Victorville planning commission backs code change to allow medical offices in Industrial Park zone

The City of Victorville Planning Commission on June 11 unanimously recommended City Council approval of a code amendment and a site plan and conditional use permit for an approximately 8,100-square-foot multi-tenant medical professional office building in the Industrial Park (IPD) zone (case PLN25-00002).

The recommendation would amend the Victorville municipal code to conditionally permit medical and dental offices in the IPD zone and approve a site plan and conditional use permit for a single-story building with three suites on a vacant IPD parcel; the commission also approved a deviation that would allow the rear drive aisle to remain without a five-foot-wide landscape planter to preserve emergency access.

Planning staff told the commission the change would align medical and dental offices with existing professional-office uses allowed in the IPD with a conditional use permit. “Staff does support this proposal, with the requirement for a conditional u CUP as this provides safeguards to ensure land use compatibility within the IPD zone district in the future,” planning staff said during the presentation. Staff said the project complies with Title 16 development standards, provides sufficient parking, includes a trash enclosure in accordance with Title 16, and incorporates 24-inch and 36-inch box trees across the site.

Staff explained the rear landscape-planter deviation was requested to allow the full width needed for emergency access; staff said given the otherwise robust landscaping the deviation is permitted under the municipal code and does not create adverse impacts to public health, safety or welfare. Staff cited Victorville Municipal Code section 16-3.010.03 as the basis for allowing the deviation and recommended the commission find the code amendment exempt under CEQA Section 15061(b)(3) and the site plan and CUP categorically exempt under CEQA Section 15332 (infill development projects).

Linda, of Pontius Architecture, the project representative, addressed the commission during the public hearing and said the applicant has reviewed the conditions of approval and supports them: “We have read over all of the conditions. We are in agreement with all of them.”

Commissioners asked for clarifications about nearby similar uses and the absence of the rear planter. Planning staff said similar professional-office uses exist in surrounding industrial areas and that staff is unaware of prior parking or land-use conflicts for comparable approvals. Staff also noted a block wall is proposed along the rear property line as part of the project’s site improvements.

Votes at a glance: Motion to adopt staff recommendations for PLN25-00002 (code amendment, conditional use permit, and site plan) — moved by Commissioner Marsh; seconded by Commissioner Thomas; outcome: approved unanimously. Vote record: Commissioner Marsh — yes; Commissioner Marshall — aye; Commissioner Thomas — aye; Vice Chair Meske — yes; Chair Kurth — yes.

The commission adopted resolution PD-25-015 recommending City Council approval of the municipal-code amendment portion of PLN25-00002, resolution PD-25-016 recommending Council approval of the conditional use permit portion of PLN25-00002, and resolution PD-25-017 recommending Council approval of the site plan portion of PLN25-00002, each subject to the conditions of approval attached to the staff report. The matter now goes to the City Council for final action.

Planning staff said each future project that relies on the amended code text will still require its own environmental review and separate approvals.