Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission recommends storage‑yard permit at 11988 Highway 92 over neighbor objections; vote 5–2
Summary
After testimony from a nearby veterinary clinic owner who warned of traffic and safety risks, the planning commission voted 5–2 to forward a recommendation to City Council approving a conditional‑use permit and variances for a storage yard at 11988 Highway 92 with added restrictions (including no dump trailers).
The Woodstock City Planning Commission on Jan. 8 voted 5–2 to recommend City Council approve CUP 90225 and associated variances to allow a storage yard on a 1.2‑acre parcel at 11988 Highway 92.
Planning staff (Natalie) said the parcel, behind the Dutch Bros site in Council Ward 3, is zoned general commercial with a parkway overlay and has limited developable area because it lacks street frontage, abuts high‑density residential (requiring a 45‑foot rear buffer), contains a cell tower and areas that collect water, and connects to Highway 92 via a recorded 20‑foot shared driveway easement. Staff described the proposal as a low‑intensity, single‑tenant outdoor storage yard to serve local contractors and tradespeople, with a 6‑foot perimeter fence, gated hours of 5 a.m.–10 p.m., 12 paved parking spaces, and the remainder of the lot surfaced in gravel. Staff and the Development Process Committee recommended approval with conditions limiting vehicle types, prohibiting buildings, restricting certain materials, and allowing reconsideration of the CUP after three code‑enforcement violations.
Clark Cool, the applicant, said his management company has experience leasing to trades and intends the site for professional technicians (plumbers, electricians) as a secondary off‑site storage location. He told commissioners the firm provided a draft tenant agreement to staff and intends ongoing on‑site management.
A nearby business owner and long‑time property owner, Dr. Charles Hyland of Tricken Ridge Animal Hospital, testified in opposition. Hyland said the shared driveway and the planned early hours could create congestion and safety problems for his mostly older clients and expressed concerns about trailers, medium‑sized trucks, and unknown tenants entering and leaving through his property. “This will have a negative effect on my business…It’s going to be a problem,” Hyland said, citing past difficulties securing a separate entrance and saying he had been forced into past zoning outcomes.
Commissioners raised multiple concerns during deliberations, including whether to limit the permitting strictly to vehicle storage (no material storage), set height limits for stored materials, require regular inspections, and address potential environmental hazards. Staff noted some restrictions in the proposed conditions (including prohibitions on certain hazardous materials) but said more specific limits are difficult without a known tenant. The DPC had recommended pavement of designated parking areas but allowed the access drive and remaining areas to remain gravel to minimize impervious surface.
A motion to approve staff recommendations with an amendment to Condition 7 adding language to bar dump trailers was made, seconded and carried on a 5–2 vote; commissioners opposing the motion cited concerns about material storage, appearance, and enforcement challenges. The commission’s recommendation will go to City Council for final action.
The CUP includes a condition that three code‑enforcement violations may subject the permit to reconsideration by the Community Development Director.
