What are your thoughts on the owner of 25 W 4th Street (one block north of 3RD and Main where there is convenience store on the SE corner) trying to get an exception from Planning and Development to open a convenience store?
car wash/ convenience store, apparently.
can't be good for the residents that live close by.
plenty of convenience stores in the area already anyways
The car wash has been there since 1955, so it can be argued that its "historic." From what I understand, the convenience store is needed for them to open the car wash back up. Imo, its not the best location for convenience store but the property is commercial and zoned for it and the site is better used, than in the abandoned condition it is currently in.
My suggestion would be to work with the people proposing this project to make sure it is well integrated into the neighborhood and supports walkability along the Main Street corridor. For example, all that building needs is a decent outdoor patio/courtyard/seating area to make it walkable. Take advantage of smart design to shape and dictate the atmosphere around the project.
Below: Same use, different atmosphere, primarily through design.
(http://www.modative.com/Portals/41216/images//Car-Wash-Los%20Angeles-Waiting.jpg)
(http://faacarwash.com/images/header.PNG)
Don't think I can really form an opinion until I see the plans he has submitted, and feel confident in the owner's financial capability to implement (that is what trips up a lot of Springfielders that initially have good intentions). If his thought is more like the first image lakelander posted, I would give it some consideration for two reasons:
1. The "convenience store" in this case appears to be there to serve the customers of the car wash while their car is moving through the the cleaning tunnel (internally focused, rather than foot traffic driven). These typs of car washes were all over the communities where I came from, and the design of it, with enclosed building more visible from the street than the tunnel, helped them to be less eyesore than the wash-your-car-yourself version with multiple bays (2nd pic posted by lakelander); and,
2. While people waited for their car to go through the tunnel, and the car wash employees to dry and lightly detail, they sought something to do. Sometimes wandering convenience store for items like greeting cards, car cup holders/air fresheners, and travel mugs, magazines (maybe this is a way to a newsstand?); sometimes reading in the area out front -- but other times wandering into neighboring merchants to pass the time (and more of their moolah). Depending on the venture's targeting strategy, this type of walk traffic could be good on Main.
Even the first design had a drawback; the car drying/detailing area was often filled with cars being worked on, which did give the visual effect of a car lot -- albeit one with busy car detailers buzzing around each vehicle to finish it up. If this is the model, that also means jobs, and great merchandising opportunities (like car detailer uniforms, signage, waiting area, etc...)
I hope someone will post what he has submitted for plans for the Nov 12 meeting.
Two more things:
- I did often wonder, where all of the water, soap, chemicals? of what sort the car wash was using went? A commercial car wash means a lot of this stuff, and I would hope Planning & Development Dept thinks about this (what is the effect, if any, on Hogan's Creek, the St Johns River, and the granite gutters lining 4th St?) before approving.
- Silas mentioned he owned other car washes in Jax -- anyone catch the names of them? -- they might be worth looking at to get an idea of the business model. I would also hope that, if approved, the lease arrangement he has with Petra is such that the venture would be sustainable. If the door is opened to the type of the car wash the lessee has planned (whatever that may be), the rent structure doesn't work out, and the venture closes, THEN what happens in that spot may not end up being what was approved.
It is my understanding that this location had been renovated (internally - IE, new equipment) some time ago and then found out he was not permitted to open? If so, then the convenience store certainly is to change the use so that he can have a car wash too rather than just a carwash. Either way, I think a car wash is considered an intensive use and would have restricted hours under the overlay, assuming they can be enforced. The restricted hours may make the use more pleasant for the actual neighbors of the business. As a note, I did get a call from someone who owns property behind there and they weren't happy about the idea, but is willing to keep an open mind.
It appears to be an "automated" car wash rather than self serve from the style of the building and what I have been told in the past. Assuming that is true, then, to answer a question about the waste water, these newer car washes recycle their water. I would say at least 99% or higher is captured, filtered and reused. In this type of business, water becomes an pretty high expense and then add in EPA requirements and it becomes very cost effective to spend money on recycling and filtering. This is also true on self serve types to an extent, but some older ones probably only have a rough filter. separator on the waste water drains.
hope the owner holds those priorities as well, as i'm sure it's not cheap if it's not already in place
What!........no oil change place?
Most of the really good ones will have convenience store, carwash and oil change place.
uh oh. i sense either a
(1) how would you feel if....
(2) you don't know what you're talking about...
moment coming on by Stephen.
i'm taking bets!
i think that qualifies as a "how wouyld you feel if....." comment.
everyone who picked #1, come and get your money.
Quote from: fsu813 on October 29, 2009, 10:51:34 PM
car wash/ convenience store, apparently.
can't be good for the residents that live close by.
plenty of convenience stores in the area already anyways
I concur, but I'd like to see the proposed renderings and hear what the owner has to say. I just don't think its a good fit in that area as I imagine it. The restricted hours would be needed.
Stephen.
an active community discusses what proposed businesses may come to the area and talks about the pros & cons. and what can be done to support them or disuade them.
community organizing 101.
Alright, let's get back on topic and leave the personal insults out of the discussion. Here is the actual application. Evaluate the project on the information presented in the actual document and think of ways to possibly better integrate such a project into the commercial corridor.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Development/Springfield-4th-Street-car/E-09-54-Carwash1Page01/697488658_FE7za-XL.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Development/Springfield-4th-Street-car/E-09-54-Carwash1Page02/697488714_tKHbh-XL.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Development/Springfield-4th-Street-car/E-09-54-Carwash1Page03/697488729_W7BG4-XL.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Development/Springfield-4th-Street-car/E-09-54-Carwash1Page05/697488768_VJPAQ-XL.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Development/Springfield-4th-Street-car/E-09-54-Carwash1Page06/697488784_YDca8-XL.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Development/Springfield-4th-Street-car/E-09-54-Carwash1Page07/697488806_Cs3un-XL.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Development/Springfield-4th-Street-car/E-09-54-Carwash1Page08/697488822_mkxv3-XL.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Development/Springfield-4th-Street-car/E-09-54-Carwash1Page09/697488836_Amwfv-XL.jpg)
Existing Site Plan
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Development/Springfield-4th-Street-car/E-09-54-Carwash1Page10/697488850_Gg9qo-XL.jpg)
Proposed Site Plan
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Development/Springfield-4th-Street-car/E-09-54-Carwash1Page11/697488907_nyCve-XL.jpg)
Are we gonna make sure that those with dirty cars will be there. A meeting without them would be invalid.
SInce I don't like washing my car in the street, I might use it.
Quote from: danno on October 30, 2009, 02:03:44 PM
Are we gonna make sure that those with dirty cars will be there. A meeting without them would be invalid.
;D ;D ;D
if people do not want this, simply show up at the meeting....Nov 12th is it?......and we'll see what happens....
and for those who can't make it, make sure to call or fax in a letter about this issue.
Going off of the last image Lake posted, it seems to be a pretty serious car wash operation. It looks to be a third larger than the convenience store, and it is not a self service one. I would think a carwash that large and automated would be quite expensive. If the convenience store aspect is what the person was really trying to accomplish, I don't think it would be this sort of a carwash setup.
For those who don't want it, why? A commercial corridor with occupied buildings is better than one without. Is there a middle ground? Can the things that make you feel uncomfortable with such a project be alleviated through better design?
Some of the concerns I heard last night when he discussed it were: increased vehicular traffic on an already degraded brick road, noise, the convenience store being the primary usage.
I might have a beef if my residence was next to it, but mine is not. I would think that the street would need to be taken care of.
Quote from: nvrenuf on October 30, 2009, 02:25:10 PM
Some of the concerns I heard last night when he discussed it were: increased vehicular traffic on an already degraded brick road, noise, the convenience store being the primary usage.
From what I can tell, the car wash is the primary use but it can't be allowed with the convenience store. For those who have been in the hood for a while, how much traffic did it generate between 1955 and 1992? Also, wouldn't most of the traffic come from Main Street? It would seem like maintaining the road would be a city responsibility. Not sure, a true argument can be made for denying someone the right to open a business because the streets have pot holes. If that were the case, Springfield would be off limits to everyone. Is there a market for an "attractive" convenience store? Or are they all poison?
I dont drive, but I do live and work in the neighborhood, and I think anything is better then an abandoned building.
quality of managment is key, design as well.
the owner did say he had a couple of others. checking those out will probably tell you all you need to know about what to expect.
Quote from: danno on October 30, 2009, 02:27:22 PM
I might have a beef if my residence was next to it, but mine is not. I would think that the street would need to be taken care of.
Should the street be the responsibility of the car wash owner, the residents already living along it and using it or the city? Also, the property is zoned commercial and has been for over 50 years. It is on the east side of the alley. As a home owner, if you move next door to a commercial property, at some point shouldn't you expect commercial development on it? Is this similar to moving next to a railroad or airport or Blanding Blvd and then complaining about train horns, jet noise and traffic?
Also, are there proper ways to buffer commercial from residential? Could those methods be applied to this project?
Anyway, I'm not for or against, but I'm trying to make people think about how design can address situations and proposals like this in an urban setting.
QuoteAlso, the property is zoned commercial and has been for over 50 years.
That fact definitely hurts the argument against the car wash/convenience store. It would be far different if the owner was trying to get the zoning for the parcel changed from residential to commercial. As for the increase in traffic creating potholes, I think that would be a City maintenance issue and not the owner's responsiblity. However, if the car wash with the convenience store caused a decrease in LOS on Main Street, that would be an issue the owner of the car wash would need to address. That being said, if I lived next door, you better believe I would be at the meeting on the 12th to make sure I voiced my concerns.
Ouestion (iv) answers the traffic concern:
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Development/Springfield-4th-Street-car/E-09-54-Carwash1Page07/697488806_Cs3un-XL.jpg)
If people are worried about traffic, they should be more concerned with the amount of traffic 3rd & Main or Hola generates.
True. That's not a lot.
QuoteMy main concern was having another business that creates more curb drinking, litter (Springfield tumbleweeds), and loitering.
What would be ways to address this issue? Doug Ganson has a convenience store at Landing and it appears that drinking and littering are not associated with it. Gate and several gas stations all over town have convenience stores and these things are not issues. Is it possible for Mr. Jones to maintain his facility in a similar manner to the mentioned examples?
QuoteI am not so much opposed, not because I anticipate that I will use the facility, but because its negative impacts on the neighborhood will be lower.
I guess my question is, does this have to be a negative? Right now all that exists is an abandoned and poorly maintained property, which is a negative. Why can't the new use be set up to be a positive?
QuoteSome considerations would be lighting, hours of operation, and buffer between it and the residential behind it, also should look historic. I would think the onus is on the business owner to address these issues, being that he is the one applying for the exception.
Yes, these are issues the owner should address, unlike maintaining 4th Street. However, if the community has a vision of what it wants to be, that vision should be shared now and incorporated into the plans before things get too far along. The onus on this part of it is just as much the responsibility of the community and city, as it is the owner's.
Quote from: Matt McVay on October 30, 2009, 03:34:54 PM
I don't see the convenience store on the plans that were submitted, just the car wash. Did I miss it?
The store is the bottom SE corner of the facility.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Development/Springfield-4th-Street-car/E-09-54-Carwash1Page11/697488907_nyCve-X2.jpg)
It the property is well maintained, a sound business plan is in place, and makes an effort to be a positive for the neighborhood economically and aesthetically, I'd certainly support it.
Quote from: stephendare on October 30, 2009, 03:36:03 PM
these horrible people will spend all of their useless time doing nothing except talking about why their personal gaseous emissions are good enough reason to tell other people what they can and cannot do.
If you leave the conversation to them, the neighborhood is doomed.
Heres and idea Matt and FSU. If you want something to happen. Go buy some land and put some money where your mouth is.
If you don't want something to open. Buy the land and put your money where your mouth is.
Your theory that god appointed you the deciders for springfield is what is wrong with SPAR.
Let's try a different approach to this discussion. Calling people horrible will only send the converstation to hell. Let's try tossing out solutions, examples, ideas and easily understandable options that educate and lead to a win/win strategy for the owner and the community.
QuoteGate and several gas stations all over town have convenience stores and these things are not issues. Is it possible for Mr. Jones to maintain his facility in a similar manner to the mentioned examples?
I believe this is the real solution to any negative impact a convenience store would have in the area. If the owner is going to allow customers who purchase items, and then loiter and litter out front to do so without repercussion then the people will return to do that. As Lake mentioned other convenience stores do not have this problem, which i believe is because they do not allow it.
However it is not as if you can just assume this is the case, and would require speaking with the owner.
Quote from: jason_contentdg on October 30, 2009, 03:45:53 PM
It the property is well maintained, a sound business plan is in place, and makes an effort to be a positive for the neighborhood economically and aesthetically, I'd certainly support it.
I don't think its the public's business to jump into someone's personal business plan but there is nothing wrong with attempting to make sure a property is well maintained. I certainly would be pissed if some average joe blow wanted to open my bank account. However, I would not mind working with the community to make sure concerns like better visual integration into the surrounding area took place. I don't know Mr. Jones but I can't imagine him not wanting to work with the community either, considering he took time out of his schedule to meet with residents last night to discuss the project.
Someone who went to the meeting last night mentioned Mr. Jones owns a few commercial properties across town. Did anyone in the crowd bother to ask the guy where they were located? To tour what already exists would either validate or devalidate many views surrounding this proposal.
lake,
didn't you hear? resident's opinions aren't welcomed. you'll get called names. only certain people are allowed to state opinions now.
but seriously. it all comes to quality of managment & design. quality of managemnt will dictate the upkeep, if bums hang out there, if it's spic & span spotless, if it's a nice place to go, or if it's a dump.
getting the locations of his other carwashes is key, as you can see the quality of management for yourself.
design would be a major bonus as well, though probably just seen as a costly appeasment move by the owner. good landscaping & lightening at least.
Quote from: Lucasjj on October 30, 2009, 03:57:16 PM
QuoteGate and several gas stations all over town have convenience stores and these things are not issues. Is it possible for Mr. Jones to maintain his facility in a similar manner to the mentioned examples?
I believe this is the real solution to any negative impact a convenience store would have in the area. If the owner is going to allow customers who purchase items, and then loiter and litter out front to do so without repercussion then the people will return to do that. As Lake mentioned other convenience stores do not have this problem, which i believe is because they do not allow it.
However it is not as if you can just assume this is the case, and would require speaking with the owner.
Someone mentioned that he said he has other commercial properties across town. Where are they. Taking a look at them would offer insight to how he maintains his investments.
Quote from: fsu813 on October 30, 2009, 03:59:05 PM
design would be a major bonus as well, though probably just seen as a costly appeasment move by the owner. good landscaping & lightening at least.
Landscaping and lighting are components of design. Good design does not have to be expensive and leads to a better final product. A better final product can lead to more profitability for the owner. Did people who attended the meeting last night ask Mr. Jones to consider working with the SPAR property enhancement program? I bet something really good can be created from such an effort.
Does anyone know Joe's last name where we could do a record search on his name, and possibly see what other Florida businesses he owns?
Lake & Lucas,
no, it was more like 3 people said they couldn't support his plan, then he sat down. though the guy in front of me & myself thanked him for coming. that was at the end of the meeting, he left afterwards.
i think his name was Silas?
I think it would be called a discussion? But then again I could be wrong.
According to the application, the guy's name is Silas Jones.
Quote from: fsu813 on October 30, 2009, 04:08:02 PM
Lake & Lucas,
no, it was more like 3 people said they couldn't support his plan, then he sat down. though the guy in front of me & myself thanked him for coming. that was at the end of the meeting, he left afterwards.
Did they say why? Perhaps, I'll personally contact the guy and offer him advice on how to get a good project through?
Stephen,
so opinion threads on what is good & bad for the neighborhood are only ok if they are done by .....who.....?
you've started and commented on too many to name. so.....only non-homeowners, such as yourself? or......former business owners? i'm curious who's allowed to post now.
i'm trying to think of a reason why you can state your opinion on what others (SPAR for example) should & shouldn't do in the neighborhood, but residents cannot do the same for other businesses/organizations....
please clear it up for me.
i'll be very impressed if you can do it without totally hypocrisy. =)
Quoterandom homeowners posting threads which attempt to put themselves in the place of deciding whether or not a new business has the right to invest or open
The owner has a right to invest or open a business that is within local zoning laws. This use will require a zoning exception. Because of this, "random homeowners", or anyone for that matter, will have the right to voice their concerns about the exception at the hearing on the 12th. This is how zoning works. You don't have a right to open whatever you want wherever you want. If the zoning board sees that the exception fits, he will be allowed to open his business.
Lake,
yes. thier reasons were: it would be next to some of the oldest housies in the 'hood, create traffic, don't need another convenience store, more people hanging out there, etc.
basically they don't trust that he'd do it the right way.
Yes fsu813, his first name was Silas. I believe his last name is Jones. As is with many meetings toward the end it just turned into a mish-mash of multiple conversations. He said he would only be leasing for 5-6 years as the owner (Hionides) claimed to have other plans for the property after that timeframe.
Was this address a car wash before, because when I do a search for Silas Jones on the FL Dept. of State Corp Division it comes up with Silas Jones Car Wash Inc, and Downtown Car Wash Inc. both with a listed address of 25W 4Th St.? The Silas Jones Car Wash was registered in '97 and the Downtown was registered in '93. I couldn't find anything active related to his name.
Stephy, honey.....
you've got to calm down.
you don't think straight when your worked up like this.
singling out 1 comment of mine a few months ago accomplishes what? trying to paint a picture of me? hate to break it to you, but i've spent money in that pawn shop twice since then. let's see if you save that one for months down the road. another one of your stereotypes down the tubes. =(
i know, more work for you to come up with new ones. i apologize.
Quote from: fsu813 on October 30, 2009, 04:14:48 PM
Lake,
yes. thier reasons were: it would be next to some of the oldest housies in the 'hood, create traffic, don't need another convenience store, more people hanging out there, etc.
basically they don't trust that he'd do it the right way.
If he knows what he is doing, he could easily rip these arguments apart to get his zoning exception.
1. Next to the oldest houses doesn't fly because the use has been there since 1955. Its legally a historic use of a currently zoned commercial property. This is not on the owner, its on the zoning overlay. If there is a problem, it should be addressed in zoning ordinance.
2. Don't need another store goes down in flames because its a car wash with a small market, which is needed to get the exception for the car wash. For this argument to fly, opposition would have to offer factual data on why a store can't be supported. He could then counter by promoting his business as a unique full service car wash facility. How many convenience stores have full service car wash facilities in Springfield and DT? I think I know the area pretty well and I can't even think of one.
3. About people hanging out, just present a project with a nice outdoor waiting area/courtyard....just like the one at 3rd & Main. People hang out there too. So separate "hang out" from loiter. Present a nice rendering/site plan and promote it from the angle of fitting into the community's vision of a vibrant pedestrian friendly commercial corridor.
4. Not trusting the guy....well, in a zoning case that just doesn't fly. As long as his track record is clean on his other properties, he should not worry about it.
If he can do those things, he can get an early start on advertising his business.
he said he was part of the National Crawash Association.
google comes up with an international carwash ass, various carwash ass in US quadrants, but no "National".
i was looking for criteria of membership, list of members, etc.
I appreciate that Mr. Jones came to the SPAR Gen mtg last night and attempted to gain community support for his plans.
I also think, per Lake's suggestion, it would be good for him to contact SPAR's Streetscape committee, and to provide more information and photos regarding his other car washes, design renderings, his business plan (target audience and attraction strategies, types of inventory he plans to carry, hours, runoff quality, and anything else), how he plans to support SPR and work with it once his business is operational (will he be a SPAR or SAMBA member?), and his financial capability.
Some would say it's no one's business as long as it is legally possible.
But I have historically-justified concern re: entrepreneurial capability -- without it, some find themselves in situations where modification of business model after the fact is "easier" for them, or they fail and leave legal loopholes in their wake. What happens if the exception for the convenience store is approved, Mr. Jones doesn't have the kind of success for which he hoped, and he breaks lease and closes up shop?
These issues are my main source of concern, but I'm open to hearing more from Mr. Jones.
And, Stephen, don't bother asking what retail experience I've had or going off with some implication about how much retail exp I may or may not have -- you don't know me, and as I'm not trying to open a retail business here or anywhere else, it's NOYFB.
Who's a carwash ass? That's a bit harsh ;-)...
Both Stephen and Lake are right on this issue. This community does not have the right to pass judgment on this proposed facility. You do have the right to make your concerns known and that is the reason it is an exception rather than permissible use. It is recognized that a facility such as this could have negative impacts on a community. In this case, the history is against you and, as Lake indicated, the guy has already read your arguments and is working his way around them. If you can not convince the city that your arguments against this facility has merit, then you will have a car wash on Main whether you want it or not.
I mentioned that it might have restricts on hours. That is because the overlay considers some uses “intensive uses†, which are mostly automotive related, and so puts restriction on the hours of operation. This facility may or may not be considered an intensive use. Even if it is, the restricted hours may not be enforceable.
Listen to Lake, stop blaming the people who may or may not use the place as the reason you don’t want it and go get the real facts. It might just be something good after all.
Im just catching up on this thread, but it looks more like the messengers are getting shot, rather than open honest debated.
Personally, I dont care if it opens or not. I take my cars to Joes, on main, so they wont be getting my business for no other reason than I am a loyal customer somewhere else.
Quote from: Dan BIm just catching up on this thread, but it looks more like the messengers are getting shot, rather than open honest debated.
I know you're not surprised...
Don't take my comments as shooting the messenger. I'm just offering a different perspective on how to proper address proposals like this. If people want a viable business district along this corridor you have to fill up the abandoned buildings first. With that said, its easier to work with people willing to take the risk to open something in the area than going after less interested entities.
Quote from: Matt McVay on October 30, 2009, 04:42:12 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on October 30, 2009, 03:38:33 PM
QuoteMy main concern was having another business that creates more curb drinking, litter (Springfield tumbleweeds), and loitering.
What would be ways to address this issue? Doug Ganson has a convenience store at Landing and it appears that drinking and littering are not associated with it. Gate and several gas stations all over town have convenience stores and these things are not issues. Is it possible for Mr. Jones to maintain his facility in a similar manner to the mentioned examples? It is definitely a managerial issue. The owners don't tolerate it in these other places. If he registers it as a HITZ area then it would show he supports the enforcement of trespassing and loitering laws.
This would be the type of information that should be discussed with and suggested to Mr. Jones when he presents in front of the community.
QuoteQuoteI am not so much opposed, not because I anticipate that I will use the facility, but because its negative impacts on the neighborhood will be lower.
I guess my question is, does this have to be a negative? Right now all that exists is an abandoned and poorly maintained property, which is a negative. Why can't the new use be set up to be a positive? We have to look at the negatives and the positives. I'm not sure I understand the question.
Its clear that the negatives have been bought up. That's why I suggested taking the other approach of working with an owner to make sure these negative concerns are snuffed out early on in the design/planning process.
QuoteQuoteSome considerations would be lighting, hours of operation, and buffer between it and the residential behind it, also should look historic. I would think the onus is on the business owner to address these issues, being that he is the one applying for the exception.
QuoteYes, these are issues the owner should address, unlike maintaining 4th Street. However, if the community has a vision of what it wants to be, that vision should be shared now and incorporated into the plans before things get too far along. The onus on this part of it is just as much the responsibility of the community and city, as it is the owner's.
QuoteWe should definitely put together a list of concerns and propose some solutions that can be presented.
Yes, and that list should be given to Mr. Jones so that we will be aware of the community's concerns and so that he can have the opportunity to integrate some of the suggestions into his final product.
wow, let me get this straight. Since I would like to give my input on a new business in the neighborhood
Quotethese horrible people will spend all of their useless time doing nothing except talking about why their personal gaseous emissions are good enough reason to tell other people what they can and cannot do.
and I live and have a family here
Quoteyou and your stupid snotty neighbors
but don’t have the money to buy the property in question
QuoteIf you want something to happen. Go buy some land and put some money where your mouth is.
what, like Mack did so people can crucify him for it when he did it
QuoteWho the hell are you to decide whether someone else should invest their money and time in a shop?
Or is it because it isn’t YOUR special cause
QuoteYour theory that god appointed you the deciders for springfield
.
Aren’t hearings like this standard, and happen all over town for all types of cases. They are not targeting anybody. I would think that if you were opening a business anywhere - you would want to know what would work best in the neighborhood.
Again, I have no money, know nothing at all about business, and didn’t even stay at a Holiday Inn Express but I read that “An expert is somebody who is more than 50 miles from home, has no responsibility for implementing the advice he gives, and shows slides.â€
Edwin Meese
Quote from: thelakelander on October 30, 2009, 05:55:10 PM
Don't take my comments as shooting the messenger. I'm just offering a different perspective on how to proper address proposals like this. If people want a viable business district along this corridor you have to fill up the abandoned buildings first. With that said, its easier to work with people willing to take the risk to open something in the area than going after less interested entities.
I know you too well for that Lake. You are thoughtful, and come at every issue with the best of intentions. I trust your judgment on a lot of these issues, and hope your right.
Everyone, I'd like to keep this thread focused on the car wash application and the pros and cons of having this facility in the community. We have enough bickering going on already. Let's keep this thread on topic and discuss in a civil adult manner. Thanks to all in advance.
the roads in front of that area are in pretty poor shape. might a business in that location aid in getting the road repaired?
To Quote From Gonzo: We, of all people, have the right to have our say in whether a business should be part of our community.
Actually, you have to be careful here. While the city does have zoning laws and we have the overlay, you cannot use the overlay to discriminate against businesses that offer services to a particular class or type of person.
What is going to happen here in Springfield is that someone, somewhere is going to challenge the overlay in court and Springfield will lose its overlay. Or at the very least, the weakness of the overlay will be displayed.
Be careful of the fights you choose to fight. A car wash/convenience store is certainly not worth it (nor is a sober house).
Quote from: sheclown on October 30, 2009, 08:33:28 PM
To Quote From Gonzo: We, of all people, have the right to have our say in whether a business should be part of our community.
Actually, you have to be careful here. While the city does have zoning laws and we have the overlay, you cannot use the overlay to discriminate against businesses that offer services to a particular class or type of person.
What is going to happen here in Springfield is that someone, somewhere is going to challenge the overlay in court and Springfield will lose its overlay. Or at the very least, the weakness of the overlay will be displayed.
Be careful of the fights you choose to fight. A car wash/convenience store is certainly not worth it (nor is a sober house).
maybe we could just get a little list of things that we as homeowners/residents of any community should be worried about. that would certainly make things much easier.
Actually Cindi, we need a list of things we are ALLOWED to worry about.
Quote from: thelakelander on October 30, 2009, 07:33:08 PM
Everyone, I'd like to keep this thread focused on the car wash application and the pros and cons of having this facility in the community. We have enough bickering going on already. Let's keep this thread on topic and discuss in a civil adult manner. Thanks to all in advance.
Quote from: cindi on October 30, 2009, 08:37:56 PM
Quote from: sheclown on October 30, 2009, 08:33:28 PM
To Quote From Gonzo: We, of all people, have the right to have our say in whether a business should be part of our community.
Actually, you have to be careful here. While the city does have zoning laws and we have the overlay, you cannot use the overlay to discriminate against businesses that offer services to a particular class or type of person.
What is going to happen here in Springfield is that someone, somewhere is going to challenge the overlay in court and Springfield will lose its overlay. Or at the very least, the weakness of the overlay will be displayed.
Be careful of the fights you choose to fight. A car wash/convenience store is certainly not worth it (nor is a sober house).
maybe we could just get a little list of things that we as homeowners/residents of any community should be worried about. that would certainly make things much easier.
This is about whether a person can own and operate a business. Much like whether or not a person can buy a house. It isn't up to the residents of the island voting them in.
Quote from: Dan B on October 30, 2009, 08:41:30 PM
Actually Cindi, we need a list of things we are ALLOWED to worry about.
How about the fact that some things are not any of your business.
still waiting on that list of things i am allowed to be concerned about. and really, the whole hypocritical do goodery?? seriously, isn't there another rotting horse you can start beating. and - seriously, it isn't any of my business if my neighbor decides to start cooking down meth in his kitchen? when are the "voices of reason" going to give us permission to worry? is after someone gets kill alright?
again, back to the topic - will this speed up the road repair in that area? If not maybe the guy can do front end alignments too. those pot holes are pretty wicked on that street.
There is nothing wrong about residents voicing their concerns. This is no different from what happens in Riverside with RAP or the CPACs. However, projects don't get denied because someone doesn't want a store in a zoning classification that allows it along a commercial corridor. They don't get denied because a road has potholes. The dose of reality is at the end of the day, residents can voice their opinions, but projects will be approved for the most part if they meet the necessary zoning and land use requirements.
What appears to be hard to keep on focus in this converstation is the art of actually working with people to make projects more viable and integrated into the overall vision of the community. Everybody seems to want to lecture each other (which goes no where) instead of offering ideas for a successful project that can be given to the property owner. If there are those who oppose 100%, at least tell people/business/property owners why.
You never know, the property owner may listen to some concerns and address them. At the end of the day, an leased building with the concerns addressed is better for property values and the community's image than a vacant boarded up one.
Quote from: cindi on October 30, 2009, 08:58:32 PM
again, back to the topic - will this speed up the road repair in that area? If not maybe the guy can do front end alignments too. those pot holes are pretty wicked on that street.
I just might have to break out the belt in this thread and do a number. As for the pot holes, one more voice on the street about getting them fixed certainly can't hurt.
geez, Lake. If you are going to be reasonable, we are going to have to ask you to leave. ;D
Quote from: thelakelander on October 30, 2009, 09:02:32 PM
There is nothing wrong about residents voicing their concerns.
As long as they leave the pitchforks and torches at the door.
Approaching people wanting to open on Main and coaching them on how to get something designed right and approved certainly sounds like a good business opportunity.
Quote from: thelakelander on October 30, 2009, 09:13:17 PM
Approaching people wanting to open on Main and coaching them on how to get something designed right and approved certainly sounds like a good business opportunity.
agreed.
Quote from: stephendare on October 30, 2009, 09:15:54 PM
I wonder if we can find a good therapist to open on Main?
Would s/he see Medicaid patients?
Just in case anyone forgot. Here is the application:
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Development/Springfield-4th-Street-car/E-09-54-Carwash1Page01/697488658_FE7za-XL.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Development/Springfield-4th-Street-car/E-09-54-Carwash1Page02/697488714_tKHbh-XL.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Development/Springfield-4th-Street-car/E-09-54-Carwash1Page03/697488729_W7BG4-XL.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Development/Springfield-4th-Street-car/E-09-54-Carwash1Page05/697488768_VJPAQ-XL.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Development/Springfield-4th-Street-car/E-09-54-Carwash1Page06/697488784_YDca8-XL.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Development/Springfield-4th-Street-car/E-09-54-Carwash1Page07/697488806_Cs3un-XL.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Development/Springfield-4th-Street-car/E-09-54-Carwash1Page08/697488822_mkxv3-XL.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Development/Springfield-4th-Street-car/E-09-54-Carwash1Page09/697488836_Amwfv-XL.jpg)
Existing Site Plan
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Development/Springfield-4th-Street-car/E-09-54-Carwash1Page10/697488850_Gg9qo-XL.jpg)
Proposed Site Plan
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Development/Springfield-4th-Street-car/E-09-54-Carwash1Page11/697488907_nyCve-XL.jpg)
Working with someone can get you this:
(http://www.carwash-shade.com/img/fullimg/4-Post-Dome-bays-2.jpg)
Outright opposing with no discussion will only preserve the decay and tumbleweeds blowing through the area today.
As I said before, Im really ambivalent to the car wash. Im really just taking exception with the notion that we cant have an opinion on something. We are being accused of breaking out pitchforks and forming picket lines, when really all we are engaging in is some discussion about a proposal that the city will approve or disprove based on how the property is zoned, and how it will impact its immediate neighbors.
The one legit concern I have read in all of this is, lets say that the exception is granted, and the owner doesnt make it. Does that exception carry over? What other types of businesses might be able to move in, that could not without the exception?
I also agree with Cindi on the road issue. I always fear for my own life when I take my scooter down that road. It starts with a nasty pot hole on Main right at the cross walk, and then as soon as it hits the bricks, you are never quite sure if you will survive the trip to Laura. It quite hairy.
The fact that this business has to have an exception at all, is absurd.
QuoteThe one legit concern I have read in all of this is, lets say that the exception is granted, and the owner doesnt make it. Does that exception carry over?
Apparently not. The application states an exception was granted once in the 1990s. It did not carry over or else they would not be trying to get one today.
QuoteWhat other types of businesses might be able to move in, that could not without the exception?
I believe the exception is for the car wash. I think under the current CCG-S zoning, they could open up a convenience store right now. I'll have to check the code to verify.
QuoteI also agree with Cindi on the road issue. I always fear for my own life when I take my scooter down that road. It starts with a nasty pot hole on Main right at the cross walk, and then as soon as it hits the bricks, you are never quite sure if you will survive the trip to Laura. It quite hairy.
Is there a plan to address the neighborhood's pot hole situation?
Quote from: sheclown on October 30, 2009, 09:45:37 PM
The fact that this business has to have an exception at all, is absurd.
Maybe so, but that's the code. Unfortunately, the facility is a car wash that has been there since 1955. If a new car wash does not go in, it will be sitting empty long term like most of the lots and buildings along Main.
Quote from: stephendare on October 30, 2009, 09:47:17 PM
Dan, why don't you come up with another list of phony issues to be outraged about.
This isnt about the residents 'having an opinion'.
What opinions, exactly have been expressed here?
What has been criticized here has been the underlying assumption that people must seek and gain permission from a handful of people---, by edict of God apparently----or they 'shouldnt be allowed' to open their own shops.
Now I don't know how all of you guys posted over on the SPAR board, but you apparently arent used to people who don't buy into the notion that your approval is necessary for anything other than good will.
I have a feeling that with a little practice people might get over it.
Lets stay on topic. Hopefully, I addressed Dan's questions in the post above. I'm going to look into the code a little later and link the proper answers to the questions raised.
Maybe I totally missed something, but the gentleman at the SPAR meeting last night said he wanted to put in a car wash that had a convenience store in it. That led me to believe the convenience store is secondary. However, when I read the application, the convenience store is listed first, THEN the car wash almost as though the car wash is secondary.
I'm just a little confused and agree with the person at the meeting last night who said that a presentation of expected plans would go a very long way in making folks in the neighborhood more comfortable. Just my two cents' worth....
Quote from: stephendare on October 30, 2009, 09:47:17 PM
Dan, why don't you come up with another list of phony issues to be outraged about.
This isnt about the residents 'having an opinion'.
What opinions, exactly have been expressed here?
What has been criticized here has been the underlying assumption that people must seek and gain permission from a handful of people---, by edict of God apparently----or they 'shouldnt be allowed' to open their own shops.
Now I don't know how all of you guys posted over on the SPAR board, but you apparently arent used to people who don't buy into the notion that your approval is necessary for anything other than good will.
I have a feeling that with a little practice people might get over it.
Im not outraged at all. You have enough outrage for everyone on this board, and three others. You really ought to start typing in all Caps to better convey your tone.
Can you point out where anyone has claimed that permission has to go through them? I see several concerned neighbors talking amongst themselves, and wondering if this business might have a negative effect on their homes. Nobody is sending letter bombs, or calling the gentleman's coworkers demanding to know their stance on the properties zoning.
Quote from: JaxUnicorn on October 30, 2009, 09:55:31 PM
Maybe I totally missed something, but the gentleman at the SPAR meeting last night said he wanted to put in a car wash that had a convenience store in it. That led me to believe the convenience store is secondary. However, when I read the application, the convenience store is listed first, THEN the car wash almost as though the car wash is secondary.
I'm just a little confused and agree with the person at the meeting last night who said that a presentation of expected plans would go a very long way in making folks in the neighborhood more comfortable. Just my two cents' worth....
Good stuff. That was a good suggestion to the owner. The owner wants to open a car wash. However, evidently the city won't allow him to open only a car wash. Thus the convenience store gets added to the mix.
Lake, why would the not allow just a carwash, and why does adding a store make it better?? Truth be told, the carwash by itself is far less of a potential problem than a car wash with a convenience store.
As an aside, does anyone know if the store will be full service, or will it just have some sodas and chips for people waiting for their car?
Don't know for sure, without diving into the code. However, that's what I was told by COJ.
QuoteAs an aside, does anyone know if the store will be full service, or will it just have some sodas and chips for people waiting for their car?
Good question. I don't think anyone has bothered to ask. For all we know it could be just what you described.
Why don't we ask? Nicely... ;D
Quote from: stephendare on October 30, 2009, 08:06:45 PM
The pros are that it is a use for an abandoned building and will bring walking traffic to the neighborhood as well as give people a possibility of stopping without makin uturns.
How does a car wash help to bring walking traffic to the neighborhood? Honest question. Is the hope that they will go across to 3rd & Main or to 6th & Main? Or that some stores will open in the nearby area where they can shop? Otherwise I don't see how a specifically car-related business would bring walking traffic. I would suspect most people would just wait in the convenience store like at Car Spa. I rarely see people leave there to shop at Regency across the street.
Quote from: stephendare on October 30, 2009, 10:20:13 PM
What is this "potential problem"?
A poorly maintained convenience store where people loiter next to RMD-S zoning classifications. However, this potential problem could be taken out by working with the owner early on and coming up with ideas that eliminate this from happening. This is why dialogue is critical.
QuoteHow does a car wash help to bring walking traffic to the neighborhood? Honest question.
People who use the facility will be exposed to the neighborhood and businesses in the area. On a hot day, that person could become a customer at City Kidz, grab lunch at A-Z Sandwiches or Uptown Market. If the store at the property is nice, it could be a place for nearby residents to walk to get milk, a snack or a newspaper. I believe this is what he means by it enhancing walkability. Right now none of this is happening with a vacant building. Instead the vacant structure encourages crime.
QuoteI would suspect most people would just wait in the convenience store like at Car Spa. I rarely see people leave there to shop at Regency across the street.
That's because the ones that go to Regency most likely drive there before or after getting their car washed. That's not a real walkable area.
Potential problems of living near a convenience store for the most part come from the poor behavior of those who frequent it. Lots of trash, loitering & drinking from brown bags. And along with the loitering usually comes a drug dealer or two. A great deal of that could be addressed by the owner/proprietor. Premier Pharmacy pays someone to pick up the trash around their store. Other convenience store operators do not allow people to loiter and cooperate with JSO. Not much the owner can do about the people who litter for the three blocks immediately surrounding their path away from the store.
Why doesn't Gate have this problem at their convenience stores? Is it safe to assume they don't allow it and maintain their properties? What would keep Mr. Jones from doing the same with his? Any idea on how he maintains his other properties? That would say a lot.
im assuming from the equipment that has already been installed that this is a machine wash facility. Does anyone know the desired pricing?
I just got both of my cars done at 5th and Main last weekend for $15 bucks a piece, plus a healthy tip for a straight wash/vacuum. Will the new place be more in line with what you see at a gas station, in the 7-10 range? If so, do we run the risk of losing an existing neighborhood business, that employs almost all Springfielders? Sorta like the big box effect?
Not suggesting this is a reason to be against the new car wash. Just wondering.
I just went through the regular code and the overlay. A car wash requires an exception in both. The overlay is very confusing in regard to automotive uses and I would hesitate to offer an opinion how to interpret it. I definitely would not like to be the one to try to enforce that part of the overlay. I would say, though, that this car wash would not be considered an intensive use so no hour restriction would come from the overlay. So, unless some restrictions, and I didn't see any, come from the standard code, none will apply.
One thing that sort of stuck out to me was that in 1992, an existing car wash had to get an exception to stay in business? Either that is only a small part of the story or someone bought a bill of goods. In any case, I think that is what seems absurd.
So, a lot of the concerns here seems to be who may or may not walk to the store and if they may or may not litter or otherwise do something you do not like? Right now, it is an abandoned building that is waiting to be of some value. As an empty building, it may or may not attract people you do not like. May as well take the chance that this store and car wash end up being of value...it can't be worst than nothing at all.
Quote from: Dan B on October 30, 2009, 10:34:32 PM
im assuming from the equipment that has already been installed that this is a machine wash facility. Does anyone know the desired pricing?
I just got both of my cars done at 5th and Main last weekend for $15 bucks a piece, plus a healthy tip for a straight wash/vacuum. Will the new place be more in line with what you see at a gas station, in the 7-10 range? If so, do we run the risk of losing an existing neighborhood business, that employs almost all Springfielders? Sorta like the big box effect?
Not suggesting this is a reason to be against the new car wash. Just wondering.
The application states that this is a self wash facility. Its just automatic.
Quote from: thelakelander on October 30, 2009, 10:31:31 PM
Why doesn't Gate have this problem at their convenience stores? Is it safe to assume they don't allow it and maintain their properties? What would keep Mr. Jones from doing the same with his? Any idea on how he maintains his other properties? That would say a lot.
Its actually not the store, so much as the mode of transport. If I go to the gate station on San Jose, near Sun Beam, the odds are, I did not walk or bike there. There for, when I finish my 60oz fountain drink, and my bag of double stuff cookies, and prepare to toss them out my window, the odds are, I am no longer in Sunbeam, but Beuclerc, or Mandarin, or Lakewood....
A large percentage of the convenience store traffic in Springfield is on foot or bike. For instance, I know that my front yard is about 1 tall boy walking distance from the blue front, and about one fortune cookie from Chans.
I digress. One of the reasons we all love Springfield so much is because it is a walkable and bikable neighborhood. This may be an instance where you have to take the good with the bad, and resist the urge to beat the litter-bug over the head with their own refuse.
I've also seen some pretty nice and well maintained convenience stores in urban cities. I'm sure I've probably posted pics of a few on this site somewhere. Imo, if the owner is dedicated to maintaining his/her property, a store is an asset.
Unfortunately, the off-site litter-bug issue can happen with any place who allows their goods to be purchased for take out (even the nice restaurants). Maybe including something like a nice landscaped outdoor seating area for customers is something that can cut down on this? Something like that would also be more pedestrian friendly and fit into the long term goals of the commercial corridor.
I honestly dont have a problem with the car wash. It seems to me, in fact, that if walkability is what we are wanting, and getting people on Main Street Sidewalks, a one stop shop seems like a bad idea. People would be far more likly to walk over to city kids for a cone, if they couldn't buy a candy bar at the car wash.
Quote from: thelakelander on October 30, 2009, 10:45:48 PM
I've also seen some pretty nice and well maintained convenience stores in urban cities. I'm sure I've probably posted pics of a few on this site somewhere. Imo, if the owner is dedicated to maintaining his/her property, a store is an asset.
To your point, Springfield could use a nice quicky mart.
The store at 3rd and Market makes an honest effort, and the family that own is are super nice, but my wife thinks the place is creepy. Also, someone just dumped a ton of money into the Speedway at 8th and Perry. I havent been in yet, but it looks a lot better, and they are really lighting the place up.
I 100% agree with lake, you should always try to bring people to the table to see if you can find common ground, that will help them expand thier business in a positive way, and help the neighborhood move forward on the right track.
Sadly, it doesnt always work out.
As I stated before, when I was on the SPAR board, I spent many hours trying to convince First Coast Energy (they own the shell station downtown and at 8th and Blvd) that it would be worth thier time to put a nice facility at 8th and Blvd, especially considering the hiway traffic, shands traffic, the new VA facility traffic, on top of neighborhood traffic, if we suddenly had a nice, safe feeling store.
We pulled in all sorts of people into the meeting, including a board member from Shands, and even the manager of the NW trust fund to talk about the money that they city could help with...
They didnt feel it was a direction they wanted to go. :-/
Quote from: Dan B on October 30, 2009, 10:49:16 PM
I honestly dont have a problem with the car wash. It seems to me, in fact, that if walkability is what we are wanting, and getting people on Main Street Sidewalks, a one stop shop seems like a bad idea. People would be far more likly to walk over to city kids for a cone, if they couldn't buy a candy bar at the car wash.
People said the same thing about the casinos in Detroit when the opened. Yes Greektown has its own restaurants. On the first trip there, you may end up spending all your money inside the facility. However, on the trip there you are exposed to all the authentic local pizza spots across street. With that exposure, chances are you will probably make a return trip to the area to try one of those spots out.
The same thing goes with a self contained car wash facility. You may be on a mission to wash your car, get some chips and get out of dodge but on your way there you might get a whiff of BBQ passing Jerome Brown's or see a peach cobbler special being advertised at City Kidz. You might not stop at these places on the same day, but being exposed to them may make you return on another day.
QuoteSo, a lot of the concerns here seems to be who may or may not walk to the store and if they may or may not litter or otherwise do something you do not like? Right now, it is an abandoned building that is waiting to be of some value. As an empty building, it may or may not attract people you do not like. May as well take the chance that this store and car wash end up being of value...it can't be worst than nothing at all.
Let me start by saying no, I do not own a convenience store, gas station or car wash so I am NOT an expert on that business. I do happen to have the pleasure of being within a block of two of them. The Shell station, which has an old dilapidated car wash by the way, so maybe they are not an expert either and the "new improved Speedway". as to the "who may or may not walk to the store and if they may or may not litter or otherwise do something you do not like?" The guy that lives behind me got shot in the back while walking down the alley to the Shell by two guys that came from the shell, and the armed robberies are routine (those people get a vote of "nope, don't like"). we sit on the porch almost every night and watch guys bolt out of there after shoplifting (again, nope, don't like). the vast majority of the foot traffic starts in the Colonial apartments (which is where the guy that carjacked us also originated as well other major crimes in hampsterdam), they walk through the alleys collecting everything that isn't nailed down, end up at the shell station - continue with their spread of good deeds, shoplift their nightly wares, leaving a nice trail of garbage along the way. of course it has been a long trip to and fro so they must stop and relieve them selves along the way - that is their right of course and how rude of the "snotty white cracker beech" to shove her beliefs of relieving ones self inside down their throat, and how dare i expect them to pick up their moon pie wrapper, again, it is
their right to litter and I am just being mean and rude, they are entitled. the alley beside the shell is covered with broken glass and smells like a giant toilet. (nope, i know, snotty white cracker elitist chick - who the he!! am i expecting people not to piss on my house as they walk by) oh yeh, tell them to not pee in the alley, or throw their garbage in your yard - expect to make a call to the car glass people because they will certainly vandalize your car. and of course, lets not forget that it serves as a nice little ralley point for all the hookers and dealers at night. so to sum up my little rant. NOPE, don't really care for what walks there and YES I do get tired of picking up their crap because they are nasty, lazy and act like our neighborhood is their own personal toilet. this behavior may be acceptable to some and i am sure they are just poor misunderstood chirrens and i should be honored to pick up after them but i don't. the shell station could burn to the ground tomorrow and it would be the biggest improvement that springfield has ever had.
of course i am by no means an expert on this type of business i just get the privilege of picking up and putting up with their crap day in and day out.
rant over.
It seems like your rant is more towards criminals than it is to a car wash facility. You do know that criminals also like to hang out in abandoned places like this site currently is. It would seem like if you really want to alleviate the problem you describe, it would be best to at least share your concerns with the owner and give him the opportunity to make sure his proposal restricts the situation you describe. If people aren't at least willing to do that before giving their for/or against, they only help preserve the type of environment you want to get rid of.
Btw, has anyone figured out where Mr. Jones' other businesses are? This discussion could be completely mute depending on their condition.
Cindi, I will say yours was one of the more honest posts....you didn’t hide behind the "too many convenience stores", "too much traffic" nor did you slide away from the real issue...you don't like some of the people who may or may not use the store. Well, here's a shocker, I may or may not like some of the people either. I’m just not going to make a decision about the store based on that.
I think one of the points Lake and myself are trying to make is if you continually make decisions based on who may or may not use a store or who may or may not live in a house and therefore may or may not become a problem like you describe then all you will end up with is the Shells that are already being used by the people you may not like.
You and a few others have been fighting to improve your section of 8th and still have the very same issues you did a few years ago. The police have trouble helping even when they want too. One issue I heard from the police was the dark alleys. More businesses mean more lighting. More lighting means less dark areas for crime. Rather than fight against a new business or a house that may or may not be used by people you may or may not like, wouldn’t fighting for more lighting, particularly in the alleys, be more beneficial?
From participating in this discussion, it seems like no one really knows what the guy is planning outside of the general information (ex. car wash with a store). People know what they don't like, but the owner may not even have a clue because limited information is being given to him. At this point, for all we know, the guy could be proposing something that could drastically improve that general area. A decent amount of dialogue with the owner is definitely needed before dropping the hammer on the concept.
From "SPAR Speaks" Oct 30.
Quote
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.
Does anyone have any of the details about this? What the objections were and etc.?
Automatic car wash is very bad for the environment. Think about the amount of chemicals in the drain, the wax burden the old sewage system and the waste of water. I cannot support any car wash business, automatic or not, while I am inundated by TV ads about saving water by taking shorter showers. So read my lips. NO NEW CAR WASHES!
Is there any evidence that automatic car washes are more of a drain to the environment than individuals washing their vehicles in their driveways?
I'm curious here...I don't have a clue. I try never to wash my car. I think it weakens its power ;D
I am not sure if it will be the case with this place, but a lot of car washes recycle their water before releasing it into the sewer system. If that would be the case here, then it would seem that it would actually be better than an individual wash since the water is used more than once.
that's a good question to ask him, then.
Quote from: sheclown on October 31, 2009, 09:36:02 AM
I try never to wash my car. I think it weakens its power ;D
I totally agree.
Unfortunately, There is nothing I can do to prevent individual from washing their cars.
If I am asked to cut down showers, I am certainly not going to wash my car ;D
Quote from: Lucasjj on October 31, 2009, 09:39:08 AM
I am not sure if it will be the case with this place, but a lot of car washes recycle their water before releasing it into the sewer system. If that would be the case here, then it would seem that it would actually be better than an individual wash since the water is used more than once.
Yes, the application that's been posted twice in this thread, claims that the car wash will recycle their water.
she clown, SERIOUSLY? you believe it's a "you don't like them" issue? I don't
like asparagus, these
people (and yes, i use the term loosely when i refer to them) that are violent, have no respect for others, other peoples safety or property as evidenced by their behavior and this behavior is not occasional or random, it is constant and not just reserved for the snotty white elitist neighbors the poor guy that lives behind us that does a lot of day labor and has lived here for over 15 years was robbed at gun point in the alley right next to our house (we have very bright lights on that corner) and according to the guy this happens all the time but since it is only a couple of bucks they are not getting reported. so seriously, the gee, you just don't like them, how mean theory - what-ever. would your seriously rent to someone that comes into one of your houses, continues to rob the other residents blind and even though you have a toilet they continue to pee on the walls in the kitchen?
then there is the
QuoteOne issue I heard from the police was the dark alleys. More businesses mean more lighting. More lighting means less dark areas for crime. Rather than fight against a new business or a house that may or may not be used by people you may or may not like, wouldn’t fighting for more lighting, particularly in the alleys, be more beneficial?
i guess you missed the part where i said in this quadrant, we don't lack the "businesses", oh and they are lit, as are every house on my block and the alley. unlike cockroaches these perps have evolved and are not afraid at all of bright lights as they are committing their crimes in well lit areas and on video (and trust me they know they are on video). so, do you think that opening more of these delightful (total sarcasim intented) places is the solution, seriously?
we have even contacted the owners - they don't care, want to guess why, because they are not the ones that live here and are not the ones having their neighbors (black snotty elitist as well as white snotty elitist) terrorized on a routine basis and are not constantly having their houses peed on.
and really, making it sound as elementary as liking or disliking the "people" that shop there or like what they may or may not do, what they do is ILLEGAL, is not a realistic evaluation of the situation and totally minimizes their behavior.
fyi, my dislike for this fine establishment (really need a sarcasm font) has been relayed to SPAR and the powers that be, etc, however, since it really only effects hampsterdam no one really gives a crap. i was told they did "talk" to them. again, what - ever.
sounds like a JSO issue. What type of reaction is JSO having to dealing with crime in the general area?
Quote from: thelakelander on October 31, 2009, 12:15:10 PM
sounds like a JSO issue. What type of reaction is JSO having to dealing with crime in the general area?
These are part of my minutes from the 9/22/09 Shadco meeting regarding crime on 8th St. They should well express the JSO sentiment and type of problems in the area.
QuoteJSO Sgt. Short: He described the crimes in Springfield as mostly quality of life issues: hanging out and drinking, robberies (mostly internal between the bad guys), taking drugs, prostitution (dressed as men, don't live here).
He described his experience when he took over some 1 /1/2 years ago. Louise told him about all the problems here and he thought it would be easy and should be taken care of in no time. He is somewhat disappointed in himself that the problems still exist. But he is trying hard and we should keep calling things in to guarantee we will get resources dedicated here. He seemed very sincerely wanting to solve our problems. He is familiar with all the statutes at his disposal but needs to meet minimum thresholds of evidence for things to stick.
Businesses on 8th St need to cooperate with trespassing enforcement. Holly (management of Flagship appartments) cooperates on trespassing. BP on 8th & Liberty does not.
He questions if we really need a bus stop at every intersection. It just provides more opportunity for people to hang out.
The people loitering, hanging out on the sidewalk on milk cartons and electric boxes are very comfortable and not afraid. They hang out there cause it's convenient (close to convenience store and access to familiar drug dealers). They are having a good time and most grew up and live here.
Owner of convenience store of Hubbard/8th: Drug problems have much decreased, only about 10-12 active dealers which are very careful. They have been arrested prior already and would face serious penalty if caught again. Most of them have relatives in the area and can hide their drug dealings in private residences. This makes it difficult to arrest them.
Quote from: thelakelander on October 31, 2009, 12:15:10 PM
sounds like a JSO issue. What type of reaction is JSO having to dealing with crime in the general area?
we call nightly, sometimes they come and disrupt the traffic and other times not. the problem with jso showing up is the fact that while jso presence deters the "thug" traffic, we see an upswing in the hooker traffic. as evidently there is no honor among lowlifes, the thugs tend to harrass/rob the hookers and their johns and when jso shows up it lets them move around more freely since there are a whole lot more of them than there are jso and they have no fear of jso.
honestly, we have some of the nastiest gas stations/convenience stores in jax. we let them be nasty by not holding them to any standard, and every time someone wants to mention standards then it is "harrassing" blah blah, the car spa at regency is nice and always packed, it employees a lot of people (hey i think we all agree jobs are good), the gate stations almost everywhere are well lit and you don't see people hanging out and peeing at the pumps, even the ones open 24/7. why shouldn't we expect that level of "business". imho it's not what (type of business) it's the what we let it become (run down nasty shell station that smells like pee or a nice 24/7 convenience store).
Wow, it's sad that Lake has to babysit the threads...
I will throw in my hat as someone that was doing some research and considered opening an automatic car wash. The zoning required is CCG-2. I believe most of Main St through the historic district is CCGS (or CCG1). I am not 100% sure on this as I wasn't really looking at this area per se and I am not a zoning guru.
I gave up on the bickering after page 5 or 6 so these questions/concerns may have been addressed.
Will the waste water be recycled (this is a big deal in the automatic car wash industry)?
Will there be restrictions to the hours? The normal requirement is that an automatic car wash must be a certain number of feet from a residence. It also may require a wall due to the noise.
I wouldn't expect this person to have people loitering if he's putting in an automatic car wash. Trust me on this, they aren't cheap and if people are standing around, no one is pulling in to get their car washed. I would believe his business plan will have a great deal of detail on safety (lighting, openness to Main St., etc...). He would probably look to have it stand out with excellent lighting, paint, landscaping, signage, etc...
I do not live over near that location, so I'm not going to begin to say that it is right or wrong for the area based on the information I have read. I do stress though that if it's due to crime, loitering, etc.. just due to the cost of equipment, I have faith that is not something he would appreciate.
QuoteOkay kids, time for daddy to clean this thread and get it back on topic. ::)
Okay, the crap has been deleted and the thread is now reopened. All off topic posts will be deleted.
Does anyone know why it was declined last year? That would be a good place to begin.
i think i read because it was "just a car wash" which is why they added the convenience store part of it.
I only scanned this thread so forgive me if this has been mentioned. Silas stated at the SPAR meeting that he has already sold the property and the new owner has "ideas" for what he wants to do with it. But he wants to open a car wash/convenience store in the meantime because he already has the equipment there. Now, at the moment, the property isn't in use. If the car wash is allowed to open, bringing the property back into use, will that affect any objections to the type of business the owner wants to open there when he gets around to it? Also, this car wash isn't on Main Street. It's off Main Street, on West 4th, on one of only a couple of remaining brick streets. And it sits right next door to a home, and on the same block as some of the oldest homes in Springfield. Just wondering. Would you want an operating car wash next door to your house? And the knowledge that the car wash is only temporary, and you don't know what will be there next? Just food for thought...
Well...it will be across the street from a rooming house.
debbie, i believe it is already zoned for commercial (the exception is for the car wash part although, not sure if it used to be why there is a need for an exception for it to return) so if whatever he wants next falls within those guideline he is free to do with it what he wants (i don't know for a fact i am just guessing). the brick road is a huge concern. i think the people on that street have fought to keep it in place in hopes that it can be repaired (not just paved over) as it is a huge historic part of jacksonville.
i don't believe the kind of house "rooming house" is relevant, it is a house.
Cindi, it doubtless is zoned commercial. She Clown is correct, it's across from a rooming house...the big white one with pillars. Please forgive me for not mentioning the rooming house. <grin> My point was the residential character of the block and the brick street. Many of the houses on the the block are circa late 1800's. Not the best location for a car wash. Plus, the car wash is temporary. So what comes next? That's all I was getting at. My last word on the subject, I promise. :-)
Well, no Matt. And here I promised you had my last word, but you don't have my solution right. In fact, I didn't propose a solution because I don't see one that works. Buffer? What kind? A huge, high fence? Maybe. As to the street...the city has no interest in maintaining our historic brick street. The city's "repair" job they have in mind for West 4th is tear up the brick street and put in blacktop. The more wear and tear on it, the sooner we will lose one of our last brick streets. Shortsighted, because brick streets clearly still look good after 100 years. How long does blacktop last? But, kind of off the subject. I'll try to be good and not say anymore.
Quote from: Matt McVay on November 01, 2009, 05:44:47 PM
The property is zoned for this carwash and the lessee is seeking an exception to add a convenience store to the car wash.
Its actually the other way around. He needs an exception for a carwash. If he wanted to, he could open a convenience store up and no one could do anything about it. Here is what is allowed on this site:
QuoteIV. Commercial Community/General-Springfield (CCG-S) District.
(a) Permitted uses and structures.
(1) Retail outlets for sale of food and drugs, wearing apparel, toys, sundries and notions, books and stationery, leather goods and luggage, jewelry (including watch repair) art, cameras or photographic supplies (including camera repair), sporting goods, hobby shops and pet shops (but not animal boarding kennels), musical instruments, florist or shops, delicatessens, bakeries (but not wholesale bakeries), home furnishings and appliances (including repair incidental to sales), office equipment or furniture, antiques, hardware, new automobile parts (including rebuilt parts not installation, repair or rebuilding of parts) and accessories and similar uses.
(2) Service establishments such as barber or beauty shops, shoe repair shops, restaurants, interior decorators, reducing salons or gymnasiums, self-service laundries or dry cleaners, tailors or dressmakers, laundries or dry cleaning pickup stations, dry cleaning and laundry package plants in completely enclosed buildings using nonflammable liquids such as perchloroethylene and with no odor, fumes or steam detectable to normal senses from off the premises, radio and television broadcasting offices and studios, communication antennas, funeral homes, marinas, blueprinting, job printing (but not newspaper), radio and television repair shops, travel agencies, employment offices, (but not day labor pools), home equipment rental and similar uses.
(3) Banks (including drive-thru tellers), loan companies, mortgage brokers, stockbrokers and similar financial institutions.
(4) All types of professional and business offices, newspaper offices (but not printing), employment offices, union halls, buildings trades contractors (not requiring outside storage or the use of a vehicle in excess of one-ton capacity or equipment, machinery, ditching machines, tractors, bulldozers or other heavy construction equipment) and similar uses.
(5) Original use single-family dwellings.
(6) Original use two-family dwellings.
(7) Original use multiple-family dwellings.
(8) Commercial indoor recreational or entertainment facilities such as bowling alleys, swimming pools, indoor skating rinks, theaters (including motion picture theaters but not open-air theaters), and similar uses (but not dance halls).
(9) Art galleries, museums, community centers, music, photography, gymnastics, karate and martial arts studios, theaters for stage performances (but not motion picture theaters) dance, art, vocational, trade or business schools and similar uses.
(10) Homes for aged and orphans.
(11) Nursing homes.
(12) Day care centers or care centers meeting the performance standards and development criteria set forth in Part 4 of the Zoning Code.
(13) Off-street commercial parking lots meeting the performance standards and criteria set forth in Part 4 of the Zoning Code and the Springfield performance standards and development criteria set forth in Section 656.369.
(14) Hospitals, sanitariums and similar uses.
(15) An establishment or facility which includes the retail sale and service of beer or wine for off-premises consumption or for on-premises conjunction with the service of food which is ordered from a menu and prepared or served for pay for consumption on-premises.
(16) Retail plant nurseries (including outside display but not landscape contractors requiring heavy equipment or vehicles in excess of one-ton capacity).
(17) Veterinarians meeting the performance standards and development criteria set forth in Part 4 of the Zoning Code.
(18) Retail outlets for the sale of used wearing apparel, toys, books, luggage, jewelry, cameras, sporting goods, home furnishings and appliances, furniture and similar uses.
(19) 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.
(20) Churches, including a rectory or similar use.
(21) Schools meeting the performance standards and development criteria set forth in Part 4 of the Zoning Code.
Uses allowed by exception
Quote(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.
(8) 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.
http://library8.municode.com/default-now/home.htm?infobase=12174&doc_action=whatsnew
Well.....if he plans on only being there for a few yerars, I seriously doubt he's going to invest anymore money than he has to in it. Again, he doesn't own the property. This makes the prospect of all these extra favorable things doubtful, IMO. Perhaps Hionedes will help him out with these, but again, I think that's doubtful as well.
Quote from: Matt McVay on November 01, 2009, 09:24:12 PM
I looked it up the other day on the Property Appraiser's database and car wash was the current use. There is also an automated car wash on site already. The exception is for the convenience store. I would post the link, but the Property Appraiser's database isn't working right now.
Take a look at the application posted a few pages ago. While the car wash is the current use, they can't open it without getting an exception. This is a result of an areawide zoning change back in 1992. As long as the property is zoned CCG-S, they don't need an exception for a convenience store.
Quote from: fsu813 on November 02, 2009, 07:17:11 AM
Well.....if he plans on only being there for a few yerars, I seriously doubt he's going to invest anymore money than he has to in it. Again, he doesn't own the property. This makes the prospect of all these extra favorable things doubtful, IMO. Perhaps Hionedes will help him out with these, but again, I think that's doubtful as well.
I think its a bad idea to assume something. The guy should be approached and the community should share their concerns with him and give him the opportunity to react to those concerns. The use may be temporary, but temporary could be 10-15 years in the real estate world.
I'm not assuming it, but i'm being realistic.
I would be surprised if he said, "sure, I'll pay an extra ______ thousand dollars out of pocket for cement trash cans, above standard after-hours lightining, facade changes, landscaping, large fence, etc.
In fact, i'd be shocked.
Realistically, I think the best we can hope for is that it's maintained well, single beers, drug items, and cheap cigs, aren't sold there, and he keeps trash & loiters off his property.
I won't assume these things, but i not going to think idealistically either.
I hope i'm pleasantly surprised!
If you go back to the application, it has a proposed site plan on it. That site plan shows an on-stie parking lot and landscaping. If he builds a parking lot, it will have to be built by code, which would require a few of the things you mentioned. If its a car wash facility, he'll have to put some money into making people feel safe about using it, or else there won't be much profitability in the investment.
So in short, the guy has to incorporate a few things anyway. Architecturally, other than a paint job, I would not worry about it. Landscaping, paint and lighting would do wonders over the abandoned facility current existing. Plus, good site design does not have to equal up with spending thousands of dollars more. In many cases, more can be less. All in all, more reason to have upfront dialogue. In the end, he could still give the community the middle finger that he's currently receiving right now. However, it does not appear that things have gotten that far at this point.
I would guess SPAR has his contact info....
Yes, SPAR's office or the planning department.
There were a few mentions about other businesses Mr. Jones owns. I looked him up and I see a couple of car washes listed...
LAKE FOREST CAR WASH - Inactive, INVOLUNTARILY DISSOLVED - 11/10/1983
DOWNTOWN CAR WASH, INC - Inacive, VOLUNTARY DISSOLUTION - 01/23/1997
RIBAULT HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION, INC., Inactive, ADMIN DISSOLUTION FOR ANNUAL REPORT - 10/09/1992
SILAS JONES CAR WASH INC. - Inactive, ADMIN DISSOLUTION FOR ANNUAL REPORT - 10/16/1998
So, I'm not seeing any active car washes or other businesses. Wasn't it mentioned that he has other locations?
Yup. I don't think he specified if they were in town / in state or not.
Perhaps when Matt contacts Mr Jones, he can ask if he has any currently operational locations. Took a look at the area after lunch at Uptown Market. Is the location to be the currently fenced-in building and parking lot along with the open area to the west up to the alley?
Send them to me, I will post them for you.
(http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/310/dsc00105wl.th.jpg) (http://img21.imageshack.us/i/dsc00105wl.jpg/)
(http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/2325/dsc00098sn.th.jpg) (http://img11.imageshack.us/i/dsc00098sn.jpg/)
(http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/4106/dsc00099n.th.jpg) (http://img402.imageshack.us/i/dsc00099n.jpg/)
(http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/4472/dsc00100u.th.jpg) (http://img101.imageshack.us/i/dsc00100u.jpg/)
(http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/7661/dsc00101ym.th.jpg) (http://img11.imageshack.us/i/dsc00101ym.jpg/)
(http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/8734/dsc00102eq.th.jpg) (http://img11.imageshack.us/i/dsc00102eq.jpg/)
(http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/8826/dsc00103vh.th.jpg) (http://img11.imageshack.us/i/dsc00103vh.jpg/)
(http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/453/dsc00104v.th.jpg) (http://img402.imageshack.us/i/dsc00104v.jpg/)
After reading this thread last night I thought about it long and hard. Why do we, as residents, immediately oppose certain proposed uses in our neighborhood? How can residents, non residents, visitors and business owners view the neighborhood and it's issues so differently? I really tried to be objective. I thought about the past, present and what brought us to this point and this is what it boiled down to for me. It only takes listening to the many negative perceptions about Springfield from outsiders and seeing the way certain owners run their businesses to see why we feel the way we do. Springfield was the ghetto for years and many people still see it that way including what is probably a majority of the business owners here. When we hear comments about the blight in our neighborhood it is not addressed toward the restored or new homes but the boarded up homes and undesirable businesses and the people they attract. So why did business owners come to an area that was considered a ghetto? From my point of view as a resident who sees it on a daily basis it seems that they could make money without having to put in much effort. If you look at a lot of the businesses (I'm not saying all) they do not spend any money on beautification or maintainence of their buildings or grounds. They do a brisk cash business supplying goods to people who do not have many other options. They are able to charge higher prices without having to deliver higher quality goods, service or atmosphere. I can see how it is a good model financially for the owners but not only does it not benefit me or my family it burdens us with the blight and litter it produces. We can't tell even by talking with someone if they are being honest or truthful as we have all been told what we wanted to hear by people trying to get their projects approved. We have all been burned by past experience which has made us very wary of peoples intentions. So the options seem to be, accept whatever comes and hope for the best (not a very good track record) try to work with a prospective owner if they are willing, to acheive a common goal or oppose the unkown and unproven. On the car wash issue several things came to mind. According to RAP, whom most people on this forum seem to respect and admire, a contributing structure was 50 years old when the district was founded, not 50 years from today. (Springfield received her designation in 1987) They also stated in their most recent newsletter that "in the 60's after consolidation, urban planners thought the best way to "save" Riverside was to rezone a huge swath of it for commercial and institutional growth" "The subsequent zoning changes actually hastened the neighborhoods decay by encouraging the conversion and/or demolition of housing stock." The same zoning happened 30 years earlier in Springfield causing the same demise. The carwash was built during this neighborhood decline after Springfield was rezoned for commercial use. If this use was deemed so desirable for a residential neighborhood I don't believe it would need an exception to be allowed. The carwash is not proposed for Main St. but for 4th which is a residential block and it has been out of operation for 17 years. As far as beautification goes, what could you possibly do with the yards and yards of concrete slab and shell that are the car wash? It would take a major renovation to make it presentable at best. The owner also did not come to the neighborhood until two weeks prior to the zoning hearing and he brought no plans or presentation for the project, which doesn't make me feel too good about his intentions. Bill Cesery was coming to the neighborhood years before his project ever came out of the ground and spent a year just getting through historic planning. I personally am against any more of the commercial intrusion into residential blocks that was much of the cause of the neighborhoods original decline. We have two huge commercial corridors bisecting our neighborhood and I feel that is more than adequate for commercial interests. I have seen the argument on MJ that anything is better than an empty building but those of us who live here have seen how untrue that sentiment can be.
I checked with the SPAR office. Silas Jones contacted them via phone and did not sign in at the meeting so they do not have email or phone contact info. They also recommended contacting the Planning Dept for contact info.
His address is available, worst case scenario a postcard can be sent.
Good to hear those words.
He must be very wealthy.
Matt, I also saw as I drove by, that he is removing the chainlink. Is he replacing it with something else, or removing it outright?
It is good to see more chainlink fencing go. Look forward to hearing what Matt finds out.
i'd be happy to drive by his other carwashes, if you can get thier addresses.
Springfield Girl...as far as I'm concerned, you nailed it! I have to say that I concur with you, 100%!
Quote from: Matt McVay on November 02, 2009, 01:29:35 PM
I just talked to Silas. The convenience store will have "car stuff" - air fresheners, towels, soda, chips and NO ALCOHOL, WINE, OR CIGARETTES. All vacuum stations will have a trash receptacle and he will be on-site everyday to make sure they are empty and constantly police the grounds for trash. He is planning to put a privacy fence around the dumpster with a locking gate. There are 40' light poles which he said will be on all night. He told me that he is spending $500,000.00 on new equipment etc. I am going to go meet him this afternoon and get more pictures of the interior and equipment. More info to follow....
Good job, Matt!
does $500k seem like an extraordinary amount of money, or is it just me?
Quote from: fsu813 on November 02, 2009, 03:59:38 PM
does $500k seem like an extraordinary amount of money, or is it just me?
Fred Deluca started Subway with $1000.00 from a family friend. So some would say that $500k is quite a chunk of change.
^ That amount of money is directly attributed to equipment and site costs.
If he were starting this thing up with a bucket of suds, a water hose, and a sponge things would be different.
Quote from: Matt McVay on November 02, 2009, 04:05:52 PM
I'm preparing to post the pictures shortly and will add narrative; once I figure out all this high tech stuff. ;)
I didn't think you could post pictures with so few posts under your belt.
Matt,
did you find out what other car washes he has, by chance?
Quote from: fsu813 on November 02, 2009, 03:59:38 PM
does $500k seem like an extraordinary amount of money, or is it just me?
I posted a couple of pages ago about this. At one time I was considering opening an automatic car wash. The equipment costs alone for a touchless system is roughly $500k, depending on the company you choose and any additions to the setup. A water recycler will add additional cash, chemicals will cost near a fortune. As I said then, I would expect this guy to be adamant about not having loiterers. This will not help him recoup money and it's not cheap....
Quote from: danno on November 02, 2009, 04:09:56 PM
Fred Deluca started Subway with $1000.00 from a family friend. So some would say that $500k is quite a chunk of change.
Subway is making sandwiches, doesn't require a whole lot of machinery.
That's a whole lot of carwashes, towels and air fresheners that would have to be sold to recoup the start up cost let alone the additional monthly overhead. It sounds crazy to me to make that kind of investment in a down economy. I drive a BMW and I haven't taken it to a carwash in a year. That was one of the first things to go when the budget tightened. So whose going to purchase all those carwashes and air fresheners off the main drag in Springfield?
I guess my point was to Stephen being so "maddened by these conversations". There are times that you don't need that much to start something out. 500k seems like an awful big investment to put into a carwash in Springfield.
So now everyone can plie on with the what you don't want that kind of investment stuff.
It just seems like a lot of money thats all.
It's a ton to invest in this economy. I would think fewer people would even be going to car washes and doing it themselves at home for now.
It is indeed a lot of money. If it was me, I would be looking at used equipment in this economy as some great deals are out there to be had. That being said, traffic count is what matters. I believe that part of Main St. exceeds recommended requirements to be successful.
My question still remains on hours of operation. If this is an automatic bay, he will need or at least want to be 24/7/365 to really hit the profit margin he should be looking for. If it is operational at night, being close to residential, I am not sure how he will get the approval for zoning. These washes may not sound too loud when you are in your car, but living next to one, I imagine, would be quite disappointing.
Here's my take. Its his money. If he feels its worth the investment, who are we to decide its too much. If he loses his shirt, so be it. If he rakes in a ton on money, so be it. The bottom line is a vacant property renovated and put back into use, is better than a vacant property continuing to blight the neighborhood for years to come.
especially since it is on his "temporary" plan.
Again.....temporary in terms of real estate could equate to over 10-15 years. Main Street isn't going to turn around overnight and with a real streetcar or something to stimulate infill development, it will take that long for it to really fill in with new construction.
I agree Lake, I do not see this business as a negative (except maybe for those that live right next door). As I've repeated a couple of times, there is no way in hell that he is spending even half of the figures that it will require and allow loiterers and litter to kill his business. Those that stand around are not typically going to support his car wash (the bread and butter) as would those in front of the convenience store that sells cheap beer.
Lake, it was Silas who stated 5-6 years based on what Hionides told him. Obviously only time and the economy will tell which is accurate.
Quote from: thelakelander on November 02, 2009, 04:53:56 PM
Here's my take. Its his money. If he feels its worth the investment, who are we to decide its too much. If he loses his shirt, so be it. If he rakes in a ton on money, so be it. The bottom line is a vacant property renovated and put back into use, is better than a vacant property continuing to blight the neighborhood for years to come.
Absolutely and should go without saying...
Since Matt is still working on a follow up, I will go ahead and talk about what we talked about when Matt and I stopped by.
After getting a full tour of the facility, and listening to what he is planning, I think its a good plan, and hope he is able to execute the way he talks. Its clear he has a passion.
He is taking down all of the fencing along the roads, and will be putting up a 6, or 8 foot privacy fence along the ally to help the neighbors (which ever one is allowed).
The equipment has been on site for more than two years. After his last attempt to open, he got so mad, he decided to sell the place to Petra Mgmt. In short, there were a couple of immediate neighbors who raised holy hell with SPAR, Code, and Neighborhoods dept to keep the thing from opening. According to Silas, it was done without knowing what the plan was. Once he sold the property to Petra, the owner, Chris Hionides let him keep the equipment on site, which he searched for a new property to move it to. He in the last few months decided to NOT move the equipment, but rather, to try for the exception.
He originally purchased the property in 1995, from the family that ran the original car wash on site. He then went and got a zoning exception. He started putting together the plan for the car wash, and started putting the money together from that point until the mid 2000s, when he has assembled everything he needed to open. When he was about to open, he realized that the zoning change he had applied for in 1995 was only good for a year from the date he applied for it, and since he never opened, the property reverted back to ccg-1, and then ccg-S, when the overlay passed.
Anyway, He has all the pieces in place, and I believe that $500K figure what what he has spent over the last 10 years putting this equipment together.
The water will be reclaimed. He said that about 95% of the water is reclaimed and reprocessed in an underground tank (which he showed us)
His hours of operation will be regular business houses, closing at about 6pm.
He is a member of the National Car Wash council, and has "tons of catalogs" from which to chose the items that will be in his store, on top of snack items for the people getting a car wash. He said there will be NO beer, wine, cigarettes, or lottery tickets. He said calling it a "convenience" store really isn't accurate, but it will do for the zoning change request.
There will be vacuum stations on the outside of the building, but they will be on the Main Street side. They all come from one system (overhead hoses) and customers will be able to vacuum for free, with a car wash.
He is currently cleaning up the old car lot next door. He says he has permission from Petra to use it as well. One of the few suggestions I made was, Why not use the Main Street Entrance as your main entrance, with signage. This will give him a better chance for drive by traffic, and make the place feel more a part of Main. Also, it might help cut down on some of the traffic on the primarily residential 4th St. He liked the idea, and may implement it.
He says should he get the exception, he will probably open around the first of the year.
His prices are going to be 5, 7, and 9-10 dollars for the various levels of service.
One interesting note, I asked if he thought his business would negatively impact the other car wash on Main. He said from his point of view, the other business is running things illegally, since they don't use reclaimed water. he said its against the law to put harsh detergents directly into the drainage system, like other business is currently doing.
awesome. thanks for that info. he sounds like he has his stuff together. the no beer, etc will cut down on his litter a whole lot.
Quote from: Dan B on November 02, 2009, 05:25:54 PM
In short, there were a couple of immediate neighbors who raised holy hell with SPAR, Code, and Neighborhoods dept to keep the thing from opening. According to Silas, it was done without knowing what the plan was.
Typical...
The primary complainers are now gone from the neighborhood.
Looks good to me. I will use it.
yeah, I like it also, will use it as well.
good job, guys.
This is totally solution-based and positive.
And...should I ever decide to wash my vehicle, I'd bring it there.
He ought to talk to Content Design Group, C Squared or Lake to get a digital "facelift" done for the facility. That extra coupla hundred could make a world of difference in the paint and exterior design of the building (and help him gain support with visual representation of his plans). Dan, can you hook him up?
Matt & Dan, thanks for gathering the info. Sounds like a business most of us can get behind.
Great job guys! I'm going to send the information provided by Dan B. and Matt to the planning department for evaluation before their written reports are due.
Quote from: zoo on November 02, 2009, 08:36:12 PM
He ought to talk to Content Design Group, C Squared or Lake to get a digital "facelift" done for the facility. That extra coupla hundred could make a world of difference in the paint and exterior design of the building (and help him gain support with visual representation of his plans). Dan, can you hook him up?
I will see what I can do.
Hey Dan, while you are at it, see if he needs any equipment financing ;)
I know he met with Louise before last weeks meeting, but i'm not sure what was discussed. Perhaps after seeing / reading all of these details her mind might changed.
This will be a good topic to bring up at Thursday's Springfield Community Meeting as well.
Quote from: fsu813 on November 03, 2009, 07:03:01 AM
I know he met with Louise before last weeks meeting, but i'm not sure what was discussed. Perhaps after seeing / reading all of these details her mind might changed.
...an interesting comment, to say the least.
I honestly think the next best step for Silas is to get with Content Design Group, and get some visuals done. If he wants to get this past HPC, they need to see the vision he described to Matt and I.
I think the other thing, which I mentioned to Silas yesterday, is to make more of an effort to interface, and use Main Street more than 4th. Its ok to have an exit/entrance on 4th, but the main entrance/exit really should be from Main, especially since he is going to be maintaining the lot.
Wow. I'm just getting through reading all of this and I am ashamed for being offline the past few days.
Reading your comments and progress is very encouraging and at first thought of this place, my views leaned negative. However, the owner seems to have addressed most of the community concerns and I can say that I am leaning in support for this new business. The environmental concern was an issue as well and that seems to be taken care of.
Hopefully, an aesthetically nice, clean operation that includes these design elements will be a huge improvement and will possibly make the existing building next to it more attractive for another investor to renovate.
The neighborhood has a right to be concerned about any new business, but as Strider said, its better than what is there now. I'm glad to see Silas working with the community.
I agree.
It is a very good thing.
"If the reception of Fusion Wine and Jazz Bar is any indication....."
meaning....what? they aren't doing ok?
^That's what I've been saying the entire thread. For more clarification, I posted whats allowed under the CCG-S zoning with links to municode for proof a couple of pages ago. ;)
Quote from: Matt McVay on November 03, 2009, 12:52:04 PM
I met with Silas again today and explained to him that renderings will help people visualize the space better. I also advised that he should possibly even have process maps of the operation etc. Silas is going to meet with Contentdg tomorrow. He is open to whatever he needs to do to make it work.
Thank you, Matt. Since I work in commercial real estate development, the comments, opinions, and concerns voiced here are calm compared to what I've seen and heard on some other projects. Its natural for the neighbors and surrounding community to become involved and have a say-so. Professional developers pay attention and work with communities. Exhaustive at times.
I will be more than happy to assist in anyway I can. Very glad to see Silas working in a collaborative effort.
Hopefully, the collaborative effort discussed here will be done with other potential commercial projects in the community.
Stephen, would you please elaborate on your statement regarding Fusion? In a separate thread if need be. We were so excited about the concept that we've been supporting it since before it opened. We continue to inform our friends and neighbors about this gem on Pearl St. Miro is extremely gracious and responds well to suggestions to improve his offerings in order to increase business.
i second that
Matt, why was it rejected last time? He would stand a better chance of getting it approved this time, if he can respond to their reasons for rejection to discredit their argument for denial.
Also, how long ago was it that it was denied?
a year or two ago Johnny.
Lake, I have asked around, and about as good an answer as I got was "because its against the overlay".
We'll be meeting with Silas tomorrow and hopefully helping him submit a full application showing design intent and will take any guess work out of SPAR and Historic Commission.
There will be ways to buffer the site from the residential side of the car wash.
Saying this site is in a residential neighborhood isn't quite correct, they make it sound like it is in the middle of homes, surrounded on each side, which we know is not the case.
It will be sad if Silas has a well thought out site and building design, solid business plan, and the needed equipment, and still gets turned down. I'd much rather have a place where I can grab a cup of coffee, get my car washed while reading the paper then another lot rotting away while someone waits for the market to change....
I don't think it is a question of the overlay as a car wash would need an exception anywhere in town.
Has anyone talked to Louise and asked her what she thinks of this plan now? She may be behind it.
Quote from: jason_contentdg on November 03, 2009, 04:15:15 PM
We'll be meeting with Silas tomorrow and hopefully helping him submit a full application showing design intent and will take any guess work out of SPAR and Historic Commission.
There will be ways to buffer the site from the residential side of the car wash.
Saying this site is in a residential neighborhood isn't quite correct, they make it sound like it is in the middle of homes, surrounded on each side, which we know is not the case.
It will be sad if Silas has a well thought out site and building design, solid business plan, and the needed equipment, and still gets turned down. I'd much rather have a place where I can grab a cup of coffee, get my car washed while reading the paper then another lot rotting away while someone waits for the market to change....
A car wash is not "against the overlay." Its clearly permissible by exception. Good luck Jason. Hopefully everything works out for the best.
Stephen, your relaying of the info from Historic is completely false and I don't appreciate the way you tried to implicate me. As a matter of fact the guidelines do not take into consideration the concerns of neighbors.
"why would anyone ask her anything sheclown?"
- b/c she's in charge of the most effective & influential organization in the neighbrohood, which just so happens to be opposing the plan. but besides that, no reason.
fyi....your personal grudge is getting in the way of common sense.
also, not that anyone should care, but i'm on the fence with this issue. i can see it both ways.
Care to explain the opposition's stance? From my perspective it seems like many of the questions raised have been addressed, unless they are assuming he's lying.
I think its a knee jerk. The place does kinda look like crap, but thats no insurmountable. Hopefully Content Design can give him an affordable plan of action to make it look decent.
I am pretty sure Meeks, Ross, and Associates had to get an exception as well, and that is less than half a block away, so the commercial/residential argument, on its own merit, is not a winner.
Its also common in San Marco and every other neighborhood in the country that's over 75 years old. It would be good for Mr. Jones to know the opposition's specific reasons on why they oppose before the hearing. This way he can present the project in a fashion that immediately alleviates those concerns to the board that will have to officially approve or deny the project.
Well, I tried to find that out, and I was told, because he needs an exception, and its against the overlay. :-/
QuoteStephen, your relaying of the info from Historic is completely false and I don't appreciate the way you tried to implicate me.
Surprising...
Dan, Meeks business is a much different issue though. Car washes have to be CCG2, which isn't very common, especially in areas such as this. More often, it would be near a warehouse district...and from my understanding getting them changed to CCG2 is considered highly unlikely (according to the car wash consultant I was working with) and is understandable b/c of what CCG2 would open it up to heavy machinery/industrial type. I do hope Mr. Jones is successful, but I wonder if it's going to happen. I didn't realize it was only 2+/- years ago that it was denied and if they are already showing opposition, there's probably not going to be much that will change this. If the board approves it, should something change and neighbors are upset later, it will look poorly on everyone involved.
It wasn't denied, it was shut down a day before he opened. According to Silas, he applied for, and was granted the exception in 1995 when he bought the property. He says he did not realize that the exception was only good for a year, and the exception was contingent on him opening his business within that year, which he then didn't do.
Quote from: Dan B on November 03, 2009, 09:23:12 PM
Well, I tried to find that out, and I was told, because he needs an exception, and its against the overlay. :-/
That's obviously a misunderstanding of the zoning code by whoever told you that and easy to rip to shreads in a public hearing. To really defeat something, they need to bring more than that weak argument to the table. A car wash needs an exception all over the city, that's not Springfield overlay specific. If it were against the overlay, it would not be permissible by exception.
If he comes from a position that sticks with facts instead of opinions, shows the project will be a benefit to the community, that its a historic use of the site and fits in the zoning/comp plans, he could start firing his washer up right after the meeting.
Quote from: Johnny on November 03, 2009, 09:33:16 PM
Dan, Meeks business is a much different issue though. Car washes have to be CCG2, which isn't very common, especially in areas such as this. More often, it would be near a warehouse district...and from my understanding getting them changed to CCG2 is considered highly unlikely (according to the car wash consultant I was working with) and is understandable b/c of what CCG2 would open it up to heavy machinery/industrial type. I do hope Mr. Jones is successful, but I wonder if it's going to happen. I didn't realize it was only 2+/- years ago that it was denied and if they are already showing opposition, there's probably not going to be much that will change this. If the board approves it, should something change and neighbors are upset later, it will look poorly on everyone involved.
What could change? Its an exception for a car wash. So either the car wash would open or it wouldn't. No other use could be sneak up that isn't already allowed under the CCG-S zoning.
My guess is if a Publix, Applebees or CVS wanted to open up on the corner they would get whatever they needed zoning wise, even though the use would introduce five times as much traffic and noise in the immediate area.
He should present it from the fact that its a historical use of the site. After all, its been a car wash since 1955, in a commercially zoned corridor (east of the alley). The precedent has been set. You can defeat a few knee jerk reactions from a couple of neighbors if you can stick with the facts that proves their concerns are dealt with. If he is denied, primarily by ill-informed knee jerk reactions that may not be true, it would be unfortunate for the community. The property is a mess right now and will be a mess long term if no new use goes into it. That's a drag on everyone's property values in the area.
Let me preface this by saying I am speaking only my opinion and not that of any organization. There is a reason certain uses were disallowed by zoning. The carwash is just one example of the commercial intrusion that led to the decline of the neighborhood. This fact has been well documented. When I moved here I did so with the understanding that the zoning overlay would protect us from further undesirable uses. When looking at any use I ask myself if I would want to live next door to it. There is an illegal use that has opened on Main St. since the zoning overlay was put in place and Mr. Jones is already using this as an example of why his business should be allowed. It is a very slippery slope. The carwash is not allowed under the zoning laws hence the need for an exception. Who will be next in line with an outlawed use and how many examples will they have to base their exception on?
I don't think the car wash exception issue has anything to do with the overlay. That was the result of a city wide rezoning issue that occurred in 1992. Maybe I'm wrong, but didn't the overlay come after 1992?
I agree lake, I don't know that neighbors would even have a say at this point though due to the type of business that zoning would open it up to. If the car wash was flattened by a tornado months later, would the zoning revert back? If not, what would prevent a heavy industrial business from claiming the property and opening shop? Not saying this is likely or possible, just curious since I do not know that information.
Examples of CCG2 zoned property uses - outside storage or trucks, heavy equipment, warehouse, distributors, etc...
^It has already reverted back twice, since 1992, so this example appears to be resolved.
From my understanding of the code and dealing with it on a professional basis in several cities/states for nearly a decade, if an exception is given for a car wash, that would be what's allowed on the property, in addition to everything else that's already allowed under the current zoning (like a convenience store).
If he works with Content Design and comes up with a good plan, the vast majority of my concerns have been addressed.
Quote from: Johnny on November 03, 2009, 10:01:52 PM
Examples of CCG2 zoned property uses - outside storage or trucks, heavy equipment, warehouse, distributors, etc...
All of this is irrelevent because its not a CCG-2 zoning and it won't be rezoned to CCG-2. The zoning would stay CCG-S. An exception for a car wash under the CCG-S zoning would only allow for a car wash to open under that exception.
I guess its time to put the actual application back in immediate view. A lot of the questions being asked are addressed in the application.
Quote from: thelakelander on October 30, 2009, 02:03:15 PM
Alright, let's get back on topic and leave the personal insults out of the discussion. Here is the actual application. Evaluate the project on the information presented in the actual document and think of ways to possibly better integrate such a project into the commercial corridor.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Development/Springfield-4th-Street-car/E-09-54-Carwash1Page01/697488658_FE7za-XL.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Development/Springfield-4th-Street-car/E-09-54-Carwash1Page02/697488714_tKHbh-XL.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Development/Springfield-4th-Street-car/E-09-54-Carwash1Page03/697488729_W7BG4-XL.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Development/Springfield-4th-Street-car/E-09-54-Carwash1Page05/697488768_VJPAQ-XL.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Development/Springfield-4th-Street-car/E-09-54-Carwash1Page06/697488784_YDca8-XL.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Development/Springfield-4th-Street-car/E-09-54-Carwash1Page07/697488806_Cs3un-XL.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Development/Springfield-4th-Street-car/E-09-54-Carwash1Page08/697488822_mkxv3-XL.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Development/Springfield-4th-Street-car/E-09-54-Carwash1Page09/697488836_Amwfv-XL.jpg)
Existing Site Plan
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Development/Springfield-4th-Street-car/E-09-54-Carwash1Page10/697488850_Gg9qo-XL.jpg)
Proposed Site Plan
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Development/Springfield-4th-Street-car/E-09-54-Carwash1Page11/697488907_nyCve-XL.jpg)
Quote from: thelakelander on November 03, 2009, 10:04:21 PM
Quote from: Johnny on November 03, 2009, 10:01:52 PM
Examples of CCG2 zoned property uses - outside storage or trucks, heavy equipment, warehouse, distributors, etc...
All of this is irrelevent because its not a CCG-2 zoning and it won't be rezoned to CCG-2. The zoning would stay CCG-S. An exception for a car wash under the CCG-S zoning would only allow for a car wash to open under that exception.
Thank you, I wasn't aware of that.
Here is a list of things he could open up with and without the exception, under the CCG-S zoning.
Quote from: thelakelander on November 01, 2009, 07:09:34 PM
Quote from: Matt McVay on November 01, 2009, 05:44:47 PM
The property is zoned for this carwash and the lessee is seeking an exception to add a convenience store to the car wash.
Its actually the other way around. He needs an exception for a carwash. If he wanted to, he could open a convenience store up and no one could do anything about it. Here is what is allowed on this site:
QuoteIV. Commercial Community/General-Springfield (CCG-S) District.
(a) Permitted uses and structures.
(1) Retail outlets for sale of food and drugs, wearing apparel, toys, sundries and notions, books and stationery, leather goods and luggage, jewelry (including watch repair) art, cameras or photographic supplies (including camera repair), sporting goods, hobby shops and pet shops (but not animal boarding kennels), musical instruments, florist or shops, delicatessens, bakeries (but not wholesale bakeries), home furnishings and appliances (including repair incidental to sales), office equipment or furniture, antiques, hardware, new automobile parts (including rebuilt parts not installation, repair or rebuilding of parts) and accessories and similar uses.
(2) Service establishments such as barber or beauty shops, shoe repair shops, restaurants, interior decorators, reducing salons or gymnasiums, self-service laundries or dry cleaners, tailors or dressmakers, laundries or dry cleaning pickup stations, dry cleaning and laundry package plants in completely enclosed buildings using nonflammable liquids such as perchloroethylene and with no odor, fumes or steam detectable to normal senses from off the premises, radio and television broadcasting offices and studios, communication antennas, funeral homes, marinas, blueprinting, job printing (but not newspaper), radio and television repair shops, travel agencies, employment offices, (but not day labor pools), home equipment rental and similar uses.
(3) Banks (including drive-thru tellers), loan companies, mortgage brokers, stockbrokers and similar financial institutions.
(4) All types of professional and business offices, newspaper offices (but not printing), employment offices, union halls, buildings trades contractors (not requiring outside storage or the use of a vehicle in excess of one-ton capacity or equipment, machinery, ditching machines, tractors, bulldozers or other heavy construction equipment) and similar uses.
(5) Original use single-family dwellings.
(6) Original use two-family dwellings.
(7) Original use multiple-family dwellings.
(8) Commercial indoor recreational or entertainment facilities such as bowling alleys, swimming pools, indoor skating rinks, theaters (including motion picture theaters but not open-air theaters), and similar uses (but not dance halls).
(9) Art galleries, museums, community centers, music, photography, gymnastics, karate and martial arts studios, theaters for stage performances (but not motion picture theaters) dance, art, vocational, trade or business schools and similar uses.
(10) Homes for aged and orphans.
(11) Nursing homes.
(12) Day care centers or care centers meeting the performance standards and development criteria set forth in Part 4 of the Zoning Code.
(13) Off-street commercial parking lots meeting the performance standards and criteria set forth in Part 4 of the Zoning Code and the Springfield performance standards and development criteria set forth in Section 656.369.
(14) Hospitals, sanitariums and similar uses.
(15) An establishment or facility which includes the retail sale and service of beer or wine for off-premises consumption or for on-premises conjunction with the service of food which is ordered from a menu and prepared or served for pay for consumption on-premises.
(16) Retail plant nurseries (including outside display but not landscape contractors requiring heavy equipment or vehicles in excess of one-ton capacity).
(17) Veterinarians meeting the performance standards and development criteria set forth in Part 4 of the Zoning Code.
(18) Retail outlets for the sale of used wearing apparel, toys, books, luggage, jewelry, cameras, sporting goods, home furnishings and appliances, furniture and similar uses.
(19) 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.
(20) Churches, including a rectory or similar use.
(21) Schools meeting the performance standards and development criteria set forth in Part 4 of the Zoning Code.
Uses allowed by exception
Quote(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.
(8) 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.
http://library8.municode.com/default-now/home.htm?infobase=12174&doc_action=whatsnew
Under the original CCG-S zoning, both my loft project on 6th Street and 3rd & Main would not be allowed without an exception or PUD. Both of these projects had to go through what Mr. Jones is going through now. Actually, because the overlay is poorly written in several areas, most future infill projects (including restaurants with outdoor serving/seating areas) would have to go PUD or seek an exception to become reality.
Quote from: Springfield Girl on November 03, 2009, 09:56:05 PM
Let me preface this by saying I am speaking only my opinion and not that of any organization. There is a reason certain uses were disallowed by zoning. The carwash is just one example of the commercial intrusion that led to the decline of the neighborhood. This fact has been well documented. When I moved here I did so with the understanding that the zoning overlay would protect us from further undesirable uses. When looking at any use I ask myself if I would want to live next door to it. There is an illegal use that has opened on Main St. since the zoning overlay was put in place and Mr. Jones is already using this as an example of why his business should be allowed. It is a very slippery slope. The carwash is not allowed under the zoning laws hence the need for an exception. Who will be next in line with an outlawed use and how many examples will they have to base their exception on?
Springfield declined as all inner city neighborhoods declined.
There wasn't this beautiful neighborhood and then all of a sudden car lots opened and it went to hell. Violent social upheavals ran residents out, not car lots.
Main Street needs revitalization now. It needs life. It needs businesses. The new businesses which want to risk opening in this economy need to be encouraged by the neighborhood or we will continue to be a ghost town down Main.
I believe if he closes and someone else wants to open a car wash, they'll have to apply for another exception. There is an expiration date associated with the exception when the excepted use is not being used. From reading the application, since 1992, an exception has been given and expired (because he did not open within a year of being granted the exception), which is why Mr. Jones is trying to get another one.
So, is it true that it wasn't that the exception was denied two years ago, it was that it had expired?
Quote from: sheclown on November 04, 2009, 07:24:16 AM
So, is it true that it wasn't that the exception was denied two years ago, it was that it had expired?
That, according to Silas. I have not called the zoning dept to confirm.
As I said earlier in this thread, If he can make his layout interact better with Main St, its a win/win. He says he has permission to use the old car lot (also owned by Hionides). If her can use that entrance/exit, it helps him increase possibility for drive up traffic, and it makes the area less dead. It also removes the undesirable increase in traffic from 4th St.
That's encouraging.
Lake,
I said i could see it both ways, and you asked for the opposition point of view:
You can't realistically assume the best case scenario. The carwash won't be on Main, but on 4th right next to residential. I can understand how that makes them feel. If a carshwash opened next door to me, I wouldn't be happy. He says the lot on Main may be used, but who knows. He says that beer, cigs, etc won't be sold, but who knows. If he's a 4th Street carwash isn't doing so well, I can certainly see him turning towards a more proven/profitable model in these parts. Who can say about noise and traffic? Those are wait & see type of things, agian, on 4th, not Main. Something is not always better than nothing, that's for sure.
So that would be an opposition view.
but again, i can see the otherside too. i'd probably favor it in the end.
Then neighbors should have opposed 3rd & Main, which is a more intensive use of commercial property that abuts RMD-S zoning. This thing has ill-informed knee jerk reaction syndrome written all over it. Take Mr. Jones out of the equation and replace him with Whole Foods, Red Robin, Panera or some other popular nationwide establishment, all of which would generate tons of more traffic, noise and need direct access from 4th and the neighborhood would be doing everything in their power to get them there. Toss 40-50 units of multifamily residential on top and the use would be a lot more intense. However, this is the type of development people would like to see along the commercial corridor. So complaining about cars being washed during daylight hours on a commercial site has little validity to me, when all things are considered.
I look at it this way. Its one thing if the guy just purchased a residential property and wanted it rezoned to construct a new car wash facility. However, this is not the case. The site has been a car wash and commercially zoned since at least 1955. Unless the next door neighbor has been living next door for 54 years, they purchased their home next to a commercial site on Main (everything east of the alley is commercial). To me, this is identical to moving next to an airport or railroad, then complaining about noise or moving next to Blanding and crying about traffic congestion.
You also have to use a bit of common sense. If the guy has already invested in $500k worth of automatic car was equipment, running the convenience store that you describe would never get him close to recouping the loss. In addition, the convenience store issue is really irrelevant because the property is already zoned for it. If he wanted to, he could give the community and the next door neighbors the finger, forget about the car wash exception and start selling singles tomorrow. Btw, the same could go for Uptown Market. If things don't work out, what stops them from changing their commercial model to something that's already allowed by the zoning, that will lead to more profitability? Why wasn't the same concern addressed with them?
So, I can see it from both ways as well. However, when you apply economic, financial and zoning realities to the situation, strictly opposing it out right is a knee jerk position not built on or supported by facts so far. I say this because every "negative" that has been bought up in this thread has immediately been hit harder out of the park than a Barry Bonds flyball.
Quote from: thelakelander on November 04, 2009, 08:56:10 AM
The site has been a car wash and commercially zoned since at least 1955. Unless the next door neighbor has been living next door for 54 years, they purchased their home next to a commercial site on Main (everything east of the alley is commercial). To me, this is identical to moving next to an airport or railroad, then complaining about noise or moving next to Blanding and crying about traffic congestion.
couldn't agree more. I purchased a home across from a commercial enterprise which has lots of ingress/egress and foot traffic, it has never been a problem. In fact, I see it as a plus because there are always people around which I think helps for security reasons. Its when its very quiet and empty that I get the problems. When the business is open and people are around I've never had one problem.
In all of this, i think its important to look at what other businesses are doing. Jack Meeks, for instance, is in the process of turning a residential property into a meeting/storage facility that sits next to his office, plus he had to apply for an exception when he built his office, I believe it had reverted back to residential when he bought it. At the time, the folks against it (some that are pulling FOR the car wash now) had a similar smear campaign going, saying he was going to be running a temp employment agency, and the traffic would be a nuisance. It seems to have worked out ok so far, and the people who raised the concerns did so for not.
Have ANY of the people opposed gone over and talked to Silas?
A couple of quick things.
I believe if you research it you will find that once an exception is granted, it becomes like being grandfathered. If the business remains open, it can be sold and resold and remain a car wash. If it is closed for one year and a day then purchased, the new owner would have to apply for a new exception.
Also, because the exception had expired due to the time that had passed, Silas did have to go get an new exception two years ago and that was denied.
QuoteThere is a reason certain uses were disallowed by zoning. The carwash is just one example of the commercial intrusion that led to the decline of the neighborhood. This fact has been well documented. When I moved here I did so with the understanding that the zoning overlay would protect us from further undesirable uses.
Yes, this is true, however, this use is not “disallowed†by zoning, but is an allowed use by “exception“. This only means that the zoning laws recognize that the use may be harmful, but also that it may be a net positive to the community and so requires that each case be looked at for it’s own merits.
Someone mentioned Meeks place…yes, the PUD (which made the changes perminate) allowed for them to basically open a labor pool if they so chose so that was the complaint. As it should, the system weighed the communities input and decided that it would be a net positive for the community and so it was approved.
This car wash sure seems like it would be a net positive so I hope it does get approved
I copied this straight from COJ.net -
The development of Springfield was barely completed when it began to decline in the last 1920's. The Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance passed by the city in 1925 classified the entire Springfield section as "Business A," resulting in the depreciation of residential property values. City Planning Engineer George W. Simons described Springfield's problems in May 1931.
Many former residents, during the past four or five years, have left Springfield to live in other areas where property is restricted. Tenement dwellers have entered Springfield and the property, generally speaking, is depreciating and when this state starts its rate of progress is rapid. Poorly placed business has sprung up at scattered points and with each new business the sphere of effective depreciation widens. There are still in this area many beautiful homes of old families and working people--homes representing a life time of labor and saving, which are constantly faced with the thoughts of adjacent filling stations or stores. Why shouldn't these people be protected? Why shouldn't the beauty and distinctiveness of Hubbard Street, Silver Street, Boulevard, and Perry Street, as well as that of several cross streets, be preserved?
A half century later, these same ills still plague Springfield, having been accentuated by the changing demographics and general urban decay that since the 1950's has caused our nation's inner-city neighborhoods to decline. A local preservation organization, Springfield Preservation and Restoration(SPAR), was founded in 1975 to counteract this trend. In 1979, SPAR successfully led a campaign to down-zone Springfield, which became the first neighborhood in Jacksonville to change most its commercial zoning back to residential. Other organizations, such as the Greater Springfield Business Association and Springfield Neighborhood Housing Services, have greatly contributed to efforts to restore this once proud neighborhood. In 1987, Springfield was listed in the National Register of Historic Places as Jacksonville's second Historic District. With thousands of vintage houses, proximity to Downtown, and recent escalation of property values, Springfield is destined to re-emerge as one of Jacksonville's successful residential neighborhoods.
Quote from: sheclown on November 04, 2009, 06:50:39 AM
Springfield declined as all inner city neighborhoods declined.
There wasn't this beautiful neighborhood and then all of a sudden car lots opened and it went to hell. Violent social upheavals ran residents out, not car lots.
Main Street needs revitalization now. It needs life. It needs businesses. The new businesses which want to risk opening in this economy need to be encouraged by the neighborhood or we will continue to be a ghost town down Main.
Not out of context. Just backing up my earlier stance after Sheclown disagreed. I claimed commercial zoning intrusion as the early reason for decline, she claimed violent social upheavals. Crime and blight move into an area after it declines.
And the carwash is not along one of the MAIN COMMERCIAL ARTERIES as you quoted but a residential side street. Out of context?
QuoteAnd the carwash is not along one of the MAIN COMMERCIAL ARTERIES...
The car wash is off Main Street. Just because the entrance is off 4th does not mean its not along the Main Street commercial corridor, which is literally everything between the alleys on either side of Main.
Right, NOT on Main St. Guess we will just have to disagree on whether W. 4th Street is a MAIN COMMERCIAL ARTERY or not. There is a whole other RE parcel between the carwash and Main St. This may be part of the confusion.
Everything between the alleys immediately paralleling Main, is a part of the Main Street commercial district. When I get some extra time, I'll post a zoning and land use map to visually explain what I'm taking about.
so, let me get this straight, if the guy wanted to come in open a convenience store that sells nothing but singles, cigarettes, rolling papers and condoms there would be nothing anyone could do? seriously, i am just asking.
I understand the zoning but 4th. St. and Main St. are two characteristically different locations. You can't say that 4th St. is comparable to Main St. in size, traffic or surrounding uses.
Quote from: cindi on November 04, 2009, 01:18:25 PM
so, let me get this straight, if the guy wanted to come in open a convenience store that sells nothing but singles, cigarettes, rolling papers and condoms there would be nothing anyone could do? seriously, i am just asking.
YES.
Quote from: Springfield Girl on November 04, 2009, 01:21:03 PM
I understand the zoning but 4th. St. and Main St. are two characteristically different locations. You can't say that 4th St. is comparable to Main St. in size, traffic or surrounding uses.
Its no different than 3rd & Main having a driveway to 3rd, Chan's to 5th or Hola to Phelps. In fact its pretty common all the way down Main Street that commercial properties have access drives to side streets between the alleys. As Main develops more will come. You can't have a walkable urban Main Street if all the access driveways are on Main.
so, would it be better to have a convenience store that sold nothing but the singles etc or what he is planning? if nothing else i would think the car wash would generate less litter.
Quote from: thelakelander on November 04, 2009, 01:23:50 PM
Quote from: cindi on November 04, 2009, 01:18:25 PM
so, let me get this straight, if the guy wanted to come in open a convenience store that sells nothing but singles, cigarettes, rolling papers and condoms there would be nothing anyone could do? seriously, i am just asking.
YES.
He doesn't even want to do a convenience store, he'd rather just have a full service car wash...
Thanks for posting that Matt. I had also heard that bit of info, its good to see that Silas is not acting without the owners permission.
QuoteBtw, the same could go for Uptown Market. If things don't work out, what stops them from changing their commercial model to something that's already allowed by the zoning, that will lead to more profitability? Why wasn't the same concern addressed with them?
Why wasn't the same concern addressed with Gallery Restaurant Group? That's is an easy one, Lake...
Gallery Restaurant Group is a proven commodity. They know how to launch and run a successful restaurant that has had careful planning and thought put into the target audience, the product mix, the merchandising (environment), the operations, etc. Burrito Gallery downtown and the concession they have in the stadium (forget the name) are the proof they know what they are doing, and that they will do what they say. It also doesn't hurt that two of the owners are otherwise invested as residents of this community.
Not saying I'm for or against at this point. Just wondering why no one has been able to come up with the locations or details on the "other car washes" that Mr. Jones claimed to own and operate? Will that information become available before Nov 12 hearing?
Anyone know who the contractor is renovating/building the car wash? I am looking to renovate one on NAS Jax and add a touch-free, and hopefully have it LEED certified. Please email...
Or if anyone knows of someone who is experienced...
Thanks...
Phil Collins
As a matter of fact I do, but as I stated before, they are NOYFB.
Quote from: FinnegansWake on November 04, 2009, 04:04:43 PM
Anyone know who the contractor is renovating/building the car wash? I am looking to renovate one on NAS Jax and add a touch-free, and hopefully have it LEED certified. Please email...
Or if anyone knows of someone who is experienced...
Thanks...
Phil Collins
Hey Phil, I think Johnny looked into it as a potential venture not oh so long ago. He may still have some of that info for you.
Best of luck,
The other Phil
Zoo asked:
"Just wondering why no one has been able to come up with the locations or details on the "other car washes" that Mr. Jones claimed to own and operate? Will that information become available before Nov 12 hearing?"
- per Matt McVay, they are no longer in business. He knows the old locations of both though.
Quote from: zoo on November 04, 2009, 04:00:01 PM
QuoteBtw, the same could go for Uptown Market. If things don't work out, what stops them from changing their commercial model to something that's already allowed by the zoning, that will lead to more profitability? Why wasn't the same concern addressed with them?
Why wasn't the same concern addressed with Gallery Restaurant Group? That's is an easy one, Lake...
Gallery Restaurant Group is a proven commodity.
Coca Cola has been successful for over a century but they bombed on Clear Coke. Gallery has proven that they know how to run a burrito restaurant, but Uptown Market is a different product in a different environment (I'm not against them, just using them as an example).
Anyway, you can subsitute exhibit A with B,C,D and more. How about Three Layers, 9th & Main (the early years), Fusion or City kidz? The examples are interchangable but the underlying zoning realities (that are really at the heart of this discussion) remain the same.
QuoteJust wondering why no one has been able to come up with the locations or details on the "other car washes" that Mr. Jones claimed to own and operate? Will that information become available before Nov 12 hearing?
I figured this info would come from those he presented in front of, assuming that this would be a natural question to pop up if his presentation included him claiming he had other properties. Anyone have any info on this?
I just posted it above.
Both of them have closed, Matt McVay has the old locations.
The old location on Lem Turner has closed and is no longer there. The other one was near Beach and St Johns Bluff, he sold it and it is still in operation.
The petition is only for residents of Springfield? How about property owners?
Quote from: jason_contentdg on November 04, 2009, 04:38:09 PM
The old location on Lem Turner has closed and is no longer there. The other one was near Beach and St Johns Bluff, he sold it and it is still in operation.
http://diamondcarwash.net/index.htm (http://diamondcarwash.net/index.htm)
I believe this is the one on Beach. Can anyone confirm? I used it a few times several years ago (I think around early '05). Not sure who owned it at the time. The 'convenience store' in it only sold car related merchandise such as waxes, air fresheners, etc. Might have had sodas and snacks for customers while they waited, I can't remember.
I remember the interior being clean and inviting (not in a Three Layers kind of way but worlds better than the Shell, BP experience).
The "Dancy Terrace Show" of 2009.
Competing petitions and fear.
I've got parking spots for the show. $20/car...$40/SmartCar (just because)...free to bikes and motorcycles.
I think a very very quiet, well designed, LEED certified, historically accurate, topless car wash would be the fix. Boobs and beefcake always bring the peeps together. yes?
If you are for the approval of the car wash it is imperative to show your support at the council meeting on the 12th at 1pm.
Based on the information Silas shared with us today, and what he has submitted so far, the planning department is passing on a report to council to deny the exception. It may be possible to post the actual report soon.
We are working with Silas to show renderings of what and how the car wash will actually work. I think it will help explain what Silas is trying to accomplish with this piece of property. He is spending the majority of his money on site improvements (he has already paid for and installed the automated equipment), and will paint and fix up the building to a point that he can afford.
We will post some images as they are finished in the coming days.
Thanks...
this would be a good topic to bring up this evening at the community meeting...
Unfortunately Greg and I have to be at the Emerging Design Professional's Urban Facelift Project competition kickoff, but hopefully the topic can be brought up for discussion at the meeting.
I wish we had images to share for the meeting, but we we've just begun the process.
isn't that at Walkers?
It will be at the Sinclair.
If it were on Main Street noone would have a problem with it.
Quote from: fsu813 on November 06, 2009, 11:37:52 AM
If it were on Main Street noone would have a problem with it.
really?? and under whose authority do you have to speak for all of springfield? last time i checked, i do live in springfield and no one has asked my permission to speak for me.
Quote from: fsu813 on November 06, 2009, 11:37:52 AM
If it were on Main Street noone would have a problem with it.
Up and down main street, commercial goes back to at least the alleyways on each side. The curb cuts leading to the mixed use third and main development are the same distance off of 3rd street as these would be on 4th street.
I agree with Jason and have stated the same position earlier in this thread. If the only public street that abuts the property is 4th, its also against the law to deny it access.
When is the meeting? Will there be an opportunity to speak for the car wash?
where?
I can't see why anyone would have had a problem with this place to begin with.
Especially after the Lem Turner carwash closed down, how long do you have to drive to get the car washed if you live in Springfield? I guess there are a few of those places on Main where it's all hand-washed, but those are really more like detail shops and it takes an hour and a half, so it's not real practical on an ongoing basis.
The closest real carwashes I know of are way down by Roosevelt Mall, or on Beach Boulevard. Who wants to drive 30 minutes each way to get the car washed? You'd think people would be lining up to support this thing...
I do lean toward supporting it, sure. And I hope it's a positive and successful venture (in that order).
Cindi, yes, if it were on Main & not 4th then noone would have a problem with it. call me psychic i guess.
If this is how people really feel, they can go ahead and give up on the dream of Main becoming a walkable vibrant commercial corridor. For infill development to overcome all the existing negativity and be walkable, access to parking from side streets are a must.
Walkable (parking behind buildings and accessible from side streets like 4th)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/560652180_kYJ7U-M.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/575311292_vg2vJ-M.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/575311241_FxDTc-M.jpg)
My guess is that the 4th Street thing is a cop out. If it were a Panera Bread, facing Main with the parking lot behind the building, meaning direct access to 4th, no one would have a problem behind. The proof.....3rd and Main. I don't remember there being a huge outcry of negativity around a project three times the density and size, with a drive directly to 3rd Street. If the thing faced Main, people would still complain.
Anyway, I have a copy of the report. The planning department is listening to those who don't want it and recommending denial. I'll try and post it later today.
Quote from: thelakelander on November 08, 2009, 12:41:00 PM
Anyway, I have a copy of the report. The planning department is listening to those who don't want it and recommending denial. I'll try and post it later today.
That's a complete shame. Springfield is going to develop a nasty reputation for making it as hard as possible to open a new business. I guess people must enjoy all their empty buildings and having to drive forever to get to a carwash, grocery store, etc.
It already has, which is a shame. There's a reason revitalization has been so long and it has to do with more than just road construction. My take is everyone wants to see change, but most have no idea of what change is and how it naturally evolves.
So far, this is the difference to the site just in new landscaping and sidewalks, obviously there is a ton left to do, but this should give an idea of the improvements to the lot shown on the prepared site plan.
Currently:
(http://i854.photobucket.com/albums/ab107/contentdg/4th_street.jpg)
Proposed:
(http://i854.photobucket.com/albums/ab107/contentdg/4th_street_landscape.jpg)
Quote from: stephendare on November 08, 2009, 02:08:17 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on November 08, 2009, 01:21:03 PM
It already has, which is a shame. There's a reason revitalization has been so long and it has to do with more than just road construction. My take is everyone wants to see change, but most have no idea of what change is and how it naturally evolves.
Its a shame but its true. Whats really tragic is that this handful of people that has poisoned the groundwater truly doesnt represent anyone in the neigborhood except for their own overgrown egos and the sense of entitlement of under 100 people.
The rest of the neighborhood craves a great little commercial district and is appalled at the shenanigans of the SPAR group.
I think that is a false misrepresentation. The neighbors who live behind the carwash oppose it and they aren't involved in any neighborhood organizations or politics.
Lake, I didn't see any carwashes in the pictures you posted of great walkable neighborhoods.
Jason, The drawing you have done is great but how can we guarantee that the owner will use the plan and incorporate your ideas?
I am curious as to what the proponents will say if the carwash is approved and becomes a negative factor for the neighborhood? I have been in this position in the past of believing and supporting the positive plans an owner proposed only to see none of them come to fruition and become a negative instead of a positive. I felt very betrayed and base a lot of my cynicism on past experiences.
Jason, I have a couple more questions. It looks like you guys have placed some kind of wall around the site. Is that a proposed concrete wall or just a wood privacy fence? It seems to obscure the building from view which might be good for neighbors but also from potential customers. I wouldn't think the owner would accept cutting off visability to his business. Have you guys addressed signage with Mr. Jones? There is the very large structure that I assume was a sign post at one time still standing at the E. side of the carwash. There is unattractive signage on the building N. of the carwash that Mr. Jones placed there last time he tried to open. Just curious because the past actions and condition of the site are the only things we have to go on other than what he is now saying he will do if he gets approval.
Quote from: Springfield Girl on November 08, 2009, 03:19:19 PM
Quote from: stephendare on November 08, 2009, 02:08:17 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on November 08, 2009, 01:21:03 PM
It already has, which is a shame. There's a reason revitalization has been so long and it has to do with more than just road construction. My take is everyone wants to see change, but most have no idea of what change is and how it naturally evolves.
Its a shame but its true. Whats really tragic is that this handful of people that has poisoned the groundwater truly doesnt represent anyone in the neigborhood except for their own overgrown egos and the sense of entitlement of under 100 people.
The rest of the neighborhood craves a great little commercial district and is appalled at the shenanigans of the SPAR group.
I think that is a false misrepresentation. The neighbors who live behind the carwash oppose it and they aren't involved in any neighborhood organizations or politics.
Lake, I didn't see any carwashes in the pictures you posted of great walkable neighborhoods.
Jason, The drawing you have done is great but how can we guarantee that the owner will use the plan and incorporate your ideas?
He's got to go through the COA process, and he has to get the site plan approved. He has also, if approved, have construction documents for permit. Once the finalized plans are finished the final floor plan and elevations would have to go back to Historic Preservation staff for final approval. Once the site plan is through 10 set review and approved, it has to be constructed per the documents.
Quote from: Springfield Girl on November 08, 2009, 03:34:16 PM
Jason, I have a couple more questions. Have you guys addressed signage with Mr. Jones? There is the very large structure that I assume was a sign post at one time still standing at the E. side of the carwash. There is unattractive signage on the building N. of the carwash that Mr. Jones placed there last time he tried to open. Just curious because the past actions and condition of the site are the only things we have to go on other than what he is now saying he will do if he gets approval.
We'll specify nice, approved signage for the renderings. It's going to fall on the city to a point, making sure he follows ordinances.
Thanks Jason. I had these questions because in the past Mr. Jones did not have plans, he did not get a COA or approval for signage or anything else. He just opened up. He was shut down the second day after neighbors complained.
^As he should have. I think everyone should go through the process.
I do think there's quite a bit of room for improvement regarding the process, however.
Quote from: stephendare on November 08, 2009, 03:35:39 PM
You think its a misrepresentation that revitalization has taken so long? Even though all of the business people who have opened and closed in the neighborhood are all saying the same thing? And there are now fewer businesses than at any other time in the history of the neighborhood?
Well awesome.
No, I think it was a misrepresentation that a handful of people have poisoned the groundwater and caused revitalization to stall. The businesses that have gone under did not do so because a handful of people didn't support them. If a business offers a good or service that people want they will succeed as has been proven by Hola, The Pearl, Three Layers, The Cellar, Shantytown and Wafaa and Mike's to name a few. Many of the businesses that shut down did so because of owners lack of finances or business knowledge. I'm tired of hearing everthing and everyone being blamed for the failure of businesses except the business owners. As far as new businesses being denied I can't think of many. In the few cases I can think of, different neighboring residents have opposed uses close to them, which is their right. I would never try to tell anyone that they should accept a use next to them that they find undesirable.
Quote from: jason_contentdg on November 08, 2009, 03:54:03 PM
^As he should have. I think everyone should go through the process.
I do think there's quite a bit of room for improvement regarding the process, however.
I can agree that there is room for improvement but ignoring the process completely is not my idea of improvement.
Quote from: Springfield Girl on November 08, 2009, 03:19:19 PM
Lake, I didn't see any carwashes in the pictures you posted of great walkable neighborhoods.
Jason, The drawing you have done is great but how can we guarantee that the owner will use the plan and incorporate your ideas?
Don't tempt me, because you know I can find more than one. I can even provide you with a couple examples of walkable gas stations. Anyway, the images aren't about car washes. They are about urban design and a response to the claim that people would be more in favor of the project if it had direct access to Main instead of 4th. That's baloney.
Lake, I would like to see the images (and that isn't temptation, just a request). At one time, I lived in a very walkable community that had a few car washes like the earlier pics you posted. I have to tell you that I didn't live right next to them, so from a noise perspective, they didn't bother me. And the stores attached to them sold greeting cards, air fresheners, travel mugs, floor mats and periodicals. The people spent money inside, then sat outside waiting for their cars. The people sitting outside did give a it feeling not unlike the porch in front of 3rd & Main. The cars lined up all over the place drying and waiting to be driven off gave it a feeling not unlike United Cars b/w 2nd & 3rd. Again, not saying I'm for or against, just describing what I've seen before.
QuoteThe businesses that have gone under did not do so because a handful of people didn't support them. If a business offers a good or service that people want they will succeed as has been proven by Hola, The Pearl, Three Layers, The Cellar, Shantytown and Wafaa and Mike's to name a few. Many of the businesses that shut down did so because of owners lack of finances or business knowledge. I'm tired of hearing everthing and everyone being blamed for the failure of businesses except the business owners. As far as new businesses being denied I can't think of many. In the few cases I can think of, different neighboring residents have opposed uses close to them, which is their right. I would never try to tell anyone that they should accept a use next to them that they find undesirable.
Ditto.
Sure.
Here are a few examples of car washes in urban settings.
Palm Springs(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_WnCJlq_kUA8/SExUjaqxChI/AAAAAAAAJ_U/7UxYN7BVmb0/s320/Palm_Springs_Desert_Car-Wash-old-fashioned-seats.jpg)
http://rickrockhill.blogspot.com/2008_06_01_archive.html
Alhambra Car Wash-Los Angeles(http://modernretrowoman.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/carwash-300x225.jpg)
http://modernretrowoman.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/carwash-300x225.jpg
NYC(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/32/66012461_c24867561f.jpg?v=0)
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/32/66012461_c24867561f.jpg?v=0
MiamiThis bistro is located at a car wash complex in Miami
(http://www.newyorksocialdiary.com/i/partypictures/07_06_09/clemmer/NYSDbistro.jpg)
Then here is an interesting set up
(http://www.moderncarcare.com/articles/images/i541a21.jpg)
QuoteCarwashes find success with specialty coffee drive-throughs
In the July 2002 issue, Modern Car Care featured Tacoma, Wash. carwash owners John and Diane Simchuk, the owners of Sprague Avenue Carwash.
The Simchuks location was unique because of a drive-through espresso business at the self-serve carwash.
Sprague Avenue Carwash is located in the greater Seattle area, the international Mecca for specialty coffee. That’s why making a sizeable investment by entering into the specialty coffee business seemed like a natural profit center addition to the Simchuks.
full article: http://www.moderncarcare.com/Articles/541feat4.html
All of these examples come from a quick google search on car washes. I'm sure if I actually put some time into it, I could come up with a lot more.
First, I must say, I have no pity for anyone who moves next to a commercial property (its been a car wash since 1955) and then complains about traffic, noise or a commercial use going in on the site. I put them in the same category as those who move next to airport runways and then complain about jet noise and traffic. Does anyone do Due Diligence these days when making a real estate investment?
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.
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.
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.
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. All I can say is, its unfortunate. Not only to the owner, but also those who really want to see a vibrant commercial district bloom.
Quote from: zoo on November 08, 2009, 04:27:02 PM
At one time, I lived in a very walkable community that had a few car washes like the earlier pics you posted. I have to tell you that I didn't live right next to them, so from a noise perspective, they didn't bother me. And the stores attached to them sold greeting cards, air fresheners, travel mugs, floor mats and periodicals. The people spent money inside, then sat outside waiting for their cars. The people sitting outside did give a it feeling not unlike the porch in front of 3rd & Main. The cars lined up all over the place drying and waiting to be driven off gave it a feeling not unlike United Cars b/w 2nd & 3rd. Again, not saying I'm for or against, just describing what I've seen before.
Going back to relating a car wash to a walkable or vibrant commercial district.
How would you know the people using that car wash did not patronize a nearby business before or after their stop at those car washes? How would you know if they were/or not exposed to something in those districts because of using those car washes?
Over the years, I've used car washes quite frequently at times. As a user, I have stopped and purchased things from nearby businesses either on my trip to or from those facilities. After a hot day of washing a car or two, I've also stopped to eat at places in the immediate area. On those days and trips, if it were not for the car wash pulling me into those neighborhoods, my money would have went somewhere else. I would not imagine Springfield being any different.
Anyway, I believe, through creativity and design, a facility could be put into place that would be better than the current situation. Really, when you think about it, it can't get any worse than the current situation.
Looking at the proposed site plan, cars would park on the sides of the facility. The United Auto example would go away through good landscaping and buffering. That leaves the front. A nice seating area would give you the 3rd & Main effect. That's the part that would be seen from immediate public view.
correct me if i am wrong, if mr. jones is denied the exception for the car wash with small store that would NOT sell singles (etc) he could, without exception or blessing open up a convenience store immediately and sell singles and all the wonderful wares of many of our existing finer convenience stores. if he does that instead, you may very well find yourself wishing you actually were living inside the car wash.
we know what an overgrown empty abandoned lot looks like driving down main street, how many people stop for those? even if the car wash generated only a couple of customers a day, that is the potential for a couple more that isn't there now.
ok, so car washes are a long way from Saks, but it's more that what is there now. FYI, in Sarasota there is a CarWash that actually shares a parking lot with Saks (the CarWash was there first) and both seem to do just fine.
Has anyone contacted Dr. Gaffney and asked him to speak up for the Car Wash?
Quote from: cindi on November 08, 2009, 06:44:24 PM
correct me if i am wrong, if mr. jones is denied the exception for the car wash with small store that would NOT sell singles (etc) he could, without exception or blessing open up a convenience store immediately and sell singles and all the wonderful wares of many of our existing finer convenience stores. if he does that instead, you may very well find yourself wishing you actually were living inside the car wash.
Yes, under the existing zoning overlay out of spite he could open a real convenience store instead of a car wash with a car accessory retail store.
Quote from: cindi on November 08, 2009, 06:44:24 PM
FYI, in Sarasota there is a CarWash that actually shares a parking lot with Saks (the CarWash was there first) and both seem to do just fine.
oh yeah, corner of 41 and Bee Ridge, Johnny's car wash has been there forever and you know just down the road is one of the best BBQ joints around, The Oaks Open Pit, that place serves up some fine eats.
Good question. I don't think the exact era has really been defined. Even if you narrow it down to pre-1930s, the Springfield of the 1920s was a completely different place and atmosphere than the Springfield of the 1910s or 1880s.
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.
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? 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.
He would be able to afford to do the renovation/addition if he sold the $500k worth of equipment, which if the neighborhood blocks it, he may do it out of spite. Heck, he wouldn't even have to make it pretty to do something like that, probably $10k, it could be open bays with cigarettes, malt liquor & lotto being the hot items. Add in some food products that create lots of litter & cater to those that loiter as much as possible.
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.
Quote from: Springfield Girl on November 08, 2009, 10:35:02 PM
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.
Quote from: Springfield Girl on November 08, 2009, 10:35:02 PM
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?
Quote from: Springfield Girl on November 08, 2009, 10:35:02 PM
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.
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.
(http://a323.yahoofs.com/localcontent/9653/808509640_480x360_wide.jpg?lc_____DclZ6DSYx)
Nice example. Sure beats abandoned blight and an increasingly bad reputation as a place to open a new business.
Quote from: Springfield Girl on November 08, 2009, 10:16:58 PM
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?
QuoteMatt, 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.
QuoteCindi, 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.
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.
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.
Quote from: fsu813 on November 09, 2009, 07:21:16 AM
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.
QuoteWhat 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.
QuoteMain 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.
QuoteFor 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.
QuoteHowever, 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.
Quotethe 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.
Quote from: fsu813 on November 09, 2009, 07:21:16 AM
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.
Quote from: zoo on November 09, 2009, 07:39:36 AM
QuoteWhat 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.
QuoteQuoteMain 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.
QuoteQuoteFor 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.
QuoteQuoteHowever, 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.
Quotethe 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.
QuoteI'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.
QuoteAnd 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.
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...
Quote(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.
(8) 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.
Quote(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.
Quote from: Matt M on November 09, 2009, 08:02:28 AM
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!
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.
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.
Quote from: Karl_Pilkington on November 09, 2009, 09:29:16 AM
Quote from: Matt M on November 09, 2009, 08:02:28 AM
Is anyone aware of any possible businesses that may have an interest (immediate or future) in opening near 4th and Main?
Sounds great but will they have to access the site from 4th Street? ;)
just joking for those who don't get it.
Quote from: Dan B on November 09, 2009, 09:43:01 AM
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.
That's unfortunate and hopefully, this experience will be used as a learning lesson for the future. If the same thing happened with Cesery's project, we would have no 3rd & Main, City Kidz or Uptown Market. Instead, it would be a vacant site like 4th & Main is today.
I live in a nationally-designated Historic District, and am a fan of the neighborhood's traditional design and its architecture. Imho, Preservation, and support of the Overlay, will always be my default position. I say "default" b/c my opinion is sway-able, depending on how I personally weight the potential affect of any position, applicant or change to the community. As a resident, I can, and do form these opinions myself, and expect other residents to have the right to do the same (again, that is the reason for "permissible uses by exception" correct?) I also don't expect everyone to agree, and hope those who end up on the "losing" or "winning" sides of this issue (I'm not on either, as I'm still on the fence) can accept the outcome without a slinging-fest afterward.
QuoteAs a resident, I can, and do form these opinions myself, and expect other residents to have the right to do the same (again, that is the reason for "permissible uses by exception" correct?) I also don't expect everyone to agree, and hope those who end up on the "losing" or "winning" sides of this issue (I'm not on either, as I'm still on the fence) can accept the outcome without a slinging-fest afterward.
I agree 100%!
Good luck with that zoo... the one thing I've learned from living here over the years is that the drama llama is alive & well in this hood... like it or not. Regardless of what happens, we will see bitching and moaning, someone will become an outcast and stones will be thrown.
SW.
Quote from: thelakelander on November 09, 2009, 08:46:42 AM
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/
I'm at a loss for words. *sigh*
It's just the same self-interested and backstabbing people engaging in the same underhanded B.S. And since they won't hold elections, nobody can do anything about it. This "Revitalization" group is strangling the neighborhood and keeping it in the stone age with all these petty backstabbing wars against its own neighbors.
"Maybe doing something positive instead of announcing who needs to walk the plank, who isnt welcome, and who is responsible for the downfall of civilization would be a better use of time?"
- yet you did / continue to do the exact same thing you chatsize Zoo for. you've gorged on irony.
Quote from: fsu813 on November 09, 2009, 12:41:39 PM
"Maybe doing something positive instead of announcing who needs to walk the plank, who isnt welcome, and who is responsible for the downfall of civilization would be a better use of time?"
- yet you did / continue to do the exact same thing you chatsize Zoo for. you've gorged on irony.
WTF is anyone supposed to do, exactly?
These are the same people who won't hold elections, and who couldn't possibly care less what anyone thinks of their B.S., so what exactly would you suggest?
About the only thing I can think of for a solution is that a SPAR member who is willing to stand up would have standing to file suit to enforce the corporate bylaws and force them to hold elections. It has to be a member or the organization. So who's going to step up?
Why dont you join, and file suit. You seem to be itching to sue SPAR.
Quote from: Dan B on November 09, 2009, 05:51:00 PM
Why dont you join, and file suit. You seem to be itching to sue SPAR.
I'm not a SPAR member (by choice). I lack standing.
It needs to be a member of the group who would have voting rights in the elections, if they were ever actually held.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on November 09, 2009, 05:52:45 PM
Quote from: Dan B on November 09, 2009, 05:51:00 PM
Why dont you join, and file suit. You seem to be itching to sue SPAR.
I'm not a SPAR member (by choice). I lack standing.
It needs to be a member of the group who would have voting rights in the elections, if they were ever actually held.
i am not quite sure why someone that is not a member of an organization / group / neighborhood should care what those members do within that group, since any of it's actions/lack of actions should not effect them at all.
Quote from: cindi on November 09, 2009, 06:04:17 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on November 09, 2009, 05:52:45 PM
Quote from: Dan B on November 09, 2009, 05:51:00 PM
Why dont you join, and file suit. You seem to be itching to sue SPAR.
I'm not a SPAR member (by choice). I lack standing.
It needs to be a member of the group who would have voting rights in the elections, if they were ever actually held.
i am not quite sure why someone that is not a member of an organization / group / neighborhood should care what those members do within that group, since any of it's actions/lack of actions should not effect them at all.
Cindi, that doesn't even make sense. SPAR's actions affect everyone, not just their own membership.
I guess I have to be a member of Congress then, before I'm allowed to dislike anything they do, according to your logic?
exactly how does spar's actions affect someone that does not live in or own a business in springfield?
Quote from: cindi on November 09, 2009, 06:09:51 PM
exactly how does spar's actions affect someone that does not live in or own a business in springfield?
1: Their actions negatively affect multiple people I know, who live their or have/had businesses there.
2: They've negatively affected my own businesses with their call-in campaigns. I guess apartments aren't what you'd call a traditional "business", but nevertheless the effect was real.
3: I dislike their gestapo tactics as a matter of principle (Wait, since I wasn't a member of the Nazi party, I must not be allowed to say that, according to you? Because if I'm not a Nazi, I can't dislike Nazis...that's your logic...
Do you have any proof of a calling campaign being used against you?
I have lived here for 6+ years, 4+ of that as a member, and never been asked to call anything in by SPAR.
Quote from: Dan B on November 09, 2009, 06:16:25 PM
Do you have any proof of a calling campaign being used against you?
I have lived here for 6+ years, 4+ of that as a member, and never been asked to call anything in by SPAR.
No proof other than anecdotal. But then you don't really need a rocket scientist to figure out what happened when a place would be fine for years and all of a sudden COJ would get an avalanche of code complaints out of the blue, when nothing changed at the property. I'm not sure what proof I could have, since the whole complaint system is designed so that you never know who's complaining about you. And I guess you should re-read some of J & G's evidence, where SPAR got busted red-handed doing this.
Actually, you can you do a public records request for all of the care requests ever submitted for a property. I had to do it one time.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on November 09, 2009, 06:14:28 PM
Quote from: cindi on November 09, 2009, 06:09:51 PM
exactly how does spar's actions affect someone that does not live in or own a business in springfield?
1: Their actions negatively affect multiple people I know, who live their or have/had businesses there.
2: They've negatively affected my own businesses with their call-in campaigns. I guess apartments aren't what you'd call a traditional "business", but nevertheless the effect was real.
3: I dislike their gestapo tactics as a matter of principle (Wait, since I wasn't a member of the Nazi party, I must not be allowed to say that, according to you? Because if I'm not a Nazi, I can't dislike Nazis...that's your logic...
again, are you always so dramatic? you can not like nazi's or whatever, i simply asked you a question.
yes, apartments are "businesses".
if you don't like something to the degree of dislike that you appear to have for SPAR, suck it up, pay the dues and sue them or overthrow them. really, it is pretty much that simple - no rocket science required.
I posted this before, many properties sat for years without complaints because no one was there to complain except boarding house tenents, crack dealers/users, slumlords etc. and they couldn't care less if a property was a nuisance. As decent people started moving in they had concerns about properties surrounding them and started reporting issues. The lowlife investor behind me kept calling on my property because he was being hassled and wanted everyone to feel his pain. I had no problem inviting everyone and their boss onto and inside my property to see that everything was as it was supposed to be. The city people all apologized and commented on what a nice job we were doing. No harm, no foul. It doesn't matter who was reporting you. If you were doing what you were supposed to be doing you wouldn't have caught any grief.
Quote from: Dan B on November 09, 2009, 09:43:01 AM
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.
This is why I do not like some on the SPAR Council…..they do not know the codes, they do not know the overlay or worse, know them and chose to ignore them anyway and yet they claim to represent me as well as all others who live or own property or businesses in Historic Springfield. Very, very sad….
Just because something has been labeled a use permissible only by exception does not automatically mean that it is bad. It simply means that it could have a negative impact on the community so they want some knowledgeable input before they determine whether to grant the exemption or not. The fact they (the writers of the overlay) decided that a car wash is allowed by exemption does not mean that it is against the overlay but simply needs to be viewed and judged on it’s own merits.
No one should be trying to evoke the automotive uses part of the overlay either. For one, car washes are not specifically listed and two, …really read it sometime and see for yourself…it was not particularly well addressed…
This car wash and attached store will go a long way to getting Main Street active again. It is a historic use (it first opened 54 years ago) and it is a use that everyone who owns a car could utilize. It generates traffic that matters (spend-able dollars in hand), it promotes increased revenue for surrounding businesses and it puts to use an otherwise abandoned lot. All pretty worthwhile things and all very needed if Springfield is to move forward
Quote from: Dan B on November 09, 2009, 06:30:42 PM
Actually, you can you do a public records request for all of the care requests ever submitted for a property. I had to do it one time.
So demonstrate where it shows the name and contact information of the party submitting the complaints?
Oh yeah...that's right...it DOESN'T.
Actually, most of them require names and addresses. Not saying someone couldnt fake it, but most of the people I know dont, unless they have reason to fear for their safety.
Also, last time I checked, you cant open more than one care request at an address, at a time.
But dont worry, I get it. Its much easier to be mad at someone else for your problems.
Quote from: strider on November 09, 2009, 06:55:56 PM
This car wash and attached store will go a long way to getting Main Street active again. It is a historic use (it first opened 54 years ago) and it is a use that everyone who owns a car could utilize. It generates traffic that matters (spend-able dollars in hand), it promotes increased revenue for surrounding businesses and it puts to use an otherwise abandoned lot. All pretty worthwhile things and all very needed if Springfield is to move forward
I have to agree with this. And I would use the car wash, as long as it gets the dirt off the car.
Quote from: Dan B on November 09, 2009, 09:14:26 PM
Actually, most of them require names and addresses. Not saying someone couldnt fake it, but most of the people I know dont, unless they have reason to fear for their safety.
Also, last time I checked, you cant open more than one care request at an address, at a time.
But dont worry, I get it. Its much easier to be mad at someone else for your problems.
Total B.S. as usual Dan.
The C.A.R.E. system doesn't even give you a place to put your name, let alone any verification that it's the correct one. In fact the entire process is literally titled "Anonymous Complaint".
Try it for yourself;
http://www.jaxremodelers.com/index.php?option=com_wrapper&view=wrapper&Itemid=92
next time try the coj website instead. www.ecare.coj.net
REQUEST SERVICE / REGISTER A COMPLAINT - Contact Information
First Name:
* Last Name:
*
Address: Same as Issue Location*
City:*
State:
AL AK AS AZ AR CA CO CT DE DC FM FL GA GU HI ID IL IN IA KS KY LA ME MH MD MA MI MN MS MO MT NE NV NH NJ NM NY NC ND MP OH OK OR PW PA PR RI SC SD TN TX UT VT VI VA WA WV WI WY Zip:*
Telephone:**
( ) Ext. Home Work Cell Pager Email:
*
On Issue Completion, Notify By: Mail Phone Email
Do Not Notify
it doesn't copy and paste real nice but i think the jest of it is there. it is not a mandatory field, but it is there. "try it for yourself"
fyi Dan, i had to fill out a CARE request on something so hope you don't mind, you and the missus are now reported for not using the "approved" toilet paper.
Actually,in fairness, Historic District code enforcement doesn't require name or address (though, the fields are there), so there is a level of anonymity there if one wanted it, but most of the other CARE requests do require it.
Still, my point stands. A property with no problems, gets no care requests or complaints. I have been here since 2003, and have never gotten cited for property violations. I have owned rental property, and never been cited there either.
Thanks Cindi. We use two ply, which I hear is now the enemy of tree huggers everywhere, so we probably deserved it :-D
Quote from: cindi on November 09, 2009, 09:39:54 PM
next time try the coj website instead. www.ecare.coj.net
REQUEST SERVICE / REGISTER A COMPLAINT - Contact Information
First Name:
* Last Name:
*
Address: Same as Issue Location*
City:*
State:
AL AK AS AZ AR CA CO CT DE DC FM FL GA GU HI ID IL IN IA KS KY LA ME MH MD MA MI MN MS MO MT NE NV NH NJ NM NY NC ND MP OH OK OR PW PA PR RI SC SD TN TX UT VT VI VA WA WV WI WY Zip:*
Telephone:**
( ) Ext. Home Work Cell Pager Email:
*
On Issue Completion, Notify By: Mail Phone Email
Do Not Notify
it doesn't copy and paste real nice but i think the jest of it is there. it is not a mandatory field, but it is there. "try it for yourself"
fyi Dan, i had to fill out a CARE request on something so hope you don't mind, you and the missus are now reported for not using the "approved" toilet paper.
Cindi, go to the COJ website and under the "Services" dropdown menu go to "Code Enforcement" and click the "Online Request" option. They direct you to that same form I posted for Dan, and there isn't even an option to put your name in, let alone any process to verify that the name is correct, etc. I think most people use the link I provided, since that's what COJ's Code Enforcement Division provides a link to on their own website.
As to jumping through hoops to put a name on it, let's be honest, 99.9% of these complaints are likely anonymous. Nobody wants to attach their name to a form dropping a dime on their neighbors.
Quote from: Dan B on November 09, 2009, 09:48:07 PM
Actually,in fairness, Historic District code enforcement doesn't require name or address (though, the fields are there), so there is a level of anonymity there if one wanted it, but most of the other CARE requests do require it.
Still, my point stands. A property with no problems, gets no care requests or complaints. I have been here since 2003, and have never gotten cited for property violations. I have owned rental property, and never been cited there either.
Thanks Cindi. We use two ply, which I hear is now the enemy of tree huggers everywhere, so we probably deserved it :-D
Haha, Charmin Ultra 3-ply all the way here. Let's waste some trees...
As to the code thing, come on Dan, nobody puts their names on these things. Who's going to want their name attached to a form that's sent in to drop the dime on their neighbors? Nobody'll do that! I bet all of these things, or damned near all of them, are sent in anonymously. And the system is set up to make that possible.
Well, thats where you and I differ. I always put my name on my care requests.
sorry, i must have the super special keyboard - followed your instructions and came to the exact same spot i posted. can't help it if someone puts in a name or not. the option is there. i always laugh when i see them drive by an absolutely god aweful property to cite someone for leaving their garbage cans out more than 24 hours.
QuoteStill, my point stands. A property with no problems, gets no care requests or complaints. I have been here since 2003, and have never gotten cited for property violations. I have owned rental property, and never been cited there either.
Dan, look out as you have been posting a little against some of those in charge over at SPAR Council and that complaint free streak of yours may be ending.... Cindi's TP complaint not withstanding.
I do have to point out that just because there is a care complaint does not mean anything was a problem. Many care complaints are closed as unfounded because, and here’s a shocker, there weren’t real issues to begin with. Properties with no problems are turned in by spiteful people daily, often by the same people over and over again.
Quote from: cindi on November 09, 2009, 10:01:22 PM
sorry, i must have the super special keyboard - followed your instructions and came to the exact same spot i posted. can't help it if someone puts in a name or not. the option is there. i always laugh when i see them drive by an absolutely god aweful property to cite someone for leaving their garbage cans out more than 24 hours.
Cindi, how many people do you think put their names on these things?
Dan B implied as if you have to put your name on the complaint, and that's not true. The truth is that you don't have to put your name on it, and most of them are submitted anonymously, making it impossible for the property owner to ever find out who is complaining about them. That was my point. There are two different forms you can submit complaints on, one doesn't even have a place for your name, and on the other there is just a voluntary blank where you can put it if you want to, but the information isn't required for the system to accept the complaint.
Quote from: Dan B on November 09, 2009, 10:00:31 PM
Well, thats where you and I differ. I always put my name on my care requests.
No, you and I don't differ. I don't submit complaints on my neighbors. I just go talk to them.
It's you and SPAR who apparently differ, since you at least put your name on your complaints.
Let's get back on topic Springfielders. Matt, can you post an updated link to the petition you set up?
thanks Matt.
Thanks. I just signed it.
is the meeting today?
Quote from: thelakelander on November 09, 2009, 08:46:42 AM
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/
Nevermind. Answered my own question
I don't think a person has to be a Springfield resident or business owner to sign it, after all, the car wash would serve people going up and down Main Street, from downtown to the Trout River.
Is there another full service car wash for people who work downtown nearby?
I thought it was happening in city council chambers? Who are the principles that run the meeting, if one wanted to email them with their thoughts as a private citizen?
I don't have time to post it, but Louise has sent an e-mail to Dr. Gaffney stating that SPAR Council is opposing the car wash on the grounds that it is against the overlay, saying that it is not an acceptable use in the district and everyone should just uphold the law. The overlay, per Louise, was to cut down on the abuses of businesses that do not contribute to the revitalization of Springfield and will set the community back. It does state that the Historic Department and the HPC have denied it. It is dated 11/09/09.
Louise as well as a few others just do not get it. This type of business does not abuse the community, any new business that brings in spend-able dollars will not hurt the community and if Louise and Company have their way, they will insure that the revitalization of Springfield will be delayed and delayed again.
Sign the petition and get this guy the exemption so that Main Street will continue to move forward. Send the right message to the businessmen who are thinking about opening reasonable businesses in Springfield and on Main Street that we will welcome them into the Historic Springfield business community.
As you mentioned, the overlay really has nothing to do with the car wash exception issue. I don't know why its so hard for people to understand and grasp. Its really quite simple if you actually read the zoning code's commercial designations (not just Springfield's overlay) and this particular site's development and zoning history.
Like the car wash, my loft project and 3rd & Main also needed zoning modifications because their uses were only permissible by exception as well. We just happened to go PUD because it was cheaper and easier to do for all the changes desired. I think both of those projects turned out better than the parking and car lots they replaced. There's no reason an operating car wash and maintained property at 4th & Main can't be better than the abandoned, blighted and poorly maintained property that exists today.
Louise is really a sackful. Let the poor have guy his friggin' carwash (that's been there since the 50's). Seriously WTF...
We met with Silas, the owner, yesterday and showed him the direction we thought he needed to go with the design scheme. As I've mentioned before, he is spending a large amount of money on site improvements so we wanted to make the improvements to the building as cost effective as possible, and to spend the money where it mattered most. So, this was the same as one of our Urban Facelift Projects, essentially. Paint, signage, and awnings. We also needed to do some demolition of some unnecessary items.
Silas told us that he will do whatever it takes to get the exception, and said that if this gets passed, then the car wash will look like this.
Hopefully, this is aesthetically pleasing to the neighbors and community and helps them visualize what the carwash would positively do to that block and main street.
(http://i854.photobucket.com/albums/ab107/contentdg/carwash.jpg)
We will post another finalized image later today.
Thanks...
Thanks Jason. I can certainly live with this.
Did you talk to him at all about interacting more with Main, than with 4th? He told us he has permission to use the lot next door, which has Main st frontage.
We have, he said we would come off of main street with an entry if need be. The only reason why I'm worried about that is, if the lot on main gets developed, what happens to that entry. For the main entry to work with his layout, it would have to take up quite a bit of that lot, coming into the existing curb cut, head south along main and then west along 4th street.
Have you shared this with SPAR or Don Downing? I think it would be a good idea, heading into the hearing.
Also, can someone post the people we need to email to share our feelings, for or against, on the issue? As the meeting is in the middle of the day, it will be hard to make it.
Quote from: thelakelander on November 11, 2009, 09:26:23 AM
Have you shared this with SPAR or Don Downing? I think it would be a good idea, heading into the hearing.
We have not, we're busy preparing the images. Do you think we could just email him something?
I think that would be fine.
Jason,
Thanks very much. I can go along with this design. As an adjacent property owner, I'd like to see a little more of a green buffer along the fence in the back. Do you think this could be arranged? Excellent design with the existing structure!
Lake - I'll send something over.
Sigma - the landscape buffer is actually on the other side of the fence, on the residential side. Then you have 35' to the alley way. You'll be able to see this better in some of the other images, hopefully.
Awesome Jason - thanks.
green buffer = good
Quote from: Sigma on November 11, 2009, 09:42:42 AM
Jason,
Thanks very much. I can go along with this design. As an adjacent property owner, I'd like to see a little more of a green buffer along the fence in the back. Do you think this could be arranged? Excellent design with the existing structure!
Sigma, as an adjacent property owner I believe your support would go a long way if heard by the right people. Are you able to attend the hearing tomorrow or send a letter of support?
I plan to attend and support the project.
Quote from: Sigma on November 11, 2009, 11:36:32 AM
I plan to attend and support the project.
So you've got the guy who owns the place next door supporting the project. Why exactly is SPAR against this again?
The Planning Department is recommending denial of the exception. Additionally, the planning report has a copy of a letter from Joel McEachin where he states that he likely would not grant a COA for the project either. The Planning Department used Paul Davis (who I believe is the most senior non manager) to write the staff report. So it appears that this was a high priority exception for them.
The Planning Department's staff report is by no means the final say in the matter, though it will be taken into account by the Planning Commission. Mr. Jones and those who support him will still have an opportunity to present their case tomorrow at the hearing. It will be at 1 in the city council chambers of City Hall. Below is a copy of the staff report.
http://www.coj.net/NR/rdonlyres/eg5gprmy6sghqquvdiwpgpcegcqz4z2yjo23o2fcudbs5gc5iqkcluws6e76vwfjewehvc4td47b2bo5mxmalsbs3zc/E-09-54++24+West+4th+Staff+Report.pdf
Quote from: stephendare on November 11, 2009, 12:07:25 PM
your point being?
That is after all why they have these public input hearings. You people at SPAR sure do your work all the time. If the poisonous letter that Louise sent to Dr. Gaffney's office yesterday on the subject is any indication, you must feel that maybe SPAR isnt going to get its way after all.
Out of respect for Lisa Neary cant you people even stop the vicious undermining for just one day and let these forums reflect on something more significant to springfield---Namely the life of a person who actually made a difference to the district?
Just trying to put the planning report out there for those who are interested in the topic. There are 31 pages of discussion on this proposed use, so its pretty clear that there are many interested in seeing the planning report before tomorrow's meeting. Anyone who plans on attending the meeting tomorrow should read the report prior to the meeting in order to frame their argument. No need to attack me for promoting democracy.
I have nothing to do with this and can see both sides of the argument, so don't jump to the conclusion that I have any stake in this.
Dave, the manager of the Service Center directly across the street from the car wash plans to go to the meeting tomorrow as well.
The Service Center has always been supportive of the car wash.
& btw, the Service Center has been there and in operation since 1964.
UPDATE:
Silas is removing the application from tomorrow's agenda. There needs to be come revisions to the site layout, and they need to be done before anything is presented. The good news, for those for the project, is that means that Silas will have a full, well thought out and completed presentation for Joel and for the planning department. We're not sure when the next application will be, but it should be soon.
Once we know more information we will let you all know.
Thanks.
smart move. good job.
Smart move. This also gives him a chance to build up community support for his plans. With the extra time, we can also put together a front page article about this project to expose it to a larger percentage of the general population.
Quote from: jason_contentdg on November 11, 2009, 12:36:09 PM
UPDATE:
Silas is removing the application from tomorrow's agenda. There needs to be come revisions to the site layout, and they need to be done before anything is presented. The good news, for those for the project, is that means that Silas will have a full, well thought out and completed presentation for Joel and for the planning department. We're not sure when the next application will be, but it should be soon.
Once we know more information we will let you all know.
Thanks.
Since there are changes to his plan, at least visually, can he resubmitt to HPC as well?
He should be able to.
I have a question, why is the HPC involved? They do not address use. Their words, not mine. If all he was doing was painting and minor repairs, then it should have been a walk thru based on the scope of work. If he was going for awnings and things at that point, that's a different story but the HPC denial has to be based on the scope of work not use. Based on that, the plans can be submitted to the HPC many times if needed.
I stopped and talked to him briefly today. His new plans will not include the lot to the rear on the alley. He did not explain why.
Thats probably the 35' buffer Jason was refering to. Perhaps his plan is to put up the privacy fence, and green up the lot.
Jason?
No its the whole 2nd lot he is not going to develop. Hopefully Jason can fill us in. Regardless, I'd still like to see the buffer there.
1) I'd like to know how the concerns laid out in the planning report will be resolved:
- The proposed site plan shows a vehicle bay that faces residentially zoned property across the 4th Street right-of-way.
- There is parking for only two vehicles in the wipe-down area and
one more that the tunnel exit. If the event those vehicles are not immediately
removed by the customer any additional vehicles have the potential to be conflict
with traffic on 4th Street.
- Staff does not believe that the proposed exception will be
“appropriate and compatible†with the surrounding residential property in the
context of the spirit and intent of the ordinance.
- Vehicles exiting the tunnel are anticipated to exceed the on-site
vehicle storage capacity and create parking overflow onto 4th Street. The current
plan of development indicates three curb cuts. Current city policy is to limit the
number of curb cuts in order to diminish traffic flow conflicts.
2) I'd like to know how Joel's complaints can be addressed:
- listed as a non-contributing structure, thus no historical value. has had many alterations since '56
- on a residential street
- not consistent with the surronding area or zoninh overlay which seeks to prevent commercial intrution on residential streets and place future commerical use on to Main Street
- if it were on Main Street or 8th Street it would be a-ok.
I gotta, say I don't disgaree with his points, and the planning report does have legit concerns.
(http://i854.photobucket.com/albums/ab107/contentdg/carwash.jpg)
I'd suggest a little more landscaping and buffering in the front of the building along 4th Street. Maybe even switching the location of the seating area and handicap parking spaces. Doing such will better integrate the facility in with the surrounding area and screen more of the internal parking/wash area from general public view.
Here's my take on these issues
Quote from: fsu813 on November 11, 2009, 10:08:36 PM
1) I'd like to know how the concerns laid out in the planning report will be resolved:
- The proposed site plan shows a vehicle bay that faces residential zoned property across the 4th Street right-of-way.
Isn't that an existing curb cut? The property faces 4th and has since 1955. Its against the law not allow a property to access to a public street. In other words, you can't legally reject someone access to the street if that is the only street serving it. The best you can do is buffer and landscape.
Quote- There is parking for only two vehicles in the wipe-down area and
one more that the tunnel exit. If the event those vehicles are not immediately
removed by the customer any additional vehicles have the potential to be conflict
with traffic on 4th Street.
They would not conflict. They would exit onto the street like the cars in the driveways of other buildings along 4th. Nevertheless, I do believe in my personal opinion that it would be better if those drying spots are moved to co-exist with the parking spaces to the west of the property.
Quote- Staff does not believe that the proposed exception will be
appropriate and compatible with the surrounding residential property in the
context of the spirit and intent of the ordinance.
The precedence has been set. These properties have co-existed since 1955. Staff denied me once on a similar issue. I beat them and got a COA by proving that the higher density project I was representing had historical precedence and that if they had a problem with it, it should be resolved in house because their zoing allowed for the higher density. In this case, again, its the city who zoned nearly everything between the alleys commercial.
Quote- Vehicles exiting the tunnel are anticipated to exceed the on-site
vehicle storage capacity and create parking overflow onto 4th Street. The current
plan of development indicates three curb cuts. Current city policy is to limit the
number of curb cuts in order to diminish traffic flow conflicts.
I'm not crazy about the three curb cuts either. I'd love to see them go down to two. However, I believe they are existing.
Quote2) I'd like to know how Joel's complaints can be addressed:
- listed as a noncontributing structure, thus no historical value. has had many alterations since '56
- on a residential street
Its a commercially zoned property and within the Main Street corridor. In other words, this area of 4th is not a residential street. Even if we get historically accurate, 4th was a mix of residential with neighborhood commercial at various intersections.
Quote- not consistent with the surrounding area or zoninh overlay which seeks to prevent commercial intrution on residential streets and place future commercial use on to Main Street
- if it were on Main Street or 8th Street it would be a-ok.
The zoning overlay has it zoned commercial. This argument does not fly with the property being zoned CCG-S. Its also between the alleys along the Main Street corridor. Its just as much commercial as it is residential.
QuoteI gotta, say I don't disagree with his points, and the planning report does have legit concerns.
Joel's opinion should fall on deaf ears at this point. This is a zoning issue, not design or a discussion about contributing and noncontributing structures. Anyway, before he can move forward, he'll also have to apply for a COA. That's when Joel's design concerns should be addressed.
Furthermore, you can't deny someone use of a building because the building is not historically contributing. If that's the case, half the buildings down Main (ex. Chans, SPAR, 9th&Main, etc.) should be boarded up and vacated. You can't say its commercial intrusion if the zoning overlay has it zoned for commercial use. You can't deny a property access to the only street it fronts because there is a house across the street. If the project is denied for any of these reasons that aren't related to zoning, Mr. Jones should hire an attorney.
fsu18:
There is no way to move the bay that opens towards the residential across 4th street, it is at the end of a 150' long corridor of washing equipment, however a change in exiting the car wash with an immediate turn could allow for some sort of buffer between the bay opening and the lot line be it vegetation, wall, or fence.
The entire site plan will have to now change because the car wash cannot use any land beyond the westernmost wall.
Staff has not seen any renderings of the proposed buildings, I think they would find it more compatible with visual aide and community support. If it is not compatible, I would like to know why a car wash service is viewed as negative as it is. This must be ignorance on my part.
Regarding traffic onto 4th street, I do not seem to remember any sort of outcries like this about traffic entering 3rd street for 3rd and Main, or Pearl Street and the alleyways for the 8th and Pearl development (even thought it was never built it had all zoning approval and building permit in hand for the SE corner).
There would be no added curb cuts, they are all existing.
Historic Preservation Staff issues:
Again, the staff has not reviewed any renderings at all, and I can see why they would deny the building as is, and only after viewing a site plan.
This would be one of many commercial uses along a "residential street" in Springfield, although throughout the Main Street corridor commercial use takes up the block from Main Street to the alleyway.
Lake and fsu813:
As you both know, we got involved with this project only about a week ago, after the site plan and project had been submitted. Our hands were tied with what we could do with site design and there are certainly some things that we would suggest changing. Your idea about switching those areas around certainly makes sense, and is something we would suggest as well.
Again, the site design now has to be completely revised. I think the best way for the project to work is for Silas to actually lease part of the lot that Petra owns fronting main street, and use the land at the existing Main Street curb cut as the entrance into the car wash and whatever future development happens on that corner.
Will Petra agree to that, not sure yet but we know they are working with Silas...
That's all the information we have for now, and when we learn more I'll post.
Thanks.
there are a couple references to the "spirit" or "intent" of the overlay in the planning report & Joel's letter.
meaning, that while the 4th street property has a history of a being carwash, they want to discourage this from reoccuring by funneling high-traffic commerical onto Main & 8th. part of the intent of the overlay was to discourage random commerical intrusion onto residential streets.....
is this not the case?
also, 3rd & Main is different in at least one aspect. The commerical part of 3rd & Main does not border residential. I don't think this a coincidence, i'm sure the planners took this into consideration when designing the complex. 3rd & Main's residential borders 3rd Street's residential.
Perhaps by taking a look at thier planning report we'll see how they negotiated similar obstacles.
It appears no commercial part of the car wash will border residential, with separation of the lot to the west, and the alleyway.
The "spirit" and "intent" seems to be where Silas will have his biggest fight.
In situations like this, the opposition is typically a vocal minority. I think Silas' largest issue will be more related to trust, to those that oppose. Its clear that he is willing to work with the community and cater to various concerns but unfortunately, I don't think there is much the guy can do that will change that. Imo, he'd probably be better off making sure he has a good legal answer to the opposition's concerns, but attempt to gain community support from others in the area who aren't opposed to neutralize the opposition.
Quote from: fsu813 on November 11, 2009, 11:15:57 PM
there are a couple references to the "spirit" or "intent" of the overlay in the planning report & Joel's letter.
meaning, that while the 4th street property has a history of a being carwash, they want to discourage this from reoccuring by funneling high-traffic commerical onto Main & 8th. part of the intent of the overlay was to discourage random commerical intrusion onto residential streets.....
is this not the case?
I'd really like to see someone present a real argument proving that 4th or any other cross street is residential within the commercial corridor, in addition to providing some traffic counts. All properties have depth. In general, everything between the alleys paralleling Main is commerical. This area of 4th is commercial as well. You can't deny a property access to the only street that serves it. Silas needs an attorney if we're headed down this slippery slope.
Quotealso, 3rd & Main is different in at least one aspect. The commerical part of 3rd & Main does not border residential. I don't think this a coincidence, i'm sure the planners took this into consideration when designing the complex. 3rd & Main's residential borders 3rd Street's residential.
Perhaps by taking a look at thier planning report we'll see how they negotiated similar obstacles.
Good suggestion, however there was not the same type of opposition even though from a traffic standpoint, 3rd and Main probably dumps five times as much traffic onto 3rd Street. If anything, this seems to be more of a "trust" issue around the owner. If it were Cesery, I'd doubt it stir up this much rutkus. Also, 3rd and Main had to be entirely rezoned to PUD. That type of multifamily residential needs an exception, just like a car wash. However, because the community worked with Cesery, a decent project was developed. Its time for the community (all) to do the same with Mr. Jones.
who's doing does count.
All information (from all sides) should be properly processed and evaluated. If this were the case, this thread would not be this long. However, accusations without proof should not be a reason for denial. If there is a traffic study suggesting that this use will be bad for the area, it needs to be presented.
Lake, I agree that trust is an issue. While a few of you are taking Mr. Jones at his word now, he has a history of not going through the correct venues to get a project approved. He did not come to the community with any plans but showed up empty handed to a SPAR meeting two weeks before his hearing was scheduled. SPAR council did not receive any info from him until the afternoon of the HPC hearing when it was too late to look at the info or get it out to the community. He has gone through this process before so he is knowledgable about what needs to be done. So why did it take a few residents contacting him to get any exterior concessions or issues addressed? Personally, I do not feel he has shown good faith in the past and that goes alot further with me than his present, seeming cooperation after the fact. The staff at historic planning was involved because the planning dept. asked them to be. We are in a nationally designated historic district which is looked at differently than a non-historic area of town. With all that being said Jason's drawings look great and if I had some guarantee that the carwash would end up looking like that it would alleviate some of my concerns. I will admit I'm cynical but I have good reason to be. I see drawings all the time for proposed uses but the finished product rarely comes close to the presented plans. I understand my opinion is just that but if someone wants my support I need to know that they are acting in good faith and care about what is in the best interest of the community.
I will say this much. My experience in Springfield, both as VP of SAMBA and a commercial property owner has allowed me to see that there is gulf in understanding and vision in the district.
With that in mind, most business owners don't even know the correct process for developing a project in Springfield. The city's website is a mess and SPAR's isn't all peaches and cream in this arena either. Also, there is no unified community vision or goal. Everybody wants revitalization but when you talk to people, that word can mean totally different things. There are only two historic districts in Jacksonville and they make up a very small percentage of the city's overall land area.
There are regulations and expectations within these districts that the common business owner/investor knows nothing about. It can be pretty difficult, if not impossible to find and supply people with information you don't even know you need. In most cases, these people that others don't trust have all the good intentions in the world but they just don't know the proper development/permitting path to take in a community like Springfield.
Also, the "trust" issue swings both ways. Many people also don't trust that "the community representation" have their best interests at heart or that they even are willing to work with them. Situations like this car wash thing only widen the gulf.
In the end, for commercial revitalization to really move forward in Springfield better dialogue is needed from both sides because everybody wants the same thing. A vibrant urban commercial corridor. However, it benefits none of us to continue to base our information and decision making processing skills on pure ignorance of not fully understanding the situation or potential because of a lack of true open dialogue and communication.
I think you about summed it up.
Where do we go from here?
Lakelander:
Quote...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.
Sheclown:
QuoteWhere do we go from here?
I'd like to see metrojacksonville.com's latest urban "Superboy" try to get it leased, sold, developed for a use that doesn't cause as much drama. He's doing it Downtown in a down economy, so why not up here?
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2009-nov-petras-rich-trendel-brings-nightlife-downtown
Go, Rich!
After attending tonight's meeting, its probably not that far off to conclude that the drama established may be coming from a smaller percentage of the actual Springfield community. Once his plans are revised, it would probably be a good idea for Mr. Jones to attempt to document the acceptance of his actual neighbors and other businesses in the commercial district and include that within his zoning submittal. This, combined with economic and zoning facts, can go a long way in neutering the drama.
Oh, right. Tripped over my marionette strings and forgot to disclaim that my views are my own before I typed.
All of our views are our own. Nevertheless, it would be in the guy's best interest to document whatever support he may have out there. He should fight fire with fire and let the chips fall where they may. He has too much money invested in it to not do all he can do to gain that exception.
I hope Mr. Jones does continue to use the process to try to get his exception. That is the way the system is supposed to work. But the reason there are uses that require an exception is so the community can weigh in with their input -- which they are doing.
No one is using "fire" to fight anything. To me, it seems SPAR is standing behind the intent of its most valuable planning tool, the Springfield Overlay, to reduce the concentration of automotive-intensive uses. I fully expect that if SPAR weren't supporting the Overlay, it'd be hearing it loudly also. Bottom line with SPAR is, it can't win b/c there are, and will continue to be, differing opinions in the District on just about any issue.
If
cars don't attract people, which you've indicated is accurate planning theory, then Springfield is already going backwards with the inclusion of multi-block medians on Main St and discussions of where to put more parking on Main St.
People attract people -- also planning theory, and one that I also agree with. Imho, the decision to be made is, which aspect being attracted by this business (cars or people) will be more felt on Main, and the short segments of primarily residential blocks that they touch? How much presence will 10 cars have vs. how much presence the 10 people driving them will have?
In the city I moved here from, I used the carwashes like the one it seems Mr. Jones has planned. I described how I saw it work in an earlier post:
QuoteThe people spent money inside, then sat outside waiting for their cars. The people sitting outside did give a it feeling not unlike the porch in front of 3rd & Main. The cars lined up all over the place drying and waiting to be driven off gave it a feeling not unlike United Cars b/w 2nd & 3rd.
I still have a few questions for Mr. Jones I don't think have been answered yet (and I'm not implying anything intentional on his part; they maybe just haven't been asked, or they have and I missed the posted answers). Dan, Matt, Jason, has the following been discussed?
- If I recall, he had 11 other partners in the ownership of the property. Is Mr. Jones the sole owner of the car wash business, or does he still have other business partners, and, if so, how many and what will their involvement be?
- What is his pricing strategy? I think this is important as it will determine the potential flow of cars through the business. Anyone running the numbers of just how many cars it will take for Mr. Jones to make up, and exceed, his investment of $500,000 (+ planned improvement) in the course of the short-term plan for the business (5 years?) If he is allowed to be open 7a-7p, 7 days/wk, and a car wash is $x, will breakeven or profitability require 2 cars per hour, or 40 cars per hour?
- Is he planning on supporting the community through membership in any of the organizations -- SAMBA, SIA/WC, SPAR, SACARC, SHARP, whatever?
- Will the car wash part of the model be automated (cash insertion/credit card swipe), or require a person to ring up sales? Is this the reason the store is required with it, so a person is required to be on-site?
I am not on the fence anymore. I already think Springfield is stepping back from walkability with the new multi-block medians FDOT required in the Main St improvements, and the concentration of other existing auto-intensive uses -- United Cars, Jax Auto Sales, Catlin, Fortec, A&A Auto and Joe's Detailing -- 6 within the first 6 blocks of Main. Most, if not all, of these are good businesses. But they contribute very little to walkability and, in some cases, set back design is a contributor to dis-connective gaps (i.e., Jax Auto Sales and Catlin).
I have changed my mind back and forth several times, and the information provided on this thread has been very helpful in helping me decide which planning theory result I believe will occur. Depending on the answers to the above questions, I may change my mind again. I look forward to hearing the views of all of the planners involved in this process in Dec.
Quote from: stephendare on November 13, 2009, 08:39:20 AM
? Zoo.
Really most of the information is none of your business. You aren't qualified to analyse it anyways.
What happened to not making it personal?
Or is it different when you do it?
This brings up a good point...
How much information should a business need to provide to satisfy the "neighborhood" and convince them to support him?
Has it been a lack of info that has caused concern about the car wash?
Is there anything that Silas could say/swear/promise which would get SPAR's backing?
Good grief Stephen, give it a rest.
Zoo's questions are perfectly appropriate to ask of someone trying to gain support in the community for a business.
Meeting Mr. Jones a couple times now, I think he would have no problem answering them.
Sheclown,
Take a look at the SAMBA thread. Some of what you ask in addressed there. Basically, they'd have to see the finished design, addressing as many of the planning reports issues as possible, document the projected noise level in decibals, etc. Also direct dialouge between Mr. Jones and more of the SPAR board would be beneficial.
Quote from: sheclown on November 13, 2009, 09:35:07 AM
This brings up a good point...
How much information should a business need to provide to satisfy the "neighborhood" and convince them to support him?
Has it been a lack of info that has caused concern about the car wash?
Is there anything that Silas could say/swear/promise which would get SPAR's backing?
From what I gather sheclown, some in the neighborhood feel that his past efforts were not following the correct "path" and that he did not gain community input. Which I can understand those feelings. After the meeting last night, I gained more of a historical perspective of 'how Silas got here'. He seems to get it now and I think he knows that if this is one big charade, then community support will drop like a lead balloon.
Next, I have some of the same questions as Zoo, and it is not unreasonable to ask. And yes - I am qualified, and yes, I'm an adjacent property owner.
Lastly, Stephen, please give it a rest.
Quote from: stephendare on November 13, 2009, 09:17:11 AM
Thanks Dan, I don't need instruction on the matter from you. The information asked for is personal. Which is the point.
It wouldnt matter if Zoo asked these questions or you. Its no ones business.
But thanks for trying to ratchet the discussion up anyways.
As you know, I support Silas, but the fact of the matter is he is asking for an exception to the zoning on the land. He needs neighborhood support to get that zoning. Thus the requirements for him to publicly post signs, and the need for him to go through committees like HPC and Planning, both of which have public hearings. If it was nobodys business, it would go straight to the Planning Dept for the exception, and they would approve, or disapprove based on what they thought without input from the public.
The process is set up for public checks and balances. Like it or hate it, thats the way it is. The questions Zoo is asking are good ones, that can and probably should be answered. My beef isn't in asking the questions, but making sure its done before the community organization goes up against it.
Rather than address the questions, your flat out saying the volume of traffic expected on a residential side street, or the level of noise created at that location is nobody's business, and in that your just wrong.
Stop this stupid game of telling people what happens in their community is none of their business, and even if it were their business, that they dont have the credibility to have an opinion is asinine and counter productive.
Just in general to everyone involved in this discussion. None of this stuff should be personal. Its strictly a zoning issue and a matter of how people believe the revitalization process should take place.
As for my fire with fire comment. This is a situation where an organization that has the ear of the city is using that it's view on this issue represents that of the community (which is obviously not true). That leverage represents "fire" on one end. For those in the community that don't agree with that particular decision, its up to them to present an alternative case to why that position should be discredited and approval granted. This is the fire on the other end.
As for SPAR, it is what it is. They have a right to voice their opinion on the matter and that has been done. Nothing that Silas can do, short of becoming Bill Cesery (just joking so put the venom down to the sensitive types), is going to change that. For those who don't agree, you opinion should be voiced as well and you should do all that you can to back what you believe in. I think that's where the situation is at this point.
Dialogue needs to work in both directions, you can't call for it to be one sided, because well, that's simply not dialogue. Asking for the community to shut up and like it or leave it, when it comes to opening a business, especially one that requires an exception, doesn't do anything positive for the owner applying for the exception. The process actually calls for this discussion, which is why its advertised. There needs to be discussions about the business and the process, and in the end nothing negative can come of these questions.
If a owner seems bothered by those wanting to know more about a potential business opening up in the neighborhood, I think that's starting things out on the wrong foot. Silas, by the way, is completely open to anyone that comes to him with questions and concerns. He is being more proactive now in going to various groups to bring the conversation to them, as evidenced by the SAMBA meeting last night, which is obviously a good thing and can only help his cause.
All that being said, there are going to be revisions to the site plan, and a lot of images and documents will be made available, when ready. I really think the reset button needs to be pressed on this issue, and any new information will be released in a new thread, or an article. We've had 34 pages of many of the same things being said over and over again, and I look forward to Silas having a fresh start...
Quote from: sheclown on November 13, 2009, 09:35:07 AM
This brings up a good point...
How much information should a business need to provide to satisfy the "neighborhood" and convince them to support him?
Has it been a lack of info that has caused concern about the car wash?
Is there anything that Silas could say/swear/promise which would get SPAR's backing?
Here is my take after last night. SPAR's position is set in stone. We can talk about the need for dialogue but the line has been drawn in the sand. Short of making it Disneyland, they aren't going to support the car wash. So be it. However, a significant portion of the community supports the idea of having a viable business at that location than keeping it the desolate vacant blighted spot it is right now. Especially with the owner seeming open to working with the community. Mr. Jones needs to document this community support to discredit the opposition's position that their outlook represents the community. Along with developing a sleek presentation and sticking with zoning/business facts (to limit bad information revolving around the concept), its really as simple as that and letting the chips fall where they may.
I do agree, that a business plan does not need to be presented to anyone, well anyone other than the bank if financing is needed. Site, design, and connectivity (physical and otherwise) issues however, do.
Quote from: jason_contentdg on November 13, 2009, 10:31:55 AM
All that being said, there are going to be revisions to the site plan, and a lot of images and documents will be made available, when ready. I really think the reset button needs to be pressed on this issue, and any new information will be released in a new thread, or an article. We've had 34 pages of many of the same things being said over and over again, and I look forward to Silas having a fresh start...
Just let me know when you guys are ready with the revised plan. We'll run it as a front page article.
Lake, the problem I have is your trying to blame SPAR for the zoning denial. Planning and HPC staff had already looked at this and made their recomendations. They just brought it up at HPC to see what the commision and Louise thought of the decision. City planners and planners on the historic staff did not think this use was a good one for the historic district and the commission unanimously agreed. The fact is, professionals at zoning made this decision based on laws and comprehensive plans that have been done way before residents, neighbors or SPAR knew what was going on. So I guess they are all wrong?
Sheclown, what is a significant portion of the community? Are they residents? I ask because the majority of the support on this board comes from non residents of Springfield.
Quote from: Springfield Girl on November 13, 2009, 10:50:19 AMI ask because the majority of the support on this board comes from non residents of Springfield.
Uhm, I disagree. Most of the people on here who have spoken in favor of it are residents, including the person designing it for Silas.
The petition in favor is almost ALL Springfield names, in fact.
SG, again they, and this is not their fault, looked at an incomplete application and passed judgment on what they were presented. Because of this, Silas has realized he needs to step up to the plate and make improvements to the site and to the building, and present them to the community and to the required agencies.
Will things be different with a full, well thought out application, who knows, but Silas at least deserves that chance.
Quote from: Springfield Girl on November 13, 2009, 10:50:19 AM
Lake, the problem I have is your trying to blame SPAR for the zoning denial. Planning and HPC staff had already looked at this and made their recomendations. They just brought it up at HPC to see what the commision and Louise thought of the decision. City planners and planners on the historic staff did not think this use was a good one for the historic district and the commission unanimously agreed.
Come on, we both know how these decisions are made. "Community representation" denial certainly doesn't help.
Btw, I'm not blaming SPAR for anything. Like anyone else, the organization has a right to decide things the way they do. I'm just saying its literally a waste of time to spend so much energy focusing on them. Instead, the owner should spend more time to rally around, document and focus on the positive community support.
QuoteThe fact is, professionals at zoning made this decision based on laws and comprehensive plans that have been done way before residents, neighbors or SPAR knew what was going on. So I guess they are all wrong?
The fact is, is that there is more to this story, from a zoning and comp plan perspective and there is a ton of bad information out there. We've dive into more, once the revised plans are submitted.
QuoteSheclown, what is a significant portion of the community? Are they residents? I ask because the majority of the support on this board comes from non residents of Springfield.
You should have stopped by the SAMBA meeting last night, where it was the exact opposite of what you describe. Also, community is more than just residents. Its the businesses and their customers too.
Quote from: jason_contentdg on November 13, 2009, 11:00:03 AM
SG, again they, and this is not their fault, looked at an incomplete application and passed judgment on what they were presented. Because of this, Silas has realized he needs to step up to the plate and make improvements to the site and to the building, and present them to the community and to the required agencies.
Will things be different with a full, well thought out application, who knows, but Silas at least deserves that chance.
And thank you, and content design for stepping up to try to make a plan that suits the needs of the owner, and enhances the community.
Thanks Dan, my official stance is that if a property use could exist in our neighborhood, even if it had to be approved with an exception, then we, meaning the community and our organizations, need to try and work with the potential property developer to make sure they know the hoops, codes, and issues that are in front of them.
If there is a chance that an exception could be approved, then there needs to be some back and forth conversation between the developer and SPAR, it certainly would allow for the chance of certain measures to be taken in the design/development of the property, that would benefit the neighborhood and SPAR, even if SPAR has to recommend deny.
That way there would be beneficial site/design conditions that would still have to be met, as long as the city officials follow up. (Planning and Historic Preservation).
The other thing that can be done is to just simply deny because the developer would have to file for an exception, and just hope that planning and historic preservation sees it that way as well, without any input at all. Not saying that happened here, because we simply do not know.
Really? I inquired and found out there were 12-15 people at the SAMBA meeting and several do not live in the neighborhood. You guys tried to play this off as proof that the opposition was just a small vocal minority. I don't see 12-15 people being a majority of anything. The carwash was not on the agenda and the people who brought it up gave their view of the proposal.
"Quote
Sheclown, what is a significant portion of the community? Are they residents? I ask because the majority of the support on this board comes from non residents of Springfield."
"You should have stopped by the SAMBA meeting last night, where it was the exact opposite of what you describe."
"Really? I inquired and found out there were 12-15 people at the SAMBA meeting and several do not live in the neighborhood. You guys tried to play this off as proof that the opposition was just a small vocal minority. I don't see 12-15 people being a majority of anything. The carwash was not on the agenda and the people who brought it up gave their view of the proposal."
Springfield Girl, there were actually 19 in attendence. Other than two people, all either live in, work or operate a business/investment property in the historic district. I have the sign in sheet. Out of those two, one girl wanted to open a business related with kids but claimed she was rejected by community representation and decided to take her thing somewhere else. The other lady was with Fresh Ministries on the Eastside (literally across the tracks). She sensed the same "gulf" in communication and vision that I have described on these threads over the last few days. She encouraged more dialogue. Many had a fear that the area could develop a negative reputation in the eyes of the commercial sector if Springfield remains a difficult place to open a business due to continued outright "community opposition" before dialogue has taken place.
I mentioned it earlier, but you don't have to live in the community to be a part of the community. The district isn't gated or surrounded by water on all four sides. Those people operating businesses and paying property taxes down there contribute just as much to the livability of the community as the residents do.
Nevertheless, while the majority was in favor of having a well maintained car wash over blighted abandonment, I think everyone agreed that more dialogue was needed before drawing a line in the sand. Even SPAR's lone representative who was put in a very tough spot when he had to explain the group's position seemed to agree that more conversation would not hurt.
I believe everyone wants to see a vibrant commercial district, we just may not agree on how to get there. However, it would be benefical to the community if common ground can be found that allows us to rid ourselves of another abandoned blighted property.
Now I have a couple of questions.
1. How large is SPAR's actual membership and what is the actual population within the historic district?
2. Why is a car wash viewed as a negative?
3. Can a common ground be found that helps Mr. Jones gain approval, if his plan is modified to address the original concerns for denial?
4. What did Mr. Jones do to be put in a bad light? He did show last night that he appears to be willing to work with the community. Can the relationship be repaired?
lake, will the sign in sheet double as a petition?
j/k ;)
LOL. No, reason to trick people into supporting a cause. Either you're for it, against it or don't really care. Plus, there is already a petition out there.
jason_contentdg would know. At this point, I don't think a new date has been scheduled.
SPAR weekly e-mail:
For anyone wishing to attend the Planning Commission Hearing related to the proposed Car Wash at the site of 4th and Main Streets, a reminder that the hearing is scheduled for Thursday, December 10th at 1:00 PM at the City Council Chambers.
I highly believe that the SPAR weekly e-mail is incorrect.
At the time of that email it was probably correct. As of right now, Silas has deferred and will submit for the January meeting.
36 pages about a new convenience store? :o
haunted evil convenience store?
so its backwoods virgina conveience store? lol awsome
but really 36 pages? thats crazy
can I get the cliff notes on all the postings? :D
prominent business usually chases OFF crack dealers with an influx of people and police presence.
and does that lockeroom have a hot tub?
and I'm not a communist, Id say I'm more of the future leader of the 4th Reich ;D fook dem commy basties
Stephen thinks most issues in Springfield have to with race, you'll find. He's interesting in that way.
The short of it is that a car wash on 4th street, next to residences, isn't something that everyone wants. For various reasons, and others would welcome it for various reasons.
if its not a zoning issue then the guy can build if he would like
I bet FLDrifter cant even drift a car. That is an insult to a former racer(me)
Unless his name means he is a hobo.
In which case HI HOBO! ^_^
Quote from: FLDrifter on December 09, 2009, 07:08:54 PM
do you imply I should not post here? I do have a roof over my head thanks to people more forgiving.
Im just trolling a troll :3
HEY wanna make $5?
Quote from: stephendare on December 09, 2009, 07:06:35 PM
Quote from: jason_contentdg on December 09, 2009, 07:48:06 AM
At the time of that email it was probably correct. As of right now, Silas has deferred and will submit for the January meeting.
Lake do you know if this is true?
Which part are you inquiring about being true?
Yes, it had been placed on the agenda for this month, unknowingly to us, contentdg. After talking to Silas this past Monday (the day the new site plan was forwarded to us) we felt strongly that similar uneasy steps were being taken just as they were before the December meeting.
We would like for Silas to have a package that shows the site plan,and renderings of what the car wash will be to all involved parties before the actual meeting and think that if he has chance for approval, he'll need to do just that. Silas agreed and said he would defer.
Thanks Stephen...
It was a good week for the Urban Facelift Project, with the competition at ArtWalk and the article that followed in the Times Union. It was nice to see some fellow designers using the Urban Facelift Project model, and coming up with some really nice work for the event.
Well I am going to be a troll since once again we stoop to vilify (spelling). the car wash will rise or fall on its own merits I do not care if the owner is purple. I love having 3 layers near to me, just adore it, but I would not want a car wash, sorry, and many of the supporters would not want a car wash right up against their side fence either, but speech is free. I am staying neutral on this issue, (but I do find it hard to believe the $500,000 )if it goes in sobeit, if it does not go in for legit reasons sobeit, but you know what let the fight begin after the holidays, "we let in light and we banish shade" this from an agnostic - I think, see the other forum.
BUT;
It's Christmastime,
there's no need to be afraid
At Christmastime,
we let in light and we banish shade
And in our world of plenty
we can spread a smile of joy
Throw your arms around the world
at Christmastime
But say a prayer,
pray for the other ones
At Christmastime it's hard,
but when you're having fun
There's a world outside your window,
and it's a world of dread and fear
Where the only water flowing
is the bitter sting of tears
And the Christmas bells that ring there
are the clanging chimes of doom
Well tonight thank God it's them
instead of you
And there won't be snow in Africa this Christmastime
The greatest gift they'll get this year is life (Oooh)
Where nothing ever grows
No rain or rivers flow
Do they know it's Christmastime at all?
Oh so you sing a Christmas song but not a Hanukkah song huh?
I can sing one but I cannot spell the words. I taught nursery school in a Conservative Temple in Lexington Mass and so enjoyed all the high holidays, the school was non sectarian but on holidays we watched the small children. At Purim I made Esther and Mordicah and I made Hamen the garbage pail, I believe my great great grandmother was Jewish and I have great great admiration for the religion. I love being raised a wasp, but I do not know what I believe.
I am sending some Hanukkah cards.
but you still cant post one eh?
I see how it is
anti semite
next you will be telling me you wont type any quanza songs either!
you wanna Chanukkah song?... here ya go
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vrd9p47MPHg
The car wash is across the street from a halfway house and a rooming house. They are okay with it being there. The car wash has been there for a long time -- anyone moving in could have anticipated its use to continue to be commercial.
We live in a city. City things happen.
Quote from: stephendare on December 09, 2009, 05:51:47 PM
Springfield isnt sure they want an older African American business owner to open his Car Wash on Main Street
And again, you categorize Springfield residents as being racist. As I pointed out in the previous thread that you made that claim, it's really ironic that all of these racists would move to the most diverse neighborhood that I know of in Jacksonville. Maybe they did it so they could hate their neighbors?
PS. there are quite a few residents of Springfield in this very thread supporting the car wash (me being one of them) and I don't think race has any play in the support either.
i cheated I looked one up, the only one I know in Hebrew is not a chanakah song
Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the universe, who has sanctified us with His commandments, and commanded us to kindle the Chanukah light.
Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the universe, who performed miracles for our forefathers in those days, at this time.
Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the universe, who has granted us life, sustained us, and enabled us to reach this occasion
I was just being a smart ass man lol
Quote from: fsu813 on December 09, 2009, 06:15:24 PM
The short of it is that a car wash on 4th street, next to residences, isn't something that everyone wants. For various reasons, and others would welcome it for various reasons.
Considering that the building is in the middle of a commercial corridor and has been a car wash facility since 1955, there are other underlying reasons. If it were a super intense use like 3rd & Main, which would add more traffic to that corner, people would not be complaining. Right or wrong, a vocal minority had (and most likely still do) have trust issues with the owner and use. If everyone could look at every project with an open mind and engage in open dialouge with each other, we'll find that the revitalization process will move much faster and the entire community would reap the benefits.
Imo, false information, trust, not understanding how zoning works & revitalization process ignorance are the larger factors that must be overcome. This project just brings these issues to the light. I'm glad this thing has been deferred. Hopefully, logic on all sides will enter the picture and will result in something that the entire community will be proud of.
Quote from: Johnny on December 09, 2009, 09:51:59 PM
Quote from: stephendare on December 09, 2009, 05:51:47 PM
Springfield isnt sure they want an older African American business owner to open his Car Wash on Main Street
And again, you categorize Springfield residents as being racist. As I pointed out in the previous thread that you made that claim, it's really ironic that all of these racists would move to the most diverse neighborhood that I know of in Jacksonville. Maybe they did it so they could hate their neighbors?
generalities like that sweep the good with the bad.... like Jason with Content Design is a Springfield resident and he's involved with SPAR but he's obviously not a racist...neither are any of his immediate neighbors.. so throwing out generalizations like that is the work of forum trolls, so please try to refrain from doing that, thank you.
to what Lake said earlier, comparing the recpetion 3rd & Main received as opposed to this project.......
if there was another mixed use project going in on the the corner of 4th & Main i think it would be welcomed. a car wash doesn't have the same appeal, i suppose.
speaking for myself, i have mixed feelings over a car wash going in (ultimatley i did sign the petition), but i wouldn't mind in the least if another mixed use project was going in.
our opinions are asked for. i think "entitlement" is present when someone injects thier opinion about something when noone asked for it.
or something like that.
Oh, well....i don't think anyone "deserves" anything in particular if that's the case.
i agree FSU I do not think anyone said anything about deserving at all, it is just that opinions are not welcomed on the board apparently, might as well troll!
The overlay has nothing to do with this. It is a city zoning issue.
Sorry my bad
i think it's just word choice.
i don't see expressing want you want, like, and hope for as 'entitlement'.
but i see what you're saying.
I think Matt's word choice actually hit the nail on the head.
There's always this attitude floating around of "Now that I moved in here, everything I don't like can move out." And almost always it's the same small group of people. Certainly qualifies as a sense of entitlement in my book.
+1 to the gator
Quote from: stephendare on December 15, 2009, 12:38:58 PM
Quote from: Johnny on December 09, 2009, 09:51:59 PM
Quote from: stephendare on December 09, 2009, 05:51:47 PM
Springfield isnt sure they want an older African American business owner to open his Car Wash on Main Street
And again, you categorize Springfield residents as being racist. As I pointed out in the previous thread that you made that claim, it's really ironic that all of these racists would move to the most diverse neighborhood that I know of in Jacksonville. Maybe they did it so they could hate their neighbors?
Listen Johnny, How does Silas being black make Springfield residents racist?
It sounds like you are projecting a bit.
Im glad to know that racism completely disappeared from the planet earlier this month, but apparently a few people didnt get the memo that this miracle has taken place.
It awesome and all, but I wonder why you keep repeating these outrageous lies about all of the residents of springfield, much less the outrageous lie that I (a resident of Springfield) have repeated it myself.
Maybe now that a miracle like the end of racism has occurred, we can work on a miracle of truthtelling!
Wow, speaking of projecting... Honestly, I can't believe I'm even responding to that... but here goes...
Who the hell said racism didn't exist? What lies have I said about residents or yourself? Your claims is right there in black and white where you say Springfield doesn't know if they want a black man to open a car wash. Seems very clear you are insinuating racism to be the reasoning. Again, as I said in another thread, many of those that oppose the car wash, I have spoken with. In debating the issue w/ them, race never seemed to be a factor (only within your comments). Their issues are valid concerns, right or wrong (lack of previous care/maintenance to the property, sound & traffic, etc...). You can spin this to paint whatever type of picture from here on though. I refuse to get into your pathetic little pissing matches. Have fun with that...
Quote from: stephendare on December 15, 2009, 05:59:19 PM
Well Johnny, as long as you guarantee that the world is now free of Racism, Im happy.
Thanks man.
Whew. What a long strange trip that whole 'racism' thing was.
Im just glad its all over.
Crazy Cracker :D
Johnny,
He has made a living on creating arguments and interest out-of-thin-air, often by provoking people. His comments don't have to be reasonable as long as they elicit a reaction.
Stephen the world ends at 2012 anyway didnt you hear? :D he wont make it that far O_O
Sportsmotor,
did I nail it or what?
Get my name right
S-P-O-R-T-M-O-T-O-R
>_>
and Im at work, the time I have inbetween things so I skim
but so far no you didnt, I will admit to being wrong if you did tho
Go Gators btw :P
Quote from: chris farley on December 15, 2009, 09:07:13 PM
I am sorry to post this here and maybe someone can move it to myspringfield.org, I cannot get into that forum and I guess I really do not wish to but the following was posted by Matt McVay this evening and I can assure that I am incensed;
Quote
I have the utmost respect for Louise and Chris. It is entirely a communication issue on their part that causes them so many problems. In that regard they are their own worst enemy end quote
I tried hard to think of another Chris who helps at SPAR, I believe it is pointed at me.
Funny I do not need your respect and I wish for you to spell out the problems I have and to whom do I need to make explanations. I am not a board member of SPAR, simply a dues paying member who volunteers. Since I do not owe a cent on my house, cars or other property, or owe anyone anything, why do I have to justify anything I wish to do (as long as there is no harm to anyone), and certainly I should not have to justify what I try to do on these boards, which is in most cases try to give a little background, or history. How dare you Mr. McVay who are you? Maybe I am being a stupid eneny to myself for trying to help in Springfield, or answering your crass posting but, I suggest that you are listening to the wrong propaganda.
Louise is no enemy either, they try so hard to put stuff out, they are limited in funds and time - I do not see you going to help out. .No one would put in the hours or effort she does and take all of this nonsense from people who do not check the facts, As for Fusion, Alex, go ask Mico, he will tell you that Louise stepped in and got him his license, he was being denied over a one bathroom issue. He has nothing but respect for Louise, as do I.
not sure why you can't get on myspringfield but this is about as on topic as Dare calling someone stupid. start another topic or send a pm.
Does Mr. Silas have an estimated time frame for his presentation and are our signatures on the petition going to be good? do they "expire" (serious question, i have no idea)?
i am not sure what petition you are talking about. i am referring to the petitions for and against the carwash. are implying that the petition was "secret"? why would you have a petition that needs a large volume of signatures and only distribute it to a select few.
i see you editied your post, why is that? i've read that "which is typical cowardly type action."
so, because you had no idea there was a car wash petition (there are actually 2, 1 for and 1 against) it is some deep dark secret? the petition info is posted somewhere in the 40 pages of this thread. it's kinda hard to sort through because of everyone calling people stupid and cowardly - but it's there. no real secret.
I figure I may as well follow the pattern, it keeps it on subject
The petition information was linked in this thread quite awhile ago. As for useful information about the actual car wash itself, there may be a total of 2 pages hidden among the 40 pages of "noise". Any more actual information will be posted in an article about the car wash on the metrojacksonville site soon. I think it would be nice to link to the petitions again at that point, especially since everyone will then get to see what the place will look like in it's surroundings and the basics of it's operations.
Ms. Farley,
Try not to take comments personally on here. I know it's easy to. Communicating on forums like these is impersonal in tone, and meaning often gets lost or misunderstood by both parties.
Also, there are people who just like to get under your skin and want to alienate you.
You are a great resource to the community and have a sterling reputation. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise or disuade you from your good work.
Matt's quote:
QuoteI have talked to Louise about my issues with SPAR IN PERSON and would recommend anyone with issues do the same. At the same time I have a few issues with the operation of the organization I have the utmost respect for Louise and Chris.
It is entirely a communication issue on the part of SPAR that causes so many problems. In that regard they are their own worst enemy. Also, there are perceived conflicts of interest with some of the board members and a lack of adherence to the by-laws leaves room for criticism. I am NOT saying anything under-handed is going on, but once again they are leaving themselves open to some serious speculation. There is no question that they have done/are doing great things for/in the community, but until SPAR becomes more transparent people will continue to maintain these perceptions.
I have suggested numerous times that SPAR publicly address the issues/accusations that have been directed at them. There could be a huge neighborhood celebration, you could call it "Renewing Our Commitment to the Neighborhood" and outline several changes that are being implemented to ensure adherence to the bylaws, new communication tools and processes, etc.; pledging a commitment to integrity and transparency. I could see it really putting some wind in the sails.
Irony much?
Matt's concerns about SPAR Council and his exchange with Chris about communication problems within SPAR ended up causing other communication problems, hurt feelings, and IMHO, illustrates his point brilliantly.
where's Ronald Reagan & Bill Clinton when you need 'em?
I nearly live and breath with the internet, my iPhone, and text messaging. It is hard for me to remember life before this kind of technology, but there was atime in my life I lived without it.
As a child/teenager, if you called someone, and they didn't answer, they weren't home, or they were outside working. It was a rotary dial phone with a cord. No answering machine, no cordless phone, no caller ID, and who knew what a cell phone was. I had a computer at my job back in 1995 I think. But they were so new, no one really used them. Internet? Yikes. I STILL think it is new for many people.
Point is, when I was growing up (I'm 38 years old,) it was face to face conversation, true town meetings, and traditional community events that pulled people together. While I would not want to eliminate my computer, internet, iPhone, texting, etc. as there are so many perks and benefits, everyone who reads this forum and read multiple other forums that exist see clearly the power of miscommunication when it is done virtually.
I honestly believe that there is much overlap with what the residents of Springfield want and need. Still differing opinions, and different ideas about how to get "there," but much overlap. I have met and continue to meet good, GOOD people in Springfield. It reminds me of growing up in rural Vermont; family and community squabbles and all.
Peace,
Nicole
Quoteit was face to face conversation, true town meetings, and traditional community events that pulled people together. While I would not want to eliminate my computer, internet, iPhone, texting, etc. as there are so many perks and benefits, everyone who reads this forum and read multiple other forums that exist see clearly the power of miscommunication when it is done virtually.
I agree. Facial features, voice inflection, body language are essential to communication. All of these things are lacking in blogs, texts, etc. This leads to communication breakdowns and misinterpretation of meaning. Our new devices may be advanced but they are also a hindrance.
speaking of organizations with good intentions. there has been no other mention of SHARP, has it been abandoned or what? i posted on their website with no response doesnt look like it has had any activity since the middle of november.
Well...
It doesn't help matters when every time a SHARP info thread was posted, the same group of SPARbarians immediately jumped in to sling enough personal attacks & random B.S. that the moderators had no choice but to lock it down and get rid of it.
This happened what? 4 different times? 5 different times? After the last time this same cycle repeated itself, I'm pretty well convinced it was a deliberate strategy. So what's SHARP supposed to do? We already know what the result will be if they try to organize using these forums...SPAR people just sandbag it and get the thread locked down within an hour.
i just asked a question. i have checked out their web site and requested more information. simple as that.
Wow, that's one hell of a response to someone asking a simple question...yeah, it's those sparbarians that really get things out of whack. ::)
Chris,
....or......
2 people posted inappropriate emails that they received from the fictional group/character & then the thread was deleted.
But your version sounds much more sensational and that's what matters, right?
Perhaps those old threads can be looked up somehow to verify.
Its odd,
I dont remember one libelous or slanderous post. I remember people asking a lot of questions about what had been to date, nothing but vague innuendo, and people that may or may not exist, and then you melting down about it.
I also remember several emails from people said to be from "SHARP" were also posted. I also remember that the questions were coming from all sorts of different people, not just "SPARbarians".
I guess my memory has been effected by my advanced age, or maybe that something is "just mentally wrong with me".
Don't hold your breath.