Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Welcome to the Westland Planning Commission. Today's date is Wednesday, 04/15/2026, and it is where'd my phone go? 06:02PM. Can you hear me? Okay. Let's begin with a call to order and roll call.

Good evening. Commissioner Kaczorowski? Here. Here. Commissioner Wolotney?

Here.

Commissioner Watten?

Here.

Commissioner Jones?

Yo.

Commissioner chair Schulte Hillen?

Present.

We have five members in attendance, and we have a quorum.

Okay. Next on the agenda is public comment related to land use items not on the agenda.

It does not I did not receive any testimony forms and no one in the audience is indicating that they would like to speak on non agenda items.

Okay. Moving on to the public hearing on CUP-twenty five-three, Doctor-twenty five-three, VAR-twenty five-two proposal for conditional use permit, Class II design review, and Class II variance to minimum window transparency standards for a new drive through car wash at 18850 Willamette Drive. So good evening, everyone. Tonight we're here to deliberate to a final decision on file number CUP-twenty five-three, Doctor-twenty five-three, VAR-twenty five-two, an application for a conditional use permit, Class II design review, and Class II variance at 18850 Willamette Drive. A public hearing on this matter was held on 03/18/2026.

The proposal is to construct a new drive through car wash. This is a quasi judicial decision. Unlike in legislative hearings where personal opinion may come into play, quasi judicial rulings must be grounded in the relevant code. So at the 03/18/2026, public hearing, the Planning Commission closed the hearing and kept the written record open for first seven days until March 25 to allow for additional written testimony, then another seven days until 04/01/2026 to allow for responses to the additional written testimony, and finally, another seven days until 04/08/2026, to allow for applicant's final written argument as required by law. The applicant submitted a revised design on 03/25/2026, to remove the need for the class two variants to CDC chapter 55.1 B.

Six E window transparency standards. The applicant's 04/08/2026 final written argument confirms the variance is withdrawn or moot. No further testimony or evidence will be accepted tonight. At tonight's meeting, the Planning Commission will enter into deliberations and vote on a final decision. And just to clarify for everyone in attendance or listening remotely, I was not in attendance at the March 18, meeting.

However, I have watched the entire video of that meeting and am caught in completely up to speed with all testimony and all things submitted in the interim. So and I would also like to thank David Jones for sitting in and, for doing a great job. Thank you. So I now will ask the city attorney to cover the preliminary legal matters. Over to you.

Thank you, chair.

As the Planning Commission is sitting quasi judicially, any decision must be based on testimony, arguments, or evidence in the record and must address the applicable approval criteria.

Do any members of the commission wish to declare a potential or actual conflict of interest or bias? Seeing none, do any members of the commission wish to report any site visits or ex parte contacts?

Commissioner Vadatti.

Thank you, chair. I went to the site today to walk especially the the eastern boundary and especially to figure out where the storm water pond is located on the property. And so from that I gained a sense of where the water is going, how the pond appears to for infiltration. I didn't see where the piping goes into the pond. I didn't see where any overflow from the pond would go.

The gate was it was actually open, but I didn't go in. But it seems like a safety issue if they're going leave it open it should be locked.

Thank you. And do you feel that you can nevertheless participate impartially in this decision making process?

Yes, do.

Any other expert contacts or site visits? I

walk by the site or drive by on a daily basis given

wish to challenge a conflict of interest or impartiality of a member of the commission or rebut or ask questions about the ex parte disclosures of any member of the commission. Seeing none, chair, that concludes the legal matters.

Thank you. Okay. So we will move on to deliberations. Does any commissioner wish to comment or make a motion? Well, okay. Go ahead.

Did you notice anything or did you have any thoughts from your walking around on the site? Did any anything verbal up?

I guess I'm looking at the city attorney just to make sure that I'm not contributing evidence.

Yeah. I I think my recommendation would be to rely on the evidence that's currently in the record. And at this time, we cannot especially during deliberations, cannot introduce additional arguments or evidence that isn't already in the record.

Okay.

I have a question for my co commissioners. I want to discuss the request that we recognize, and it's obviously reflected in the language that was just articulated. But we recognize as moot or resolved the variance component of the application. I understand that the standards were met so that the variance can be kind of taken off the table per section fifty five and seventy five of the code. But I guess I want to just briefly discuss if there's anything kind of like, how do we square what we know about the original purpose or explanation for the noncompliance or need for the variance with the new design.

Like, wasn't there some component, and I'm I'm really seeking your input, that the original plan, there was a kind of sound reduction component to the original design. So has that been resolved by other mitigating factors, or do we need to consider what changing the design to be compliant and not need the variance does in terms of the noise, if that makes sense. Yes. Thank

you, chair. I actually had a similar question, so I'm glad you brought it up. I guess I'm uncertain as to how much noise reduction there is if we have plate glass and not solid walls. And I understand it's to meet a typical design requirement for buildings in West Linn, but I'm think I said a loss on that one.

Reviewing the revisions that they gave us, it I mean, I can make sense of most of that, just like everybody else, not all of it, though. But but I mean, what they've what they resubmitted seem to address it. I mean, obviously, it's the glazing thing, it's kind of off the table at this point. So that's the not equation. So you're right, kind of sound is one of the things that's out there.

But it looked like they were willing to take on additional means to reduce sound. Looking at their graphs and stuff like that, it was brought up in the last meeting that, yes, it's pushing the sound towards the other commercial properties. Those commercial properties are right on a highway. When I look at just the highway, what it represents for sounds, I don't the way I look at the way they're projecting them, yes, it's going through the parking lot. But by the time it gets to the other buildings and stuff, it kind of melts with highway traffic of Highway 43.

So that's kind of what I took from the last round of documents that we received.

Can I add a quick comment, Chair?

Horace, please.

Okay. So two points. First, I recommend as much as possible when you are citing potential concerns or reasons for potentially approving the application, If you can find approval criteria in the code to tie that to, that is my recommendation. And then second, I just also wanted to draw your attention to the fact that the applicant did voluntarily agree to additional condition of approval that would address acoustic enclosure design. So I just wanted to make that clear.

Yeah. That's fine. So, obviously, to the extent that all of us can and should, we're rooting all of our conversation in the relevant code, which is sections sixty, fifty five, and 75, although 75 is now off the table. I just wanted to make sure before we I mean, as it was implicit that that is off the table, we kind of square how we got there and make sure everybody's comfortable with that. Of course.

So okay. Okay. So Oh, I'm sorry.

No, have a question. And I'm trying to find it in the document with regards to the additional acoustic measures. The way I guess I can't find it right this second, but the way I recall it was read it was they they would if if we required it they would do it or are they is that going to be part of their next their permitted documents? Is there any way to I mean, I can dig around in here a little further.

So, Darren, you can correct me on this. But I believe that it was part of their final written testimony that they submitted where they said that they would voluntarily comply with that. And the condition of approval would state the applicant shall submit building permit plans with the exit acoustic enclosure design achieving 60% transparency and the south facade employee area achieving 30% transparency per the applicant's 03/25/2026 exterior elevation plan sheet. So it sounds like that was both in their plan sheet and in their final written comments.

So the the plan sheet shows the achieve achieving the Yes. The transparency standards. I recommended that condition just to just to make it clear that the design that was being approved would be that modified design on March 25, not the original design that was originally brought before the commission.

Okay. I see that. Okay. Thank you. Thank you both.

Okay. So the remaining sections of the code that we need to discuss in terms of what has been presented and what's on the table in terms of accepting or approving with conditions or denying this application are Sections 55, design review, and obviously Section 60, the conditional use permit. Anything? Yes. Commissioner Kaczorowski.

So

what I'm a little bit stuck on is god, I feel like I'm in a movie, you know, where the kid steps up to the thing, and it's loud, everybody jumps. Historically, my family used to be really involved in the Hidden Springs Neighborhood Association. My wife was president. And I remember working through the neighborhood plan. And it's very laborious.

It's very intensive, building consensus, how everybody come together, getting participation. And I assume all neighborhood associations have done it, but maybe not. But those who have, it's a heavy lift. And I'm just stuck with this idea that the city asks for this heavy lift, but then doesn't honor it. And I don't I'm not accusing anybody.

But if if we have a neighborhood plan and something is inconsistent, I just am stuck with that. Why why make everybody do this work if we're not going to respect that? So not really a question. Just my thought.

Commissioner Jones?

That was one of my questions as well, and maybe bounce this to city staff and attorney. In trying to reconcile quotes from both sides stating that the granting of the proposal will produce a facility that will provide overall, or I'm sorry, in terms of CDC 60.07 a seven, community seven, the use will comply with the applicable policies of the comprehensive plan from the community development code. The applicants pulling from that the comprehensive plan itself states, until the city adopts new code provisions, and this is them quoting, this is not their statement, until the city adopts new code provisions consistent with adopted neighborhood plans, the city shall apply appropriate development standards consistent with the existing community development code. So which is the overriding? Which one is how are we supposed to interpret what is the overriding?

I would say that language is vague, which is why there is substantial debate from both sides on this topic. I think that you can really conclude in either direction. There's an sorry. I'll just project regardless of the mic. I was saying that I feel like the vagueness of the language invites legal debate, which is why you have both sides' attorneys providing their own arguments on that topic. I think the language is unclear and it leaves room for interpretation.

Does the statement, the use will comply with the applicable policies of the comprehensive plan, does that override the other statement? Is there one that subjugates the other, or is it that they're considered equal?

Where as to the extent possible, you statutory and code interpretation says that to the extent possible, you must attempt to read all sections of the code to complement each other rather than contradict. And same, the same would go for that language. When I hear comprehensive plan in that context, I'm thinking the city comprehensive plan, not a not a a neighborhood plan, essentially.

Commissioner Robotny.

I guess this is a statement for city attorney to also consider, but it seems that when we have code in the CDC that actually references and say that the use will comply with the applicable policies of the comprehensive plan, that it brings the comprehensive plan into play. It's one of the few if not the only place in the CDC that I can think of where the code actually directly references the comprehensive plan as a requirement for approval. That just doesn't happen in our code, but it does here under conditional uses. So I saw the city attorney shaking her head nodding up and down, yes. Okay.

Correct. Though I would distinguish between the comprehensive plan and the neighborhood plan, right?

Right, right. So in that same section, CDC 60.07 approval standards and conditions under A three, the granting of the proposal will produce a facility that provides an overall benefit to the city. We have another similar facility where this business once was located just a few blocks down the road on Highway 43. And just I mean I think there are some things that you can have competition and there's and it's worthwhile or you're adding additional benefits by having like different types of restaurants. But having two car washes that close to each other on Highway 43 when the existing one doesn't seem to be busy all the time, I'm just at a loss as to the benefit.

So throw that out there for the commission to discuss.

Yes. Commissioner Kaczorowski.

To further what you were saying, West Linn is challenged as a place to have a business. And part of the challenge is that there's no there there, that it's kind of mixed. Typically you have an anchor and then things around it, or you have things clustered. I mean, we do have Main Street, but that's mostly restaurants where you could go to the flower shop, or Urban Nest. Okay.

And that's that. And then there's nothing any time we need something, we have to go out of West Linn. And as we're looking at what benefits the community, I think we have to be thoughtful about what benefits the businesses of the community. What helps Westland residents start a new business? If they want to open a store, they want to open a shop of some kind.

I'm just thinking of the character of the city and just forming my thoughts. I just don't know that it helps to have two so close, two similar businesses that close that are duplicating each other.

Yeah. I completely agree. I mean, I think when I was watching everybody and reading the testimony, it was oft repeated, both the discretionary nature, of the CUP and the importance of kind of the will of the community. And the fact that the subjective nature of the word benefit and that it's not statutorily defined is not lost on me. And I kept thinking about, yeah, what what benefit means.

The number of people who showed up and spoke very passionately. I mean, yeah, putting aside kind of mention of personal visions of what that corridor looks like, I thought certain testimony, like the person who wrote about the number of car washes per capita in our town, it was extremely persuasive to me. And at the moment, it's the five of us kind of giving our subjective idea of what benefit is, but I think that it's very influenced by being members of the community, understanding kind of what what we hear and believe the town kind of values as a benefit. So I'm right there in the analysis too. Commissioner Jones.

Just to play devil's advocate. I don't have feelings, but I just I have to play the flip side. So I I I feel like we can't regulate market forces of who's allowed to compete with who when, you know, if if if there's only one option in an area to engage in business with a type of business, but you're only allowed to choose one, that's not really a choice. I do know from simply my attendance of the Project forty three meetings that one of the things that was actually specifically requested contrary to what was kind of being pushed by the designers was a request for more automotive and more businesses along those lines as we have they had we had watched automotive businesses leave Highway 43 and that people are now having to go to Oregon City and Lake Oswego to have cars serviced to now give money to businesses in neighboring communities as opposed to here in West Linn, and that those businesses had to move. So it's just part of a larger kind of watching a larger pool of other thoughts that we're just kind of hearing.

Not weighing in, but just some other voices that I have heard over the last year and a half, two years.

Commissioner Wavotny?

I completely understand what you're saying. And it's not our job. The Planning Commission doesn't have the authority to decide who has a business per se in West Linn. But in this case, we do have a conditional use permit application and is it of benefit to the community. And the requirement is produce a facility that provides an overall benefit to the city.

And we have an existing car wash a few blocks down the street. We have another car wash on the other side of the hill ten minutes away in Willamette. We have another car wash ten minutes or so away in on Highway 43 as well. It seems as if we have enough car washes, either that or we need to have more cars and people willing to pay someone to wash them. So I guess that's my response.

I mean ordinarily, I wouldn't it's up to people who want to spend their time and resources to initiate a business and make a go of it. I mean, that's difficult as it is. But in this case, it seems that we already have services available for a conditional use permit situation.

One other thought issue, and we can run down the rabbit hole if we want, but one of the things that came up in the extensive comments by both sides was concerning possible contaminations into Fern Creek. And loose language about dilution and etcetera that just kind of rubbed.

Both

sides put forth their interpretations and their arguments, and both documented well. But one of the things that maybe would have been a little bit more helpful to see was suggestions or recommendations for protective or determined measures to protect Fern Creek. That would I think I would have liked to have seen a little bit more, and barring that, going forward, maybe would recommend parties communicate with each other and maybe consider long term testing going forward if we are unable to put those any sort of recommendations in place along those. So just a thought.

Commissioner Watton.

With regards to that, you know, there's several layers of collection of materials that they're representing, that they're keeping it all on property. Yeah. That's that's that's what they're they've proven on paper.

I'm Don't open ready to go on this.

Alright. Or or do or do

because No. I'm ready to go You know, it's I I I understand there's open water there and it's it's it's a natural environment that's not very far away. There's a lot of stuff that comes off my car when I press on the brakes and then it rains. You know, there's a lot of stuff that gets on the roads and gets into those by default. I'm not certain that that it's not my opinion, but based on the information that we've been given, I don't think that that's you know unless there's a spill that's catastrophic that's not part of the equation.

I don't see that that's a significant issue. Just looking at the documentation that we've been given.

Commissioner Votney.

Thank you, Chair. So when I look through the information, the new information that was provided on the contact filter unit and the filter that at least what seemed to be the filter that was proposed for that storm water vault. It dealt with total suspended solids that was the basic removal, dealt with hydrocarbon removal and also metals removal. And my concern is that If there's anything from the car that comes off as it leaves the facility and drips on the pavement, then that to a storm system, but doesn't necessarily isn't necessarily removed by the filter, at least we don't have an indication of that. The filter is designed as stated for those three things basically for suspended solids, hydrocarbons from like grease oil that drips off the car and some metals.

So my concern is that if that's the case then I can't feel confident that it's actually removing everything that could be potentially landing on the pavement there outside of the car wash post washing. And so I have a concern with that. We don't even know all the things that will be used in the car wash to the extent that we don't know the ingredients that are in them. And that's a concern. And there was information that was provided not for the specific location, but from California that the second highest discharge of PFAS, fluorinated compounds, was from car washes.

And it's one of those things that I deal with in my personal life is that sort of contamination. So I just have concerns that it's that we don't know enough about the chemicals products that will be used in the facility relative to the location by the creek.

Yes. Sorry. Instead of pressing the button, I did the international head nod. Yeah. Thanks.

It's the language used especially in Yes, And, the idea that it's speculation or not supported, is not that is not applicable. It is a matter of what we're really talking about is of probability. And that's what we're mitigating. And the end point of that is, is like, at this point, unless something protective or, the word starts with the letter D, detriment can be put into place, then really the only other thing that I can see at this point would be private testing going forward into Fern Creek because the other reports we had read in the previous meeting about the exposure and why it's so essential to specifically certain wildlife, etcetera, protected animal species, etcetera, fish, etcetera. I don't see anything else besides testing as a remedy, but I don't know if that's within our preview.

It's purview, not preview. For God's sakes, it's purview.

Commissioner Kashrirski. To

your thought about testing, I think that's a good idea. However, at that point, it's too late. So we test it, and uh-oh, there's stuff here. Now what? So I don't know if there are teeth that allow us to say, Okay, wait. I'm sorry. You've got to go. And at what levels is that triggered? It just becomes very complicated. Testing would seem to have the potential to either make us feel good or make us feel regretful, there's nothing in between.

Sherwaten.

Commissioner Ravante, so the car comes out of the car wash, it carries liquids with it, it drips. That goes into the existing storm system in the existing parking lot? I'm asking you because you've reviewed it probably again and I haven't looked at that since you mentioned it. So that would run off into the existing parking lot, which would run into the existing open facility that has the fence around it, correct? And then that would eventually make its way to the creek?

Is that because their system is great. It's unbelievable inside and somewhat outside. They're collecting all of those chemicals, but you're talking about storm water beyond their system or not storm water, but

Well, it would be carried by storm water. Yes. And they're proposing basically an underground storage facility as well underneath the where the cars line up. But that would all be it would meter out the flow to the storm water facility that's there. So let me take another tack at this because I went to the city's the city website and especially to, public works into stormwater.

And the city has a stormwater management plan, and there have been what I at least perceived as statements that there's a stormwater management manual. I could not find it. And on for several documents I ran into just, you know, you get that, I think it's four zero four code that nothing's there when you click on the link. And that's the way I felt with the stormwater management manual. However, there is a link to the Portland storm water management manual, which in the past has been what I thought we were using.

But then there have been times in the past where the city would say, no, and you can't use a storm water filter system. So, but apparently we can now. I can't find that anywhere, but apparently it's allowed at this point. So what's interesting is that there are links to two agreements that would be for private commercial facilities, an agreement that you sign with the city for what you're going to do to maintain the facility for operations maintenance. There's also a second one for two property owners, which would I think apply in the situation, but when you click on that link, there's no document at the other end.

So I don't know if it exists or the link is bad or what. So you're right, it would go into the it would flow as at least based on the drawings would flow into the existing storm water system for that shopping center and then into the surface infiltration system. But there's no way to and I brought this up during the first night of this hearing that and asked about sampling and there's no sampling port, no way to sample to determine what's coming from the shopping center side or from the car wash side. So they commingle, go into that detention pond, and apparently infiltrate. I mean, when I was there and and even the engineers said we don't have all the information on they couldn't find design drawings for that detention facility.

So I I guess the only thing I learned today when I was there was and I mentioned was that I couldn't find the inlet and I couldn't find an overflow outlet for it. So that's that's kind of what I know.

All I also would just note, just as a reminder, I appreciate the the discussion about runoff and these various topics, but if possible, if you can tie it back to an applicable approval criteria. No. It's alright. I appreciate it. But just as a reminder.

Well, think it comes back to there there's code in should be in chapter 55 relative to stormwater, but also municipal code, which goes back to what was it? Four zero seven o, I think is what I looked at today.

So I think the applicable approval criteria regarding stormwater is just simply that they've produced a report. And, Darren, you can correct me if I'm wrong there or if there's anything additional.

That's correct. I'll find the I'll find the reference here in a second.

I think it might be well, at least I'm looking in the staff report. It's staff finding 45, but I don't know the code section.

I'm sorry. Could you repeat that? The audio is just going all over.

Sure. I I was saying that I I'm not sure if there is an approval criteria directly on point to exactly what you all are discussing. I I could also just be missing it, but the particular section of the code that I'm aware of that discusses the stormwater report is simply saying that one has been provided.

So it's Oh. Go ahead.

Oh, apologies. And also that they have enough capacity essentially to manage runoff.

So I'm looking at the utility plan, it's sheet C4.0 from the submittal on April 25. And this is actually Page 168 of three forty. And so what's interesting is that I mentioned that it seems uncertain as to where the water was going, but there is there seems to be a storm line that runs and it says discharges to an off-site ditch and goes off in a direction that I have I mean, I think that's Fern Creek, not the ditch. So the drawing is just unclear. And I think that's maybe a function of the fact that they I mean I'm reading into it a little bit too much.

As I mentioned they didn't have design drawings for the storm water pond. But this seems to go around based on location, seems to go around that. And so I I just can't tell.

I think perhaps to just reiterate the city attorney's statement or put it another way, is there a specific element of the approval criteria that you're finding is not met or needs to have a condition of approval added to it so that it would be met?

I'll I'll look.

The code reference is fifty five one hundred I three.

Is it CDC 32,010? Protect or improve water quality of filtering sediment and going on where it's talking how we're including here, let me open this up. It's showing me too da da da da da. And I clicked a button and it went away. For the protection of public health, safety, environment to comply with both state, federal laws, regulations including the and then it cuts off Water Act and the Endangered Species Acts, that we still have to be in compliance with those.

So I don't believe we have anything in the record currently that shows that they're violating any federal laws.

Wasn't that included when we received, in the previous meeting when we received the document showing, fish habitats or habitats along the river? And I'd have to dig to pull it up, but I think it was relevant and it was supplied.

So the city has a permit. They're part of the Clackamas County group under DEQ. DEQ has delegated authority from EPA. So that's where the federal requirements come in until you get to the river. Since we are drainages are the storm water facilities in most of West Linn.

You're referring to the MS4 permit program?

Yes. Yeah.

Correct. Which I mean it's not specifically an issue in this land use hearing context. It is something that the city is required to comply with on a a citywide basis.

But this would be a discharge to that. That's so the city would then be responsible for compliance?

Correct.

When we were talking about this, the thing that kept coming up was, and everyone knows this one, the interplanetary forward contamination protection policy and codes that was first brought up in 1957 in Rome by the Astronomy International Committee, was then ratified in 1967 by the Outer Space Treaty, which we are signatories of. And among other things, NASA has a 137 page handbook about, comprised of by people with IQs, I'm assuming much larger than everyone on this dais combined. In it, it talks about, and consistently talks about, the dangers of any living organism being able to travel either 2,833 miles to the moon, or 55,000,000 miles to Mars and transporting living life to those planets and contaminating it. We are currently discussing chemicals which can survive much harsher conditions than the hard vacuum, cosmic radiation, and hard radiation. It seems like a simple fix, something that wouldn't be difficult, but the argument that was made by that this is mere speculation is arguing that the extent of the parking lot is a far more harsh terrain that is somehow a barrier that is greater than 55,000,000 miles of hard packed vacuum, cosmic radiation and hard radiation that will prevent any material from being able to cross it, It's highly improbable.

It's highly improbable any life will be able to cross such great distances in such extreme situations, except it's happened a couple times. 2019, the Israeli lunar incident. We had two engineers in the nineties that either released the common cold or influenza virus onto the Mars Ocean Plains. The two engineers on Voyager that we don't know what they put on when they put the piece of paper with their name, phone number, and address behind the golden disk on the Voyager spacecraft, which we now suspect those people were under observation for quite a while. The idea that they've said nothing can transpose this parking lot, this parking lot is an impermeable barrier, is not merely speculation.

That I don't find is they've proven it. If they that this they have not indicated that this is a fully sealed system that will prevent 100% that any material that is dangerous cannot get into the Fern Creek. I have not heard evidence that supports that. That, I think, is what we're getting to. And like I said, we're not I don't know if we can put in a remedy beyond that. But to state, nope, they've proven it, that I don't agree with.

And I guess I'm hearing your point, and I think the point that staff is making is we are allowed to approve, deny, or approve with conditions based on the applicable approval criteria. And so is there an applicable approval criteria that speaks to contamination or to runoff or to your system that is meant to adequately address that? And that's a question for you all.

Commissioner Movotany.

So thank you, Chair. So I am looking at CDC 55.1 approval standards under I3 storm detention and treatment and geologic hazards. So all proposed storm detention and treatment facilities must comply with the standards for the improvement of public and private drainage systems located in the Westland Public Works Design Standards. There will be no adverse off-site impacts caused by the development, including impacts from increased intensity of runoff downstream or constrictions causing ponding upstream, and the applicant must provide sufficient factual data to support the conclusions of the submitted plan.

Thank you.

So I think that's our reference.

So just to kind of tie it together, and what I'm hearing you say is that you feel like there is insufficient factual data to support those conclusions here.

Yes.

Which conclusions are we discussing before I agree to it? I've been married to a lawyer for far too long for a general statement like that.

And if I could insert the follow-up question is that is there a condition of approval that you would like to add that would enable that standard to be met?

The only way I would feel comfortable about that is if the condition approval approval then would come back to the the planning commission for our review. I'm not leaving it up to the building department to respond to that.

Can you maybe elaborate on that a little bit more?

I guess I would like to see If there's gonna be a condition of approval, then it needs to go before someone who has some qualifications, some experience to review the information that comes in.

So the Public Works Department? As opposed to the building department?

Possibly. If there's someone who has the regulatory and chemistry background to do it.

And I guess just to answer Commissioner Jones' question as well, support the conclusion means the conclusion that there will be no adverse off-site impacts caused by the development.

Yes. And thank you.

I guess my question to you is if you were given a satisfactory kind of follow-up in response by a person of qualifications you desire, we're still deciding on two parts of the code. And as it relates to what we were talking about before and the benefit to the community and the city, can even if that were satisfied, the other section 55 and kind of that criteria, would you find this to be a benefit?

I think the answer is no. I don't think that information on the storm water system, I mean, it could support a benefit to the community if it were not detrimental. But in and of itself, it doesn't provide a benefit or not a benefit to the city.

Commissioner Jones?

What are our thoughts at this point? Where do we kind of want to where are our heads?

Mr. Robotti?

So I'll make the leap, but I think I've already basically indicated. I have I don't think the benefit to the city is met, a condition of approval, or approval standard under CDC 60. And I just voiced my concerns about the storm water system, so.

Mr. Kaczorowski.

I believe very strongly in small business. I believe very strongly in community based business and being able to work where you

live, live where you work.

And I think we should be supportive of business. At the same time, I don't feel that sufficient benefit to the community has been demonstrated. That's kind of where I'm coming down right now.

Yep. Commissioner Rotten.

I've got a business in Westland and I understand what you're saying. I also if somebody wants to open an architectural firm next door, I can't I shouldn't be able to stop them from doing that. I don't think, you know, the vision of Highway 43 is something that is going to get a lot you back in here again in the next couple of years. I went to the open house in Robinwood just to kind of on a personal level. I live I live in the area.

I live in Bolton. And just to see where kind of the pulse was of the neighborhood. And so I understand it's gonna be it's gonna be a bit of a battle. No matter if it's a three or four story mixed use with a bunch of decks looking out at the mountain view from that lot or it's a car wash or, you know, it's commercial property. And so there's there's gonna be if if this isn't what's gonna go there, there's gonna be something that's gonna go there.

Yeah, I I don't feel like I can I can vote against this personally? You know, it's when I saw the what's happening in Bolton where they're actually expanding the the commercial zone. It comes to with across the street from me and that's that was a little alarming because I live in a neighborhood that doesn't back up to commercial. But I also know I live a block and a half away from a highway

and

things expand. That's the direction that we go as a society. So anyway, I'll quit talking now, but that's if you're asking where I'm at.

My concerns are about possible conditions of harm by anything going in, especially to anything that can't protect itself. But I have difficulty weighing in on something so subjective as whether something is a benefit or not. That's more problematic for me to weigh or feel that I even have the authority to say something is, in a case like this, of whether or not something that I should even be allowed to have the opinion of weighing in if something is to a benefit or a detriment within that context, if that makes sense. So it's it's it's not an opinion or a thought as a I don't feel qualified that I have the authority to decide. No.

No. No. This is to your benefit. This is not to your benefit. You shall not have this or you shall. So it is more along those lines. My concerns are more of things that can inflict harm, and those are my concerns.

Okay. I guess as a reminder, at any point if anyone would like to make a motion that is obviously available. I appreciate everyone's insight. I think yeah. I'm I'm pretty stuck on just the very specific nature of the conditional use permit.

Insofar as everything for the design review was addressed, I have concerns about, Yeah. The those who can't speak for themselves, the the testimony of people in the neighborhood and the wildlife and possible impacts, testing of the water, some concerns about noise rooted in code section 55, the idea of 14 vacuums during business hours. That far exceeds what I've seen at other. But but I'm really yeah. I I'm I was really persuaded by the conversation about in this general commercial zone that we are talking about, the conditional use permit, and that the five of us, have a lot of discretion in this, and it is not required that we approve.

So this conversation's, yeah, just really open to a lot of debate, I guess. Commissioner Wavotny.

Thank you, chair. Guess I'll take a run at a motion. We've had discussion and we'll see how this comes out. So motion is going to be based on, sorry, CDC 50 five-100I3. Just want to make sure that's where I'm actually at.

So just for the city attorney to reference and staff, reference CDC 50 five-one 100 I3 storm detention and treatment, the first paragraph. Second paragraph refers to geotechnical design, so just the first paragraph. And then the other is CDC sixty-seventy approval standards and conditions. So CDC 60.70A3, the granting of the proposal will produce a facility that provides an overall benefit to the city. So based on those two, I move to deny CUP2503, Doctor2503, VAR2502, and direct staff to prepare a final decision in order adopting findings consistent with this decision that specifically addresses criteria which I just previously listed.

Could you state specifically in referencing the two it was very helpful to hear the development code sections that you just referenced. Could you maybe also summarize in that motion specifically referring to those sections, what about those sections you feel were not met?

And I'll just add to that, if there's specific evidence in the record that you're relying on to base that decision, that would also be helpful.

Point of order, didn't we discuss in our last meeting that we didn't have to say why, that we just simply had to cite it? I'm just checking. I'm just checking.

You don't need to necessarily say why. It's easier because currently we do not have written findings to support your position. And so it would be useful to hear, you could say as

Could you repeat that again?

Sorry. So currently, the staff report recommends approval. And so we will need to produce additional written findings to support your denial on the basis that you have stated on these two approval criteria. And so you could also just say and specifically addresses approval criteria x and y for the reasons stated in deliberations Okay. Today.

So under the criteria as I mentioned before, so CDC fifty five one hundred I3 storm detention and treatment. The first paragraph under that condition says there will be no adverse off-site impacts caused by the development including impacts from increased intensity or runoff downstream or constrictions causing ponding upstream. And the applicant must provide sufficient factual data to support the conclusions of the submitted plan. In my mind there was not adequate demonstration that the storm water filter system will remove any potential contaminants from the car wash itself when cars leave the facility. And to be honest, we didn't have much information on the chemistry of the products that are being used.

I mean there were some safety data sheets that were referenced, but those don't provide full chemical breakdown of what's being used. So, and to add to that, the engineer didn't have didn't have it fully outlined as to where the storm water system was discharging on property and how it was tied into the infiltration facility and the piping. It says it's going off to a ditch when that may actually be Fern Creek. And looking at the diagram that's in utility plan C, Sheet C4.0, I think they've done the best they could trying to figure out what was going on over there, but they needed as builts or some other means of verifying where the water was going to go and they didn't perform a dye test. That would have at least resolved where the water was going to go.

If it was going to flow directly to Fern Creek, some other ditch that we don't know about or to the infiltration, the storm water detention facility. Okay. And then back to

CDC

60.070A3, the granting of the proposal will produce a facility that provides an overall benefit to the city. Okay. Thank you. So city attorney just provided some additional wording for the motion. So I'll repeat the motion.

I move to deny CUP twenty five zero three, Doctor twenty five zero three, VAR twenty five zero two, and direct staff to prepare a final decision in order adopting findings consistent with this decision that specifically addresses criteria CDC 55,100 I3 and 60.07 A. Three for the reasons stated during deliberations.

Can I see that? I couldn't make that up for nothing.

I will second the motion.

If if there isn't any more deliberation, I can call the roll. Okay. Commissioner Wolotine.

It's almost in reverse. Yes.

Commissioner Watt. No. Commissioner Kaczorowski?

Yes.

Commissioner Jones?

No.

Chair Schulte Hillen.

Yes.

The motion fails. Oh, I'm sorry. The motion carries. I'm sorry. You said no? Okay. The motion carries. Three to two. Okay.

So if anyone with legal standing would like to appeal this decision to the city council, you must file an application with the community development department within fourteen days of the mailing of the final decision. I believe that is the end of the public hearing, and we will move on. So the next item on the agenda is Planning Commission announcements. Do we have any? Yes.

Commissioner Wolbotti.

So several weeks ago, I brought up my just driving down Cornwall Street and seeing a sign indicating Lot 7 for Willow Ridge Subdivision, which was only a six lot subdivision. And the Planning Commission voted seven-zero to receive an explanation as to how an additional lot was added to the subdivision when that specific area was supposed to have a trail. And then they came back to us and said, well it's too steep to put in a trail. And so this the Planning Commission said, okay. And now we come to find out that it's not too steep to put a house in.

So I'd like to know the process. I, the Planning Commission would like to know the process for that. So that can happen.

It doesn't have

to happen today, but it needs to happen soon.

Yeah. Did you have anything additional since the request last time? Because we're we're putting together a memorandum to address the commission's I

don't have anything else.

Okay. Great. We're on it, and it will be forthcoming.

Okay. Thank you.

If there are no other Planning Commission announcements, we can move on to staff announcements.

Yes. Thank you, chair. So just an update on the next, couple of Planning Commission meetings. The meeting on May 6, will be focused on a docket, the planning docket discussion that, mister Cooper will bring forward to you. That memorandum that, was just referenced will be available to you.

And also an introduction of the, newest planner on our team, Erica Smith. She will be here to be get introduced to the, the commission. Then the May 20, there is a potential public hearing scheduled for that night. We're still waiting for confirmation from the applicant, so it could be another quasi judicial hearing. We'll we'll let you know as soon as possible whether that's going to get scheduled that evening.

And then coming up this summer, we will start moving back into the vision 43 code amendment discussion. So bringing work sessions to the planning commission this summer, hopefully getting to a recommendation by the end of the summer so we can get it to council in the fall and wrapped up by the end of the calendar year. That's all I have unless Mr. Cooper or Ms. Schroeder has anything. Alright. Thank you.

Thank you. It momentarily escaped me as I adjourned the public hearing component of the, Planning Commission meeting that a number of people would be leaving the room. And I just wanted to say thank you to everybody for all of their hard work, including on the commission. So I apologize that I didn't say that sooner before everybody left. But, okay. I believe that the meeting is now adjourned. It is 07:25.

Thank you.