West Linn Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 2026: Denial of Car Wash Conditional Use Permit
West Linn Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 2026: Denial of Car Wash Conditional Use Permit
The Planning Commission convened on Wednesday, April 15, 2026, at 6:02 p.m. to deliberate and vote on CUP-25-03, DR-25-03, VAR-25-02, a proposal for a new drive-through car wash at 18850 Willamette Drive. The public hearing had been closed on March 18, 2026, with the written record left open through April 8, 2026. No new testimony or evidence was accepted. The commission voted 3-2 to deny the application, based on two specific approval criteria.
Discussion Items
- Variance Mootness: Commissioners discussed that the variance request (VAR-25-02) for minimum window transparency became moot because the applicant revised the design to meet the standard. The applicant voluntarily agreed to additional acoustic enclosure conditions, which were incorporated into the revised plans. The commission acknowledged this change without further debate.
- Conditional Use Permit – Overall Benefit to the City (CDC 60.070 A.3): Several commissioners expressed concerns about the proposal’s benefit to the city. Commissioner Katsariski noted that West Linn struggles with business diversity and questioned whether a second car wash near an existing one on Highway 43 provides overall benefit. Commissioner Wavotney argued that the area already has multiple car washes and that another does not constitute a benefit. Commissioner Jones countered that the city cannot regulate market competition and that the Highway 43 corridor has seen automotive businesses leave, requiring residents to go elsewhere for services. Chair Schulte Hillen found persuasive the testimony about car washes per capita and the subjective nature of “benefit,” leaning toward denial.
- Stormwater and Environmental Concerns (CDC 55.100 I.3): Commissioner Wavotney raised concerns about stormwater runoff from the car wash site, particularly regarding potential contamination of Fern Creek. He noted that the applicant’s stormwater plan lacked sufficient detail, e.g., no as-built drawings for the existing detention pond, no dye test to confirm discharge path, and no sample port to monitor water quality. Commissioner Jones expressed that stormwater management must comply with federal and state laws, but staff noted the applicable code only requires a stormwater report and capacity demonstration. Commissioner Watten felt the applicant had adequately proven on paper that chemicals would be contained on site. Commissioner Kachariski and Chair Schulte Hillen agreed with Commissioner Wavotney that the evidence was insufficient to conclude no adverse off-site impacts.
- Other Comments: Commissioner Wavotney also discussed the lack of information on chemicals used in the car wash and PFAS concerns. Commissioner Jones referenced a broader context of neighborhood plans and the comprehensive plan, but the city attorney clarified that the comprehensive plan (not neighborhood plans) is directly referenced in CDC 60.070. Commissioners debated the weight to give neighborhood plans versus citywide policies.
Key Outcomes
- Motion to Deny: Commissioner Wavotney moved to deny CUP-25-03, DR-25-03, and VAR-25-02 based on two criteria: CDC 55.100 I.3 (storm detention and treatment – lack of sufficient factual data to show no adverse off-site impacts) and CDC 60.070 A.3 (overall benefit to the city – not met). The motion was seconded by Commissioner Kachariski.
- Vote: The motion carried 3-2. In favor: Commissioner Wavotney, Commissioner Kachariski, Chair Schulte Hillen. Opposed: Commissioner Watt, Commissioner Jones.
- Next Steps: The decision will be memorialized in a final order with findings addressing the cited criteria. Any appeal must be filed with the Community Development Department within 14 days of the mailing of the final decision.
- Announcements: Commissioner Wavotney raised a concern about a previously approved subdivision (Willow Ridge) where a lot was added despite a planned trail being omitted due to steepness. Staff confirmed a memorandum on the issue is being prepared. Staff also announced upcoming meetings: May 6 – planning docket discussion and introduction of new planner Erica Smith; May 20 – potential public hearing; summer – continued work sessions on Vision 43 code amendments.
Meeting Transcript
Today's date is Wednesday, April 15th, 2026. And it is my phone go. 6.02 p.m. Um let's begin with a call to order and roll call. Good evening. Commissioner Kachariski. Here. Commissioner Walvotney. Here. Commissioner Watt. Commissioner Jones. Commissioner Chair Shulte 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 they would like to speak on non-agenda items. Okay. Moving on to the public hearing on CUP-25-03, DR 25-03, VAR-25-02 proposal for conditional use permit, class two design review, and class two variants to minimum window transparency standards for a new drive-thru car wash at 18850 will ammet drive. So evening everyone. So at the March 18th, 2026 public hearing, the planning commission closed the hearing and kept the written record open for first seven days until March 25th to allow for additional written testimony. Then another seven days until April 1st, 2026 to allow for responses to the additional written testimony. And finally another seven days until April 8th, 2026 to allow for applicants' final written argument as required by law.100 point B.6e window transparency standards. No further testimony or evidence will be accepted tonight. And just to clarify for everyone in attendance or listening remotely, I was not in attendance at the March 18th meeting. However, I have watched the entire video of that meeting and am quite 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? Do any members of the commission wish to report any site visits or ex parte contacts? Commissioner Walotney. Thank you, Chair. Um I went to the site today to walk especially the eastern boundary and especially to figure out where the stormwater uh pond is located on the property. And especially to figure out where the stormwater uh pond is located on the property. Um from that, I gained a sense of where the water's going, how the pond appears to work for infiltration. Um I didn't see where the piping goes into the pond. I didn't see where any overflow from the bond pond would go. Um the gate was it was actually open. Um, but I didn't go in. But it seems like a safety issue if they're gonna leave it open, it should be locked. Thank you. And do you feel that you can nevertheless participate in partially in this decision making process? Yes, I do. Any other expert contacts or site visits? I don't see that.
openpublica.com