Item 7D Nov. 4. 2014 5:15PM TXIE No, 0170 P. 1
Notification Response Form
ZA14-120
•
Meeting Date: October 23, 2014 at 6:30 PM
Zionecek, Brian
PO Box
Southlake Tx 76092
PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY
BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING.
Being the owner(s) of the property so noted above, are hereby
in favor of pi-cri;;; to undecided about
• (circle or underline one)
the proposed Zoning Change and Site Plan referenced above.
Space for comments regarding your position:
D4 1.7s- AILd ,6
tifitou fly -teef'
pitkeed. use. 4,41. e..,4 1 o 7
d azuj iftd.e/s ?
. .
Signature:
Date:
Additional Signature: Date:
Printed - Name(s): - -
Must be property owner(s) whose name(s) are printed at top. Otherwise contact the Planning Department One form per property.
Phone Number (optional):
GREG AND TRILBY KUELBS
7D
1831 RIVER OAKS DR.
WESTLAKE, TX 76262
October 31, 2014
Via Electronic Mail
Mayor John Terrell
Members of the Southlake City Council
City of Southlake
RE: Case Number ZA14 -120- Zoning Change and Site Plan for
White Line Self Storage
Dear Mayor Terrell and Council Members,
We are the owners of approximately fifteen (15) acres of land adjacent to and just to the
north of the proposed development. Our property is currently zoned RE and SF1 -A with a
number of occupied homes onsite. The purpose of this letter is to register our official opposition
to the above development proposal, a 90,000 sq. ft. mini storage facility and also detail our
concerns regarding it.
We have lived in the Southlake - Westlake area for almost 30 years. We have watched
Southlake develop into one of the most beautiful cities in the country. We are concerned that if
City Council approves this development, it will limit Davis Blvd. to industrial uses that, while
necessary, are better located elsewhere.
We attended the Planning and Zoning Meeting of October 23, 2014 and expressed our
concerns about the proposed zoning change and site plan. The Commission did not attempt to
address our concerns with the developer and in fact, indicated they did not agree with a number
of them. Some of the specific concerns that we have with the proposed development are as
follows:
a. ji
• Section 31.6 of Southlake's SP -1 zoning category states, "In addition to the development
regulations applicable to this zoning district, the development regulations in Section 43,
Part Ill, Residential Adjacency Standards, shall also apply. When any requirements in
this section are in conflict with any other requirements for this zoning district, the
more stringent requirements shall apply." The proposed development is adjacent to
residentially zoned property (ours) and therefore the Residential Adjacency Standards of
Section 43 of Southlake's zoning ordinance should be applied to this development.
However the requested zoning does not comply with those standards.
a. The building as proposed does not meet the requirements of the Residential
Adjacency Ordinance because the building's slope is not 4 to 1, creating a less
desirable elevation for adjacent properties.
b. The proposed site plan anticipates a 3 story building, 40 feet high in violation of
the Residential Adjacency Ordinance which only allows for 2.5 stories with a
maximum height of 35 feet.
• I -1 will be the underlying zoning for this project if approved and Southlake's zoning
ordinance requires a minimum of 5 contiguous acres of I -1 zoning when requesting a
zoning change to I -1. This development only has 2 acres of I -1 zoning contiguous to it.
• The zoning requests uses beyond that of mini storage, including cold storage warehouses
without size limitation, min - warehouses and warehouses in general.
• The plan only has 22 parking spaces and is proposing 1 space per 5000 sq. ft.
Southlake's Parking Ordinance calls for 1 space per 1000 sq. ft. for industrial uses. The
parking as proposed is not even close to adequate for this development.
• The applicant has provided no details regarding the planned lighting of the facility. We
are concerned that there will be significant spill over lighting unto our property because
of the need for a higher level of security.
• Although the development does not indicate any plans for outside storage, we have a
concern that if the development is approved, an application requesting permission to
have outside storage could be next.
• The plan does not indicate a maximum number of storage units.
2
• The zoning does not specify the hours of operation and the developer was non - committal
and vague at the P & Z meeting. Generally a mini - storage facility has 24 hour access of
some type.
• While the proposed operator is not U -Haul, there is a possibility that U -Haul could
purchase the building in the future and replace the current color configuration with the U-
Haul colors which are very bold and bright, not neutral as proposed in this development.
• The industrial uses requested under this zoning could serve to limit opportunities for
other types of more desirable development in the Davis Blvd. corridor, especially the
properties to the north.
• Southlake already has four mini storage facilities within its borders: Yates, Dragon
Storage, Southlake Storage, and Public Storage. There are at least four other mini storage
facilities within two miles of this proposed development in North Richland Hills. We
question the need for one more mini storage facility in Southlake, especially one that is
90,000 square feet in size.
• We understand there have been challenges with development along Michael Dr.
However the proposed development does not really do anything for the other properties
on Michael Dr. as the road will only be completed to the end of their property line and
ties into the same 6 inch water line that the other buildings on Michael Dr. have been
using.
It is our hope that the Council has a more promising vision for this part of Davis Blvd.
There is a real possibility of grouping a number of Davis Blvd. /Michael Dr. properties together
in the future for a master - planned development with office /retail along Davis and some type of
residential component in the interior, potentially connecting Michael Dr. with Brock Dr and
incorporating the flood plain area into an attractive park/open space. This type of master -
planned development would be a win/win for the properties on Michael Dr., the properties to
the North of Michael Dr. and the City of Southlake. We hope you will concur and do not vote to
approve this project.
Sincerely,
3
) ik 1
Greg and Trilby Kuelbs
4