Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Site Design topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission signals support for Good Day Car Wash design review, allows construction documents at risk pending comments
Summary
Staff presented a 5,500 sq ft Good Day Car Wash planned at Higley and Ray roads inside Higley Commons. Commissioners offered only minor comments and signaled no objection to the applicant moving forward with construction documents at risk provided outstanding staff review comments are addressed.
Get email alerts on the Site Design topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Keith (planning staff) presented a design review study session for a proposed Good Day Car Wash on Lot 7 of the Higley Commons master plan, a 1.38‑acre pad at the southwest corner of Ray and Higley. The proposed 5,500‑square‑foot building includes three pay stations, 21 vacuum bays and on‑site circulation designed to separate vacuum bays from the main drive aisle. The site is zoned Shopping Center; landscaping for the Higley frontage will match the gateway character area requirements.
Why it matters: The item was a study session to gather feedback and determine whether the applicant may proceed with construction documents (CDs) at risk before resolving remaining review comments.
Key points: Keith said the applicant has requested CDs at risk and that staff provided first‑review comments. The landscaping plan shows two rows of trees along Higley Road consistent with the gateway design. Building elevations use fiber‑cement paneling, CMU and metal accents; rooflines are primarily flat with a small pitched tower over the entry. Staff noted the project will provide the Higley frontage trees required for the character area.
Commission response: Commissioners had only modest comments. Commissioner Anderson asked whether the conceptual rendering portrayed the full extent of the proposed landscape (Keith confirmed the rendering is conceptual and that the required intensive frontage planting will be provided). No commissioner indicated a strong objection to the applicant moving forward with CDs at risk provided the applicant addresses the majority of staff’s concerns. After the presentation, the commission indicated consensus that staff could allow CDs at risk if the outstanding review comments are resolved.
Applicant position: The applicant asked only to be allowed to proceed with CDs at risk; staff indicated they would not support that request unless remaining comments were resolved prior to CD submittal.
Ending: Staff will continue to work with the applicant on review comments; the commission indicated support for allowing CDs at risk only after resolution of the majority of staff’s comments.

