Is Springfield Ready for a Car Wash?

[66Mustang]

I have no dog in this race but after looking over all the threads about the car wash, it seems that the owner is doing exactly what was feared.  The colors aren't what got approved.  I actually like the red, but it seems like if he is deviating already on just this detail, who knows what else is to come.  Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the car wash and will be a regular customer.  I'm just pointing out the facts, he got approval for one thing and is already doing another.  Unless the paint that he picked out originally is all of a sudden SO much more expensive, he had to choose another option then I can see no reason for this.  Why deviate what you have worked so hard to get approved for?  This isn't about taste of colors, SPAR and their desires or anything else.  He got approval for one thing and did another.  Chris, I take it you're a lawyer, you would have to at least agree with that wouldn't you? 

I believe the car wash will end up being a great addition to the neighborhood and sure hope things work out for the best.

[thelakelander]

I've been told off line that the owner does have a COA and has followed the rules up to this point.  However, he was not aware that he was locked into the paint color on the renderings.  So it appears that he will soon be repainting the building.

[JeffreyS]

I am glad it sounds like it has been sorted out.

[66Mustang]

I am glad it sounds like it has been sorted out.

Same here.  Let's get this thing open, My car is dirty as heck and I would rather spend my money at a small business rather than a corporation that could care less.

[sheclown]

There will never be peace.

[strider]

In all fairness, color can not be mandated in the Springfield Historic District.  If they indeed told him he had to paint the thing the same color as the renderings, it may not have actually been legal.  Renderings are often just that and color is often the choice of the designer rather than the owner and it does often get changed from the COA approval to the final completion of the project.  A new COA would not be required for you changing your house color. Color can not be reviewed so therefore, not approved or denied.   The building could be polka-doted and be fine per the overlay and the guidelines.  If color was talked about at the COA hearing, it probably was not a proper thing to do.  But that happens a lot with the city.

Come on, what was important about those renderings was not the color, but the point that funds would be spent to improve the location, not just open it up as is.  It has been stated that he has and is doing exactly that.  It really makes no difference if it is some variation of red or beige.

[strider]

I also have this urge to say...

SPAR or SPAR Council (proper name) deserves what ever barbs gets thrown its way.  The same "misguided" management, AKA dictatorship, is still in predominately in place so they are still trying to conduct business as usual and it won't be in the best interests of all of Springfield and all who live there.

That said, none of that means that all of the members are also no good.  In fact, Debbie Thompson, for instance, is one of the good ones. However, a dictatorship is just that and nothing she or anyone can do will change it.  Trying to get people not to speak out against SPAR Council is not the answer, only by continuing to apply political pressure can one hope that the management will change.

[iloveionia]

Strider, what do you currently see that is improving the location and not just opening up as it is?  I have seen it painted only.  What have I missed?  I'll have to go over tomorrow.  Am I correct in stating that the interior equipment is "done," and exterior improvements and an office/reception/place to pay is what is needed? 

[strider]

I've been told off line that the owner does have a COA and has followed the rules up to this point.  However, he was not aware that he was locked into the paint color on the renderings.  So it appears that he will soon be repainting the building.

This quote indicates that he has done the other items required or at least is working on them. I suppose we could go print out the exception and make up a check list to insure every little thing is done, but basically, the most important things have been done and or have more to do with things like hours of operation and what the man agreed to sell and not sell.  

The only issue seems to be the color of the building, which is not regulated by the overlay nor the historic guidelines.  Common sense says that if the building color had been this red color in the rendering, he would have still gotten his approval.  As long as everything else, which means stuff like repairs, old sign removed, minor landscaping, the signs for no left turn, ETC. get done, the man has done what was asked of him. The rendering was nice and yes, he agreed to do it, and it did contain several important key elements, which it seems he is addressing.  However, the color of the building is actually meaningless in the big scheme of things.

Click on the very first page of this thread and the rendering in question comes up.  Are you also going to count every single bush that is shown and insure that it is placed just where shown? Where does the nonsense stop and where does common sense say enough is enough.

[ChriswUfGator]

I've been told off line that the owner does have a COA and has followed the rules up to this point.  However, he was not aware that he was locked into the paint color on the renderings.  So it appears that he will soon be repainting the building.

This quote indicates that he has done the other items required or at least is working on them. I suppose we could go print out the exception and make up a check list to insure every little thing is done, but basically, the most important things have been done and or have more to do with things like hours of operation and what the man agreed to sell and not sell. 

The only issue seems to be the color of the building, which is not regulated by the overlay nor the historic guidelines.  Common sense says that if the building color had been this red color in the rendering, he would have still gotten his approval.  As long as everything else, which means stuff like repairs, old sign removed, minor landscaping, the signs for no left turn, ETC. get done, the man has done what was asked of him. The rendering was nice and yes, he agreed to do it, and it did contain several important key elements, which it seems he is addressing.  However, the color of the building is actually meaningless in the big scheme of things.

Click on the very first page of this thread and the rendering in question comes up.  Are you also going to count every single bush that is shown and insure that it is placed just where shown? Where does the nonsense stop and where does common sense say enough is enough.

It's SPAR. The ridiculous nonsense will never stop.

[danno]

Makes me want to go out and paint my house lime green and orange with pink trim.

[ChriswUfGator]

Makes me want to go out and paint my house lime green and orange with pink trim.

The funny part is that if you look at the SPARbarians' houses, some of their own color choices are so tacky it makes the carwash's burgundy look downright subdued. One in particular comes to mind, the thing looks like a rotten orange.

And of course, the funny part is that nothing in the zoning overlay, the COA, or the underlying commercial zoning of the property itself, restricts what color he can paint his building. Why doesn't anyone point out where exactly is this list of prohibited colors? Anyone? Helloooooo........anyone?

[fsujax]

Why is it when i glance through these threads it is mostly the same people. Let it go! and move on.

[ChriswUfGator]

Why is it when i glance through these threads it is mostly the same people. Let it go! and move on.

Because it's the same SPARbarians still torching the same villagers. Is everyone supposed to sit back and let it happen?

[sheclown]

It is turning taupe as we speak.