Council approves storage‑yard CUP near Highway 92 with tight conditions and a 5–1 vote

The Mayor and Council approved a conditional use permit for a proposed fenced storage yard on a constrained parcel off Highway 92 on Jan. 26, 2026, voting 5 in favor and 1 opposed.

Planning staff described the 1.2‑acre site as difficult to develop because of an elevated detention area, required buffers (including a 45‑foot rear buffer adjacent to high‑density residential), limited usable acreage and an existing cell tower. The applicant requested relief from grading, curbing and paving requirements for the entire lot while agreeing to pave the designated access drive and parking area. Staff recommended conditions that limit the site to a single tenant, restrict the kinds of materials and vehicles stored, prohibit temporary or permanent buildings, and set hours of operation; staff also made the CUP contingent on those conditions and recommended a code‑enforcement trigger that would send the CUP back for reconsideration after repeated violations.

Applicant Clark Cool said the intended tenant class is tradespeople — HVAC, electricians and plumbers — who need a small, infill lot to stage equipment and vans. He said the applicant plans to own and manage the property and that the site is unlikely to attract tractor‑trailers because of the access configuration. “We believe that the use of the property is very well suited for what we are intending to do,” Cool said.

Resident Martha Jane Schindler returned to the podium to ask about engineered gravel and possible tree replacement to manage stormwater and buffer dust; she asked staff to consider engineered pervious options if full paving is undesirable for environmental reasons.

Council debate focused on hardship needed to justify variances, the proximity of dense residential behind the site and the potential for noise and early start times. Council added clarifying conditions including explicit language on noticing and tracking of three code‑enforcement notices (notice, notice of violation, citation) as the trigger for DPC reconsideration; members also added conditions to prohibit truck‑rental operations and to require that drivable vehicles be parked only in the paved parking area.

With those conditions, the council approved the CUP by a 5–1 roll call vote. The dissenting member cited concerns about comprehensive‑plan compatibility and potential impacts on adjacent residences. The permit restricts the use to a single tenant, limits allowed materials and vehicle types, requires paving of the parking and drive aisle as conditioned, and gives staff the authority to monitor compliance and trigger reconsideration after documented violations.