| Date |
Text |
| 2016-01-12 16:29:01 | FAILED |
| | |
| | PLEASE PROVIDE WRITTEN RESPONSE. |
| | |
| | 1) PROVIDE A BETTER LOCATION MAP THAT CLEARLY SHOWS |
| | WHICH DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE THE SIGN WILL BE PART OF. |
| | |
| | 2) PLEASE NOTE THAT THE ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT |
| | REGULATIONS ONLY PERMIT THREE SIGNS PER LOT, PROVIDED |
| | THAT EACH SIGN IS FOR A DIFFERENT BUSINESS OCCUPANT OF |
| | THE SITE. THERE IS CURRENTLY ONE SIGN AT EACH OF THE |
| | THREE PUBLIC ENTRANCES TO THE LOT WHICH CONTAINS THE |
| | RENEWABLE ENERGY BUILDINGS AS WELL AS THE MAINTENANCE |
| | BUILDINGS (SOUTHERN ENTRANCE). IS THE NEW SIGN |
| | REPLACING THE SIGN AT THE NORTHERN ENTRANCE TO THE |
| | RENEWABLE ENERGY FACILITY? THE SIGN AT THE MIDDLE |
| | ENTRANCE IS FOR THE WTE PLANT ADMINISTRATION. IS THIS |
| | THE SAME AS THE VISITORS CENTER OFFICES? IF SO, THEN |
| | THE TWO SIGNS ARE FOR THE SAME OCCUPANT AND ARE NOT |
| | PERMITTED. THE SOUTHERN SIGN IS FOR CHEMICAL DROP OFF |
| | AND MAINTENANCE SO IT IS FOR SEPARATE BUSINESS |
| | OCCUPANTS. |
| | |
| | 3) PROVIDE THE DIMENSIONS OF THE TWO EXISTING SIGNS |
| | (SOUTH AND MIDDLE ENTRANCES). |
| | |
| | 4) THE PROPOSED SIGN SHALL BE SETBACK A MINIMUM OF 24 |
| | FEET FROM THE NEIGHBORING LOT LINE (THE SECTION LINE |
| | SHOWN NORTH OF THE SIGN ON THE SURVEY. PROVIDE THE |
| | DIMENSION LINE ON THE SURVEY FOR THE NEW SIGN. PLEASE |
| | NOTE THAT THE SIGN SCALES AT APPROXIMATELY 25 FEET AS |
| | SHOWN, THOUGH STAFF IS UNCLEAR IF THIS IS THE NEW SIGN |
| | OR THE EXISTING SIGN. |
| | |
| | 5) THE SHOP DRAWING SHOWS A SIGN 16 FEET IN LENGTH, YET |
| | THE ARCHITECTURAL PLAN SHOWS A SIGN 12 FEET IN LENGTH. |
| | WHICH SIZE IS CORRECT? BOTH PLANS SHALL MATCH. |
| | |
| | 6) THE SHOP DRAWING CALLS OUT 1/4 INCH DEEP ACRYLIC |
| | LETTERS, YET THE ARCHITECTURAL PLAN CALLS OUT 3/4 INCH |
| | CAST ALUMINUM LETTERS. WHICH IS CORRECT? BOTH PLANS |
| | SHALL MATCH. |
| | |
| | CONTACT ERIC SCHNEIDER @ (561) 822-1446. |
| 2015-12-28 16:14:15 | 12/28/15 |
