Even With Updates, Few Lochwood Residents Support Ojala’s Plans For Garland Road Development
Share News:
More than nine months ago, developers with Ojala Holdings proposed a high-rise apartment tower on a lot currently occupied by Shoreline City Church, which is adjacent to the Lochwood neighborhood of East Dallas.
Dozens of neighborhood meetings have been held since then. Extensive changes to the original plan have been made. The need for affordable housing has been acknowledged on both sides. Dallas Plan Commissioner Michael Jung and District 9 City Councilwoman Paula Blackmon have been thoroughly engaged.
And the majority of the neighbors still don’t want a mixed-income multifamily development in their backyards.
A final gathering of developers and about 70 neighbors was held Thursday night at Harry Stone Recreation Center, an opportunity to share information and answer questions before the Plan Commission votes on Ojala’s rezoning request on Sept. 15.
The Dallas City Council is expected to hear the item on Oct. 26.
The Proposal
The site currently is zoned R7.5(A) single-family residential, which allows churches, among other things. Shoreline City Church is relocating and selling the property to Ojala Holdings. The developer is requesting the site be rezoned to a planned development for multifamily use and is pursuing a contract for 51 percent affordable housing to be rented to households that earn 80 percent of the Area Median Family Income.
Daniel Smith, managing director of Ojala Holdings, said the Standard Shoreline development also would house the local workforce — teachers, police officers, and firefighters — who earn $50,000 to $70,000 per year.
“This is not project-based Section 8 vouchers,” Smith said. “This is workforce housing. We call it attainable housing. This is not a homeless housing shelter. This is a Class A mixed-use, mixed-income development. Half of our folks are going to be higher earners, where we’re trying to get the highest rent possible. The other half of the folks are going to be rent-controlled because we are in the middle of an affordable housing crisis in North Texas.”
Background checks and credit checks will be performed, Smith explained.
Lochwood residents acknowledge there’s a need for affordable housing.
“This issue isn’t about whether or not affordable housing is necessary — because of course it is,” states information on the Lochwood Neighborhood Association website. “The issue is how affordable housing should be implemented — especially with single-family zoned developments next to established residential neighborhoods. A massive, 60-foot-tall, four-story, 300-unit development with incredible tax breaks for the developer that will encroach upon established residents is not OK … The city needs to work to find a happy medium that encourages housing developments that meet the needs of the workforce community, while respecting the neighborhoods where such developments are considered. It can be a win-win, if handled correctly.”
Ojala representatives described the project as 3,000 square feet of creative office space with an art park and 25,000 square feet of open space in addition to the 300 apartments, which include 18 lower-density townhomes.
“In an effort to respect any privacy concerns associated with the adjacent single-family [development], we have made a number of design modifications including reduced height and density, enhanced visual buffers including townhomes, a 15-foot landscape barrier, and privacy fencing, lighting restrictions, and a ban on short-term rentals,” Smith said. “It’s no secret that we are in the midst of a housing and affordability crisis. We believe that the Standard Shoreline will be a truly unique, mixed-use, mixed-income project that will assist in improving the northern section of the Garland Road Corridor while providing much-needed housing, jobs, and community amenities.”
Ojala officials shared a drone video that shows the view from above the Shoreline site, displaying what’s visible of the surrounding neighborhoods at that height.
“From the fourth floor, you cannot see into the backyards,” Smith said. “Not only that, there’s two-story townhomes that are going to be built in this section; there’s enhanced landscaping, and there’s privacy fencing.”
Garland Road Vision Task Force
The 10-member Garland Road Vision Task Force was split in a 5-5 vote on the rezoning proposal on Sept. 1 and declined to provide a recommendation.
Thomas Buck, who oversees communications for Lochwood Neighborhood Association, said if Ojala representatives were looking to rally public support at Thursday’s meeting, they might be disappointed.
“We feel Ojala’s leadership believes not having a GRV Task Force recommendation in favor of the build hurts their standing with the council,” he said before the gathering. “We believe this meeting is a last-ditch effort for them to gain public support before the plan commission review next Thursday. We must make them realize a small art park and creative center does not compensate for a 60-foot, four-story complex only 18 feet away from our neighbors’ properties.”
Public Comments
The Sept. 8 public meeting got a little heated. Some residents appeared frustrated and scoffed at data presented by Ojala on school capacity and traffic counts.
Smith and Ojala partner Matthew Vruggink attempted to answer residents’ questions, but it’s clear their presentation wasn’t likely to change the minds of most of the attendees.
Scott Robson, president of the Lochwood Neighborhood Association, said only about one in 10 of the neighbors support the rezoning.
“Nobody wins,” he said. “The only winner here is Ojala.”
Resident Alison Milam pointed out concerns after the meeting about tax incentives and the reference to “attainable housing.”
“Ojala started out referring to this complex as ‘affordable’ housing and tonight they called it ‘attainable’ housing,” Milam said. “When I questioned how much the rent would be, I was shocked to find out that it’s really no different from any other apartment complex in the city. In other words, it didn’t seem ‘affordable’ or ‘attainable’ to me.”
She further observed that Ojala representatives appeared evasive when asked about tax incentives provided to those who build affordable housing.
“Shouldn’t we be holding the city accountable for further explanation as to why $2,000-plus rent is considered ‘affordable’ housing?” she said. “It was my understanding that the city was doing this because there is a desperate need for affordable housing. And now even the developer is referring to their project as ‘attainable,’ so how and why should they qualify for this tax break?”
In a separate conversation, Buck said the guidelines for converting a single-family-zoned property next to a neighborhood should be treated differently than rezoning a commercial or industrial property in the same spot.
“If you’re buying a house that is adjacent to a commercial- or industrial-zoned lot, it’s a ‘let the buyer beware’ situation,” he said. “There’s a level of expectation that development could occur on that lot. With a single-family-zoned lot, there’s a level of expectation the single-family property will remain a single-family-zoned property.”
1 Comments
Leave a Comment
The developer and city officials endorsing this project failed to both anticipate important questions and concerns that long term single family home owners would have in a development of this size prior to the first or later public meetings. If I was managing this project, or a city official endorsing it, I would have anticipated those concerns, collected and reviewed data, and had solutions for… before even presenting the project. Even if it meant scaling the project down to a level that would keep it within existing zoning boundaries and neighborhood tolerance, ensuring a win win project from the start. If the neighborhoods they want to rezone and build in, mattered to them, they would have been prepared and willing to get their buy in, even if it means meaningful compromise.
They have since failed to address with data, analysis, and acceptable solutions to get the majorities buy in for a significant zoning change, even as it’s only a week from a zoning change vote, and weeks from a project approval vote. A zoning change that would be the start to transform our neighborhoods into high rise living along Garland Rd which we already have plenty of now downtown, all along 75, and in Oak Lawn (now called uptown) etc. Why stop at 4 stories when you can have 6 or 12? This zoning change opens the door for much more to come later. The city has made clear they don’t want to honor the rezoning laws made recently to encourage but also limit development, why would they honor newly adjusted limits later?
To permit this historic first type of development in the ‘public’ square (the church space adjoined by small businesses) of our adjoining neighborhoods not only reneges on the GRV plan which did have the neighborhoods buy in for measured and controlled development and improvement, it sets the stage to transform our neighborhoods into something they currently aren’t: super packed dense urban developments with building views vs sky and treelines. This is a significant risk considering one major apartment development has already started this year, and this would be the second, albeit at triple capacity from and with two additional stories, within a half mile of my home. Both adding hundreds of new residents and strain on existing infrastructure, , traffic and emergency response services. I have been here long enough to remember when it just took ten minutes to get downtown just a decade ago in the mornings and evenings, and when it was nice and quiet before all the bars opened. Now it takes over an hour with traffic and we are becoming the new Greenville Ave.
What most who have lived here for decades, or raised their kids here, or passed these homes on through the generations, love most about it is: it’s relaxed family centered neighborhoods with lush green spaces and gorgeous treelines. Prior to 2020 our neighborhoods were amazingly safe and quiet for the most part with the exception of the blocks that had bars open after the alcohol ordinance change. If we wanted to live in trendy super packed urban spaces, we would have bought our homes in downtown or uptown condos. Now granted there are some new homeowners who have bought here who do want that, but most do not, especially those who have lived here a long time and managed to hold on their homes through grit, elbow grease, and significant sacrifice through historic tumultuous economic firsts that left 30-40% of our long term neighbors displaced.
We don’t have a crisis of housing available, we have a crisis of affordable housing both to buy or rent. When a handful of investment firms owns over half of all commercial, farm, and residential properties, which really kicked off when many Americans lost their homes due to absolute corruption in the banking and government industries in 08 this is the natural outcome. This megaplex however as is, is not a solution especially since it’s been changed to 80% of median Dallas income, which ignores the many at high risk of homelessness that make <50 % of median income levels. If your making 80% of median family income levels , your right below the the top 20 % percent of Dallas earners. Though money not being tied to anything of value (gold and silver) combined with mass debt based creation of, and a speculative usury economy, we all have suffered under the dramatic transfers of wealth from the many to the few through devaluation and inflation. So no doubt a family making 140,00 a year today is the equivalent of a family making 80,000 just a few years ago, it's tough. But no where near as tough as a family making making <50,000 today which is now worth 25,000 in absolute buying and spending ability. How to fix it? Clearly this isn't it. If they were serious about making it a win for them as developers, us as neighbors, and affordable housing for low and lower income Dallas families they would have forseen these concerns and presented a project with:
1. Three story limit
2. In exchange for 75 years tax waiver for city taxes (supposedly changed to 20-25 now with a million dollar fee annual) half the units to low and lower income families
3. Million dollar fee to go towards accommodating additional burden on ems, flood run off management due to soil erosion, and traffic development to accommodate significant added traffic growth in area caused by newly added units
4. Perhaps add an underground parking garage to alleviate concerns of one story businesses around church since parking demands and overflow are a serious concern, or create a lease contract to pay a fee to park at storage space across street which sits mostly empty.
5. Different management company vs choosing one with a poor F rating on BBB
6. Have checks and balances in rental contract for social contract agreement and enforcement if a tenant violates.
Instead of the developer and city speaking to those concerns with viable solutions that would make all of us partners in this, city officials have largely dismissed LNAs (and some of our neighborhoods concerns) as anti development and anti affordable housing due to a few who behaved emotionally and had choice words at the spring meeting for them. Most of the people at the spring meeting, though upset, because this was sprung on them with no prior discussion before planning and rolling out, became upset because the developer and city officials had no to little data or actionable answers for their concerns. Even so, most conducted themselves professionally, albeit frankly. The few who didn't, is the umbrella they have used to criticize LNA and others concerns at a recent public neighborhood meeting where it came up again, which is not an acceptable reason to dismiss the concerns of the many, or not to provide detailed answers or agreed compromises on. Failing to do that ensures failure, not success.