CCP 03-31-2003 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Memo to Planning Commission Planning Case #02-05: Guidant Site Plan Review I Variance Request March 28, 2002 Page 6 of 11 e requirements for the site. From staffs perspective, this is acceptable. The plan is also in compliance with applicable parking setback requirements as well: 6. Access and Circulation (Meets Code Requirements) The training center portion of Building F can be accessed through Guidant Drive South (private street) or Fernwood Avenue. Access to the building would take place through newly created courtyard/plaza areas on the northwest and southeast sides of the building. On tI1e southeast side of the building the plan calls for a turnaround in front of the building that includes a landscaped center island. The Fire Inspector has reviewed the plans and is satisfied with the access and circulation of the property. However, he did indicate that two additional hydrants would be required. This is included as a condition of approval. 7. Screening.(Meets Code Requirements) Since the proposed expansionlbuilding addition is internal to the Guidant campus, screening is not a significaIlt issue. 8. Lighting (Meets Code Requirements) e A lighting plan has been included for your review. The Zoning Ordinance requires that all lighting be directed away from adjoining lots or public streets and must be hooded so that light is only directed onto the subject property. In addition to accent lighting on the building, fifteen twelve foot high shoebOx style lights are contemplated on the site. Highpressure sodium (amber color light) bulbs would be used. 9. Sign age ( Not Addressed) Based on the sign ordinance, the property is in District 6, or those areas on Lexington Avenue north ofl-694 and property zoned B1. This would allow the applicant to apply for one 60 square foot wall sign on the building that could be administratively approved. Otherwise, a sign standard adjustment application would be required in the future. 10. Grading and Utilities (Meets Code Requirements) The property would be serviced by existing utilities (sewer, water, gas, electric, and telephone). Aside from comments provided in conjunction with concept planned unit development review, the City Engineer did not have any substantive comments. Site plan approval would need to be conditioned on final approval of grading, drainage, and utility plans by the City Engineer. Compliance with the City's erosion and sediment control ordinance during construction is also e necessary.