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: DP15-0039
Parcel: 99999999A

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW

Permit Number - DP15-0039
Review Name: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
03/12/2015 PGEHLEN1 START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
03/12/2015 PGEHLEN1 TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Approved See documents in PRO
03/16/2015 RONALD BROWN ADA REVIEW Passed
03/17/2015 PGEHLEN1 OTHER AGENCIES PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS Approved See documents in PRO
03/18/2015 PGEHLEN1 PIMA COUNTY ADDRESSING Reqs Change 201 N. STONE AV, 1ST FL
TUCSON, AZ 85701-1207

ROBIN FREIMAN
ADDRESSING REVIEW
PH #: 724-9512

TO: CITY PLANNING
FROM: ROBIN FREIMAN, ADDRESSING REVIEW
SUBJECT: DP15-0039/Tentative Plat/Site Plan/Shops F - Tucson MarketPlace 1ST Review
DATE: March 17, 2015



The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and the following matters must be resolved prior to our approval:


1. Label all sheets with project number DP15-0039

2. TP-1 and TP-2 label all public streets as PUBLIC

3. TP-1 and TP-2: *NOTE: LOTS THAT ARE EXISTING ARE UNDER 'THE FINAL PLAT OF TUCSON MARKETPLACE - PHASE 3, SEQUENCE NO. 20132200499" add EXCLUDED FROM THIS PLAT

4. TP-2: remove "NEW" from Lots #1 - 8

5. SP-1: correct spelling of TUCSON MARKETPLACE BLVD.
03/23/2015 ED ABRIGO PIMA COUNTY ASSESSOR Reqs Change Office of the Pima County Assessor
115 N. Church Ave.
Tucson, Arizona 85701

BILL STAPLES
ASSESSOR




TO: CDRC Office
Subdivision Review
City of Tucson (FAX# 791-5559)



FROM: Ada Griffin
GIS Cartographer
Pima County Assessor's Office


DATE: March 23, 2015


RE: Assessor's Review and Comments Regarding:

*2nd AMENDED*

DP15-0039 TENTATIVE PLAT SHOPS F TUCSON
MARKETPLACE

_

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Plat meets Assessor's Office requirements.
___X___ Plat does not meet Assessor's Office requirements.

COMMENTS:


" MISSING - THE TITLE BLOCK MUST BE IN THE LOWER RIGHT HAND CORNER. IT MUST HAVE THE NUMBER OF LOTS OR UNITS OR BLOCKS OR ANY COMBINATION OF THESE. IT MUST HAVE THE COMMON AREAS LISTED, IF THERE ARE ANY. IT MUST HAVE THE SECTION, TOWNSHIP AND RANGE AND IF IT IS A RESUBDIVISION, IT MUST MENTION THE PLAT NAME AND THE MAP AND PLAT.

" MISSING - GENERAL NOTES MUST HAVE THE GROSS AREA OF THE SUBDIVISION, THE NUMBER OF LOTS, THE NUMBER OF MILES OF NEW ROAD, PUBLIC OR PRIVATE, EVEN IF THE NUMBER IS 0. NO 'DEDICATION', NO 'GENERAL NOTES'.

" THERE MUST BE APPROXIMATE DIMENSIONS FOR THE PERIMETER AND ALL LOT LINES AND ALL COMMON AREAS.

" ALL LOTS MUST BE NUMBERED AND HAVE SQUARE FOOTAGE. IF THE AREA IS TOO SMALL, THEY CAN HAVE A TABLE TO THE SIDE FOR THE SQUARE FOOTAGE.





" OUR RECORDS INDICATE THE OWNERS AS:

123-13-0820 MC DONALDS REAL ESTATE CO
123-13-0830 FULLERTON TUCSON MARKETPLACE LLC
123-13-0840 FULLERTON TUCSON MARKETPLACE LLC
123-13-0850 TUCSON RETAIL LLC
123-13-0860 FULLERTON TUCSON MARKETPLACE LLC
123-13-087B TUCSON RETAIL LLC
123-13-087C FULLERTON TUCSON MARKETPLACE LLC
123-13-087D TUCSON RETAIL LLC
123-13-087E TUCSON PORT CREDIT LP



NOTE: THE ASSESSOR'S CURRENT INVOLVEMENT IN PROCESSING ITS MANUAL MAPS TO DIGITAL FORMAT IS EXPEDITED GREATLY BY EXCHANGE OF DIGITAL DATA. IN THE COURSE OF RECORDING THIS SUBDIVISION YOUR ASSISTANCE IN PROVIDING THIS OFFICE WITH AN AUTOCAD COPY WOULD BE GREATLY APPRECIATED. THANK YOU FOR ANY DIGITAL DATA PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED.
03/23/2015 TOM MARTINEZ OTHER AGENCIES AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION Approved Regional Traffic Engineering has no comments on this submittal and supports its approval. Thank you.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Confidentiality and Nondisclosure Notice: This email transmission and any attachments are intended for use by the person(s)/entity(ies) named above and may contain confidential/privileged information. Any unauthorized use, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by email, and delete or destroy all copies plus attachments.
.
03/25/2015 PGEHLEN1 UTILITIES SOUTHWEST GAS Approved see documents in PRO
04/01/2015 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Reqs Change CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: Shops "F" Tucson Market Place
Development Package (1st Review)
DP15-0039

TRANSMITTAL DATE: April 6, 2015

DUE DATE: April 9, 2015

COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along with a detailed 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 March 9, 2016.

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

2-06.3.6 - Provide a blank three-inch by five-inch block in the lower right corner of the plan adjacent to the title block on the first sheet of the development package for use by Pima County Addressing.

1. COMMENT: It does not appear that the required blank three-inch by five-inch block has been provided on all sheets.

CONTENT REQUIREMENTS

2-06.4.2 - The title block shall include the following information and be provided on each sheet:

2-06.4.2.B - A brief legal description and a statement as to whether the project is a resubdivision are to be provided. On resubdivisions, provide the recording information of the existing subdivision plat;

2. COMMENT: Provide the above information in the title block.

2-06.4.2.C - The number of proposed lots and common areas are to be noted. If the subdivision is a Flexible Lot Development (FLD), a condominium, or a similar type of residential subdivision utilizing special provisions of the UDC, it shall be so noted;

3. COMMENT: Provide the above information in the title block.

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.

4. COMMENT: Provide the development package case number, DP15-0039, adjacent to the title block on each sheet.

5. COMMENT: Provide the development package case number, DP15-0039, as applicable on sheet 2.

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.6.a - List additional applications and overlays, by case number (if applicable), in lower right corner of each sheet. As a general note provide the type of application processed or overlays applicable, a statement that the project meets the criteria/conditions of the additional application or overlay, the case number, date of approval, what was approved, and the conditions of approval, if any.

6. COMMENT: Sheet 1 General Note 22 provide the correct UDC Articles for the overlays of Major Streets & Routes "5.4" and Gateway "5.5".

2-06.4.7.A.7 - If the property is part of a subdivision plat that is being reviewed or has been recorded, provide the case number in the lower right corner of each sheet. As a general note, indicate whether the project is part of a Flexible Lot Development (FLD), condominium, or another similar type project.

7. COMMENT: As a final plat will be required provide the final plat case number adjacent to the title block on all sheets.

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

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.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.

8. COMMENT: Per UDC Article 7.4.6.F.2.a.(2) Access lanes and PAALs must be setback at least one foot from: A structure when the access lane or PAAL serves as a drive-through lane. That said show the required one (1) foot setback on the plan.

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.

9. COMMENT: Provide a standard vehicle parking space detail. As wheel stops are shown on the plan include the wheel stops on the detail and provide a location dimension per UDC Article 7.4.6.H.

10. COMMENT: Show the 2'-6" vehicle overhang for the vehicle parking shown along the southeast side of the proposed building. It appear that the proposed accessible parking signs encroach into the overhang area.

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.

11. COMMENT: The proposed location of the short term bicycle parking does not meet the requirements of UDC Articles 7.4.9.C.2.a and .b

12. COMMENT: Detail 3/G-1 does not meet the requirement UDC Articles j7.4.9.B.2.f, & .g and UDC Figure 7.4.9-C.

13. COMMENT: Demonstrate on the plan how the requirement of UDC Section 7.4.9.B.1.e is met.

14. COMMENT: The proposed location of the long term bicycle parking does not allow access to both ends as shown on detail 2/G-1.

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.

15. COMMENT: Provide width dimensions for all proposed sidewalks shown on the plan.

16. COMMENT: Clarify what the hatched areas are that are shown at the northeast and southeast corners of the proposed building.

17. COMMENT: The asphalt trial called out under construction note 18 does not appear to connect to the existing trail located to the west.

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.

18. COMMENT: Provide a general note stating "ALL SIGNAGE TO BE PERMITTED UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT".

Additional Comments;

19. COMMENT: Remove all references to "DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS" and provide the correct technical standards reference on the plan.


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
04/02/2015 ZELIN CANCHOLA COT NON-DSD TRAFFIC Approved
04/02/2015 PGEHLEN1 POLICE REVIEW Approved I have no issues with this proposal.


CSO Becky Noel #37968
Tucson Police Dept.
1100 S. Alvernon
Tucson, AZ 85711
520-837-7428

>>> DSD_CDRC 3/12/2015 11:47 AM >>>

Dear Reviewers: This is an electronic distribution for a CDRC Tentative Plat review. If you normally receive paper copies of the review documents, you will receive them soon. The applicable case numbers are: CDRC Development Plan: DP15-0039
04/08/2015 PGEHLEN1 ENV SVCS REVIEW Reqs Change The Development Package has been reviewed on behalf of Environmental Services and the following will need to be addressed on the resubmittal:
· The detail for the enclosure does not comply with the standard detail for a double enclosure as shown in Figure 3A, both in size and construction materials. Revise the detail to comply with Figure 3A and include the callouts for the slab and its reinforcement, the correct dimensions, and the square concrete apron without cut corners, etc.
· Clarify the three details comprising the Trash Enclosure Detail 1 on Sheet DP-2. How do these details relate to each other? The dimensions don’t seem to agree.
· The concrete slab for the enclosure is to slope at 1 percent toward the gate opening per Figure 3A. Revise the grading plan sheet to reflect this.
· A minimum safe access and operational area of 14 ft. x 40 ft. shall be provided in front of each enclosure per TSM 8-01.5.3.B. For the double enclosure, this area would be 28 ft. x 40 ft. Show this clear area on the site plan. It appears there may be a curb encroaching into this required clear area.
· Per TSM 8-01.4.0.B, add the general note specifying the anticipated method of collection and frequency based upon the calculated tonnage from Table 1 for the intended use.
If there are any questions, I can be reached at kperry@perryengineering.net
04/08/2015 JANE DUARTE COT NON-DSD PARKS & RECREATION Reqs Change Tucson Parks and Recreation's comments:

The current 'Pima Regional Trails System Master Plan' ( http://www.tucsonaz.gov/files/parks/docs/capital/prtsmaster.pdf ) indicates that the El Paso & Southwestern Greenway (G017) is to provide a continuous twelve foot wide paved multi-use path as well as an eight foot wide decomposed granite trail within a 50' wide landscaped corridor (see Greenways descriptions and cross sections, pages 61-64) through the Bridges development. Per the Bridges Planned Area Development document (PAD-15, section C.2.4.b - Trails and Pathways), the El Paso & Southwestern Greenway is to be constructed through this parcel. Modify the Tentative Plat to include the PRTSMP/PAD-required 50' landscaped corridor including a continuous twelve foot wide paved multi-use path and an eight foot wide trail. The path and trail will need to connect to the enhanced pedestrian crossing of Tucson Marketplace Boulevard west of the site and the multi-use path should end in alignment with the existing path located on the COSTCO parcel (Block 15) southeast of this site.

Howard B. Dutt, RLA
Landscape Architect
Tucson Parks & Recreation
(520) 837-8040
Howard.Dutt@tucsonaz.gov

>>> DSD_CDRC 3/12/2015 11:47 AM >>>

Dear Reviewers: This is an electronic distribution for a CDRC Tentative Plat review. If you normally receive paper copies of the review documents, you will receive them soon. The applicable case numbers are: CDRC Development Plan: DP15-0039
Existing and Proposed Zoning: PAD
04/08/2015 RONALD BROWN H/C SITE REVIEW Reqs Change SHEET DP-1
1. At note 21, update the IBC to 2012. Update the ICC A117.1 to 2009.
SHEET G2
2. Add a new note number 28 stating that all accessible route slopes are to comply with the 2009 ICC A117.1, Section 403.3: 5% maximum running and 2% maximum cross. Dispurse this note through out all the accessible routes shown on the plan.
SHEET DTL-1
3. At details 3, 6, 7 and 10: Detectable warnings are required only at transportation platforms and may be omitted.
4. At detail 10: Show maximum grade slopes of 2% in all directions at the accessible parking and accessible aisle spaces.
END OF REVIEW
04/09/2015 MARTIN BROWN COT NON-DSD FIRE Approved
04/09/2015 LIZA CASTILLO UTILITIES TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER Approved Although this approved, please look at TEP maps and letters in PRO
04/09/2015 ELIZABETH LEIBOLD ENGINEERING REVIEW Reqs Change DATE: April 6, 2015
TO: Jeff Behrana P.E. Optimus Engineering
SUBJECT: Development Package Engineering Re-plat Block 6 / Development Plan 1st Review submittal
PROJECT: Tucson Market Place Shops F Development Package
LOCATION: 1500 E TUCSON MARKETPLACE BL, Ward 5
FEMA PANEL: 2237K, Zone X-Unshaded
WATERSHED: Mission View Wash Watershed adjacent to Greyhound Wash Detention Area
REVIEWER: Elizabeth Leibold P.E.
ACTIVITY NUMBER: DP15-0039
SUMMARY: The Development Package that includes the Development Plan & Tentative Plat for re-platting Block 6 for the Tucson Market Place Shops F was received and reviewed by Planning & Development Services Department Engineering Division. Submittal package included Development Plan / Tentative Plat sheets, Landscape Plan sheets, and Drainage Statement. Tentative Plat sheets are lacking general tentative plat information per Admin Man Secs.2-06.3 & 4. Development Services Department Engineering Division does not recommend approval of this Development Package at this time until the following comments are addressed.
BASE PLAN SHEETS COMMENTS:
None at this time.
MASTER COVER SHEETS/ GENERAL NOTES:
1) Update General Notes 20 and 22 on sheet 1.
SITE, DRAINAGE AND GRADING COMMENTS:
2) Admin Man Sec.2-06.4.7.A.6.a: Include reference in title block to PAD-15. List additional applications and overlays, by case number (if applicable), in lower right corner of each sheet. As a general note provide the type of application processed or overlays applicable, a statement that the project meets the criteria/conditions of the additional application or overlay, the case number, date of approval, what was approved, and the conditions of approval, if any.
3) Admin Man Sec.2-06.4.9.R: Per PAD-15, verify whether 8-ft granite path is also required.
4) Admin Man Sec.2-06.4.8.A, Tech Man. Sec.10-01.5.3: Address the following comments:
a) Assure correct dimensions are provided for solid waste pick-up enclosure detail. Add note regarding opaque gates for solid waste enclosure. Assure minimum 2% slope is provided in area of trash pick-up enclosure so that the enclosure is elevated and not located in a stormwater runoff flowline.
b) Add to keynotes 21 & 22 on SP-1 that the existing tress shall be trimmed as needed to meet SVT requirements.
5) Tech Man Sec.2-01: Address the following grading comments on sheet G-2:
a) Show roof drainage locations and associated scuppers beneath walk areas.
TENTATIVE PLAT AND SURVEY RELATED COMMENTS:
6) Admin Man Sec.2-06.4.2.B: Provide clarification in title block on Tentative plat sheets T-1 and T-2 as to whether Block 6 or Lot 6 is being re-subdivided. Assure all tentative plat formatting, title block, and notes are provided on Tentative Plat sheets.
7) Admin Man Sec.2-06.4.8.A: Label all parcel boundary perimeter bearings/distances for new lots for sheet T-1 and T-2.
8) UDC Sec.8.4.4: Tentative plat sheets T-1 and T-2 shall include all necessary tentative plat formatting and notes. See Admin Man Secs.2-06.3 & 4 for all the notes and formatting requirements.
A response letter is required with the resubmittal of the revised Development Plan package, acknowledging or addressing all of the above comments. For resubmittal, provide response letter and revised plan sheets. If you have questions, call me at 837-4934.
Elizabeth Leibold, P.E., CPM, CFM
Civil Engineer
Engineering Division
Planning & Development Services Dept
04/09/2015 ANDREW CONNOR LANDSCAPE REVIEW Reqs Change Identification and Descriptive Data

All improvements and site information, such as adjacent rights-of-way and property lines, shown on the grading 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 grading plan which will then be resubmitted along with the base plan.

Ensure that all Zoning and Engineering comments and concerns are addressed.

Additional comments may apply
04/09/2015 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Completed
04/10/2015 PATRICIA GEHLEN ZONING-DECISION LETTER REVIEW Reqs Change This review has been completed and resubmittal is required. Please resubmit the following items:

1) Two rolled copies of the plans
2) A disk containing all items submitted
3) All items requested by review staff
4) All items needed to approve this plan
04/10/2015 PGEHLEN1 UTILITIES EL PASO NATURAL GAS Passed
04/10/2015 PGEHLEN1 UTILITIES CENTURYLINK Passed
04/10/2015 ROBERT YOUNG PIMA COUNTY PIMA CTY - DEV REVIEW Passed
04/10/2015 PGEHLEN1 OTHER AGENCIES U. S. POST OFFICE Passed
04/10/2015 PGEHLEN1 OTHER AGENCIES TUCSON AIRPORT AUTHORITY Passed

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
05/08/2015 KROBLES1 OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed