Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council denies rezoning for three‑story self‑storage near Wintergreen Road after concerns about scale and parking
Summary
After a lengthy public hearing and cross‑examination of staff and the applicant, the council voted 5–2 to deny rezoning case PD7502025, a proposed three‑story, 100,200‑sq‑ft, climate‑controlled self‑storage project at 1038 East Wintergreen Road.
The Cedar Hill City Council on May 12 denied rezoning case PD7502025, rejecting a request to change 2.68 acres at 1038 East Wintergreen Road from Local Retail to a Planned Development that would permit a three‑story, 100,200‑square‑foot indoor, climate‑controlled self‑storage facility with roughly 810 units.
Planning staff (S4) presented the request and recommended denial, saying the project’s scale and intensity did not align with the 2022 comprehensive plan’s designation for the site. Staff noted potential deviations from local retail standards, including reduced parking, three‑story height and the site’s adjacency to single‑family homes. "Staff recommends denial of the request based on the zoning change factors for consideration and the 2022 comprehensive plan designation," the planning director said.
The applicant and property owner argued the site is physically constrained and that retail had failed there; property owner Bill Engel (S18) described the site as "a bad location" for new retail and said market demand supports storage. Applicant representative Tommy Mann (S14) said the PD approach memorializes commitments to neighbors — an 83‑foot setback, preserved trees and enhanced materials — and that three stories were necessary for financial viability. "We did a PD so we could memorialize our commitments to that neighborhood," Mann said.
Councilmembers pressed the developer on parking, potential visibility from Highway 67, noise from rooftop condensing units, and whether a 3‑story facility would be oversupplied within the market. The applicant’s market representative (S17) said most customers are drawn from a 2–3 mile radius and that much of the existing storage product was older and less competitive. Several councilmembers said the comprehensive plan and the project’s potential visual impact and parking effects outweighed those arguments.
Councilmember Chad McCurdy (S13) moved to deny the rezoning; the motion was seconded and the council voted 5–2 to deny case PD7502025. The presiding officer announced the vote and thanked the applicant for bringing forward a concept that attempted to respond to neighborhood concerns.
