New Convenience Store

[sheclown]

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.

[jason_contentdg]

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.

[sheclown]

smart move.  good job.

[thelakelander]

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.

[Dan B]

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?

[thelakelander]

He should be able to.

[strider]

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.

[Sigma]

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.

[Dan B]

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?

[Sigma]

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.

[fsu813]

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.

[thelakelander]

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.

[thelakelander]

Here's my take on these issues

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.

- 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.

- 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.

- 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.

2) 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. 

- 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. 

I 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.

[jason_contentdg]

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.

[fsu813]

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.