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: DP14-0167
Parcel: 141220250

Address:
9095 S RITA RD

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: DEV PKG

Permit Number - DP14-0167
Review Name: DEV PKG
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
09/18/2014 AROMERO4 START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
09/18/2014 RONALD BROWN ADA REVIEW Passed
09/18/2014 PGEHLEN1 COT NON-DSD TUCSON POLICE DEPARTMENT Approved I have no issues with this request.
09/19/2014 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Reqs Change CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: Interstate Commerce Park Lots 8 -11
Development Package (1st Review)
DP14-0167

TRANSMITTAL DATE: September 22, 2014

DUE DATE: September 25, 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 August 20, 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.

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 development package case number, DP14-0167, adjacent to the title block on each sheet.

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.4 - Identify the existing and proposed use of the property as classified per the UDC. List all UDC sections applicable to the proposed uses.

2. COMMENT: General site note 4 lists Use Specific Standard, "4.7.21", this not a use specific standard. Review UDC Table 4.8-4 and provided the use specific standard for each proposed use listed.

3. COMMENT: "RETAIL TRADE" listed under general site note 4 is not a use it is a use group. Specify what retail use you are proposing.

4. COMMENT: General site note 4 lists "AUTOMOTIVE" clarify what type of automotive you are proposing, Major or Minor.

5. COMMENT: General site note 5 lists Use Specific Standard, "4.7.29", this not a use specific standard. Review UDC Table 4.8-5 and provided the correct use specific standard for the proposed use.

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

2-06.4.7.A.8.b - Percentage and area in square feet of building and accessory building coverage;

6. COMMENT: Per UDC Section 5.6.8.C.1.b For all other non-residential land use groups, the maximum FAR is .20 of the project site area. That said provide a floor area ratio calculation (FAR) for each individual parcel and the over all site on the plan. For your reference 2-06.4.7.A.8.d.

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.

7. COMMENT: For clarity please provide all parcel lines on the "ZONING INFORMATION MAP", sheet 1.

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.A - Draw in all proposed lot lines with approximate distances and measurements.

8. COMMENT: Clarify what the dashed lines are, see yellow highlite.

9. COMMENT: It appears Buildings "F" & "H" are proposed to be built over property lines. A lot combination is required. Provide a copy of an approved Pima County Combo Request form with your next submittal.

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: Sheet 1 "ZONING INFORMATION MAP" provide the zoning for the parcels located to the northeast, Target Distribution Center.

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: There are numerous PAALs, access lanes and drive-thru lanes that need width dimensions, see blue highlites.

12. COMMENT: Sheet 2 at the south end of the site there is an "L" shape access lane provide a back-up spur on the south end.

13. COMMENT: Sheet 2 at the south end of the site there is a rectangle on the plan. If this is the proposed billboard demonstrate on the plan how the requirements of UDC Section 4.9.4.G.2 are met.

14. COMMENT: Sheet 2 Building "C" show the required one (1) foot setback dimension from the drive-thru to the building, see UDC Section 7.4.6.F.2.a (2).

15. COMMENT: Sheet 3 near the northeast corner of Building "D" clarify what the islands are and provide width dimensions between the islands.

16. COMMENT: Sheet 4 Building "H" show the required one (1) foot setback dimension from the drive-thru to the building, see UDC Section 7.4.6.F.2.a(2).

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.

17. COMMENT:As it appears that 18' and 15'-6" deep vehicle parking spaces are proposed provide a fully dimensioned vehicle parking area.

18. COMMENT: There are numerous vehicle parking spaces that do not appear to be 18'-0" deep. If 15'-6" deep spaces are proposed provide a detail for that depth of parking space showing the 2'-6" vehicle overhang. Also show the 2'-6" vehicle overhang on the plan. If vehicles are proposed to overhang sidewalks demonstrate on the plan that the minimum sidewalk width is maintained.

19. COMMENT: There are numerous accessible vehicle parking spaces where it appears that the proposed accessible vehicle parking sign encroaches into the 2'-6" vehicle overhang area.

20. COMMENT: The location of the wheel stop shown on detail "F" sheet 6 is not correct. See UDC section 7.4.6.H.3.

21. COMMENT: The vehicle parking calculation is not correct, see redline.

22. COMMENT: Clarify what type of carwash is proposed, manned or unmanned. Until clarified the required number of vehicle parking space cannot be verified.

23. COMMENT: Sheet 2, west of Building "A" Keynote 8 calls out "PAVER FINISH GRADE TO MATCH PAVEMENT FINISH GRADE", is the paver area part of the pedestrian circulation? If so clearly show that the pedestrian circulation is separated from the vehicle parking and use area, see TSM 7-01.4.2

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.

24. COMMENT: Provide a loading area calculation that shows the number required and the number provided.

25. COMMENT: General Site Note 5 calls out a "BILLBOARD" , if a billboard is proposed show the required loading space on the plan.

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.

26. COMMENT: Remove the reference to "CLASS I & CLASS II" bicycle parking as they are no longer applicable.

27. COMMENT: Per UDC Section 7.4.9.B.2.f show the required 2'x6" space for each bicycle on detail "I" sheet 7.

28. COMMENT: Detail "I" sheet 7, dimension "A" is not correct, see 7.4.9.B.2.g.

29. COMMENT: Per UDC Section 7.4.9.B.2.f and Figure 7.4.9-C the minimum distance between racks is 4'-0".

30. COMMENT: Sheet 3, Building "G" short term bicycle shows "2" provided but it appears that the number provided should be 4.

31. COMMENT: Sheet 3, Building "D" short term bicycle, it does not appear that the location meets the requirements of UDC Section 7.4.9.C.2.a, Short-term bicycle parking must be within 50 feet of each public entrance to a building as measured along the most direct pedestrian access route.

32. COMMENT: Provide a detail for the long term bicycle parking proposed inside of Buildings "A" & "I".

33. COMMENT: Demonstrate on the plan or detail how the requirements of UDC Section 7.4.9.B.1.d are met.

34. COMMENT: Demonstrate on the plan or detail how the requirements of UDC Section 7.4.9.B.1.e are met.

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).

35. COMMENT: Provide the square footage of each proposed building within the footprint.

36. COMMENT: Provide the square footage and height of the proposed fuel canopy.

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.

37. COMMENT: Clearly delineate all sidewalks on site.

38. COMMENT: Provide width dimensions for all sidewalks on site.

39. COMMENT: There are numerous areas on the plan where it appears that parking vehicles will be allowed to overhang required sidewalks. Demonstrate on the plan that all sidewalks meet the requirements of TSM Section 7-01.4.3.A when parking vehicles overhang the sidewalk.

40. COMMENT: Sheet 2 west side of Building "A" there are two (2) accessible access isles that do not appear to provide access to the sidewalk.

41. COMMENT: Sheet 2 west side of Building "B" there are three (3) accessible access isles, clarify how access is provided to the sidewalk

42. COMMENT: Sheet 2 south side of Building "C" there is an accessible access isles, clarify how access is provided to the sidewalk

43. Sheet 3 west side of Building "F" there are two (2) accessible access isles, clarify how access is provided to the sidewalk

44. Sheet 3 west side of Building "G" there is an accessible access isles, clarify how access is provided to the sidewalk

45. COMMENT: Sheet 4, north & south side of Building "I" there are an accessible access isles, clarify how access is provided to the sidewalk.

46. COMMENT: Sheet 4, north of Building "I" there is a crosswalk that appears to go no where, clarify.

47. COMMENT: Sheet 3, north & south of Building "F" there are crosswalk that do not appear to connect to the sidewalk with and access ramp, clarify.

48. COMMENT: Sheet 3, south of Building "D" there is a crosswalk that does not appear to connect to the sidewalk with and access ramp, clarify.

49. COMMENT: Sheet 2, west of Building "A" Keynote 8 calls out "PAVER FINISH GRADE TO MATCH PAVEMENT FINISH GRADE", is the paver area part of the pedestrian circulation? If so show the 2'-6" vehicle overhang and provide a dimension that shows that a 4'-0" clear area is maintained.

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.

50. COMMENT: General Site Note 5 calls out a "BILLBOARD" show the bill board on the site. A separate permit is required.

Additional Comments

51. COMMENT: Sheet 2 & 4 associated with Buildings "A" & "I" there appears to be pools and some type of fencing or walls, clearly identify these items.

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
.
09/19/2014 MARTIN BROWN COT NON-DSD FIRE Approved
09/22/2014 JASON GREEN ENGINEERING REVIEW Reqs Change DATE: September 22, 2014
DUE DATE: September 25, 2014
SUBJECT: Interstate Commerce Park Lots 8-11 Development Plan Package- Engineering Review
TO: EEC Inc., Attn: Ryan Stucki
LOCATION: 9095 S Rita Rd; T15S R15E Sec34
REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM
ACTIVITY: DP14-0167


SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning & Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed Development Plan Package and Drainage Statement (EEC Inc., 17SEP14). 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.2-06.4.3: The relevant Development Plan Package case number (DP14-0167) may be added to the lower right hand corner of the plan on all sheets.

2) AM Sec.2-06.4.8.A: Revise the development plan package to clearly show all existing parcel lines with 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.

3) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.A: Provide a copy of an approved Pima County Combo Request form with your next submittal specifically for the areas where a building is proposed over a lot line.

4) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Provide an approved lot combination request for the entire parcel or provide a recorded copy of a cross access, cross parking agreement.

5) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan package to clearly label all dimensions onsite for the vehicular use area. There are numerous areas for PAAL widths, access lanes, drive-thru lanes, etc. that need to be clearly dimensioned to ensure overall site layout. Further comments maybe forth coming depending on the dimensions when they are provided.

6) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan package and Detail E on Sheet C6 to clearly dimension the required 2.5-foot overhang from the wheel stop to the sidewalk. Per the detail it dimensions the overhang space at 3-feet which would not allow for a 15.5 foot parking area within the 18 foot stall, revise.

7) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan package to label and dimension the required 1-foot setback from the drive-thru lane to all associated buildings, specifically Buildings "C" and "H" per UDC Sec.7.4.6.F.2.a.2.

8) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan package to clearly label all proposed or existing bill boards onsite.

9) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan package to fully dimension all proposed landscape islands and water harvesting areas onsite to ensure site layout.

10) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan package to verify that all parking spaces adjacent to a sidewalk or landscape island provide the required 2.5-foot overhang. Spaces adjacent to a sidewalk must clearly demonstrate the required overhang along with the minimum 4-foot sidewalk widths.

11) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan package to clearly show that the proposed accessible signage does not encroach into the required 2.5-foot overhang.

12) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan package to clearly label and dimension all loading zones along with the truck maneuverability.

13) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.R: Revise the development plan package to label and dimension all proposed onsite pedestrian access areas. The sidewalk dimensions must be clearly labeled to ensure over all site layout.

14) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.R: Revise the development plan package to clarify how all proposed onsite accessibility access isles are connecting to the proposed sidewalks. Provide a Keynote to label all onsite handicap access ramps to meet ANSI requirements.

15) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.R: Revise the development plan package to show pedestrian connectivity throughout the entire site. Verify that all sidewalks, cross walks and handicap access ramps are clearly labeled and that they provide continuous circulation.

16) 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.

17) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.T: Revise the development plan package to dimension all proposed refuse locations. At a minimum the overall width and depths of the refuse locations must be shown in plan view to ensure over all site layout, revise.


GENERAL COMMENTS:

Please provide a revised Development Plan Package that addresses the comments provided above. Due to the lack of dimensions on the site plan additional comments maybe forth coming once Engineering can provide a full review of the site layout. 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
09/23/2014 RONALD BROWN ZONING HC REVIEW Reqs Change SHEET C2
1. Typically, flared sides of a curb ramp are incorporated when there is cross pedestrian traffic. For all the curb ramps shown with flared sides please provide the following changes:
a. Redraw the flared sides to comply with ICC A117.1, Section 406, 1:10 maximum slope
or
b. Delete the flared sides altogether and provide return curbs.
2. No access to the accessible route (curb ramps) is shown at several places that require one:
a. All accessible parking groups
b. The pedestrian way identified with paver finishes from Building A to building B.
c. The north end of the marked crossing from Building C to Building D
3. There are a couple of curb ramps on marked crossings between buildings C and D that do not comply with the 2009 ICC A117.1, section 406. Please revise and resubmit.
4. Reference all the different types of accessible parking layouts to a large scale detail shown on sheet C6.
a. Genetric details are not acceptable. Provide a large scale detail for each different accessible parking layout.
5. Reference all the different types of curb and sidewalk ramps to large scale details to be shown on sheet C6.
a. Provide a large scale detail for each different type of sidewalk and/or curb ramp.
SHEET C3
6. Reference comments 1 through 5 similar:
a. "2b": The three marked crossings from Building C to the north east end of building F.
b. "3": The marked crossing between Building C and the Rita Road right of way.
SHEET C4
7. Reference comment 2A similar.
8. At the marked crossing from Building I to the Science Park Drive:
a. Provide a curb ramp and a connection to Building I accessible route.
b. Something appears not quite right at the north end ramp. A ramp going up to no where? Provide a large scale detail to clarify the functionallity.
SHEET C6
9. Provide large scale details of all different types of accessible parking:
a. Show accessible route
b. Show access to the accessible route
c. Delete the two notes at the bottom of the detail, they are not revalent to this project.
d. Delete all ADAAG references at note A. Reference the 2012 IBC, Chapter 11 and the 2009 ICC A117.1.
e. At note A reference note 9c above.
10. Provide large scale details of all the different types of sidewalk and curb ramps showing all accessible requiremnets such as slopes, landings, dimensions, flared sides, curbing, landings, accessible routes and connection to accessible routes.
END OF REVIEW
09/24/2014 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Reqs Change 1. An approved development plan is not to be used for construction of on-site utilities (e.g. water service to the building, building sewer, site lighting, or electrical service to the building). The construction of the on-site utilities may be included with the permit for constructing the building or as a separate permit. Remove any notes relating to how the site utilities are to be constructed.
2. Determine the daily wastewater flow to the two existing public manholes using Table 1, Unit Daily Design Flows, Arizona Administrative Code, Title 18, Chapter 9. If the total flow for the private sewage collection system to either manhole is in excess of 3000 gallons per day, the design for the system must be submitted to the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality for their approval prior to obtaining a permit for constructing the sewage collection system from the City of Tucson. Reference A. R. S. 49-104 (B) (13).
3. Provide the proposed rim elevations of the sanitary manholes 3289-13 and 3289-24. Determine the need for a backwater valve per Section 715.1, IPC 2012, as amended by the City of Tucson.
09/24/2014 JOSE ORTIZ COT NON-DSD TRAFFIC Approved
09/25/2014 JOE LINVILLE LANDSCAPE REVIEW Reqs Change 1) Revise the landscape plans to incorporate the Native Plant Mitigation requirements of D07-0028.

2) Address the screning requirements along the Science Park
Drive frontage. UDC Table 7.6.4-1

3) Address the screening requirements on the south and east boundaries. UDC Table 7.6.4-1
09/25/2014 JOE LINVILLE NPPO REVIEW Reqs Change Refer to the previously approved NPP Plans and revise the plans to incorporate mitigation previously proposed.
09/25/2014 PGEHLEN1 OTHER AGENCIES TUCSON AIRPORT AUTHORITY Passed
09/26/2014 PATRICIA GEHLEN ZONING-DECISION LETTER REVIEW Reqs Change This review has been completed and resubmittal is required. Please resubmit the following items:

1) 4 rolled sets of the plans
2) All items requested by review staff
3) All items needed to approve this plan

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
09/30/2014 AROMERO4 OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed