A zoning case for the use of the vacant Hypermart building at 3159 South Garland Ave. has the attention of nearby residents who prefer that a self-storage facility not be approved for the site.
Robin Parsley, a representative of Best Storage appeared before the Planning Commission at the Oct. 12 meeting to secure a special use permit for a combination of indoor, climate-controlled storage spaces and an indoor sports complex owned by Texas Sports Center at the site.
He assured the commission that Best Storage would be a good neighbor and that their properties are well-landscaped. Their intention is to replace the building’s façade to make it look like a new building. He added that Best Storage has high security standards and the facility would be well-lit and have motion detectors.
Concern was expressed that if the sports center did not succeed the entire facility would become storage space. Parsley said that they would not expand the storage facility beyond the original plan.
Parsley also said visits with nearby businesses indicate that they are glad to have the storage facility go in. He added, though, that he had not visited with nearby residents.
City staff recommended against the development and added that if it was approved, it should be granted a 10-year SUP. Parsley pointed out that their lender would require a 30-year SUP.
Commissioner Fisher expressed concern about the plans including a wall that looked like it had garage doors that would face South Garland Ave. He was told that self-storage facilities add this type of door to make it look like a self-storage business.
Jason Crispin from Texas Sports Center told commissioners that TSC would be geared toward several different sports and that there is no large indoor sports facility within 10 miles of the site.
“It will be a magnet for people all over the area to come and participate in sports,” Crispin said.”
Basketball, volleyball, soccer, baseball, cheerleading and tumbling will be the original primary sports and because of the size of the facility, other sports could be added. There will be a workout facility, they will offer sports lessons and rent out space for activities such as birthday parties and summer camps and host sports tournaments.
The facility would have seven executive-level employees as well as several hundred part-time, seasonal employees and be open every day from as early as 6 a.m. until as late as 12 a.m. Crispin told the commission that they will always have an off-duty uniformed officer on-site.
One resident who addressed the commission said, “We’re tired of seeing that end of Garland look as poor as it does,” he said. “There are car lots, auto repair shops, etc. and now there could be self-storage. This is all we’re getting….As a resident, I’m completely against this.”
Former District 5 Council Member John Willis agreed with city staff’s previous recommendation against this development. He agrees with staff that the development doesn’t reflect the goals and standards expressed in the Envision Garland plan.
“One of the items in the plan is that care should be taken about what goes into the gateway corridors and catalyst areas,” Willis said. “South Garland Ave. is a catalyst area and a gateway corridor. It’s historically the Bankhead Highway. We need to take great care…so that we are able to do what the comprehensive plan recommends.
Willis has polled members of a nearby nextdoor.com sites and found that a large majority is against the development.
Another resident referred to the proposal as “putting lipstick on a pig” and another expressed concerned that storage would eventually take over the entire facility.
The commissioners agree that the sports complex would be great but they cannot accept the storage facility.
In rebuttal, Parsley mentioned that he had already met with Mayor Douglas Athas and the consultant that wrote Garland’s comprehensive plan. The consultant then, in a letter, told city staff that the proposed plan was a good, conforming use.
Staff’s recommendation to deny the proposal indicates their disagreement with the consultant.
The application was denied. The case re-appeared for further consideration on the Nov. 3 City Council meeting and was then postponed until the Nov. 17 meeting.