PC 05/22/96 - Laserfiche WebLink

. . The buildings will be one-story tilt-up buildings, which are attractively designed and consistent with the other buildings in the Valley Business Park. The landscape plan is similar to those elsewhere in the Valley Business Park and offers a variety of year-round foliage and color. Staff has req,uestcd the addition of landscaping and enhancement of landscape material. The applicant has not contested this change. Staff feels the project is laid out in a practical manner; staff's one concern is the orientation of Building A. All but one of the loading doors face the adjacent property (the Tri-Valley Chinese Bible Church). Staff does not feel it is appropriate to locate the working side of this building directly facing an adjacent building which does not share similar characteristics. Staff recommends the applicant flip the building orientation so the loading door side of the building is located toward Building B in the interior of the site. Entrance and parking would be located on the north side of the building. The shared driveway would then be used only for parking access. The applicant disagrees with staff's recommendation. He is concerned about the subsequent parking layout and the marketability of the building. Ms. Watt noted the applicant sent staff a proposal on the orientation of the building. This was distributed to the Commission. Staff is not completely satisfied with this proposal and still supports their recommendation to flip Building A. Commissioner Wright clarified where the parking would be located if the building orientation was flipped. They would be in front of Building A. PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Gene Ashwill, Orange, CA, represented this application, and spoke first to the reorientation of Building A. The building square footage calls for 38 parking spaces. Only 15 exist in front of Building A. The remainder are located behind Building B. By flipping the building, this parking will be 280 feet away from the building entrance. This is not acceptable to the applicant from a marketing standpoint. Mr. Ashwill proposes to leave the building in its original orientation, soften the front by the use of landscaping and glass, and move one of the loading doors to the south wall. He also proposed to trade the loading doors with the drive-in doors on this building. He feels it is unfair to be unduly restricted because he is the last tenant in the business park. From a practical standpoint, the church, in his opinion, does not operate on their south side. Their front entrance is on the north side. Mr. Ashwill' s second issue is that he should be granted a minor modification on the full parking pole light requirement. Some of the buildings do not have pole lights (lights are mounted on the buildings). He feels he should be treated as has everyone else. Further, the wall-mounted lights would not shine into the residential area. Mr. Ashwill also noted that if he has to flip Building A, he must flip Building B because it faces onto a blank wall; parking space will be lost. Commissioner Cooper asked if the church's activities are mainly on Sundays. Ms. Watt agreed, . although they do have office activities and evening activities. Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 May 22, 1996