Is Springfield Ready for a Car Wash?

[Sigma]

Springfield Girl, I understand your train of thought.  My comments are only in regard to the time frame of when we got involved, and made sure he knew there were items and concerns that he needed to address if he wanted to open up.  I still think there's room for community input, I wish we were able to do it before Thursday's meeting...

x2

[ChriswUfGator]

I invented no such thing as it was stated a convenience store could have been opened all along. Mr. Jones showed no good faith. He kept his property blighted for 12 years and only chose to do improvements in the 11th hour when he thought he was going to be denied. If he had intended to get drawings and improve his site he would have done it before going to zoning to ask for the exception not afterwards. I have no doubt that he would have continued on the same path he has followed for these last 12 years. He stated very clearly at the hearing last night that he was ready to open in 2007 as is. So thankfully Jason did get involved but it was never Mr. Jones intention to take that path.

Yes SG, clearly that's the correct interpretation of the situation. It makes complete and total sense that the man would spend $500k installing all that car washing equipment, so he could sell malt liquor and cigarettes out of a blighted hellhole.

You SPAR people just crack me up. Honestly. What do you even say here? Nobody even bothered to ask him what he wanted to do. You just made a bunch of incorrect assumptions, sabotaged his grand opening, and then fought it tooth and nail ever since.

[fsu813]

there's no sense rehashing everything.

but if you'd like to get your facts str8 you can PM me.

[ChriswUfGator]

there's no sense rehashing everything.

but if you'd like to get your facts str8 you can PM me.

The facts seem pretty straight.

We've all read Jones' correspondence to COJ, describing the pre-orchestrated complaint call-ins that killed his grand opening. We've seen firsthand the attitudes of SPAR members towards this project, both on the video of the Planning Commission meeting, and also on these forums.

And the claim that SPAR was only against the project before the plans were revised is just utter B.S., since Content Design's revised plans for the site have been floating around for at least several weeks, and yet you guys still showed up to speak against him at the Planning meeting. Not to mention submitting a petition against it.

And now we just got a firsthand account of the meeting where SPAR allegedly gave him the opportunity to describe his objectives, where he apparently didn't get 3 words out before being tarred & feathered. The resident who witnessed it said he was actually embarrassed by the way Jones was treated.

So what's missing, exactly? Even if he was going to open a beer & cig store (he wasn't), or hell, even a brothel or crackhouse, you guys would never know it, since SPAR had already made up its mind and didn't need to look at any of those pesky 'facts,' or apparently even ask him what he planned to do (and then actually let him talk).

[fsu813]

there's no sense rehashing everything.

but if you'd like to get your facts str8 you can PM me.

[CS Foltz]

ChriswUFGator............your summation is pretty much on target..........I feel the exact same way!

[Kay]

I'm writing this after reading this thread and the Planning Commission thread and the SPAR list threat.  Why do we have to denigrate people who disagree with us?  Everyone has a right, and I would say an obligation, to weigh in on issues they believe will affect their own or their neighbors' qualify of life. 

For example, you may disagree with SPAR's position on this or other things, but give them some credit for being involved in trying to make their neighborhood better.  Get involved with SPAR if you want to change their positions. 

I believe the most important thing is protecting people's quality of life where they live.  Most who live in suburbia don't have to worry about this because commercial is separate from residential.  It is more challenging in an urban environment and more critical because of the mixed uses.  And the major consideration always should be, how will this affect the residents quality of life.

 

[CS Foltz]

I'm writing this after reading this thread and the Planning Commission thread and the SPAR list threat.  Why do we have to denigrate people who disagree with us?  Everyone has a right, and I would say an obligation, to weigh in on issues they believe will affect their own or their neighbors' qualify of life. 

Kay.......I agree whole heatedly! I would suggest you read the entire thread and those related in order to get a full grasp of just what has been taking place............once you do that, then give me your take on the situation if you would!

[uptowngirl]

I'm writing this after reading this thread and the Planning Commission thread and the SPAR list threat.  Why do we have to denigrate people who disagree with us?  Everyone has a right, and I would say an obligation, to weigh in on issues they believe will affect their own or their neighbors' qualify of life. 

For example, you may disagree with SPAR's position on this or other things, but give them some credit for being involved in trying to make their neighborhood better.  Get involved with SPAR if you want to change their positions. 

I believe the most important thing is protecting people's quality of life where they live.  Most who live in suburbia don't have to worry about this because commercial is separate from residential.  It is more challenging in an urban environment and more critical because of the mixed uses.  And the major consideration always should be, how will this affect the residents quality of life.

 

You are spot on Kay, but what is missing is the behind the scenes nonsense that certain members engage in. SPAR should be concerned about the betterment of the neighborhood, and you would think protecting historical structures would be at the top of that list, but no....

[Dan B]

I'm writing this after reading this thread and the Planning Commission thread and the SPAR list threat.  Why do we have to denigrate people who disagree with us?  Everyone has a right, and I would say an obligation, to weigh in on issues they believe will affect their own or their neighbors' qualify of life. 

For example, you may disagree with SPAR's position on this or other things, but give them some credit for being involved in trying to make their neighborhood better.  Get involved with SPAR if you want to change their positions. 

I believe the most important thing is protecting people's quality of life where they live.  Most who live in suburbia don't have to worry about this because commercial is separate from residential.  It is more challenging in an urban environment and more critical because of the mixed uses.  And the major consideration always should be, how will this affect the residents quality of life.

 

You are spot on Kay, but what is missing is the behind the scenes nonsense that certain members engage in. SPAR should be concerned about the betterment of the neighborhood, and you would think protecting historical structures would be at the top of that list, but no....

^ +1

[Kay]

I agree that promoting and fighting to protect historic structures should be a priority of any organization whose mission includes historic preservation. 

[Springfielder]

I'm writing this after reading this thread and the Planning Commission thread and the SPAR list threat.  Why do we have to denigrate people who disagree with us?  Everyone has a right, and I would say an obligation, to weigh in on issues they believe will affect their own or their neighbors' qualify of life. 

For example, you may disagree with SPAR's position on this or other things, but give them some credit for being involved in trying to make their neighborhood better.  Get involved with SPAR if you want to change their positions. 

I believe the most important thing is protecting people's quality of life where they live.  Most who live in suburbia don't have to worry about this because commercial is separate from residential.  It is more challenging in an urban environment and more critical because of the mixed uses.  And the major consideration always should be, how will this affect the residents quality of life.

 

You are spot on Kay, but what is missing is the behind the scenes nonsense that certain members engage in. SPAR should be concerned about the betterment of the neighborhood, and you would think protecting historical structures would be at the top of that list, but no....

^ +1

^+1 more!

[Kay]

I'm writing this after reading this thread and the Planning Commission thread and the SPAR list threat.  Why do we have to denigrate people who disagree with us?  Everyone has a right, and I would say an obligation, to weigh in on issues they believe will affect their own or their neighbors' qualify of life. 

Kay.......I agree whole heatedly! I would suggest you read the entire thread and those related in order to get a full grasp of just what has been taking place............once you do that, then give me your take on the situation if you would!

I don't know enough about this--only what I've read on the blog.  If there are homes across the street, then I think a car wash is too intensive.  I would not want to live across from a car wash.  I understand the view about improving an existing and neglected building and site--that it adds more value.  But when you have an intensive use next to residential there must be a way to buffer it such that it doesn't negatively impact quality of life or reduce the values of the residential properties.  At a minimum, there should be a buffer and the car wash moved toward Main St. and the entrance and exit on that street (although I've been told that there is no access to this property from Main St).  Also, some of those noise decibels were higher than I would want to live next to.  I think the FDOT standard is 65 or lower.  So everything possible should be done to protect the residents if it goes forward.

It also seems that some in the community believe that this business owner cannot deliver on the proposed design.  I think you have to make some room that they may be right about this, or at least that it is a legitimate concern.  

[thelakelander]

If there are homes across the street, then I think a car wash is too intensive.  I would not want to live across from a car wash.  I understand the view about improving an existing and neglected building and site--that it adds more value.  But when you have an intensive use next to residential there must be a way to buffer it such that it doesn't negatively impact quality of life or reduce the values of the residential properties.  At a minimum, there should be a buffer and the car wash moved toward Main St. and the entrance and exit on that street (although I've been told that there is no access to this property from Main St).

The car wash facility has been located on this site since 1955.  Also, from what I understand, the two residential properties across the street are in favor of the project.  The properties on all three other sides are commercial.  I do believe if these things were not a part of this particular case, that it would not have been approved.

site

Also, some of those noise decibels were higher than I would want to live next to.  I think the FDOT standard is 65 or lower.  So everything possible should be done to protect the residents if it goes forward.

Here are the current decibel levels at the site


Here are the proposed decibel levels between the hours of 8am and 6pm


Nothing really changes for most of the residential properties.  The two that do, have been said to be in favor of the project.

It also seems that some in the community believe that this business owner cannot deliver on the proposed design.  I think you have to make some room that they may be right about this, or at least that it is a legitimate concern.

From my view, while a concern to some, this should not factor heavily into a zoning exception or not for this particular use.  Nevertheless, the approval comes with the owner being tied to delivering the site and structural conditions illustrated in their concept.  He can't open without.  This addition should be a win/win for all involved.

[Keith-N-Jax]

All this over a car wash.