Loading...
SPIN2022-24 - Extra Space StorageQJ SOUTHLAKE SPIN MEETING REPORT SPIN Item Number: SPIN2022-24 City Case Number: N/A Project Name: Extra Space Storage SPIN Neighborhood: 9 Meeting Date: December 13, 2022 Meeting Location: 1400 Main Street, Southlake, TX City Council Chambers Total Attendance: 3 Hosts: Madeline Oujesky Applicant Presenting: Eddie Bogard, Phone: (512) 904-2523, Email: ebogard@vickreyllc.com City Staff Present: Madeline Oujesky, Assistant to the Director Town Hall Forums can be viewed in their entirety by visiting http://www.cityofsouthlake.com and clicking on "I Want to" and "View" "Video on Demand" — forums are listed under SPIN by meeting date. FORUM SUMMARY: Property Situation: 1928 Brumlow Ave. An applicant is proposing an approximately 156,975 sq. ft. self -storage expansion on 2.87 acres located at 1928 Brumlow Ave. within SPIN Neighborhood #9. Development Details: • Self -storage site • Proposed third phase of a self -storage facility at extra space storage on Brumlow • One of the items that was listed was that we would have to get a variance request for an ordinance for a height restriction ordinance. o There is a four to one slope for the height of the building from the neighboring residential o It limits our building, not sustainable for something that would be a multi -story self - storage facility. • Requesting a variance and see what the feedback would be on that variance request from the neighbors • Taking the residential height at the creek centerline - which is not really the residential houses, so that's kind of what our question would be. Would the city support height restriction modification or variance request to just scoot it back to where the house is, and would that be a more reasonable interpretation? And so that's what feedback we're asking. We're able to comply with everything else. Presentation: MI - 1 i 11 2l O ' O ��' orlon 0 'll I i 0 -r. .:.:...... .. w ■ w: No .6 �F 2 170 cn� A Y it. -------- ----- seo - _.:'r a ro rQ� I Q w 58E - m 06 560 Questions and Comments/Concerns: Residents Question: You want the height restriction from the water line, not from the house line? Answer: Well, according to the code it's at the property line where the height restriction starts and the property lines between the two. So, the boundary between the residential and the commercial it just so happens to be. It just so happens to be that's almost the center line of the Creek. Question: Why three stories? How many square feet? Answer: Right, so from the street Brumlow you would see about two floors because it's a step down. It's such a big elevation change it would be a step down. Question: How much square footage does the second phase have? Answer: 41,000 Question: Why not make it two-story and keep it consistent to what you've done before? Answer: You don't want even a four -floor unit right next to a residential. Three story is about the max that they could reasonably sustain there for self -storage. There is hardly any self -storage left. It is completely full now. There is a need for it. Question: Did you find another location to build this thing potentially? Answer: There's plenty of locations in Texas to build this thing. As far as demand goes, there is really high demand for that in your area. Question: Why would you measure height from the beginning of the flood zone? How much erosion is that going to create from the weight and all of that? What about lighting and noise? Trees? Security? Answer: There will not be any mass lighting. Dark sky compliant. Have done a study regarding flooding and it shows that it doesn't. We have done detention. As far as erosion, we are not building on the bank at all. Noise would be minimum. We will have an eight -foot masonry wall around the whole thing. Question: Are you implying that the height of the three story will be the same height as the current two story? Answer: Yes. It drops off dramatically so we can add another floor below the elevation of the two story. Conclusion of Questions and Comments/Concerns: Residents SPIN Meeting Reports are general observations of SPIN Meetings by City staff and SPIN Representatives. The report is neither verbatim nor official meeting minutes; rather it serves to inform elected and appointed officials, City staff, and the public of the issues and questions raised by residents and the general responses made. Responses as summarized in this report should not be taken as guarantees by the applicant. Interested parties are strongly encouraged to follow the case through the Planning and Zoning Commission and final action by City Council. Southlake Connect Results for the December 13, 2022 SPIN Town Hall Forum 12/3022, 1:07 PM Everbridge- Notifications Everbridge Suite City of Southlake - Citizen Alert (Organization Admin) Dashboard Universe Notifications Contacts Reports Settings Access Reports > Detailed Notification Analysis > SPIN Town Hall Forum -December 13th Detailed Notification Analysis SPIN Town Hall Forum - December 13th DETAILS Call Results Notification ID 3523251867225398 Notification Mode Live Notification Standard Type Start Date Dec 12, 2022 StartTime 13:02:53 CST Confirmation Yes Hide Details Requested Call Throttling Yes Call Results(per Delivery Path) Duration 4 hr(s) Message Voice/Text Attempted - Confirmed Format Voicemail Message Only Confirmed Preference Delivery Order Organization Default Attempted - Not Confirmed Delivery Methods Organization Contacts 1.Primary SMS Delivered 2.Secondary SMS 3.Primary Email 4.Primary Mobile Delivered - To Voicemail 5-Secondary Erna! I 6-Secondary Mobile 7-Home Phone Not Delivered - No Answer 8_Home Phone 02 9.BOsiness Phone 10.TTY/ TTD Device Delivered -To Handset Resident Connection _.. 1.VOIP 2.Landline Not Delivered - Voicemail Hung Up Not Delivered -Recipient Hung Up Sent Attempted - Not Connected Not Delivered - Invalid Number Not Delivered - Out of Service Not Delivered - Carrier Expired Not Delivered - Downstream Communication Error h ttp s://m anager. everbri dge.n et/reports/n otifi cati onlvi ew/3523251867225398 ■ 266 (2.61 %)Attempted - Confrmed 8048 (78.99%)Attempted - Not Confirmed ■ 206 (2.02%)Attempted - Not Connected 1601 (15.71 %) Not Attempted 0 68 (0.67%) Other Total 266 50 1517 127 2676 135 477 3066 80 65 10 49 of Total 2.61 % 0.49 % 14.89% 1.25% 26.26 % 1.32% 4.68 % 30.09% 0.79 % 0.64% 0.10% 0.48 % '❑ 112 12/30/22, 1:07 PM Everbridge- Notifications Call Resu Its(per Delivery Path) Total % of Total Not Delivered - Line Busy 2 0.02% Not Attempted Not Attempted - Inactive Path 142 1.39 % Not Attempted - Unsubscribed 866 8.50 % Not Delivered - Contact Path Not 7 0.07% Defined Not Delivered - Duplicate Path 586 5.75% Other Not Delivered - Bounced Email 65 0.64% Not Delivered - Contact Unavailable 3 0.03 Attempts Over Time 7.5k 5k 2.5k 0k off" ob ob ob b ; m tiM tit Show Details Aeverbridge PriuZ Policy Terms of Use © 2022 Everbridge, Inc. 22.6.0.11-2022-12-09-07:29 FE-VERSION 6 mgr-prtl-prod-us-green-1-03a7b23f729edf5cc h ttp s://m anager. everbri dge.n et/reports/n otifi cati onlvi ew/3523251867225398 212