Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council tables Clean Express conditional‑use permit for proposed car wash at former Boston Market site
Summary
Mentor City Council on May 20 postponed a final decision on a conditional‑use permit for a Clean Express car wash at the Boston Market site on Mentor Avenue, citing traffic, easement and site‑plan questions. Council directed staff to return with easement documents and asked that the revised site plan be reviewed by the Planning Commission.
Mentor City Council on May 20 voted to table consideration of a conditional‑use permit (CUP) for a Clean Express car wash proposed for the former Boston Market site on Mentor Avenue, saying the council needed more traffic, easement and site‑plan information before issuing a final ruling.
The CUP had been called up from the Planning Commission after that body approved the conditional use and tabled the site plan. Council members and city staff repeatedly raised concerns about queuing and how the proposed operation would interact with existing private easements shared with nearby retailers, and about whether the revised site plan — submitted days before the meeting — had been reviewed by the Planning Commission.
The applicant’s legal representative, Majid McClough, partner with Burns, Ochter and Greenberger, and the project engineers described the Clean Express business model and the revised site plan. Civil engineer Jeff Plots (Neff and Associates) and traffic engineer Kevin Westbrooks (GPD Engineering) told council the operation is a membership‑driven, tunnel wash that does not offer fuel or detailing on site. Westbrooks said, “7080% of the customers of clean express are members,” explaining the membership model uses RFID and prepayment, which he said typically reduces on‑site transaction delays.
Council members questioned whether the site — less than an acre, with cross‑access easements to adjacent properties — could handle peak surges. Councilmember Krieger, who initiated the call‑up, said he respected the company but warned the location was “the wrong place for it” because the corridor already experiences heavy traffic near Heisley Road and surrounding retail. City traffic staff noted that typical days operate without incident but that the significant backups seen at similar locations occur after stretches of inclement weather or during high‑demand periods.
Law Director Joe explained the procedural standard the council must apply and read the CUP standards from the city code (zoning code section cited in the record). Staff and the applicant said the applicant has negotiated easements with neighboring property owners, and the applicant agreed the law director and administration may review recorded easement documents if the council conditions approval on that review.
After discussion the council voted to table the CUP to the next regular meeting and asked administration and the applicant to supply the revised site plan to the Planning Commission and to provide recorded easement documents and any additional traffic analyses. Roll call on the tabling motion recorded: Krieger — yes; Martin — yes; Blake — no; Donovan — yes; Dowling — yes; Freeman — yes. The item was tabled for more information.
