07-21-98 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zisla asked how much frontage PDQ lost when the road was widened. Shelton said the road was widened in the early 80’s. Livingston asked if the new building would be bigger or smaller than the current building. Shelton said it would be smaller. Baker said the building would probably meet the Zoning Code without the car wash. Shelton said he wanted to get the Planning Commission’s consensus because PDQ either has to build a new unit there or will sell it. Teague said the complete teardown of the building creates a vacant lot. Therefore, the Planning Commission would be considering a new development. If it were a remodel, it would be a nonconforming use similar to Howie’s Mobil on Old Highway 8. The teardown of the building makes it a new development that would have to meet the required setbacks. Baker asked if the front of the proposed building would be located behind the proposed building. Teague responded affirmatively. Shelton said PDQ wanted to build the new building before they demolish the old one. Baker said, if PDQ took the car wash out, they would meet the requirements. Shelton said PDQ had considered that, but felt that the investment would require the car wash in view of the competition. Livingston asked if vehicles would be traveling next to the car wash on the east side. Shelton said there would be a drive lane for emergency vehicles when vehicles waiting for the carwash block the way. Livingston said the proposed building would go about 20 feet to the east of the old building. Livingston asked if the location of the proposed building would cause a parking problem. Teague responded that the proposal would be short one or two spaces from the minimum number of parking stalls required. Baker said he had a problem with the number of variances required. O’Brien asked if the pump area can be considered part of the parking requirement. Teague said the Code did not address the question, but most cities count that area as parking stalls. Teague said that, even if we do consider the pump stalls as parking, the issue is the setbacks. O’Brien asked if there was any way PDQ could reconfigure the proposal to meet Code requirements. Teague responded they could, but they may have to eliminate the car wash. Shelton said he was looking for direction from the Planning Commission. PDQ would like to rebuild the facility. Baker said that the consensus of the Commission is that the Commission would consider the pump area as parking. Staff would have to ask the Council if they would be willing to consider that as a change from past practice. Shelton asked, if PDQ come back with a proposal with just one variance, would the Planning Commission consider one variance? Baker answered that he could not consider a zero setback when we require 25 feet. Zisla commented the drawing did not show the lot lines and was hard to understand. Shelton reviewed the drawing for the Commission. The Commission briefly discussed past variance requests dealing with fuel/grocery facilities. In answer to a question from Baker, Teague stated a canopy can be up to 10 feet into the required setback. Teague said the green area, however, still must maintain a 30 foot setback. The reason for the exception for the canopy is for the nonconforming uses that currently exist. This proposal is essentially a new facility, and not a nonconforming use. Following Livingston’s request, Teague showed slides of the site. Shelton emphasized the green area PDQ maintains on their easements. Zisla suggested PDQ purchase the easement area. Shelton said the owners did I:\COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\MINUTES\1998\07-21-98.WPD 6