blvd; T14S R13E Sec12
REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM
ACTIVITY: DP14-0147

SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning & Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed Development Plan Package and Drainage Statement (Cypress Civil Development, 27AUG14) and Geotechnical Evaluation (Western Technology, Inc., 02DEC13). 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) Complied.

2) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.3: Revise the development plan package to include the appropriate case numbers for the Rio Nuevo District (RND) and Downtown Area Infill Incentive District (IID) Overlay reviews. Provide the appropriate case numbers adjacent to the title block on each sheet.

3) Complied.

4) Acknowledged: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.A: Revise the development plan package to either provided an approved lot combination from Zoning or a recorded cross access cross parking agreement for the separate lots. Until a building plan application is submitted a hold cannot be placed on the Building Final. This comment will stand until a building plan application has been submitted.

5) Acknowledged: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H: PDSD Engineering did not review all right-of-way improvements for conformance with TSM Sec.10-01 since the plan was a full electronic review and a copy was provided to TDOT Permits and Codes for their review. Ensure that all TDOT comments have been addressed prior to resubmittal. There still seems to be right-of-way issues that need to be worked out and all Departments must verify that the process has been completed.

6) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.1: It is acknowledged that a TSMR application was submitted to reduce the 25-foot radii at the intersection; however the proposed 18-foot radii must be clearly labeled in plan view to ensure construction.

7) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.1: It is acknowledged that a TSMR application was submitted to reduce the radii at the intersections; however the proposed radii must be clearly labeled in plan view to ensure construction.

8) Complied.
9) Complied.
10) Complied.

11) Acknowledged: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.2: It is acknowledged that a TSMR has been submitted to reduce the 20-foot stem length to 15-feet and PDSD supports this request; however the development plan package must clearly show SVTs at all locations. Specifically the SVT's at the intersection of the access lane and Arizona Avenue and the pedestrian SVT at the intersection of Arizona Avenue and Broadway Boulevard. The pedestrian SVT should be shown on the near side to ensure that traffic can visually see pedestrians and bicyclist coming down the sidewalk.

12) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: It is acknowledged that the 2-foot setback dimension was added to the plan and that the bollard has been removed; however the plan sheet still labels Keynote #11 this Keynote should be removed if the bollard has been removed.

13) Complied.
14) Complied.
15) Complied.

16) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: It is acknowledged that the applicant is requesting an interpretation on the required setback from the column through the IID submittal however until the IID application is processed and approved this comment will stand. Revise the development plan package to label and dimension the 2-foot setback from the proposed parking spaces and any vertical structure over 6-inches per UDC Section 7.4.6.F.2.b. specifically the proposed parking spaces within the parking garage that are adjacent to the structural columns.

17) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan package to clearly label and dimension the required 2.5-foot overhang at the wheel stops for the handicap parking spaces in the parking garage. Revise the 2 details to match each other and to correctly show the 2.5 foot overhang.

18) Complied.
19) Complied.

20) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.O: Provide approval from the City of Tucson Real Estate Office with the approved temporary revocable easement for the proposed building overhang shown within the right-of-way of Broadway Blvd. Until this is processed and approved through Real Estate this comment stands.

21) Complied.

22) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.R: Revise the development plan package to label and dimension the required sidewalk from the proposed hotel to the existing Arizona Avenue right-of-way. This sidewalk connection is required per Code. The TSMR application provided did not clearly ask to modify this comment. Until the TSMR is revised and all Sections agree that this connection is provided elsewhere this comment stands.

23) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.R: Revise the development plan package to label and dimension the minimum width of the sidewalk along the north side of the building. This sidewalk connection is required per Code. The TSMR application provided did not clearly ask to modify this comment. Until the TSMR is revised and all Sections agree that this connection is provided elsewhere this comment stands

24) Complied.

25) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.S: It is acknowledged that the ramps have been added to both sides of the access lane; however for any portion of the right-of-way improvements that are proposed to be constructed onsite a pedestrian access easement will be required. Per plan view it appears that both ramps have areas that are located onsite.

26) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.S: Revise the development plan package to provide the required sidewalk along the public right-of-way of Arizona Avenue. Per TSM Sec.10-01.2.7.A and Sec.10-01.4.1.A.1.a the new sidewalk is required along the frontage of the right-of-way and is required to be a minimum of 5-feet.

27) Complied.
28) Complied.


GENERAL COMMENTS:

Please provide a revised Development Plan Package 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
09/24/2014 FDILLON1 DESIGN EXAMINER REVIEW Needs Review 9-24-14 - Courtesy Historical Review to take place 9-25-14 and Design Review Board Review - 10-3-14. Also requires MDR approval.
09/30/2014 RONALD BROWN ZONING HC REVIEW Reqs Change ALL RESUBMITTAL COMMENTS PROVIDE IN ALL CAPS.

1. Provide an accessible passenger loading zone as required by the 2012 IBC, Section 1106.7 and the 2009 ICC A117.1, Section 503.3.
VERIFY WITH ZONING THE REQUIRED SEPARATION BETWEEN PEDESTRIAN WALKWAYS AND VEHICLE TRAFIC AREAS.

2. All accessible route slopes must comply with 2009 ICC A117.1, Section 403.3, 5% maximum running slope and 2% maximum cross slope. Provide a note to that effect on the drawings.
OK

3. Provide directional arrows for the drive entrance and the passenger drop off zone.
OK

4. Where is access to the existing restaurant and bar?
PROVIDE A PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ACROSS THE ENTRANCE DRIVE WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE PROPERTY LINES OR OBTAIN A TSMR APPROVAL OF THE ONE IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT WAY. VERIFY ALL REQUIREMENTS WITH ZONING.

5. For 200 parking spaces only 6 accessible spaces are required as per table 1106.1, 8 is acceptable.
OK

6. Insure directional signage to all of the accessible parking spaces.
PROVIDE SIGNAGE DIRECTING PEOPLE TO THE ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES AT EACH LEVEL

7. Identify all accessible parking spaces.
OK

8. Why not wall mount the accessible parking signs as opposed to pole mounting?
OK

9. Provide a large scale detail of the accessible parking layout showing all accessible requirements such as dimensioning, Van accessible space, markings, grade slopes,
access to accessible route, accessible route and signage.
FINISH THE DIMENSIONING

10. Provide large scale details of both of the accessible ramps showing all accessible requirements such as dimensioning, ramp percentage slopes, rise and runs, landings, handrails, clearance requirements and spot grades.
NON RESPONSIVE

END OF REVIEW
09/30/2014 KBROUIL1 COT NON-DSD FIRE Approved
10/01/2014 ANDREW CONNOR LANDSCAPE REVIEW Reqs Change ADMINISTRATIVE MANUAL SECTION 2-10.0.0: LANDSCAPE PLAN REQUIREMENTS

Identification and Descriptive Data

All improvements and site information, such as adjacent rights-of-way and property lines, shown on the landscape plan will be identical in size and location to those shown on the base plan (site plan or tentative plat). Should amendments be required to the base plan through the review process, the same amendments will be made to the landscape plan which will then be resubmitted along with the base plan.

Ensure that all Zoning, Engineering and TDOT comments and concerns are addressed prior to PDSD landscape approval signature.
10/02/2014 GARY WITTWER COT NON-DSD TDOT Reqs Change Trish,
Here are my review comments:
1. All planting in the ROW must be on the approved plant list. (except annuals)
2. 8" raised planters may be a tripping hazard. Leave flush or raise to 18".
3. Astroturf Benches are not part of the Downtown furniture. Submit cut sheets.
4. Benches - please submit a cut sheet.
5. Please submit cut sheets for Bike Racks and tree grates. (I assume tree grates on Broadway)
6. What are the bench/table symbols against the bldg on Broadway?
7. Concrete and paver patterns need to be reversed. (80% concrete w/ 20% pavers)
8. Will need to see paver detail - section.
9. What color is the concrete?
10> Please submit an irrigation plan.
Let me know if you have questions.
GAry
>>> DSD_CDRC 10/2/2014 7:25 AM >>>


Morning-

Just a reminder that this review is due by 5pm tomorrow. I will be out of the office tomorrow so I am sending the reminder one day early.

Thanks
Trish
>>> DSD_CDRC 9/22/2014 2:17 PM >>>

Dear Reviewers:



This is an electronic distribution for a CDRC Development Plan review. If you normally receive paper copies of the review documents, you will receive them soon.



The applicable case numbers are:



CDRC Development Plan: DP14-0147

Existing and Proposed Zoning: OCR-2

Proposed Use: Hotel/Multi-Use

Due Date: October 3, 2014

Electronic Documents may be found at the following link: http://www.tucsonaz.gov/PRO/Command?mode=permit&firstTime=true&number_key=dp14-0147&command=InitialProcess



1. If the PRO disclaimer appears, click on the “I have read the disclaimer” button at the bottom of the page.

2. On the Permit and Parcel Detail page click on the Associated Documents and Plans button for activity number DP14-0147 to display the document list

3. Click on the View File button next to the desired document to view that document.
10/02/2014 HEATHER THRALL SIGNS SIGN CODE REVIEW Approved
10/06/2014 CPIERCE1 ZONING-DECISION LETTER REVIEW Reqs Change See Patricia for submittal requirements.
10/06/2014 CPIERCE1 COT NON-DSD ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Reqs Change The resubmittal of the Development Package has been reviewed by Environmental Services. Please address the following on the resubmittal:

1.The space shown on the Trash Enclosure Detail on Sheet 8 provides an area that is only 6 ft x 7 ft., and with bollards on the sides this is even less. Provide an area for the rolling container of 10 ft x 10 ft. clear between bollards set one foot from the walls or other obstacles.

2. The turning template used to demonstrate the backing movement of the compactor is incorrect. Show the inside radius of 36 ft and the outside radius of 50 ft. per figures in TSM Section 8 and per TSM Section 8-01.5.3.E.

3. Per discussions with ESD, state that the steel sliding door in front of the compactor is automatic, and not opened and closed manually.

4. In the “Trash Enclosure Detail” on Sheet 8, state that the 15.5 ft. clearance height is the “minimum” clearance height.

ESD requests to be added to the list of reviewers of the building plans once submitted in order to check clearances, loading dock height, compactor equipment, etc.

Per Ken Perry

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
10/08/2014 PGEHLEN1 APPROVAL SHELF Completed
10/08/2014 PGEHLEN1 OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed
10/08/2014 CPIERCE1 REJECT SHELF Completed