Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Car Wash Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council denies rezoning and CUP for proposed drive‑through Chamois car wash
Summary
Council denied a rezoning request and a separate conditional use permit for a proposed 5,895‑sq‑ft automatic Chamois car wash at 3721 East Ira E Woods Avenue after extended debate over traffic, master‑plan consistency and site intensity.
Grapevine city leaders denied both a rezoning request and the related conditional use permit for a proposed drive‑through Chamois automatic car wash on a 1.4‑acre parcel on East Ira E Woods Avenue.
The rezoning request to change approximately 1.4 acres from Professional Office (PO) to Community Commercial (CC) (Z24-10) failed on a council vote of 5 to 2. A separate conditional use permit for the car wash (CU24-56) was denied 7-0. Planning staff had noted the project conflicts with the city’s adopted land‑use plan, which designates the site as low‑intensity commercial.
Erica Maroney, city planning staff, explained that the applicant proposed a 5,895‑square‑foot automatic tunnel car wash with a peak hour traffic estimate of about 78 vehicle trips and operating hours proposed from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. The site plan showed a 34.5‑foot‑tall building, 21‑vehicle queue capacity, 34 vacuum bays (14 adjacent to Ira E Woods) and 36 provided parking spaces versus 20 required.
Matt Karnes, representing Chamois and an investor in the project, said the membership‑based facility uses license‑plate recognition to admit members, that a tunnel pass takes about 90 seconds, and that customers often clear the property in “3 to 4 minutes” if they do not stop to vacuum or towel off. John Young, the architect on the project, and a civil engineer described a 25‑foot landscape buffer and canopy structures planned to screen vacuum bays from the street.
Several council members and commissioners expressed concern that the use is too intense for the location, citing proximity to schools, an at‑grade rail crossing and constrained nearby intersections. One council member emphasized that rezoning must be consistent with the city’s master plan and called rezoning that departs from the plan a “spot zone.” City staff and commissioners reiterated the master‑plan inconsistency during deliberations.
The council’s action denies the rezoning and the conditional use permit; staff advised the applicant that finding an alternate site consistent with the master plan would be more likely to receive approval.
