Board supports revised automated car wash plan at South Lacumbra Road and asks for procedural return to consent

On Sept. 15 the Architectural Board of Review considered revisions to a previously approved automated drive‑through car wash at 3150 South Lacumbra Road. The applicant presented a changed footprint that flips the wash tunnel, lengthens the tunnel by about 15 feet to increase queuing capacity, shortens the equipment room, and relocates the structure closer to the Lacumbra Lane property line, triggering a requested front setback modification of 3 feet 4 inches.

Project architect Kent Mixon described the rationale: flipping the building improves sightlines to the existing gas station on State Street, provides roughly 20 additional feet of queuing lane, and accommodates quieter, more efficient equipment that shortens wash cycles and improves throughput. The proposal also merges two existing lots (110 and 150 South Lacumbra) as part of the site work. Landscape architect Robert (presenting) said the design continues the previously described "car wash within a garden" concept, with olive trees at the north end, gravel planting areas to help resolve historic flooding at the former pet hospital parcel, and stormwater chambers and improved drainage measures.

Board members asked about the gateway/height clearance element, the landscape heights adjacent to the building (plant selections such as yucca/ristrata and agaves were described as 6–12 feet mature heights), and how the revised plan affects wall visibility from Lacumbra Lane. Applicants confirmed the red‑hatched portion of the plan showed the encroaching portion of the building. Staff noted the project previously received a performance standard permit from the staff hearing officer on June 26, 2024; the revised plan now includes the setback modification request.

After interchange among board members and staff about procedure, the board made a motion that the project be continued indefinitely with the board expressing support for the front setback modification and for the project to return for project design and final approval on the consent calendar. The motion passed by roll call (Chair Anderson: yes; Vice Chair Whelan: yes; Board member Sovereign: yes; Board member Anderson: abstain). The board’s comments were generally favorable about the landscape treatment and the repositioning of the building to improve visibility and queuing.

Staff and applicants agreed the project would return to planning and consent calendar steps, and applicants were reminded to coordinate remaining technical items with staff hearing officer and planning staff.