Is Springfield Ready for a Car Wash?

[strider]

Springfield girl: Common sense says that when zoning prohibits pawnshops, used car lots and other undesirable uses and they are steadily shutting down and leaving the area you don't open the door and start inviting the undesirable uses back in.

Once again, you are ignoring a fact or two.  The car wash is not among the listed "special or Intensive uses" that are prohibited by the overlay.  It is a higher intensive use that requires an exception,  or to put it more simply, a use that may have negative impacts and therefore, should be reviewed for those impacts and evaluated on an individual basis.

Places like Three Layers, 3rd and Main and Meeks places on Laura all required a PUD to be there. In other words, the zoning had to be changed for those uses to be allowed in the Historic District. By using your and SPAR Council's apparent take on the overlay, these places were undesirable uses as they were not allowed by the overlay and should not have been invited in.  Of course the businesses are not the same, but the impacts that need to be reviewed are the same ones for 3rd and Main as the car wash. 

Common sense says that when applying the overlay, it should be applied evenly and fairly to all, not just randomly interpreted to mean what you want it to mean on this particular day.  The car wash, as has been stated many times, is actually a less intensive use with lower impacts to traffic, noise and trash generation  than 3rd and Main.

[thelakelander]

Once again, you are ignoring a fact or two.  The car wash is not among the listed "special or Intensive uses" that are prohibited by the overlay.  It is a higher intensive use that requires an exception,  or to put it more simply, a use that may have negative impacts and therefore, should be reviewed for those impacts and evaluated on an individual basis.

Common sense says that when applying the overlay, it should be applied evenly and fairly to all, not just randomly interpreted to mean what you want it to mean on this particular day.

^Good explanation.  I understand my line of work deals a lot with zoning, but I'm still having a hard time trying to firgure out why people don't get this.  Its written in the zoning overlay and as clear as day.

[thelakelander]

How long is a letter of exception good for? This project took 12 years to get to the point where the owner felt he was about to have a Grand Opening per his letter Dec 7, 2009.

There's a little more to the story.  When the owner came to November's SAMBA meeting, he mentioned the car wash as being something he planned to run after he retired from teaching.  Anyway, this really has nothing to do with the act of getting a zoning exception.

The owners letter claimed he was going to open in 2 days, July 20, 2007 after he received the letter of violations on July 18, 2007. That facility was not and still isn't in any condition to open for business. Why would you spend over $700,000 without having all paperwork and pulling the proper permits? Let's also not forget that this is rented land. He does not own the property.

This letter that was included in this article should answer the questions you have raised:

We have a great hand wash car wash facility on Main and East 5th. Clearly this property has been grandfathered in. This business owner just survived the Main Street construction and has been washing my cars going on 5 years. Why don't we support his business with the same passion? I live in Springfield and I don't think we need another car wash.

Its really not any of our business to say if the market can or can not support this establishment.  If it can't, it will close and Springfield will benefit from an upgraded property.  Btw, none of this has anything to do with getting a zoning exception or not.  It's a curve ball issue that should be immediately tossed aside.

Any business owner knows they have to have all paperwork complete and a good business plan before investing any money into a business especially a start up like this.

Please re-read the letter above.

What if a retired fireman wanted to build a very nice used car dealer only having high end used vehicles with a nice seating area and free 3 Layer Coffee? What if a retired police officer wanted to build a new pawn shop with a beautiful facade.

They could not because neither of these uses are "permissible" or "permissible by exception" under the CCG-S zoning designation.  In other words, an apples and oranges comparison when discussion this particular use, which happens to be an allowed use by exception.

A great building catering to only nice appliances offering sandwiches from City Kidz and Uptown? When you give an exception to any land use & zoning you walk a slippery slope.

Don't know what would be wrong with a Best Buy or HHGregg opening in the Urban Core but okay.  Anyway, its good this case does not walk a slippery slope because its an allowed use by exception.  Now when someone proposes and gets the right to open a whore house in CCG-S zoning, that will be opening a slippery slope and setting precedent.  A car wash??  not really.

[CS Foltz]

lake............this just squashes the heck out of the SPAR resentment displayed here! I for one, not living in Springfield but having an interest in what take place in what I consider my world, say ......Charge! Let the community decide if this is a viable business!

[thelakelander]

The problem I have with all of this is that talk is cheap. Nothing was done correctly regarding this business until some residents stepped in to help the owner with his design, presentation etc. That doesn't help me have any confidence that this will be a positive, contributing business for the neighborhood.

Do you really believe every Joe Blow understands the correct process to open a business in a historic district when there is no easy road map available to follow?  Speaking from personal experience, I went through some of the same issues early on with my 6th & Main project.  From talking to the owners of Three Layers and Baker Klein, they went through some of these issues as well.  So, if there are residents out there willing to help an owner navigate their way through the maze, this should be considered a great thing.  I hope in the future, both SPAR and SAMBA grow to be better conduits for issues like this instead of being perceived by many as road blocks.

People question why some of us have concerns and I tell them because I have heard BS and promises from prospective business owners and investors for 9 years. The overwhelming majority of proposed uses have never come close to the owners representation and we the neighbors are left with the fallout. I talked to one neighbor who went with an open mind to talk with Mr. Jones and was told by him that he was just about broke. Again, not doing much for my confidence.

I can't argue these accounts and I won't try to pump up your confidence.  However, I will say that none of this has much to do with the central zoning issue at hand.

People on this forum want us to believe that SPAR is the driving force behind the opposition, while ignoring the fact that the zoning and historic departments both recommended denial of this project which is only allowed by EXCEPTION.

I really hate to bring SPAR into this but everone knows their opinion on projects proposed in the historic district carries some weight with the zoning and historic departments.  If the community, as a whole, approved of a car wash opening, the guy would already be in business.  

If it's such a great use as some would like us to think why did the above depts. recommend denial and why does it need an exception?

See my response above for your first statement.  For the second, Strider did a pretty good job explaining "exceptions" and "PUDs".  Without them, there would no no 3rd & Main, Meeks office or Three Layers (all places the community is proud to have and rightfully so).

And no, it wasn't because SPAR asked for it. Many of the people supporting the carwash are non or temporary residents. What happens if it becomes a nuisance to the people who actually live close to the business? No problem for the non or temporary residents as they don't have to live with it 24-7.

You're explanation is why things like car washes and restaurants with outdoor dining or "3rd & Mains" need exceptions and rezonings under the overlay.  Its gives us a chance to evaluate these types of projects individually on their own merit and unique circumstances.

What happens if it fails but the door has been opened to something even less desirable. Again, no problems for the non or temporary residents but people like me who live two blocks away are fu**ed. If it goes forward and does not become a nuisance or detriment to me I will admit I was wrong but if it goes to sh*t you will see my immature side come out and I will rant I told you so every friggin day on this site.

Don't know about the others, but I'll still sleep good at night either way.  I just want to kill all bad information and interpretations so that projects like this can be properly evaluated for the overall good of the community.

[stjr]

Lake, any more info regarding my post as to how this could proceed to this point without the zoning being cleared up?  Either the city or the owner failed to follow a procedure it would appear.  Who messed up?

[thelakelander]

stjr, it has to start with the city.  A better way of getting the road map out has to be established and made available to the common man.  As we can see in this debate, people who have decent understanding of the process still have no clue of how zoning works.  Add a guy like Mr. Jones, and he has less of a clue.  So, in my opinion, everything starts and ends with the city.  Once that information is properly displayed and easy to find, its up to the owner to navigate his way through the process. As for SPAR and SAMBA, they should be readily available and accessible to work with those owners who may need help.  This would help assure that all new development coming into the district is vetted and designed to play a positive role in the revitalization process.

[Ocklawaha]

The most unbelievable part of this thread is that in a city of 1.5 Million people, we are arguing the merits of a damn car wash! Other cities are REALLY worried about landing blue chip corporations, downtown redevelopment, mass transit, school improvement etc.. We must look some ominous competition.

OCKLAWAHA

[thelakelander]

Ock, that is pretty crazy.  You should have seen my wife's face when she asked what I was responding to while typing the posts above.

[ChriswUfGator]

I just read Silas Jones' letter to COJ's Planning Dept for the first time.

The first thing that strikes me is that SPAR got caught red-handed in yet another one of their infamous pre-orchestrated code enforcement call-in campaigns. So to those of you on here who argued with me ad nauseum that this just never happens, and it's all just some 'conspiracy theory' from Joe, Gloria, Me, or Stephen, well, well, well...I think we can put that one to bed now, can't we.

The other thing that jumps out about all of this is the question of exactly how much more of this same crap are people going to tolerate? You've got this whole chunk of the city held hostage by 8 or 10 people, running a group that is totally out of touch with most of the people they claim to represent. This guy is just trying to open a car wash, not a brothel. His actual neighbors are all in favor of the project. But out of nowhere, SPAR starts screaming about "convenience store" and whatnot, when he makes it clear all he was going to have was car care supplies and a vending machine. Like. Every. Other. Car. Wash. On. The. Planet.

Lastly, I'm very surprised by how far along he really is. He already has a business license, and was already granted the exception and permits for the project in 1995. Then the new overlay comes along 6 years after the fact, and people want to act like this is some terrible thing that he should be allowed to keep the project that he already got approval for in 1995, and for which he has held a valid business license for the last 15 years. Moreover, this thing was already a carwash before he bought it, since the 1960’s.

Lewis v. City of Atlantic Beach, 467 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) set the current standard for the continuation of a nonconforming use, or is normally called we call “grandfathering,” and found "nonconforming uses may be eliminated by attrition (amortization), abandonment, and acts of God as speedily as is consistent with proper safeguards and the rights of those persons affected." Then 3M National Advertising Company v. City of Tampa Code Enforcement Board, 587 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) together with Walker v. State, Department of Transportation, 366 So. 2d 96 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), recognize the loss of the right to operate a nonconforming use due to government action as representing a compensable taking.

FL AGO advisory opinion AGO 97-65 states “Abandonment occurs when the owner intentionally and voluntarily relinquishes such nonconforming use of the property. Temporary cessation of a nonconforming use, however, does not necessarily constitute abandonment of a nonconforming use. Moreover, neither attrition nor abandonment occurs when a nonconforming use is interrupted or discontinued involuntarily by government action.” I don’t think there is any question that the owner has not abandoned the property. His actions have been wholly consistent with utilizing the property as a carwash, which it had been since the 1960s. He applied for and received a zoning exception allowing this use, applied for and received construction permits, conducted extensive renovations, and then continually applied for and received business licenses for that use.

I doubt there has been any attrition either, the property was under construction for some time, and once it was finished COJ went and changed the code so that the zoning they previously granted was no longer allowable unless they granted an additional exception. The SOL on this hasn’t run, nor is the issue even ripe, until he exhausts all administrative remedies, which will not have occurred until and if COJ rejects his application for an exception, and he appeals it to the city council, where it is again denied.

So I guess where I’m going with this is, his renovation of an already-existing carwash was approved and permitted by COJ in 1995. COJ already issued him a zoning exception categorically approving the property’s use as a carwash, after which he invested a substantial sum money of into that use, which they had fully approved when he applied. Now they want to come along later, after approving the zoning, permitting the half a million dollars’ worth of renovations he then conducted, and changed the overlay after the fact such that the property requires an additional exception that they now appear to be dicking him around on granting, at SPAR’s behest.

This would certainly be more clear-cut if the carwash had been in continuous operation as a nonconforming use the entire time. If that were the case, there wouldn’t be an issue at all. But as it sits, if COJ rejects his application for an exception, then this still may be a compensable taking, and Mr. Jones should consider suing COJ to recover the money he has invested in the property. For chrissakes’, COJ’s Planning and Development office specifically approved his use, and after he was done investing a half million dollars in the place, they changed the code and effectively took it away. And of course, as usual, SPAR thinks this is just hunky-dory. Silas Jones, if you read this forum, go get yourself an eminent domain / land use attorney. You may not get your car wash, but at least you might have a shot at getting your money back.

[sheclown]

Chris, you ought to consider setting up shop in Springfield.  Seems like a lot of business around here.

Lake...has anyone discussed the "grandfathered" aspect of this with the city that you know of?

[CS Foltz]

I am not a lawyer by any stretch of the mind, but Mr Jones appears to me to have basis for getting his money back if this is turned down by the COJ! This is something that should have been streamlined and simplified long before now  .........shame on you!

[chris farley]

Not one of those five people. named in the letter,  who made calls is or was a member of SPAR, that part is incorrect

[thelakelander]

Imo, SPAR should be an afterthought when it comes to receiving approval or denial of a zoning exception.  This project should be evaluated based on the ordinance in place, its own merits and what it will or not bring to the table.  In a fair world, SPAR's opinion (or any other that isn't built on the foundation of the actual zoning matter at hand) should not amount to a hill of beans at the end of the day.

[fsu813]

Well i'm glad that's not the case. Community input matters. While 1 individual's voice may not be heard, an organization that has a good relationship with the city will be heard. This is even more important when shaping an up & coming area, and again even more so when dealing with historic concerns.

Whether i agree with them or not on this specific situation, i'm glad they have a voice that is sure to be heard, even if it's not the determining factor.

imo.