Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: DEV PKG - RESUBMITTAL
Permit Number - DP13-0236
Review Name: DEV PKG - RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 04/17/2014 | PGEHLEN1 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 04/17/2014 | ROBERT YOUNG | PIMA COUNTY | PIMA CTY - DEV REVIEW | Passed | |
| 04/22/2014 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | FROM: David Rivera Principal Planner PROJECT: DP13-0236 6501 E Grant Road Development Package - Retail/Food Service Multi-Tenant Development Rezoning Case Number C9-13-14 RX-2 to C-1 Concurrent Review TRANSMITTAL DATE: April 30, 2014 DUE DATE: May 19, 2014 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the UDC and Administrative and Technical Standards were addressed. This plan has been reviewed for compliance with the Development Package Standards listed in section 2-06 of the City of Tucson Administrative Manual. Also compliance with applicable development criteria for the proposed use as listed in the City of Tucson Unified Development Code (UDC). The zoning review comments include the actual 2-06 Administrative Manual Standard (AM) first with the applicable AM 2-06 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 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 11/27/2014. 01. Follow-up to previous comment 8: Under General Note 3, list the specific use criteria that apply to the food service use. The type of Food Service Use is not specifically noted on the plan and it is not clear which specific use standard will apply. Add the correct use specific criteria based on the proposed type of food service with or without alcohol beverage service. Review the criteria and ensure that the use will comply with any applicable requirements as it relates to this site. A.M. 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. 8. COMMENT: - List the specific use and applicable Use Specific Standard of each use i.e., Retail Land Use: General Merchandise; Subject to UDC 4.9.9.B.3 etc, same for the Food Service. Review the zone table for the uses and applicable Use Specific Standards for C-1 zoning. .02 Follow-up to previous comment 9: Revise the list of conditions to include the correct or revised verbiage as redlined on sheet two and per the latest and greatest dated April 3rd, 2013. These are the most current conditions that are in PRO. Also, I could not verify the condition listed as 23 on sheet 2. Clarify if condition 23 was added after the April 3, 2014 preliminary report. A.M. 2-06.4.7.A.6 - If a plan or plat is prepared in conjunction with other applications or overlays or the parcel being developed is subject to conditions of an application processed previously, additional information must be added to the plan. Such applications and overlays include, but are not limited to: annexations; re-zonings; special exceptions; Board of Adjustment variances; Design Development Options; Technical Standard Modification Request; overlays (Airport Environs Zone, Environmental Resource Zone, Gateway Corridor Zone, Hillside Development Zone, Historic Preservation Zone, Major Streets and Routes, Rio Nuevo District, Scenic Corridor Zone, WASH); Modification of Development Regulations through the Downtown Area Infill Incentive District or Rio Nuevo District; Downtown Heritage Incentive Zone; or, Design Review Board. Provide the following information on the plan. 9. COMMENT: - This site is going through a re-zoning application and will be subject to conditions of the re-zoning. As part of the site design, the conditions of re-zoning must be taken into account and be incorporated in the drawings. Due to the concurrent review of the DP and Re-zoning there are no conditions at this time. Preliminary conditions of re-zoning may be provided after the first full review of the development package. Consult with Carolyn Laurie Lead Planner of the Re-zoning Section for information. .03 Follow-up to previous comment 11: The rezoning boundary depicted on the Zoning Detail on sheet 3 is incorrect and does not match the zoning boundary in the Rezoning case file map. Revise the detail drawing to reflect the correct rezoning boundary. A.M. 2-06.4.7.A.6.b - If there is more than one lot within the site, the note should specify which lots are affected by the additional applications or overlay zones. 11. COMMENT: - Delineate the area of the site that is to be re-zoned. 04. Follow-up to previous comment 12: Zoning could not verify the location or annotation of the riparian area on sheet 3. A.M. 2-06.4.7.A.6.c - If the property includes Protected Riparian Area add a note stating that the project is designed to comply with Technical Manual Section 4-02, Floodplain, WASH, and ERZ Standard, specifying all lots impacted and including a total for the regulated area and the Protected Riparian Area. 12. COMMENT: - Per the PDSD GIS Maps a portion of the northwest area of the site is designated as PC Riparian Habitat. Delineate, label and dimension if necessary the Riparian area and see the Landscape reviewer comments related to the mitigation if and when encroaching onto a Riparian area. If a separate application and case number is required for the WASH / Riparian review and approval list the case number and any conditions of approval on the cover sheet. List the case number next to the title block of all plan sheets. 05. Follow-up to previous comment 14: The dedication notes on sheet three (3) should include what the purpose or use of the area that is to be dedicated to PCFC is for. Revise the notes and label the use for each dedication. A.M. 2-06.4.7.F.1 - If a trail or path is proposed, provide a note, as appropriate, indicating that a trail or path will be constructed for public or private use, the general location of the trail or path, and whom it will be constructed and maintained by. If it is intended to connect to an offsite feature, such as an exiting trail, wash, sidewalk, road, commercial or residential development, etc., so indicate. If the trail or path is to be dedicated, indicate the method of dedication. 14. COMMENT: - There are plans for a trails system along the east frontage of the property and that will become part of the overall Pantano Parkway trail system. It is also expected that a condition of rezoning will be to dedicate the area of the property where the trail system is be constructed. Be aware that the area to be dedicated and trail system must be drawn and labeled on the plan sheets including the recordation info for the dedication. .06 Follow-up to previous comment 15: The response to the previous comment does not indicate if a trail is to be constructed on the site as part of the trail system. Clarify in the response if a trail will be constructed on the subject property. A.M. 2-06.4.7.F.2 - If a new trail or path will be constructed, add the following note, as appropriate: "All new onsite and offsite trails or paths constructed in conjunction with this project will be constructed in accordance with approved plans. Construction plans will be subject to the review and approval of the city's Parks and Recreation Department, and, if requested, Pima County Natural Resources, Parks and Recreation." .15 COMMENT: - See similar comment 14 and address the information requested as noted by the standard above. .07 Follow-up to previous comment 17: If the applicant/owner can obtain a letter from Pima County stating that the abandonment of the existing access easement and agreement on new location of the access easement is in progress, zoning can support the request. However the DP has to be revised to include the changes and recordation information. A.M. 2-06.4.8.B - All easements shall be drawn on the plan. The recordation information, location, width, and purpose of all easements on site will be stated. Blanket easements should be listed in the notes, together with recordation data and their proposed status. Should an easement not be in use and be proposed for vacation or have been abandoned, so indicate. However, should the easement be in conflict with any proposed building location, vacation of the easement shall occur prior to approval of plan unless written permission from easement holder(s) is provided. 17. COMMENT: - Clarify if the existing 20' public access easement per Dkt 4670 at Page 466 is to be abandoned or vacated. The easement abandonment or vacation must occur prior to approval of the development package. Provide the abandonment or vacation recordation documents documentation. .08 Follow-up to previous comment 19: It is acknowledged that the new owners of the site cannot combine the parcels but the current owners can. (It is my understanding that the new owners have closed on the property.) A.M. 2-06.4.9.E - Proposed land splits or existing lot lines shall be drawn on the plan with dimensions and the identification number and approximate square footage of each lot. (Please be aware that, if land division occurs and the number of lots falls within the definition of subdivision, a subdivision plat is required.) Land splits require a separate permit and review. 19. COMMENT: A combination of the existing four parcels that make up the proposed development site will be required and must be completed prior to approval of the development package. The owners must process a Pima County Assessor's "assessor's tax parcel combo" per their requirements. Once the combo has been processed by Pima County, provide a copy of the combo document to PDSD-Zoning review Section with the next or subsequent review. .08 Follow-up to previous comment 20: It is not clear why the curb location on the future right of way detail on sheet six (6) is depicted with a future curb location of nine (9) feet. The standard cross section for a 150-foot right of way includes a face of curb location of 12 feet from the property (future) line. In addition the future curb and sidewalk should be dashed in on the site plan sheet and so shall the future SVTs. Revise the detail on sheet six (6) and add the requested information on sheet three (3) A.M. 2-06.4.9.H - Proposed Traffic Circulation A.M. 2-06.4.9.H.2 - Show future and existing sight visibility triangles. On a designated MS&R street, the sight visibility triangles are based on the MS&R cross-section. 20. COMMENT: Draw and label the future SVT's based on the future roadway for a 150-foot cross section. The future curb and sidewalks must be drawn and dimensioned. .09 Follow-up to previous comment 21: Include on sheet three (3) the requested dimensions per the previous comment. A.M. 2-06.4.9.H.4 - Indicate if existing streets are public or private; provide street names, widths, curbs, sidewalks, and utility locations, all fully dimensioned. 21. COMMENT: Draw, label and dimension the future curb and sidewalks. .10 Follow comment to previous comment 24: Zoning could only verify the location of two long term bicycle lockers along the east side of the building. The detail for the long term facility depicts a box for a single bicycle. Add or indicate the location for the additional two long term spaces are required for this development. A.M. 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. 24. COMMENT: Include the number of short term bicycle parking spaces provided. The parking calculation lists five (5) spaces required. Correct the typo for the number provided. .11 Follow-up to previous comment 25: See related follow-up comment 8. A.M. 2-06.4.9.J - If street dedication is not required or proposed and the project site is adjacent to a Major Street or Route, draw the Major Street right-of-way lines for those streets. (Add the MS&R future sidewalk, right-of-way lines, sight visibility triangles, etc.) 25. COMMENT: Add the information as noted by the standard above. .12 Follow-up to previous comment 27: Same as noted by the previous comment. A.M. 2-06.4.9.M - Grading Plan A.M. 2-06.4.9.M.2 - Concurrent Review. For all projects, grading plans may be included in the development package and will be reviewed concurrently. 27. COMMENT: The grading plan has been reviewed by zoning for compliance as it relates to the site plan and zoning purview. Once zoning approves the site plan in the development package zoning approves the grading plan as it relates to zoning requirements, only. Any changes that are necessary and are made to the site plan sheets must be made on the grading and landscape plan sheets or visa versa. .13 Follow-up to previous comment 29: If the cross section is revised, ensure that the sidewalk location is drawn to comply with the correct cross section for a 150-foot R/W. A.M. 2-06.4.9.S - Show existing or proposed pedestrian circulation along abutting rights-of-way. 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. 29. COMMENT: As mentioned in comment 24, draw and label future sidewalks based on the MS&R 150-foot cross section. .14 Follow-up to previous comment 31: The following comments are related specifically to the rezoning conditions dated 4/13/14. Condition 9: Your response to condition 9 states that the patio area is to be a minimum of 50 feet from the north property boundary. There is no dimension indicating the distance from the property boundary. Based on the scale of the drawing it appears that the distance from the fenced patio area is about 44 feet. Label the actual distance. Condition 11: Your response to condition 11 states that a Lighting Photometric plan was included with the development package. A photometric plan is not included with the package and is not listed under the sheet index as one of the sheets in the drawing set. Provide the document for review on the next submittal. Condition 12: The building elevations submitted with the development package do not match the elevations submitted with the rezoning application. Submit copies of the elevation drawing that were submitted with the Rezoning application. The color drawings should be on sheets larger than 11x17 and legible text. The elevations included in the development package were identified incorrectly, i.e. south elevation and north elevations are mislabeled. The north elevation (facing Pantano Wash) has not been designed to comply with the conditions of rezoning. The elevation drawings presented in the submitted documents do not provide a color variation to distinguish the lower band from the rest of the north wall. The next submittal of the elevation drawings will be re-reviewed on the next submittal by the Community Planning section for compliance with the preliminary set of building elevations. It is suggested that prior to re-submittal of the next development package that you contact John Beall or Manny Padilla about the what is expected with regards the Façade facing Pantano Wash. .13 Follow-up to previous comment 31: Address the following comments related to the rezoning conditions dated April 3, 2014. Condition 14: Provide detail drawings of the proposed perimeter walls and trash enclosure walls that demonstrates compliance with condition 14. Condition 17b: Provide a separate detail drawing that clearly depicts the access easement. The detail drawing can be added to the sheet 6. Condition 23: Condition 23 as noted on sheet 2 plan was removed from the rezoning condition dated April 3, 2014. Review the conditions listed on sheet 2 and revise them to match the conditions from April 3, 2014. A.M. 2-06.4.9.U - Indicate graphically, where possible, compliance with conditions of rezoning. 31. COMMENT: Include a separate response letter that explains how all conditions of rezoning have been incorporated in the development package plan and demonstrates compliance with all the rezoning conditions. .14 Follow-up to comment 34: It is my understanding that the owners have closed on the property. Therefore any of the required dedications, recordation od easements etc, and lot combo should be completed and the recordation information listed on the plan. Provided copies of the recorded documents and revise the development package plans with the recordation information. Keynote 21 states that the memorial that was on the site has been relocated in Grant Road right of way. Clarify if TDOT has accepted the relocation of the memorial in the Grant Road right of way. Provide any documentation from TDOT. 34. COMMENT: Additional Zoning review comments may be forthcoming based on the changes to the plans, responses to the zoning review comments, and compliance with the preliminary rezoning conditions. As noted in comment nine (9), conditions of rezoning will apply to this project. Include with the next submittal a copy of proposed or preliminary conditions of rezoning and identify how the conditions have been incorporated into the development package plan sheets. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608. RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package site plan and any requested documents |
| 05/01/2014 | MARTIN BROWN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Denied | Per conversations with architect, fire hydrant location on sheet 5 of 14 is incorrect. Please remove hydrant shown on this sheet and indicate correct location. |
| 05/08/2014 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Laith Alshami, Engineering and Flooplain Review, 05/14/2014, SUBJECT: Insite @ 6501 E Grant Road DP13-0236, T14S, R15E, SECTION 06 RECEIVED: Development Plan Package and Drainage Report on April 16, 2014 The subject project has been reviewed. The Drainage Report is acceptable and it is hereby approved. The Development Package can not be approved at this time. Address the following comments before review can continue. Prepare a detailed response that explains the revisions that where made and references the exact location on the plan where the revisions were made: Development Package: 1. Provide the existing conditions on site and within 50 feet of the site as required by A.M. 2-06.4.8.A. 2. All proposed easements shall be processed and shown on the plan with their dimensions and recordation information as required by A.M. 2-06.4.9.L. 3. Add the following grading note, which is intended for all construction activities associated with the grading plan; not any other plan, and to protect the owner/developer and the engineer of record: a. The approved Development Package/Grading Plan is the only acceptable site construction plan onsite. The Contractor may not use any other plans, for site preparation/construction purposes. The Contractor may ask the Development Services Inspector to consult with the other approved plans for additional information or details that might not be included on the approved grading plan but needed for completion of work. SWPPP: The sequence of construction activities section shall include the following as the first two activities: a- Determine the disturbance limits. b- Install the proposed BMP's within these limits. It is not the City's intent to dictate the methods of construction. The City's intent is to prevent random disturbances that are beyond the scope of the project and the SWPPP. This comment is mainly based on two reasons: a- The comment is an interpretation of Arizona Stormwater Construction General Permit Citations 6.3(3), 6.3(4), 6.3(5)b, and 6.3(6)c(i-v) b- The comment is also based on concerns and observations made by City inspectors concerning several previous development projects, where construction activities went, needlessly, outside the required disturbance area. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 837-4933 or Laith.Alshami@tucsonaz.gov RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Revised Development Plan Package |
| 05/09/2014 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714 Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702 WR#276664 May 8, 2014 Cypress Civil Development Attn: K. Hall 2101 N. Country Club Rd. Tucson, AZ 85716 Dear Mr. Hall : SUBJECT: Insite Grant Road DB13-0236 Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the development plan submitted April 24, 2014. It appears that there are conflicts with the existing facilities within the boundaries of this proposed development. " TEP may have to build new OH 3Ø line across Grant Road which may be billable. Customer may have to bore across Grant to serve new project. Enclosed is a copy of a TEP facilities map showing the approximate location of the existing facilities. Any relocation costs will be billable to the customer. In order to apply for electric service, call the New Construction Department at (520) 918-8300. Submit a final set of plans including approved site, electrical load, paving off-site improvements and irrigation plans, if available include a CD with the AutoCAD version of the plans. If easements are required, they will be secured by separate instrument. Your final plans should be sent to: Tucson Electric Power Company Attn: Mr. Richard Harrington New Business Project Manager P. O. Box 711 (DB-101) Tucson, AZ 85702 520-917-8726 Should you have any technical questions, please call the area Designer Chuck Leon at (520) 917-8707. Sincerely, Jeffery Shea Admin Support Specialist Design/Build Enclosures cc: DSD_CDRC@tucsonaz.gov, City of Tucson (email), C.Leon, Tucson Electric Power |
| 05/09/2014 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 05/12/2014 | ZELIN CANCHOLA | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | From TDOT Permit Center Zelin Canchola Date: May 12, 2014 Draw and label the future SVT's based on the future roadway for a 150-foot cross section. The future curb and sidewalks must be drawn and dimensioned. |
| 05/13/2014 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 05/14/2014 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 05/14/2014 | PGEHLEN1 | PIMA COUNTY | PIMA COUNTY - REGIONAL FLOOD CTRL DIST | Reqs Change | Thank you for the reminder. My comments are as follows: 1. On Sheet 8 of the Development Package (Landscape Plans), shrubs have been placed within the maintenance access easement. Our maintenance and emergency vehicles will trample these plants in order to gain access to the future River Park. Please have shrubs removed. 2. On Sheet 9 of the Development Package (Irrigation Plans), please request that the irrigation line be sleeved and buried at least 18 inches to protect it from maintenance traffic. 3. On Sheet 10 of the Development Package (Rainwater Harvesting Plans), remove or significantly reduce rain water harvesting basin 1A-3. This basin will create a hazard for maintenance and emergency vehicles using the access easement. |
| 05/14/2014 | NONE | COT NON-DSD | TUCSON POLICE DEPARTMENT | Approved | I have no issues with this proposal. CSO Becky Noel #37968 Tucson Police Dept. 1100 S. Alvernon Tucson, AZ 85711 520-837-7428 |
| 05/14/2014 | JOE LINVILLE | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | |
| 05/14/2014 | JOHN BEALL | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Denied | PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT COMMENTS Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT DP13-0236 InSite - 6501 E. Grant Road () Tentative Plat (X) Development Plan (X) Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment () Other - Elevations CROSS REFERENCE: C9-13-14 - InSite/Grant Road NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Plan Tucson GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: NO COMMENTS DUE BY: May 14, 2014 SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN/PLAT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY COMMUNITY PLANNING AND PRESERVATION, AND STAFF SUBMITS THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS: () No Annexation or Rezoning Conditions, Not an RCP - No Comment () Proposal Complies with Annexation or Rezoning Conditions () RCP Proposal Complies with Plan Policies (X) See Additional Comments Attached () No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: (X) Resubmittal Required: () Tentative Plat (X) Development Plan (X) Landscape Plan () Other REVIEWER: msp DATE: 05/14/2014 Planning and Development Services Department Community Planning Section DP13 0236 - InSite - Grant Road May 14, 2014 Based on the applicant's request; a concurrent review is under way for both Development Plan 13-0236, and Rezoning Case C9-13-14 InSite/GrantRoad, to change the land use zone from RX-2 residential to C-1 commercial zone, to allow the redevelopment of three parcels as one site to permit new building, required parking, and retail/restaurant land uses. Approval of the proposed development plan DP13-0236; is subject to rezoning case C9-13-14, conditions of rezoning as approved on April 23, 2014by Mayor and Council. Staff offers the following comments: 1. Prior to development plan approval, correct rezoning conditions (general notes) on C9-13-14, to read verbatim, as approved by Mayor and Council. 2. Prior to development plan approval, please correct proposed development plan building elevations to be in compliance with rezoning conditions # 1 and # 12, building elevations are not in compliance with rezoning C9-13-14, condition # 1, which states development package to be in substantial compliance with the preliminary development package dated March 21, 2014, which includes color building elevations. Rezoning condition #12 also states building elevations shall display varying materials along all four sides of the proposed building. Please correct color building elevations to be in compliance, identify by KeyNote - architectural details and colors. 3. Prior to development plan resubmittal, the proposed development plan, dumpster masonry wall enclosure elevations are not in compliance with rezoning C9-13-14, condition # 10, which states the six foot tall masonry wall shall be constructed of textured concrete block, and painted with a contrasting color band matching that of the principle building. Please provide color dumpster enclosure, four sided elevations to be in compliance rezoning condition # 10. Identify by KeyNote - architectural details and colors of the dumpster concrete block enclosure. 4. Prior to development plan approval, correct development plan to properly identify location and construction material and standard per Pima County standards, of the required on-site pedestrian with the Pantano Wash trail system. Show location of existing/proposed Pima County trail system location and how the on-site pedestrian path integrates with the of-site Pima County trail system. Provide letter from Pima County Parks and Recreation Department stating design of on-site pedestrian path meets Pima County standards for Pima County trail systems. 5. Prior to development plan approval, correct development plan sheet 3 of 14, Keynote 22 to identify where the architectural details for the outdoor patio sitting area enclosure are located. |
| 05/14/2014 | PGEHLEN1 | COT NON-DSD | ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES | Reqs Change | Please address the following comments on the next submittal of the Development Package: 1. The trash enclosures shown are not per the standard double enclosure as shown in TSM 8-01 Figure 3A. If it is felt there is not adequate space on the site to accommodate the standard detail for the double enclosure, the TSMR procedure must be followed. Please submit a detailed narrative as to what alternative enclosure is proposed and why. Note: Only one recycling and one refuse enclosure is required of this site. 2. Show adequate access to the enclosures is provided, including the required 14’ x 40’ clear area for each enclosure per TSM 8-01.5.3.B. A double enclosure will require a 28’ x 40’ clear area. The response in the comment response letter to this previous request stated that per conversations with COT Engineering, the clear spaces can overlap. That discussion was meant for a particular enclosure modification and was site specific. It does not apply to this project. If there are questions, I can be contacted at kperry@perryengineering.net Demonstrate there is adequate truck access and maneuverability in the vicinity of the enclosure. The service vehicle must approach the enclosure in an inline position per TSM 8-01.5.3.H. Revise the enclosure on the site plan to align with the vehicle approach. 3. Per TSM 8-01.5.3.B., the clear space for entry to a waste enclosure requires a 14' x 40' area in front of the enclosure for each container. The space required for a two container enclosure is therefore 28' x 40'. Show this area outlined on the Site Plan. 3. Per TSM 8-01.4.B, add the general note specifying anticipated method of collection and frequency. I can be reached if there are questions at kperry@perryengineering.net. |
| 05/15/2014 | 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 sets 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 |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 06/02/2014 | CPIERCE1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |