New Convenience Store

[cindi]

Good luck with that. In this market I can't see anyone dropping 500k for carwash equipment. It would take a lot more than 10k to have that site operational as a store.

really, you think a lot more than 10k to make it operational as a store or as a store that would look decent.  have you been to the shell station in hampsterdam lately?  how much do you think it would take to get that level of "quality". run some electric to any closed off 4 walls with a door (indoor plumbing is not a requirement, that's why they made other peoples houses) throw in some places to throw your steel reserves (don't even need a decent selection), open some boxes of cigs etc and TAH-DAH - you have an operational "crap to go" store.  it could be reallllly bad.

[nvrenuf]

Good luck with that. In this market I can't see anyone dropping 500k for carwash equipment. It would take a lot more than 10k to have that site operational as a store.

I believe previous posts stated that Silas has already dropped the 500k on the equipment in the car wash now. So why would he be content to turn it into a craphole? I would suspect he is hoping to have a successful business used by as many people as possible. He's already heard from the neighborhood (those willing to talk to him) what they expect it to be like before they would use it and it sounds like he is happy to comply. Why wouldn't he be if it means support for his business and more potential customers?

[ChriswUfGator]

Good luck with that. In this market I can't see anyone dropping 500k for carwash equipment. It would take a lot more than 10k to have that site operational as a store.

He's already got a half mil invested in the place, SG. The equipment is already in, the money has already been spent. The place would already be open, except he wasn't counting on this backstabbing campaign against him by his own neighbors that he's been trying to overcome to get it licensed and open.

As things stand now, he may well lose his entire investment, and the neighborhood will continue to have another empty building to complement the other 235,667,325,788,422 empty buildings it already has. Call me nuts, but that doesn't exactly seem like a "win-win" to me. Meanwhile, anyone else thinking about dropping that kind of dime to open another business in S'field is going to think twice after watching what happened here. People should really be more supportive, that is not the kind of reputation a re-developing area wants to have.

[iloveionia]

http://www.belmontshore.org/
Not quite a carwash, but a car detail service business, nestled among upscale shops in trendy Belmont Shore.  Check out the website.  While a car wash is not personally (yup, the newbie has an opinion,) on top of my list (yeah, I've got a wish list,) of businesses for Main Street, it's far better than abandoned blight.  Crucify me all you want.  I read DAILY, post RARELY.  Peace.

[thelakelander]

Nice example.  Sure beats abandoned blight and an increasingly bad reputation as a place to open a new business.

Lake, I was refering to the pics you used earlier. None of the new ones look anything like the earlier pictures you posted and only one of the new pics looks like an urban setting. Three of them show no surrounding buildings for reference and one has mountains in the background.

You only asked for one.  The other examples are in Main Street type environments.  It will be decades before Main has the density of the NY example.  There are stepping steps in revitalizing commercial districts.  You don't go from abandoned blight straight to Pottery Barn.  The use proposed is something that utilizes the structure, in its current state, immediately.  A decade down the road, if the market can support it, something would eventually replace it.  Why not have a cleaner site that is being utilized in the short term than more abandoned blight?

Matt, I would hope we would try to preserve the good history. Springfield has had a history of prostitutes and drug dealers too. Would you like to preserve those?

Abandoned blight is also a part of Springfield's history.  There are many out there who don't want to preserve that either.  Its off topic, but it would be nice to see the community support fixed rail the way they do PCTs and rallying against car washes. 

Cindi, I suppose Mr. Jones could open a convenience store there if he built a new building. I don't see how the carwash shell could be used as a convenience store without a major renovation/additon.

My guess is it will sit vacant and continue to solidify abandoned blight along Main.  In other words, a lose-lose situation for the community and the owner.

[jason_contentdg]

Correct, Lakelander. He owns the equipment in that building.  If he does not get approval, the equipment will be removed and he will open up a car wash at another spot, one with much less opposition.

Then, the 4th street lot will remain in the hands of an owner who has done nothing to improve any of his land along Main Street.

[fsu813]

just a note. i would bet that Mr. Silas has not personally spent 500k on the the car wash. that has been thrown around many times, and it seems rather unlikely. possible, but not plausible. perhaps it's just semantics, but a point worth noting (just as he does not have 2 other car washes, rather he had them).

also, jason, the equipment has been sitting there for a long time, correct? what makes you think if he's denied again that this time he'll take it and move it ? why didn't he do it after he sold the property, as he didn't have any plans at that time to lease it back? again, it's a point that has little to do with the issue, but worth noting (or wondering).

Matt m, you are detailing / describing the best case scenario. what would you say the odds are of the best case scenario playing out?

before the accusatory vultures start circling, i did e-sign the petition to open it.

[Dan B]

just a note. i would bet that Mr. Silas has not personally spent 500k on the the car wash. that has been thrown around many times, and it seems rather unlikely. possible, but not plausible. perhaps it's just semantics, but a point worth noting (just as he does not have 2 other car washes, rather he had them).

also, jason, the equipment has been sitting there for a long time, correct? what makes you think if he's denied again that this time he'll take it and move it ? why didn't he do it after he sold the property, as he didn't have any plans at that time to lease it back? again, it's a point that has little to do with the issue, but worth noting (or wondering).

Matt m, you are detailing / describing the best case scenario. what would you say the odds are of the best case scenario playing out?

before the accusatory vultures start circling, i did e-sign the petition to open it.

Actually, FSU, he showed Matt receipts. Matt, please correct me if I am wrong, but he explained he doesnt like going into debt, and has paid for the equipment over time.

Not sure who said he had two other active car washes. When I first met him, I asked him, and he said he used to have them.

There is a bit of a misinformation campaign going on out there, which is pretty typical of this type of thing.

I agree with Lake and Jason on all of this. I do, however, agree with Lisa that the neighbors who live within earshot should have a say as well. Odd that nobody has asked them. The loudest opponent from two years ago is no gone from the community.

[zoo]

What kills me about this Silas Jones issue is that the existing vacant facility was built as a car wash and has been on site since 1955. Main Street is not Rodeo Drive and the property really has no value outside of it being a car wash. So if we want to see something positive happen with it now (personally, I'd like to see all vacant properties filled along Main ASAP), its basically going to be a car wash (he already has $500k in equipment in it now) or sit vacant long term.

Lake, are you feeling ok? This kind of hyperbolic tactic (I don't think anyone wants Rodeo Drive, or Pottery Barn, as you suggested in your subsequent post) is more often associated with Stephen.

Main has enough vacant and blighted properties.  Why must people draw a line in the sand instead of working to find common ground that benefits all?  The community should be working with the owner and creativity to improve the site and better integrate the use into the commercial district and surrounding area.  Something as simple as a landscaped site and buffer along with something like a nice seating courtyard between the auto accessory retail store and sidewalk would be a great addition to one of Main Street's most desolate commercial properties.

Isn't this happening? I think Matt M and Dan B have made great effort to gain insight into Mr. Jones' intent, and to post it on this forum so others can draw their own conclusions about it.

For those who don't understand how this can benefit a walkable commercial district, it has been stated in this thread before.  People attract people.  The more you can pull into a compact setting, the larger the market is for a variety businesses to cater to that population.  People using the facility are potential additional customers to the restaurants, service and retail shops in the surrounding area that everyone desperately wants.  More business and life only helps Main become the viable commercial district everyone wants it to be.  Leaving it as a blighted vacant property does exactly the opposite.

Again, not for or against, but it has also been stated on this forum numerous times before that cars do not attract people. As this site is being proposed for re-opening as a car wash, I presume the business owner has plans for some cars, and if he's lucky a lot of cars, to be there.

However, instead of taking a risk at getting better utilization out of the property, people are willing to keep it at the lowest and most devastating denominator.  Blighted, vacant and poorly maintained.

the property really has no value outside of it being a car wash

Again, this surprises me coming from you, Lake. Attempting to the predict the future is not your normal approach to a convincing argument.

I'm not for or against, but I don't share the same future naysayer view. I am not going to base my opinion on this topic on the presumption that if I don't support a car wash/convenience store, it will never be anything other than a blighted site. If it's not a car wash/convenience store, I don't know what it will be or when -- but despite the poison pens on this board, my more optimistic view for Springfield's future means I can hope for something better than a lot full of cars that the overlay attempts to protect against (and I'm aware this has prior use as a car wash and the car wash doesn't need an exception; I'm referring to the intent of the overlay in disallowing new car lots).

And I applaud the community for reaching out to Mr. Jones, and to Mr. Jones for working with ContentDG to better convey his intent. Good efforts from both sides, imho.

[jason_contentdg]

just a note. i would bet that Mr. Silas has not personally spent 500k on the the car wash. that has been thrown around many times, and it seems rather unlikely. possible, but not plausible. perhaps it's just semantics, but a point worth noting (just as he does not have 2 other car washes, rather he had them).

also, jason, the equipment has been sitting there for a long time, correct? what makes you think if he's denied again that this time he'll take it and move it ? why didn't he do it after he sold the property, as he didn't have any plans at that time to lease it back? again, it's a point that has little to do with the issue, but worth noting (or wondering).

Matt m, you are detailing / describing the best case scenario. what would you say the odds are of the best case scenario playing out?

before the accusatory vultures start circling, i did e-sign the petition to open it.

It's a large cost to move that equipment and set it back up again. He was close to doing that, however his lawyers and civil engineer talked him into giving 4th street one more try.

This is the last push, if it doesn't happen this time, he obviously has no other choice but to move the equipment.

[thelakelander]

What kills me about this Silas Jones issue is that the existing vacant facility was built as a car wash and has been on site since 1955. Main Street is not Rodeo Drive and the property really has no value outside of it being a car wash. So if we want to see something positive happen with it now (personally, I'd like to see all vacant properties filled along Main ASAP), its basically going to be a car wash (he already has $500k in equipment in it now) or sit vacant long term.

Lake, are you feeling ok? This kind of hyperbolic tactic (I don't think anyone wants Rodeo Drive, or Pottery Barn, as you suggested in your subsequent post) is more often associated with Stephen.

Feeling great. I'm healthy, the family is good and my fantasy football team just won their 4th game in a row. 

Now to the topic, I'm a realist.  I believe I have an good understanding in the steps of how commercial districts revitalize.  At this point in time, a car wash is a pretty good use of the property, given that was what the building has been used for since 1955.  Ten years down the road, who knows.  However, I'd like to see Main fill in well before then.  Imo, when the market demands more of the site, it will naturally evolve into something else.  In the meantime, lets try to get better utilization from our abandoned properties.

Main has enough vacant and blighted properties.  Why must people draw a line in the sand instead of working to find common ground that benefits all?  The community should be working with the owner and creativity to improve the site and better integrate the use into the commercial district and surrounding area.  Something as simple as a landscaped site and buffer along with something like a nice seating courtyard between the auto accessory retail store and sidewalk would be a great addition to one of Main Street's most desolate commercial properties.

Isn't this happening? I think Matt M and Dan B have made great effort to gain insight into Mr. Jones' intent, and to post it on this forum so others can draw their own conclusions about it.

[/quote]

What a few individuals participating in this thread are doing is great.  Maybe I'm off basis, but from reading the report, there seems to be structured community opposition that led to the denial recommendation.  I'll post later today to let everyone decide for themselves.

There has been an application made with the Planning Department to put a car wash/convenience store at the corner of 4th & Main Streets. The same person applied a year or so ago and the neighborhood took a stand against it. Application No. 09-54 will be heard by the Planning Department on Thursday, November 12 at 1:00 PM at City Council Chambers. Those wishing to speak are encouraged to be there.
http://www.sparcouncil.org/

Maybe is just me and I'm reading too much into it but when I see something like this online, it really doesn't seem like that is how to work with a property owner on finding common ground.

For those who don't understand how this can benefit a walkable commercial district, it has been stated in this thread before.  People attract people.  The more you can pull into a compact setting, the larger the market is for a variety businesses to cater to that population.  People using the facility are potential additional customers to the restaurants, service and retail shops in the surrounding area that everyone desperately wants.  More business and life only helps Main become the viable commercial district everyone wants it to be.  Leaving it as a blighted vacant property does exactly the opposite.

Again, not for or against, but it has also been stated on this forum numerous times before that cars do not attract people. As this site is being proposed for re-opening as a car wash, I presume the business owner has plans for some cars, and if he's lucky a lot of cars, to be there.

In theory, you're right.  However, again the realist in me enters the picture.  Cars are driven by people and Main Street (or just about any street in Jax) does not have the foot traffic to survive without automobile oriented traffic.  If you can properly buffer and integrate a automobile oriented facility into the commercial district, it can be a plus.  Nevertheless, we may have to agree to disagree on this particular issue.  However, I'm sure we can both agree that abandonment does no one any good.

However, instead of taking a risk at getting better utilization out of the property, people are willing to keep it at the lowest and most devastating denominator.  Blighted, vacant and poorly maintained.

the property really has no value outside of it being a car wash

Again, this surprises me coming from you, Lake. Attempting to the predict the future is not your normal approach to a convincing argument.

I'm living in 2009.  Since 1955, the site was built as and has operated as a car wash.  Its a car wash building.  What's the best use for a car wash building?  Then we have a guy that is ready to spend his personal money to fix a vacant property.  This is nothing about predicting the future and more about taking advantage of an opportunity for improvement when the fish is already on the line. 

On the other hand, flushing the idea completely down the toilet tends to suggest that one is either fine with the current state of the property or they are taking a guess in believing that a "better" use for the property is right around the corner, despite the past track record and recession.  Now that is what I would say is predicting the future.

I'm not for or against, but I don't share the same future naysayer view. I am not going to base my opinion on this topic on the presumption that if I don't support a car wash/convenience store, it will never be anything other than a blighted site. If it's not a car wash/convenience store, I don't know what it will be or when -- but despite the poison pens on this board, my more optimistic view for Springfield's future means I can hope for something better than a lot full of cars that the overlay attempts to protect against (and I'm aware this has prior use as a car wash and the car wash doesn't need an exception; I'm referring to the intent of the overlay in disallowing new car lots).

You're wrong on this one.  Its been mentioned several times over the last 27 pages but an exception for a car wash has nothing to do with the intent or structure of the overlay.  That's a city wide issue that was established in 1992.  As for the potential of Main, like you, I believe it has great potential.  However, I can see how situations like this can be a negative in achieving the ultimate goal.

And I applaud the community for reaching out to Mr. Jones, and to Mr. Jones for working with ContentDG to better convey his intent. Good efforts from both sides, imho.

I applaud these guys as well.  Hopefully their creative insight will rub off on more of their neighbors in the future.  If this can be done, I believe the revitalization of Main will begin to occur more rapidly.

[zoo]

Sorry. I initially had that typed as "(and I'm aware this has prior use as a car wash and the owner doesn't need an exception for the convenience store..." then re-typed and failed to completely correct. I know he does need an exception for the car wash, and does not need one for the convenience store. See below section of overlay...

(c)  Permissible uses by exception.   
(1)   An establishment or facility which includes the retail sale and service of all alcoholic beverages including liquor, beer or wine for on-premises consumption or off-premises consumption or both, including permanent or restricted outside sale and service, meeting the performance standards and development criteria set forth in Part 4 of the Zoning Code.
(2)   New multiple-family structures.
(3)   Live-work lofts meeting the criteria set forth in Section 656.369.
(4)   Crematories.
(5)   Service stations, service garages for minor repairs and car washer.
(6)   Recycling collection points meeting the performance standards and development criteria set forth in Part 4 of the Zoning Code.
(7)   Essential services, including water, sewer, gas, telephone, radio, television and electric, meeting the performance standards and development criteria set forth in Part 4 of the Zoning Code.
(   Private clubs.
(9)   Restaurants with the outside sale and service of food meeting the performance standards and development criteria set forth in Part 4 of the Zoning Code.
(10)   Billiard parlors.

What I was getting at, is the seeming intent of the overlay to prevent more car-heavy uses. Per below copied info, under "Intensive uses" there is an entire section dedicated to automotive uses, in which the three listed in the "Permissible uses by exception" are are not included.

(d)   Intensive uses.   
(1)   Special uses.  Special uses include residential treatment facilities, rooming houses, emergency shelter homes, group care homes, community residential homes of seven or more residents. New special uses are not allowed in the districts and existing uses must conform to standards for special uses in Section 656.369.
(2)   Automotive uses.  Existing automotive-related uses, including auto repair, auto sales, tire stores, and similar uses, must conform to the following standards within three years from the effective date of this ordinance:
(A)   No outdoor storage or car display is allowed unless it is screened from adjacent residences by a wall, fence or hedge. This visual screen must be at least six (6) feet in height and at least 85 percent opaque.
(B)   Any new outdoor car display or temporary storage of properly licensed automobiles and pick-up trucks must be screened from a public street by wrought iron style fencing of iron, steel, or aluminum construction with vertical pickets, or by a combination of a masonry retaining wall with wrought iron style fencing, which fencing shall be located within ten (10) feet of the public right-of-way.
(C)   Hours of operation are limited to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.; and
(D)   Parking of cars and storage of material is not allowed on public right-of-ways, sidewalks, and adjacent properties.
(E)   Facilities that are adjacent to residentially zoned property or that are located across a public right-of-way or alley from residentially zoned property must perform activities that produce sustained and objectionable noise solely within soundproofed buildings or within buildings with bays that do not face residentially-zoned properties.

It just seems that the Planning dept carefully addressed automotive-associated businesses such that they are not allowed, or such that the community must feel they fit (exception).

I'm still not for or against, and I consider myself a realist, too, though clearly at a different spot on the continuum.

There is great transition happening in Springfield, and even greater transition getting ready to happen City-wide. This District is getting noticed by the NEFL region at large, and in the Spring, will get some national attention. Some of the programs (and funds) the current federal administration is implementing will begin reaching the community, too, in the way of clean/safe and incentives. As a result, I lean toward optimistic realism -- so shoot me.

[Karl_Pilkington]

Is anyone aware of any possible businesses that may have an interest (immediate or future) in opening near 4th and Main?

a friend of mine is looking at possibly a puka dog and shave ice place, if you've ever had a puka dog you'd know its awesome!

[thelakelander]

Zoo, it says the same thing under the regular CCG zoning.  All I was saying is that the "exception" issue isn't really Springfield overlay specific.  Its city wide.  Also, there is a difference between "Permissible uses by exception" and outright outlawing a use.  For example, a car wash falls into the same category as a live work loft, a restaurant with outdoor dining or a multifamily project (which is really silly if you ask me, but its commonly excepted that or zoning code is poorly written).  Imo, those last three things should be permissible outright.  However, under no circumstances could I open an adult bookstore, strip club or heavy industrial.  Now those, are uses that are not permissible.

[Dan B]

Lake, I wish it were structured community opposition. What really happened was, according to what someone told me, was the item was brought up at HPC, and it blindsided the SPAR representation. SPAR got up at the same meeting and spoke out against it, without ever speaking to the community, researching what he wanted to do, or speaking to the owner.

When I asked why, I was told "because its against the overlay". Not "its too loud" or "the neighbors contacted me and complained" any other possibly constructive reason. Just the overlay.