Request for Injunction

144
PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL PETITION—PAGE 1 J UDICIAL D ISTRICT C OURT D ALLAS C OUNTY , T EXAS East Village Association Plaintiff, v. The City of Dallas; Michael Anglin, Neil Emmons, Emma Rodgers, Betty Culbreath, Tony Shidid, Jed Anantasomboon, Ann Bagley, Myrtl M. Lavallaisaa, Gloria Tarpley, John Shellene, Jaynie Schultz, Cookie Peadon, Margot Murphy, Paul E. Ridley, and Robert Abtahi in their official capacity as members of the City Plan Commission; and TC Central Associates, LLC. Defendants. Cause No. _______________________ Plaintiff’s Original Petition and Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order, Temporary and Permanent Injunction, Request for Show Cause Order, and Motion for Expedited Discovery To the Honorable Court: Plaintiff East Village Association files this Original Petition and Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order, Temporary and Permanent Injunction, Request for Show Cause Order, and Motion for Expedited Discovery to prevent the City of Dallas (“Dallas”) City Plan Commission from approving a development plan based upon a void zoning ordinance. In support of its request, Plaintiff respectfully states as follows: I. DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN 1. Plaintiff intends to conduct discovery under Level 2 as set forth in Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 190.3. Smith Gay FILED DALLAS COUNTY 7/9/2014 11:40:22 AM GARY FITZSIMMONS DISTRICT CLERK DC-14-07239 162ND-I

description

Crow/CityPlace Sam's Injunction Request

Transcript of Request for Injunction

Page 1: Request for Injunction

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION—PAGE 1

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

East Village Association

Plaintiff,

v.

The City of Dallas; Michael Anglin, Neil Emmons, Emma Rodgers, Betty Culbreath, Tony Shidid, Jed Anantasomboon, Ann Bagley, Myrtl M. Lavallaisaa, Gloria Tarpley, John Shellene, Jaynie Schultz, Cookie Peadon, Margot Murphy, Paul E. Ridley, and Robert Abtahi in their official capacity as members of the City Plan Commission; and TC Central Associates, LLC.

Defendants.

Cause No. _______________________ Plaintiff’s Original Petition and Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order, Temporary and Permanent Injunction, Request for Show Cause Order, and Motion for Expedited Discovery

To the Honorable Court:

Plaintiff East Village Association files this Original Petition and Ex Parte

Application for Temporary Restraining Order, Temporary and Permanent Injunction,

Request for Show Cause Order, and Motion for Expedited Discovery to prevent the

City of Dallas (“Dallas”) City Plan Commission from approving a development plan

based upon a void zoning ordinance. In support of its request, Plaintiff respectfully

states as follows:

I. DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN

1. Plaintiff intends to conduct discovery under Level 2 as set forth in Texas Rule

of Civil Procedure 190.3.

Smith Gay

FILEDDALLAS COUNTY

7/9/2014 11:40:22 AMGARY FITZSIMMONS

DISTRICT CLERK

DC-14-07239

162ND-I

Page 2: Request for Injunction

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION—PAGE 2

II. CAPACITY

2. Defendants Michael Anglin, Neil Emmons, Emma Rodgers, Betty Culbreath,

Tony Shidid, Jed Anantasomboon, Ann Bagley, Myrtl M. Lavallaisaa, Gloria Tarpley,

John Shellene, Jaynie Schultz, Cookie Peadon, Margot Murphy, Paul E. Ridley, and

Robert Abtahi (together, the "CPC") are named exclusively in their official capacity

as members of the City Plan Commission.

III. PARTIES

3. Plaintiff is an unincorporated nonprofit association organized under Texas

Business Organizations Code § 252.001 et seq. Plaintiff’s members include one or

more members who reside and own real property within 200 feet of the

Development, as defined below.

4. The City of Dallas is a Texas municipal corporation and may be served

through the City Manager's Office, City Manager, A.C. Gonzalez, at his place of

business at 1500 Marilla Street, Room 4EN, Dallas, Texas, 75201.

5. Michael Anglin is a member of the Dallas City Plan Commission and may be

served through the City Manager's Office, City Manager, A.C. Gonzalez, at his place of

business at 1500 Marilla Street, Room 4EN, Dallas, Texas, 75201.

6. Neil Emmons is a member of the Dallas City Plan Commission and may be

served through the City Manager's Office, City Manager, A.C. Gonzalez, at his place of

business at 1500 Marilla Street, Room 4EN, Dallas, Texas, 75201.

7. Emma Rodgers is a member of the Dallas City Plan Commission and may be

served through the City Manager's Office, City Manager, A.C. Gonzalez, at her place of

business at 1500 Marilla Street, Room 4EN, Dallas, Texas, 75201.

8. Betty Culbreath is a member of the Dallas City Plan Commission and may be

served through the City Manager's Office, City Manager, A.C. Gonzalez, at her place of

business at 1500 Marilla Street, Room 4EN, Dallas, Texas, 75201.

Page 3: Request for Injunction

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION—PAGE 3

9. Tony Shidid is a member of the Dallas City Plan Commission and may be

served through the City Manager's Office, City Manager, A.C. Gonzalez, at his place of

business at 1500 Marilla Street, Room 4EN, Dallas, Texas, 75201.

10. Jed Anantasomboon is a member of the Dallas City Plan Commission and may

be served through the City Manager's Office, City Manager, A.C. Gonzalez, at his place

of business at 1500 Marilla Street, Room 4EN, Dallas, Texas, 75201.

11. Ann Bagley is a member of the Dallas City Plan Commission and may be

served through the City Manager's Office, City Manager, A.C. Gonzalez, at her place of

business at 1500 Marilla Street, Room 4EN, Dallas, Texas, 75201.

12. Myrtl M. Lavallaisaa is a member of the Dallas City Plan Commission and may

be served through the City Manager's Office, City Manager, A.C. Gonzalez, at her

place of business at 1500 Marilla Street, Room 4EN, Dallas, Texas, 75201.

13. Gloria Tarpley is a member of the Dallas City Plan Commission and may be

served through the City Manager's Office, City Manager, A.C. Gonzalez, at her place of

business at 1500 Marilla Street, Room 4EN, Dallas, Texas, 75201.

14. John Shellene is a member of the Dallas City Plan Commission and may be

served through the City Manager's Office, City Manager, A.C. Gonzalez, at his place of

business at 1500 Marilla Street, Room 4EN, Dallas, Texas, 75201.

15. Jaynie Schultz is a member of the Dallas City Plan Commission and may be

served through the City Manager's Office, City Manager, A.C. Gonzalez, at her place of

business at 1500 Marilla Street, Room 4EN, Dallas, Texas, 75201.

16. Cookie Peadon is a member of the Dallas City Plan Commission and may be

served through the City Manager's Office, City Manager, A.C. Gonzalez, at her place of

business at 1500 Marilla Street, Room 4EN, Dallas, Texas, 75201.

17. Margot Murphy is a member of the Dallas City Plan Commission and may be

served through the City Manager's Office, City Manager, A.C. Gonzalez, at her place of

business at 1500 Marilla Street, Room 4EN, Dallas, Texas, 75201.

Page 4: Request for Injunction

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION—PAGE 4

18. Paul E. Ridley is a member of the Dallas City Plan Commission and may be

served through the City Manager's Office, City Manager, A.C. Gonzalez, at his place of

business at 1500 Marilla Street, Room 4EN, Dallas, Texas, 75201.

19. Robert Abtahi is a member of the Dallas City Plan Commission and may be

served through the City Manager's Office, City Manager, A.C. Gonzalez, at his place of

business at 1500 Marilla Street, Room 4EN, Dallas, Texas, 75201.

20. TC Central Associates, LLC (“Crow”) is a Delaware limited liability company

that maintains its principal place of business in Dallas County and may be served

through its registered agent, Corporation Service Co. d/b/a CSC-Lawyers

Incorporating Service Co., 211 E. 7th Street, Ste. 620, Austin, TX 78701.

IV. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

21. The Court has jurisdiction pursuant to Texas Civil Practice and Remedies

Code § 37.003 because this action seeks a declaratory judgment regarding the

validity of Dallas City Ordinance No. 29019. Dallas’s sovereign immunity is waived

pursuant to Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 37.006(b).

22. Venue is proper in Dallas County pursuant to Texas Civil Practice and

Remedies Code § 15.002 because Dallas County is the county in which all or a

substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred and because

Defendants reside in Dallas County.

V. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

23. The zoning ordinance allowing Crow to develop a 100,000+ square foot

merchandise store on Planned Development District 889 at the corner of North

Central Expressway and North Carroll Avenue (the “Development”) is the product of

a fraud upon the people and the City of Dallas.

24. Because of the fundamentally unique character of 100,000+ square foot

merchandise stores, Dallas has historically intervened to restrict their development.

Page 5: Request for Injunction

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION—PAGE 5

25. On August 11, 2004, the Dallas City Council passed a 60-day moratorium

suspending building permits and certificates of occupancy for all new 100,000+

square foot merchandise stores because of neighborhood concerns.

26. A several-year economic and sociological study of 100,000+ square foot

merchandise stores concluded that they cause commercial and residential blight—

the megastores sap the life from local retailers, and as local retailers fail, their

surrounding neighborhoods fail as well, resulting in increased crime, housing decay,

suppression of wages, and reduced tax revenue for cities. See EDWARD B. SHILS,

MEASURING THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIOLOGICAL IMPACT OF THE MEGA-RETAIL DISCOUNT CHAINS

ON SMALL ENTERPRISE IN URBAN, SUBURBAN AND RURAL COMMUNITIES 1-16, 206, 218-19

(1997).

27. Recognizing that 100,000+ square foot merchandise stores need special

restrictions, including their own notice, their own hearing, and their own approval

by the City Council, on October 27, 2004, the Dallas City Council passed an ordinance

requiring that 100,000+ square foot merchandise stores obtain a Specific Use

Permit.

28. Dallas also requires design standards for 100,000+ square foot merchandise

stores, and the Dallas Development Code explains that the standards are necessary

because, "[l]arge retail uses often have negative impacts on community aesthetics,

the environment, mass transit, pedestrian circulation, the scale and rhythm of

streetscapes, traffic, and urban sprawl." Dal. Dev. Code § 51A-4.605(a)(1).

29. On June 15, 2012, Masterplan Consultants (“Masterplan”) filed a Zoning

Change Application on behalf of then-owner Xerox Services, LLC ("Xerox")

requesting that the Development's existing zoning be consolidated into a new

Planned Development District ("PD") "for Mixed Use-3." See Zoning Change

Application, p. 21-24 (all attachments to this Petition are bookmarked in the PDF

version pursuant to Judicial Committee on IT Technology Standards § 3.1(E)).

Page 6: Request for Injunction

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION—PAGE 6

30. Mixed Use-3 ("MU-3") is a specific zoning use enumerated in the Dallas

Development Code, which defines the purpose of MU-3 as:

To provide for the development of high density retail, office, hotel, and/or multifamily residential uses in combination on single or contiguous building sites, to encourage innovative and energy conscious design, efficient circulation systems, the conservation of land, and the minimization of vehicular travel.

Dal. Dev. Code § 51A-4.125(f)(1) (emphasis added).

31. The Zoning Change Application specifically states that, "the proposal does

not ask for additional uses or development rights." Zoning Change Application, p. 23.

32. By April 2013, Crow had been publicly named as the developer for the

Development, and on August 30, 2013, Crow acquired the property underlying the

Development from Xerox.

33. Although the Zoning Change Application specified MU-3 uses for the

Development, and further stated that "the proposal does not ask for additional uses

or development rights," on information and belief Crow conspired with Masterplan

to pass zoning permitting 100,000+ square foot merchandise stores as an additional

use, all the while misleading both neighborhood residents and city staff and officials

as to Crow's intent.

34. On April 24, 2013, Crow held a community meeting at Alex W. Spence

Talented/Gifted Academy to discuss the Development with the neighbors living

around it (the "Spence Meeting"). East Village Association member David Shaw was

in attendance.

35. At this meeting, Crow presented a mixed-use development called the "East

Village," clearly invoking the image of the West Village, and did not tell the

neighborhood attendees that the development would include a 100,000+ square

foot merchandise store.

36. As the nearby Belmont Park Neighborhood Association President recalled:

Page 7: Request for Injunction

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION—PAGE 7

MR. CARL SMITH: In fact, we were told that there would not be a big box store there in our - - in our response to asking questions. And our minute meetings reflect that.

I feel that we’ve been misled and that our neighborhood is being raped by those that we [ ] trusted.

I feel that [ ] we are being shown that Trammel[l] Crow is not going to be a good neighbor by their intention to move forward with the building of a big box megastore in objection to all of the surrounding neighborhoods and by the way they misled our neighborhood with what this development would be.

June 19, 2014 CPC Hearing Tr., p. 28 (Tr. cite14:19-15:7).

37. East Village Association officer Anthony Johnson recalled: “When we heard

about this potential [ ] East Village development we really thought it was going to be

something like the West Village, so none of us complained. All of us thought that it

was a great idea. And it was something that we were looking forward to a[s] new

residents of East Dallas.” June 19, 2014 CPC Hearing Tr., p. 32 (Tr. cite 23:1-6).

38. A Traffic Impact Analysis was submitted to the city along with the Zoning

Change Application. Its conclusions are telling—a vehicle-dependent development

at the Development site will likely overburden the US-75 Northbound frontage road

north of the North Haskell Avenue on-ramp, as well as North Carroll Avenue East of

US-75. See June 15, 2012 DeShazo Group, Inc. Technical Memorandum, p. 62, 64.

39. As counsel for Crow has conceded, the Development will be “automobile

driven.” June 19, 2014 CPC Hearing Tr., p. 46 (Tr. cite 45:13-15).

40. The Development is surrounded by small, two-lane streets that are essential

for East Village Association members’ daily transportation needs. Neighbors,

including East Village Association members, have expressed concerns that the traffic

resulting from the Development will not only be a nuisance, but also a public safety

hazard:

MR. KIRK De BOER: It will not allow it to be walkable, as they say, because you’re going to have so much traffic driving into it.

. . .

Page 8: Request for Injunction

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION—PAGE 8

MS. ADELE ACREY: I’m just going to speak quickly about the design of the streets in the neighborhood. Everything is only two lane. All our streets are two lane.

Spence School [and], what is it, School For the Blind is right down the street there and the Multiple Careers Magnet School is on Rusk. So we have three schools right there in the area. School buses park on the curbs. Residents park on the curbs. Parents picking up their students at Spence park on the curbs morning and afternoon.

All of - - DART buses come down Capital. That means those two-lane streets are glutted consistently. We don’t have room for 18-wheeler trucks, extra traffic glutting up all of those passages and putting adults and school children and blind people who practice going up and down Carroll to - - how to use their canes, how to catch the bus and things like that.

. . .

MS. CE CE SHEARER: I’m concerned about a number of things. The traffic. What’s going to happen to the school children. I am a teacher so I do worry about those kids running around in the street. And what’s going to happen if like an 18-wheeler comes down there. And the Lighthouse for the Blind people and things like that.

June 19, 2014 CPC Hearing Tr., p. 33-36 (Tr. cites 25:20-22, 27:4-20, 31:20-25).

41. In advance of the May 2, 2013 CPC hearing to determine whether to

recommend approval of the Development to the City Council, city staff were

required to send notice of the proposed zoning change to neighbors owning real

property within 500 feet of the Development.

42. In preparing this notice, Dallas city staff relied on misrepresentations from

the Zoning Change Application and Masterplan and told neighbors only that the

proposed zoning change would be "for MU-3 Mixed Use District Uses." See May 2,

2013 CPC Notice, p. 67. The CPC Notice did not mention anything about Crow's

intended 100,000+ square foot merchandise store use.

43. Indeed, in a subsequent public hearing on this issue, Commissioner Abtahi

confronted Dallas Interim Assistant Director of Current Planning Neva Dean about

why this notice did not mention 100,000+ square foot merchandise store use when

Dallas notices for this type of zoning typically do:

Page 9: Request for Injunction

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION—PAGE 9

COMMISSIONER ABTAHI: Ms. Dean, we saw some submissions of other notices that had gone out about other PD’s that include the 100,000 square foot of retail. What - - what determination is - - how do we determine what notice contains that provision and what notice does not contain that provision?

MS. NEVA DEAN: If I remember the example, the applicant came in specifically for the big box, either the Walmart of whatever the use was. We knew that was what they wanted to do so we clearly put that in there.

This applicant asked for MU-3 uses. And then they had different standards for those uses.

June 19, 2014 CPC Hearing Tr., p. 47 (Tr. cite 59:11-23).

44. As many neighbors have expressed, including East Village Association

member Christina Casas, who attended the Spence Meeting, "If I would have known

at that time that the big store was coming in like that I would have been here at that

meeting," referring to the May 2, 2013 CPC public hearing on the Development

zoning. June 19, 2014 CPC Hearing Tr., p. 30 (Tr. Cite 16:17-19).

45. On May 2, 2013, the CPC voted to recommend approval of the Development

zoning to the Dallas City Council. The eleven Commissioners present voted for

approval, and four Commissioners were absent. Because no neighbors knew that the

Development would include a 100,000+ square foot merchandise store, nobody

appeared at this public hearing to speak against the proposed zoning for the

Development. See June 19, 2014 CPC Hearing Tr., p. 30, 37 (Tr. cites 16:17-19,

32:11-19).

46. In advance of the May 22, 2013 City Council hearing to determine whether to

approve the Development zoning change, city staff sent out another notice of the

proposed zoning change to neighbors owning real property within 500 feet of the

development. Again, the notice made no mention of Crow's intended 100,000+

square foot merchandise store use, and specified only that the PD would be "for MU-

3 Mixed Use District uses." See May 22, 2013 City Council Notice, p. 73.

Page 10: Request for Injunction

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION—PAGE 10

47. Also in advance of the May 22, 2013 City Council hearing, the City Council

received city staff's analysis of the Development zoning proposal, which itself relied

on misrepresentations concerning the intended use for the Development.

Specifically, the staff analysis states:

The subject site is identified as being within an Urban Mixed Use Building Block on the forwardDallas! Vision Illustration, adopted June 2006. The Urban Mixed-Use Building Block incorporates a vibrant mix of residential and employment uses at a lower density than the Downtown Building Block. These areas are typically near Downtown, along the Trinity River or near major transit centers. Examples include Uptown, the City Place/West Village area, Stemmons Design District, Cedars and Deep Ellum. Urban Mixed-Use Building Blocks provide residents with a vibrant blend of opportunities to live, work, shop and play within a closely defined area. Buildings range from high-rise residential or midrise commercial towers to townhomes and small corner shops. Good access to transit is a critical element. Similar to Downtown, the Urban Mixed-Use Building Blocks offer employment and housing options and are important economic growth areas for businesses. People on foot or bike can enjoy interesting storefronts at ground level with benches, public art, on-street parking and wide sidewalks, creating an appealing streetscape. Large parking areas and other auto-oriented land uses are typically located at the edges.

The applicant's request is consistent with the forwardDallas! Vision and further complies with the following goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan.

. . .

URBAN DESIGN ELEMENT

GOAL 5.1: PROMOTE A SENSE OF PLACE, SAFETY AND WALKABILITY

. . .

GOAL 5.3 ESTABLISHING WALK-TO CONVENIENCE

May 22, 2013 City Council Briefing, p. 76-77.

48. This statement is consistent with what neighbors were told at the Spence

Meeting, and consistent with East Village Association members’ expectations for the

Development.

Page 11: Request for Injunction

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION—PAGE 11

49. On May 22, 2013, the City Council voted to follow the recommendation of the

CPC and approved the Development zoning change through Ordinance No. 29019.

Without anyone noticing, Crow and Masterplan had managed to include the

following language in the draft and final ordinance:

The following additional uses are permitted on the Property:

-- General merchandise or food store 100,000 square feet or more.

Dal. Dev. Code § 51P-889.107(b), p. 108.

50. As Rudolf Bush for the Dallas Morning News reported, reflecting on the

Development's passage a year later on May 23, 2014:

It was submitted in the heart of election season. Everyone's attention was elsewhere. City staff was doing who knows what when the planned development slid through the system, then through a thinly peopled Plan Commission and then through a City Council with its eyes squarely on the races.

51. In a follow-up article on June 17, 2014, Bush interviewed then-

Councilwoman Pauline Medrano about what Crow represented to her concerning

the Development at the time the City Council passed the zoning:

She said she absolutely would have remembered if Trammell Crow's Denton Walker had told her that he planned a big box store. Those words tend to stand out.

I asked her again, was she certain no mention was made of a big box. She stressed again that this is something that would have gotten her attention.

52. On information and belief, Crow signed a contract with Sam's Club in August

2013 for the Development, and had been in negotiations with Sam's Club

throughout the zoning process.

53. Having acquired its zoning through deceit and misdirection, Crow went silent

on its intent for the Development, and remained silent until the truth came out.

Page 12: Request for Injunction

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION—PAGE 12

54. On May 19, 2014, the Dallas Morning News reported that at a shopping center

convention in Las Vegas, Crow revealed its intent to use the Development to build a

136,000 square foot Sam's Club.

55. This revelation prompted immediate backlash by the neighborhood

surrounding the Development. Within days, the neighborhood had amassed over

1,500 signatures on a petition to stop Sam's Club from coming in to the

Development. As of the date of this filing, the petition has over 2,700 signatures.

56. On May 22, 2014, the CPC held a hearing on whether or not to approve

Crow's development plan for the Development, and because of the public backlash,

the CPC voted to postpone the vote until July 10, 2014.

57. Also on May 22, 2014, a majority of the CPC submitted a letter requesting a

hearing to authorize a public hearing to determine the proper zoning on the

Development, which was set for June 19, 2014.

58. At the June 19, 2014 CPC hearing, the CPC voted to deny authorizing a new

public hearing.

59. Sixty-six local residents, including East Village Association members,

attended the hearing to ask that the CPC authorize a new public hearing.

60. Although many commissioners were sympathetic to the plight of the

neighborhood, they concluded that they could not stop the Development without

court intervention.

61. Specifically, then-Commissioner Soto stated:

COMMISSIONER SOTO: I believe the original notice on this case was defective because there was no mention of a general merchandise food store greater than 100,000 square feet.

I also believe had there been any mention of a big box store it would have triggered this debate that we have today and this Commission would not be in the very awkward position that we now find ourselves.

June 19, 2014 CPC Hearing Tr., p. 49 (Tr. cite 68:12-19).

Page 13: Request for Injunction

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION—PAGE 13

62. And Commissioner Abtahi concurred:

COMMISSIONER ABTAHI: I think there was issues with the notice. And I think that’s a failure on our part. Zoning is not an easy issue. It’s complicated.

The mere fact that you are all here today lends me to believe that you didn’t understand what was going on last year. It may not be because of anyone’s fault, but there’s plenty of blame to go around when - - when we are the ones that are supposed to inform the public. We are the ones who are supposed to make sure that you understand what’s going on. The city is the one who’s supposed to bend over backwards to make sure you understand what’s going on.

June 19, 2014 CPC Hearing Tr., p. 51 (Tr. cite 75:3-14).

63. On July 8, 2014, Dallas published the CPC Agenda for July 10, 2014, in which

staff recommends the approval of Crow’s development plan for the Development.

VI. DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

64. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all the allegations set forth in the

paragraphs above as if fully set forth herein.

65. Pursuant to Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 37.004(a) and Texas

Business Organizations Code § 252.007, one or more of Plaintiff’s members are

persons whose rights, status, or other legal relations are affected by the

Development zoning ordinance, Dallas Ordinance No. 29019, and Plaintiff may

therefore have the Court determine any question of validity arising under the

ordinance.

66. The interests that Plaintiff seeks to protect through this declaratory

judgment action are germane to its purposes, which are advancement of the

interests of East Village Residents, specifically including but not limited to advocacy

on East Village land use and zoning issues for the benefit of East Village Residents,

and neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation of

a member of Plaintiff.

67. One or more of Plaintiff’s members also have particularized injury standing

to challenge the validity of Dallas Ordinance No. 29019 because the value of their

Page 14: Request for Injunction

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION—PAGE 14

real property nearby the Development will be suppressed by its use for a 100,000+

square foot merchandise store, and the use will cause a traffic nuisance for Plaintiff’s

members.

68. Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that Dallas Ordinance No. 29019 is

void as a matter of law for failure to give sufficient notice of the proposed zoning use

change.

69. Texas law requires that notice of a public hearing on a proposed zoning

change must be sent to each owner of real property within 200 feet of the property

subject to the zoning change. Tex. Local Gov’t Code Ann. § 211.007(c). The Dallas

Development Code expands this notice requirement to owners of real property

within 500 feet when the zoning change is for a PD. See Dal. Dev. Code §§ 51A-

4.701(b)(5), 51A-1.105(a)(4).

70. Although § 211.007(c) does not specify what content is required in the notice,

Texas precedent requires that the notice inform residents of the specific zoning use

change proposed so that residents may oppose the change if they desire. Failure to

provide notice of the specific, material zoning use change proposed renders the

resulting zoning ordinance void from the start. See Amarillo v. Wagner, 326 S.W.2d

863, 864-66 (Tex. App.--Amarillo 1959, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (finding zoning amendment

void where it attempted to permit F-Retail use but notice only advised residents of

C-Dwelling use); see also Midway Protective League v. Dallas, 552 S.W.2d 170, 175

(Tex. App.—Texarkana 1977, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (explaining that notice is deficient

where zoning ordinance substantially deviates from the notice, so as not to afford

recipient an opportunity to oppose the measure if he desires).

71. This principle of Texas law accords with Dallas City Attorney opinion and

City Council Resolution guidance on this issue. See Aug. 23, 1988 Memorandum from

Dallas City Attorney to Councilmember Lori Palmer, p. 133 (“[a] new notice and

hearing will be necessary where changes in the [zoning] proposal are of such

Page 15: Request for Injunction

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION—PAGE 15

importance or materiality as to amount to a change in its fundamental character.”);

March 26, 1986 City Council Resolution No. 86100, p. 135 (same).

72. 100,000+ square foot merchandise store use is fundamentally and materially

different than MU-3 use alone. As explained above, 100,000+ square foot

merchandise stores pose inherent threats to public health, safety, and the general

welfare of the surrounding area. As such, MU-3 does not permit 100,000+ square

foot merchandise stores without a Specific Use Permit. Dal. Dev. Code § 51A-

4.210(b)(14.1)(B).

73. A Specific Use Permit ("SUP") is required for highly sensitive zoning changes.

“An applicant for an SUP shall comply with the zoning amendment procedure for a

change in zoning district classification.” Dal. Dev. Code § 51A-4219(b)(1).

74. The SUP section of the Dallas Development Code specifically provides:

(2) The SUP requirement for a use in a district does not constitute an authorization or an assurance that the use will be permitted. Each SUP application must be evaluated as to its probable effect on the adjacent property and the community welfare and may be approved or denied as the findings indicate appropriate. Each SUP must be granted by the city council by separate ordinance. (3) The city council shall not grant an SUP for a use except upon a finding that the use will:

(A) complement or be compatible with the surrounding uses and community facilities; (B) contribute to, enhance, or promote the welfare of the area of request and adjacent properties; (C) not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or general welfare; and (D) conform in all other respects to all zoning regulations and standards.

Dal. Dev. Code § 51A-4.219(a) (emphasis added).

75. This means that even though the MU-3 provision of the Dallas Development

Code lists as a possible retail and personal service use "General merchandise or food

store 100,000 square feet or more. [SUP]," the mere listing of this use "does not

Page 16: Request for Injunction

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION—PAGE 16

constitute an authorization or assurance that the use will be permitted." Dal. Dev.

Code §§ 51A-4.125(f)(2)(J); 51A-4.219(a)(2). To the contrary, the use is disallowed

unless the applicant seeks and the City Council grants an SUP.

76. For these reasons, when Dallas passes PDs that allow 100,000+ square feet

merchandise stores in zoning that requires an SUP for that use, the notices

specifically list that use. For example, the notice for PD 876 provides that the

proposed PD will be for "CR Community Retail District Uses" and specifies that

"[t]he applicant proposes to construct a general merchandise or food store greater

than 100,000 square feet." Dec. 12, 2012 Notice of Public Hearing on Zoning Change

Request, p. 138.

77. Here, by contrast, the notice for PD 889 provided only that the PD would be

"for MU-3 Mixed Use District uses." May 2, 2013 CPC Notice, p. 67; May 22, 2013 CC

Notice, p. 73. The notice did not mention that the essential zoning use change would

be to allow a 100,000+ square foot merchandise store, and the resulting Ordinance

No. 29019 is therefore void as a matter of law.

78. Because the current zoning for the Development is void, the applicable

zoning reverts to the previous zoning. Before Ordinance No. 29019, the

Development was zoned in three parcels as MU-3 (SAH), GO(A), and PD 305 East

Mixed Use (the "Pre-Existing Zoning"). See May 22, 2013 City Council Briefing, p. 99.

79. None of these three zoning uses permit 100,000+ square foot merchandise

stores without an SUP. See Dal. Dev. Code §§ 51A-4.210(b)(14.1)(B) (100,000+

square foot merchandise stores generally); 51A-4.125(f)(2)(J) (MU-3 (SAH)); 51A-

4.121(d)(2)(J); 51P-305.107(b)(1)(A) (PD 305 East Mixed Use same as MU-3).

VII. REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

80. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the allegations set forth in the

paragraphs above.

Page 17: Request for Injunction

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION—PAGE 17

81. As set forth in detail above, Plaintiff has established a probable right to the

relief they seek upon final hearing. The current zoning for the Development is void

and has no force or effect because the notice of zoning use change did not disclose

that the change would permit a 100,000+ square foot merchandise store.

82. Dallas city staff has already recommended that the CPC approve the

development plan allowing a 100,000+ square foot merchandise store, and city staff

and Commissioners' statements at the June 19, 2014 hearing confirm that the CPC

will be forced to approve the development plan without court intervention. See June

19, 2014 CPC Tr., p. 48, 26 (Tr. cites 63:14-23, 7:6-11) ("the notification question is a

legal issue that is to be decided not by the planning commission. We don't have the

authority to make that decision. That's a decision that is made by a court of law if

that is what - - what remedy someone seeks."). Members of Plaintiff will suffer

immediate irreparable injury from this approval because the Development will be

permitted to proceed. As counsel for Crow stated, “We cannot wait. We won’t wait.

We have contractual obligations to move forward.” See id., p. 42 (Tr. cite 41:7-8).

83. Plaintiff lacks an adequate remedy at law for damages that will likely accrue

absent the requested injunctive relief. Because Ordinance No. 29019 is void and the

Pre-Existing Zoning applies, CPC approval of Crow’s development plan would be

ultra vires. Plaintiff is entitled only to prospective injunctive relief for such ultra

vires conduct, and if the Court does not intervene to stop CPC approval, sovereign

immunity will preclude Plaintiff from retroactive recovery. See City of El Paso v.

Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d 366, 375-77 (Tex. 2009).

84. Moreover, the full extent of the damages, which will continue to be suffered

by Plaintiff’s members as a result of the conduct set forth herein, including

deprivation of procedural due process, deprivation of statutory notice rights, traffic

nuisance, and suppressed property value, are difficult if not impossible to assess

fully.

Page 18: Request for Injunction

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION—PAGE 18

85. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief to prevent this harm

pursuant to Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code Chapters 37 and 65.

86. Therefore, Plaintiff respectfully seeks a temporary restraining order and

temporary and permanent injunction prohibiting Dallas and the CPC from:

approving any development plan for the Development that does not conform to the

Pre-Existing Zoning and from any conduct with regard to the Development

inconsistent with the permitted uses under the Pre-Existing Zoning until such time

as the zoning for the Development is modified through proper procedure, including

proper notice.

87. Pursuant to Rule 684, because Plaintiff seeks a temporary restraining order

and temporary injunction against Dallas and the CPC in their governmental capacity,

and because Dallas and the CPC have no pecuniary interest in the suit and no

monetary damages can be shown, Plaintiff requests that the Court fix the bond at a

nominal amount. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 684.

88. Attached to this Petition at p. 139-144 are the Affidavits of Plaintiff’s officer

Jonas Park and Plaintiff’s member David Shaw, which verify the fact allegations set

forth in this Original Petition as necessary to support the issuance of a Temporary

Restraining Order.

VIII. REQUEST FOR SHOW CAUSE ORDER

89. The allegations above provide good cause for the Court to issue a Show Cause

order scheduling a prompt hearing on Plaintiffs' request for a temporary injunction.

Therefore, Plaintiff requests, for good cause shown, the Court to issue a Show Cause

order setting Plaintiff’s request for temporary injunction for prompt hearing.

Page 19: Request for Injunction

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION—PAGE 19

IX. MOTION FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY

90. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the allegations set forth in the

paragraphs above.

91. The amount of time to respond to discovery must be shortened to permit

Plaintiff to establish the full extent of the material difference between the originally

proposed and noticed MU-3 zoning change and the 100,000+ square foot

merchandise store use permitted under Dallas Ordinance No. 29019, which will help

ensure that Plaintiff may timely seek a temporary injunction that fully addresses

this issue. Because such temporary injunction hearing on Plaintiff’s application for

temporary injunction will be set, at least as an initial matter, within 14 days from

the Court’s entry of any temporary restraining order, an emergency necessitating

acceleration of discovery requests exists.

92. Therefore, Plaintiff requests, for good cause shown, that the Court require

that Defendants Dallas and the CPC serve responses to the written discovery,

including the production of any responsive documents, within five calendar days of

service or actual notice (including weekends) in such a manner that they are

received by Plaintiff’s counsel on the same day. In order to facilitate this expedited

discovery, Plaintiff requests that the Court narrow the scope of relevant discovery to

the relief sought in this Original Petition and the issues to be presented at the

temporary injunction hearing.

X. CONCLUSION

Wherefore, premises considered, Plaintiff East Village Association

respectfully prays that Defendants be cited to appear and answer herein, and that

Dallas and the CPC be preliminarily and permanently enjoined as described in detail

above, and that the Court should award Plaintiff all such and further relief to which

it may show itself to be justly entitled.

Page 20: Request for Injunction

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION—PAGE 20

Respectfully submitted, /s/ Michael Jung P. Michael Jung State Bar No. 11054600 [email protected] STRASBURGER & PRICE, LLP 901 Main Street, Suite 4400 Dallas, Texas 75202 214-651-4724 214-659-4022 fax -and- Anthony Ricciardelli State Bar No. 24070493 [email protected] BROWN FOX KIZZIA & JOHNSON PLLC 750 N. St. Paul St., Suite 1320 Dallas, Texas 75201 469-839-9950 214-613-3330 fax Counsel for Plaintiff East Village Association

LOCAL RULE 2.02 CERTIFICATION

The undersigned certifies that he is aware that Defendants are represented by counsel, and that he emailed a copy of the foregoing Petition and proposed Temporary Restraining Order to the following counsel and will not present it to the Court for decision until at least two hours after providing them notice. The undersigned further certifies that this case is not subject to transfer under Local Rule 1.06. [email protected] Scott Dyche, counsel for TC Central Associates, LLC [email protected] Warren Ernst, City Attorney for the City of Dallas [email protected] Bert Vandenberg, Assistant City Attorney for the City of Dallas and counsel to the CPC

/s/ Anthony Ricciardelli Anthony Ricciardelli

Page 21: Request for Injunction

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 21

Page 22: Request for Injunction

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 22

Page 23: Request for Injunction

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 23

Page 24: Request for Injunction

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 24

Page 25: Request for Injunction

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 25

Page 26: Request for Injunction

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 26

Page 27: Request for Injunction

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 27

Page 28: Request for Injunction

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 28

Page 29: Request for Injunction

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 29

Page 30: Request for Injunction

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 30

Page 31: Request for Injunction

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 31

Page 32: Request for Injunction

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 32

Page 33: Request for Injunction

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 33

Page 34: Request for Injunction

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 34

Page 35: Request for Injunction

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 35

Page 36: Request for Injunction

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 36

Page 37: Request for Injunction

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 37

Page 38: Request for Injunction

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 38

Page 39: Request for Injunction

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 39

Page 40: Request for Injunction

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 40

Page 41: Request for Injunction

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 41

Page 42: Request for Injunction

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 42

Page 43: Request for Injunction

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 43

Page 44: Request for Injunction

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 44

Page 45: Request for Injunction

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 45

Page 46: Request for Injunction

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 46

Page 47: Request for Injunction

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 47

Page 48: Request for Injunction

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 48

Page 49: Request for Injunction

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 49

Page 50: Request for Injunction

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 50

Page 51: Request for Injunction

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 51

Page 52: Request for Injunction

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 52

Page 53: Request for Injunction

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 53

Page 54: Request for Injunction

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 54

Page 55: Request for Injunction

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 55

Page 56: Request for Injunction

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 56

Page 57: Request for Injunction

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 57

Page 58: Request for Injunction

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 58

Page 59: Request for Injunction

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 59

Page 60: Request for Injunction

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 60

Page 61: Request for Injunction

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 61

Page 62: Request for Injunction

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 62

Page 63: Request for Injunction

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 63

Page 64: Request for Injunction

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 64

Page 65: Request for Injunction

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 65

Page 66: Request for Injunction

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 66

Page 67: Request for Injunction

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 67

Page 68: Request for Injunction

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 68

Page 69: Request for Injunction

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 69

Page 70: Request for Injunction

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 70

Page 71: Request for Injunction

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 71

Page 72: Request for Injunction

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 72

Page 73: Request for Injunction

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 73

Page 74: Request for Injunction

DESIGNATED ZONING CASE

1

HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL WEDNESDAY, MAY 22, 2013 ACM: Ryan S. Evans

FILE NUMBER: Z112-265(MW) DATE FILED: June 15, 2012

LOCATION: East side of Central Expressway between North Carroll Avenue and North Haskell Avenue

COUNCIL DISTRICT: 2 MAPSCO: 35-Y, Z

SIZE OF REQUEST: ±26.754 acres CENSUS TRACT: 8.00

REPRESENTATIVE: Karl A. Crawley, MASTERPLAN APPLICANT: TCDFW Development, Inc. OWNER: Xerox Business Services, LLC REQUEST: An application for 1) a Planned Development District for MU-3

Mixed Use District uses on property zoned a GO(A) General Office District, an MU-3 (SAH) Mixed Use District (Affordable) and a portion of Subdistrict E in PDD No. 305, Cityplace, on the northeast corner of North Central Expressway and North Carroll Avenue and for 2) a new subdistrict on property zoned Subdistrict E within the Planned Development District No. 305 on the east side of North Central Expressway between North Carroll Avenue and North Haskell Avenue

SUMMARY: A Planned Development District is proposed on a ±16.158-acre

portion of the request site to accommodate a retail development with design standards. A new subdistrict within PDD No. 305 is proposed on a ±10.596-acre portion of the request site to create a “data center” use and associated parking ratio. This will allow existing office buildings to be utilized for that purpose.

CPC RECOMMENDATION: Approval of a Planned Development District for

Mixed Use District uses, subject to a conceptual plan and conditions, and approval of a new subdistrict within Planned Development District No. 305, subject to conditions.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of a Planned Development District for

Mixed Use District uses, subject to a conceptual plan and conditions, and approval of a new subdistrict within Planned Development District No. 305, subject to conditions.

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 74

Page 75: Request for Injunction

Z112-265 (MW)

2

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

• The ±26.754-acre request site is developed with multi-story office buildings with surface parking; the northeastern portion of the site is undeveloped.

• While the applicant intends to redevelop a ±16.158-acre portion of the request site with retail uses, the proposed planned development district allows for a mix of uses, including multifamily residential, with design standards.

• The applicant intends for the existing buildings to remain on a ±10.596-acre portion of the request site and to be utilized as a data center.

• The applicant proposes to define "data center" within the proposed new subdistrict in PDD No. 305 as “a facility whose primary service is data processing and is used to house computer systems and associated components, such as telecommunications and storage systems, including but not limited to web hosting organizations and internet service organizations.”

• The request site is surrounded by multifamily and single family residential to the northeast; warehouse uses, retail and multifamily residential to the southeast; office to the southwest and multifamily residential to the northwest (across Central Expressway).

Zoning History: 1. Z112-150: On May 23, 2012, the City Council approved an amendment to

Tract I of Planned Development District No. 375 for mixed uses. 2. Z101-319: On December 14, 2012, the City Council approved a WMU-8 Walkable Urban Mixed Use 8 District. 3. Z089-135: On October 14, 2009, the City Council approved the creation of two tracts within Planned Development District No. 183 for MU-3 Mixed Use District uses. Thoroughfares/Streets:

Thoroughfare/Street Type Existing ROW

North Central Expressway US Highway Varies

Carroll Avenue Local Varies

Haskell Avenue Principal Arterial Varies

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 75

Page 76: Request for Injunction

Z112-265 (MW)

3

Land Use: Zoning Land Use

Site GO(A); MU-3(SAH); PDD No. 305 Subdistrict E

Office; undeveloped

Northeast WMU-8; PDD No. 424; MF-2(A) Multifamily; single family

Southeast CS; PDD No. 305 Subdistrict E-1 Warehouse uses, retail and multifamily residential

Southwest PD 183 Office

Northwest PDD No. 305 Subdistrict D-1; PDD No. 193 (MF-2); PDD No 193(O-2)

Multifamily

STAFF ANALYSIS: Comprehensive Plan: The subject site is identified as being within an Urban Mixed Use Building Block on the forwardDallas! Vision Illustration, adopted June 2006. The Urban Mixed-Use Building Block incorporates a vibrant mix of residential and employment uses at a lower density than the Downtown Building Block. These areas are typically near Downtown, along the Trinity River or near major transit centers. Examples include Uptown, the City Place/West Village area, Stemmons Design District, Cedars and Deep Ellum. Urban Mixed-Use Building Blocks provide residents with a vibrant blend of opportunities to live, work, shop and play within a closely defined area. Buildings range from high-rise residential or midrise commercial towers to townhomes and small corner shops. Good access to transit is a critical element. Similar to Downtown, the Urban Mixed-Use Building Blocks offer employment and housing options and are important economic growth areas for businesses. People on foot or bike can enjoy interesting storefronts at ground level with benches, public art, on-street parking and wide sidewalks, creating an appealing streetscape. Large parking areas and other auto-oriented land uses are typically located at the edges. The applicant’s request is consistent with the forwardDallas! Vision and further complies with the following goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. LAND USE ELEMENT GOAL 1.2 PROMOTE DESIRED DEVELOPMENT

Policy 1.2.1 Use Vision Building Blocks as a general guide for desired development patterns.

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 76

Page 77: Request for Injunction

Z112-265 (MW)

4

URBAN DESIGN ELEMENT GOAL 5.1: PROMOTE A SENSE OF PLACE, SAFETY AND WALKABILITY

Policy 5.1.1 Promote pedestrian-friendly streetscapes. Policy 5.1.3 Encourage complementary building height, scale, design and character.

GOAL 5.3 ESTABLISHING WALK-TO CONVENIENCE

Policy 5.3.1 Encourage a balance of land uses within walking distance of each other.

Land Use Compatibility: The ±26.754-acre request site is developed with multi-story office buildings with surface parking; the northeastern portion of the site is undeveloped. A Planned Development District is proposed on a ±16.158-acre portion of the request site to accommodate a retail development with design standards. A new subdistrict within PDD No. 305 is proposed on a ±10.596-acre portion of the request site to create a “data center” use and associated parking ratio. This will allow existing office buildings to be utilized for that purpose. While the applicant intends to redevelop the ±16.158-acre portion of the request site with retail uses, the proposed planned development district allows for a mix of uses, including multifamily residential, with design standards. To promote compatibility with surrounding development, the applicant proposes to prohibit certain uses. The proposed design standards are intended to ensure that continuous façades are compatible with the surrounding area and to mitigate the potential negative impact of continuous facades, while allowing creativity, flexibility, and variety in design. The proposed design standards mirror the requirements of §51A-4.605 but would apply to all non-residential uses, not just those that exceed 100,000 square feet of floor area. In addition, the applicant proposes a few enhancements such as requiring three, rather than two, design elements for rear façade walls. Proposed conditions also require the primary and side facade walls to have a minimum of 75 percent brick, stone, or simulated brick, stucco or stone materials (inclusive of fenestration) and limit textured painted tilt-up concrete panels to no more than 25 percent of the area of the primary facade wall and no more than 50 percent of the side facade walls. The applicant intends for the existing buildings to remain on the ±10.596-acre portion of the request site and to be utilized as a data center. As proposed, a "data center" is defined as in PDD No. 305 as “a facility whose primary service is data processing and is used to house computer systems and associated components, such as telecommunications and storage systems, including but not limited to web hosting organizations and internet service organizations”.

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 77

Page 78: Request for Injunction

Z112-265 (MW)

5

The request site is surrounded by multifamily and single family residential to the northeast; warehouse uses, retail and multifamily residential to the southeast; office to the southwest and multifamily residential to the northwest (across Central Expressway). To further ensure compatibility with adjacent residential uses and to promote walkability, the applicant proposes a 20-foot-wide landscape buffer along the Carroll Avenue and North Central Expressway frontages. Except for signs, no structures or parking are allowed in this landscape buffer. The buffer must contain large and small trees, a minimum six-foot-wide pedestrian trail, and benches, trash receptacles and bicycle parking at a minimum of one per 200 feet of trail frontage and pedestrian lighting at a minimum of one per 75 feet of trail frontage. Development Standards:

District Setbacks Density

FAR Height Lot Coverage

Special Standards Primary Uses Front Side/Rear

Existing

GO(A) General office 15’

20’ adjacent to residential OTHER: No Min.

4.0 FAR 270’ 20

stories 80%

Proximity Slope U-form setback

Tower spacing Visual

Intrusion

Office, lodging – limited retail & personal service uses

MU-3 Mixed use-3 15’

20’ adjacent to residential OTHER: No Min.

3.2 FAR base 4.0 FAR maximum

+ bonus for residential

270’ 20

stories 80%

Proximity Slope U-form setback

Tower spacing Visual

Intrusion

Office, retail & personal service, lodging, residential, trade center

PDD No. 305 Subdistrict E 15’

20’ adjacent to residential OTHER: No Min.

1.5 FAR residential 2.5 non-residential

270’ 20’

stories 80%

Proximity Slope U-form setback

Tower spacing Visual

Intrusion

Office, retail & personal service, lodging, residential, trade center

Proposed

PDD 15’

20’ adjacent to residential OTHER: No Min.

3.2 FAR base 4.0 FAR maximum

+ bonus for residential

270’ 20’

stories 80%

Proximity Slope U-form setback

Tower spacing Visual

Intrusion

Office, retail & personal service, lodging, residential, trade center

PDD No. 305 New Subdistrict 15’

20’ adjacent to residential OTHER: No Min.

1.5 FAR residential 2.5 non-residential

270’ 20’

stories 80%

Proximity Slope U-form setback

Tower spacing Visual

Intrusion

Office, retail & personal service, lodging, residential, trade center

Traffic: The Engineering Section of the Building Inspection Division of the Department of Sustainable Development and Construction has reviewed the requested amendment and determined that it will not significantly impact the surrounding roadway system.

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 78

Page 79: Request for Injunction

Z112-265 (MW)

6

Parking: Within the new Planned Development District, the applicant proposes off-street parking requirements pursuant to §51A-4.200 of the Dallas Development Code with the following exception:

• No more than two rows of surface parking are allowed between a structure with air-conditioned floor area and North Central Expressway if the structure is within 100 feet of North Central Expressway.

Within the new Subdistrict of Planned Development District No. 305, the applicant proposes an off-street parking requirement of one space per 2,000 square feet of floor area for a data center use. For all other uses, the parking and loading requirements of PDD No. 305, Subdistrict E will apply. Pursuant to the existing provisions, a data center would be classified as an office use and would require a maximum of one space for each 366 square feet of floor area. The applicant provided research performed by the City of Plano as part of a 2010 zoning ordinance amendment to create a data center use. The City of Plano now requires one space per 1,000 square feet of floor area for the defined data center use. However, other surrounding cities require parking for data centers according to their office and warehouse components with parking ratios ranging from 1 space to 300 square feet of floor area to one space per 5,000 square feet of floor area. Staff supports the applicant’s proposed parking ration for a data center use. Landscaping and sidewalks: Except as provided, landscaping must be provided in accordance with Article X of the Dallas Development Code. The applicant proposes enhanced streetscape provisions which require street trees at one tree per each thirty feet of street frontage with provisions to allow for clustering. The proposed PDD also includes provisions for parking lot landscaping, as well as for a 20-foot-wide landscape buffer and pedestrian trail with amenities along the Carroll Avenue and North Central Expressway frontages.

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 79

Page 80: Request for Injunction

Z112-265 (MW)

7

CPC Action: May 2, 2013 Motion: It was moved to recommend approval of 1) a Planned Development District for MU-3 Mixed Use District uses, subject to a revised conceptual plan and revised conditions on property zoned a GO(A) General Office District, an MU-3 (SAH) Mixed Use District (Affordable) and a portion of Subdistrict E in Planned Development District No. 305, Cityplace, on the northeast corner of North Central Expressway and North Carroll Avenue and approval of 2) a new subdistrict on property zoned Subdistrict E within Planned Development District No. 305 on the east side of Central Expressway between North Carroll Avenue and North Haskell Avenue. Maker: Wally Second: Hinojosa Result: Carried: 11 to 0 For: 11 - Wally, Anglin, Rodgers, Hinojosa, Bagley, Lavallaisaa, Tarpley, Bernbaum, Schwartz, Ridley, Alcantar Against: 0 Absent: 4 - Davis, Culbreath, Shellene, Wolfish Vacancy: 0 Notices: Area: 500 Mailed: 74 Replies: For: 6 Against: 3 Speakers: None

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 80

Page 81: Request for Injunction

Z112-265 (MW)

8

List of Partners/Principals/Officers: Applicant: TCDFW Development, Inc.

Title NameChief Executive Officer Adam Saphier President Adam Saphier Executive Vice President James H. Matoushek Executive Vice President John A. Stirek Executive Vice President Mark C. Allyn Executive Vice President Matthew J. Nickels, III Executive Vice President Michael S. Duffy Executive Vice President Scott A. Dyche Executive Vice President T. Christopher Roth Senior Vice President Joel Behrens Vice President S. Denton Walker, III Vice President Scott A. Krikorian Secretary Rebecca M. Savino Assistant Secretary Scott A. Dyche Treasurer James H. Matoushek Director Michael S. Duffy Director Scott A. Dyche

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 81

Page 82: Request for Injunction

Z112-265 (MW)

9

Owner: Xerox Business Services, LLC.

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 82

Page 83: Request for Injunction

Z112-265 (MW)

10

CPC Recommended Conditions Z112-265

SEC. 51P-.101. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY.

PD ______ was established by Ordinance No. ____, passed by the Dallas City

Council on _______.

SEC. 51P-.102. PROPERTY LOCATION AND SIZE.

PD ______ is established on Property located at the southeast corner of Carroll Avenue and North Central Expressway. The size of PD ______ is approximately 16.158 acres.

SEC. 51P-.103. DEFINITIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS.

(a) Unless otherwise stated, the definitions and interpretations in Chapter 51A

apply to this article. In this article:

(1) BAIL BOND OFFICE means an office or other establishment any part of which consists of the issuance, brokerage, or procurement of bail bonds.

(2) TATTOO OR BODY-PIERCING STUDIO means an establishment

in which tattooing is performed, or body piercing for the purpose of wearing jewelry in the pierced body part (for any body part other than earlobes) is performed. TATTOOING means the practice of producing an indelible mark or figure on the human body by scarring or inserting a pigment under the skin using needles, scalpels, or other related equipment.

(b) Unless otherwise stated, all references to articles, divisions, or sections in

this article are to articles, divisions, or sections in Chapter 51A. (c) This district is considered to be a nonresidential zoning district.

SEC. 51P-.104. EXHIBITS.

The following exhibit is incorporated into this article: Exhibit ___A: conceptual plan. SEC. 51p-.105. CONCEPTUAL PLAN.

(a) Development and use of the Property must comply with the conceptual

plan (Exhibit ____A), except that the director may approve alternate locations for ingress/egress if the Texas Department of Transportation does not approve the locations indicated on the conceptual plan. The conceptual plan shows the approximate location of main driveways to be located within the Property and the proposed ingress/egress points; the final location of the ingress/egress points and main driveways to be constructed within the Property shall be shown on the development plan.

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 83

Page 84: Request for Injunction

Z112-265 (MW)

11

(b) If there is a conflict between the text of this article and the conceptual plan, the text of this article controls.

SEC. 51P-.106. DEVELOPMENT PLAN. A development plan must be approved by the city plan commission prior to the issuance of any building permit to authorize work in this district, except that a development plan is not required before the issuance of a building permit for grading, drainage, demolition, tree removal, or utility work. SEC. 51P-.107. MAIN USES PERMITTED.

(a) Except as provided in this section, the only main uses permitted are those

main uses permitted in the MU-3 Mixed Use District, subject to the same conditions applicable in the MU-3 Mixed Use District, as set out in Chapter 51A. For example, a use permitted in the MU-3 Mixed Use District only by specific use permit (SUP) is permitted in this district only by SUP; a use subject to development impact review (DIR) in the MU-3 Mixed Use District is subject to DIR in this district, etc.

(b) The following additional uses are permitted on the Property:

-- General merchandise or food store 100,000 square feet or more.

-- Home improvement center, lumber, brick or building materials sales yard. [outside storage is limited to a maximum of 10,000 square feet]

(c) The following uses are prohibited on the Property:

(1) Agricultural uses. -- Crop production.

(2) Commercial and business service uses.

-- Labor hall.

(3) Industrial uses. -- Temporary concrete or asphalt batching plant.

(4) Institutional and community service uses.

-- Cemetery or mausoleum. -- College, university or seminary. -- Community service center. -- Convent or monastery. -- Halfway house. -- Open-enrollment charter school or private school.

(5) Lodging uses.

-- Overnight general purpose shelter.

(6) Miscellaneous uses.

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 84

Page 85: Request for Injunction

Z112-265 (MW)

12

-- Attached non-premise sign. -- Carnival or circus (temporary).

(7) Office uses.

-- Alternative financial establishment. -- Bail bond office.

(8) Recreation uses.

-- Country club with private membership.

(9) Residential uses. -- College dormitory, fraternity, or sorority house.

(10) Retail and personal service uses.

-- Car wash. -- Commercial parking lot or garage. -- Mortuary, funeral home, or commercial wedding chapel. -- Swap or buy shop. -- Tattoo or body-piercing studio.

(11) Transportation uses.

-- Heliport. -- Railroad passenger station. -- Transit passenger station or transfer center.

(12) Wholesale, distribution and storage uses.

-- Mini-warehouse. -- Recycling buy-back center.

SEC. 51P-.108. ACCESSORY USES.

(a) As a general rule, an accessory use is permitted in any district in which

the main use is permitted. Some specific types of accessory uses, however, due to their unique nature, are subject to additional regulations in Section 51A-4.217. For more information regarding accessory uses, consult Section 51A-4.217.

(b) The following specific accessory uses are not permitted:

-- Accessory helistop. -- Accessory medical/infectious waste incinerator.

SEC. 51P-.109. YARD, LOT, AND SPACE REGULATIONS.

(Note: The yard, lot, and space regulations in this section must be read together

with the yard, lot, and space regulations in Division 51A-4.400. In the event of a conflict between this section and Division 51A-4.400, this section controls.)

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 85

Page 86: Request for Injunction

Z112-265 (MW)

13

(a) In general. Except as provided in this section, and as shown on the conceptual plan (Exhibit A), the yard, lot, and space regulations of the MU-3 District apply.

(b) Carroll Avenue and North Central Expressway landscape buffer. The

minimum landscape buffer along Carroll Avenue and North Central Expressway is 20 feet. Except for signs, no structures or parking are allowed in this landscape buffer. The buffer may be provided in accordance with Section 51P-110(i)(5)and must contain large and small trees, a minimum six-foot-wide pedestrian trail, and the following pedestrian amenities:

(1) Benches at a minimum of one per 200 feet of trail frontage;

(2) Trash receptacles at a minimum of one per 200 feet of trail

frontage; (3) Bicycle parking at a minimum of one five-bicycle rack per 200 feet

of trail frontage; and

(4) Pedestrian lighting at a minimum of one per 75 feet of trail frontage.

SEC. 51P-.110. MULTI-FAMILY DESIGN STANDARDS.

(a) Purpose. Continuous facades along pedestrian-oriented streets often have negative impacts on community aesthetics, pedestrian circulation, and the scale and rhythm of streetscapes. These design standards apply to multifamily development and are intended to ensure that continuous facades that are located along well-traveled pedestrian ways are compatible with the surrounding area and mitigate the negative impact of continuous facades, while allowing creativity, flexibility, and variety in design.

(b) Facade walls. Facade walls facing a public right-of-way must incorporate

at least two of the design elements listed in this subsection. The cumulative length of these design elements must extend for at least 60 percent of the facade wall's horizontal length.

(1) A repeating pattern of wall recesses and projections, such as bays,

offsets, reveals, or projecting ribs, that has a relief of at least eight inches.

(2) Trim, molding, or accent elements using decorative contrasting colors of at least five percent of the area of the facade wall.

(3) At least three of the following design elements at the primary

entrance, so that the primary entrance is architecturally prominent and clearly visible from the abutting street:

(A) Architectural details such as arches, friezes, tile work,

murals, or moldings.

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 86

Page 87: Request for Injunction

Z112-265 (MW)

14

(B) Integral planters or wing walls that incorporate landscaping or seating.

(C) Enhanced exterior light fixtures such as wall sconces, light coves with concealed light sources, ground-mounted accent lights, or decorative pedestal lights.

(D) Prominent three-dimensional features, such as belfries, chimneys, clock towers, domes, spires, steeples, towers, or turrets.

(E) Awnings or lintels.

(4) A repeating pattern of pilasters projecting from the facade wall by a minimum of eight inches or architectural or decorative columns.

(5) Display windows, faux windows, or decorative windows.

(6) Arcades, awnings, canopies, covered walkways, or porticos.

(7) Any other comparable design elements approved by the building official.

(c) Facade wall changes. Facade walls must have one or more of the following:

(1) Changes of color, texture, or material, either diagonally,

horizontally, or vertically, at intervals of not less than 20 feet and not more than 100 feet.

(2) Changes in plane with a depth of at least 24 inches, either diagonally, horizontally, or vertically, at intervals of not less than 20 feet and not more than 100 feet.

(d) Materials.

(1) The exterior facade walls, exclusive of fenestration, must be

constructed of at least 80 percent masonry. Masonry includes stone, brick, concrete, stucco, hollow clay tile, cementitious fiber siding, decorative concrete blocks or tile, glass block, other similar building materials, or a combination of those materials. For purposes of this provision, Exterior Finish Insulations System (EFIS) materials are not considered masonry. Textured painted tilt wall may be used on no more than 20 percent of the area of the facade walls.

(2) When adjacent to or visible from a public right-of-way, exterior

parking structure facades must be constructed in a way that is similar in materials, architecture, and appearance to the facade of the main structure or the adjacent structure, except that breaks in the exterior parking structure facade not exceeding 40 feet in width are permitted at driveway and entryway locations. Openings in the exterior parking structure facade may not exceed 50 percent of the total parking structure

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 87

Page 88: Request for Injunction

Z112-265 (MW)

15

facade area. Except garage entrances and exits, openings in parking structure facades that are visible from an adjacent public right-of-way may not exceed 45 percent of the total parking structure.

(e) Roofs.

(1) Roof-mounted mechanical equipment, skylights, and solar panels must be screened or set back so they are not visible from a point 5.5 feet above grade at the property line. Screening materials must be compatible with the materials and colors used on the main building. Chainlink fences may not be used as a screening material.

(2) Roofs must have at least one of the following design elements:

(A) Parapets having a rhythmic pattern and detailing such as cornices, moldings, trim, or variations in brick coursing.

(B) Sloping roofs with the following design elements:

(i) Slope of at least 5:12.

(ii) Two or more slope planes.

(iii) Sloping roofs must be either asphalt composition shingles, metal standing seam, clay tiles, concrete tiles, or similar materials.

(iv) Overhanging eaves extending at least two feet beyond the supporting wall. SEC. 51P-.111. NON-RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS.

(a) In general. These design standards apply to all non-residential uses. These design standards are in lieu of the design standards for large retail uses in Section 51A-4.605, even if the use is 100,000 square feet or more.

(b) Relationship to Article X. The landscape requirements of these design standards may be used to satisfy any landscaping required by Article X.

(c) Conflict. If this section conflicts with any other requirements in this article, the other requirements control.

(d) Definitions. The following definitions apply to this section:

(1) COVERED MALL BUILDING means a single building enclosing 10 or more retail, personal service, and office uses that have access into a climate-controlled common pedestrian area.

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 88

Page 89: Request for Injunction

Z112-265 (MW)

16

(2) FACADE WALL means any separate face of a building, including parapet walls and omitted wall lines, or any part of a building that encloses usable space. Where separate faces are oriented in the same direction, or in the directions within 45 degrees of one another, they are considered as part of a single facade wall. (3) FRONT PARKING AREA means, for developments with a single use, the area in front of a line parallel to and extending outward from the primary facade wall to the Property lines, and means, for developments with multiple uses, the area between two lines at the corners of the primary facade wall and perpendicular to the primary facade wall and extending to the Property line.

(4) PRIMARY FACADE WALL means the facade wall containing the primary entrance. If two or more facades walls have entrances of equal significance, each facade wall will be considered a primary facade wall.

(5) REAR FACADE WALL means the facade wall containing service areas.

(6) SIDE FACADE WALL means any facade wall that is not a primary facade wall or a rear facade wall.

(7) SERVICE AREA means any area for loading docks, outdoor storage (other than an outdoor display, sales, and storage area), trash collection or compaction, truck parking, or other similar functions.

(e) Facade walls. Primary, side and rear facade walls must incorporate at least three of the following design elements. Rear facade walls must incorporate at least two of the following design elements. The cumulative length of these design elements must extend for at least 60 percent of the facade wall’s horizontal length.

(1) A repeating pattern of wall recesses and projections, such as bays, offsets, reveals, or projecting ribs, that has a relief of at least eight inches.

(2) At least three of the following design elements at the primary entrance, so that the primary entrance is architecturally prominent and clearly visible from the abutting street:

(A) Architectural details such as arches, friezes, tile work, murals, or moldings.

(B) Integral planters or wing walls that incorporate landscaping or seating.

(C) Enhanced exterior light fixtures such as wall sconces, light coves with concealed light sources, ground-mounted accent lights, or decorative pedestal lights.

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 89

Page 90: Request for Injunction

Z112-265 (MW)

17

(D) Prominent three-dimensional features, such as belfries, chimneys, clock towers, domes, spires, steeples, towers, or turrets.

(E) A repeating pattern of pilasters projecting from the facade wall by a minimum of eight inches or architectural or decorative columns.

(3) Arcades, awnings, canopies, covered walkways, or porticos.

(4) Display windows, faux windows, or decorative windows.

(5) Trim or accent elements using decorative contrasting colors or decorative neon lighting of at least 10 percent of the area of the facade wall exclusive of fenestration.

(f) Facade wall changes. Facade walls must have a one or more of the following changes:

(1) Changes of color, texture, or material, either diagonally, horizontally, or vertically, at intervals of not less than 20 feet and not more than 100 feet.

(2) Changes in plane with a depth of at least 24 inches, either diagonally, horizontally, or vertically, at intervals of not less than 20 feet and not more than 100 feet.

(g) Materials and colors.

(1) No more than 75 percent of the area of a facade wall, exclusive of fenestration, may have a single material or color. Textured painted tilt wall may be used on no more than 25 percent of the area of the primary facade walls and 50 percent of the side facade walls.

(2) The primary façade wall and side façade walls must have a minimum of 75 percent brick, stone, or simulated brick, stucco or stone materials exclusive of fenestration.

(h) Roofs.

(1) Roof-mounted mechanical equipment, skylights, and solar panels must be screened or set back so they are not visible from a point five feet, six inches above grade at the Property line. Screening materials must match the materials and colors used on the main building. Chain-link fences may not be used as a screening material.

(2) Roofs must have at least one of the following design elements:

(A) Parapets with horizontal tops having height changes of at least one foot occurring horizontally no less than every 100 feet. Parapets that do not have horizontal tops must have pitched or rounded tops with a pattern that repeats or

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 90

Page 91: Request for Injunction

Z112-265 (MW)

18

varies no less than every 100 feet. All parapets must have detailing such as cornices, moldings, trim, or variations in brick coursing.

(B) Sloping roofs with at least two of the following design elements:

(i) Slope of at least 5:12.

(ii) Two or more slope planes.

(iii) Overhanging eaves extending at least three feet beyond the supporting wall.

(3) All sloping roofs, if provided, shall be either metal standing seam, clay tiles, concrete tiles, or similar materials.

(i) Parking lots and landscaping.

(1) Landscaped islands of a minimum of 160 square feet per row of cars must be placed at both ends of each grouping of parking rows. Landscape islands of a minimum of 160 square feet are required for every 30 parking spaces located in a parking row. Landscaped islands must have ground cover and trees or shrubs. These regulations do not apply to structured or below grade parking.

(2) Parking lots must be divided into sections containing no more than 120 parking spaces. Parking lot sections must be divided by landscaped dividers with a minimum width of five feet. Landscaped dividers must have trees spaced at a maximum of 30 feet on center and ground cover or shrubs. Parking lot sections may contain up to 150 parking spaces if, in addition to the landscaped divider, each grouping of parking rows is divided by a landscape island of a minimum of 20 square feet per row of cars. Landscaped islands must have ground cover and trees or shrubs. These regulations do not apply to structured or below grade parking. (3) No more than two-thirds of the off-street parking spaces may be located in the front parking area. If more than 50 percent of a parking space is within the front parking area, then that parking space shall be counted as being within the front parking area. The two-thirds limitation on off-street parking within the front parking area may be exceeded if one additional tree beyond the requirements of these design standards is provided within the front parking area for every 15 off-street additional parking spaces or fraction thereof located within the front parking area.

(4) Parking lots must have a pedestrian pathway system distinguished from the parking and driving surface by landscape barriers or a change in surface materials such as pavers or patterned concrete. Pedestrian pathways may be distinguished by paint alone. Pedestrian pathways must be a minimum of six feet wide. Pedestrian pathways must connect mass transit stops, parking areas, public sidewalks, and public rights-of-way to the primary entrance.

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 91

Page 92: Request for Injunction

Z112-265 (MW)

19

(5) A landscaped buffer strip with a minimum width of 20 feet must be located between any parking area and any public right-of-way other than alleys. The landscape buffer may be interrupted by vehicular and pedestrian access areas. The landscape buffer strip may be located in whole or in part in the public right-of-way if the requirements of Chapter 43 of the Dallas City Code are met. The landscape buffer strip must have trees and a berm with a minimum height of three feet. If the topography prevents installation of a berm, an evergreen hedge with a minimum height of three feet may be substituted. If the evergreen hedge is substituted, the hedge must reach three feet in height within 36 months of planting. The number of trees required for the landscape buffer shall be determined by dividing the length of street frontage by 30. The trees in the landscape buffer may be grouped to create “natural” stands. These trees may be spaced at a maximum of 50 feet on center and a minimum of 25 feet on center. A landscape buffer tree shall also count as a street tree. Parking lots that must be screened from Carroll Avenue and North Central Expressway may be screened with a solid hedge capable of reaching a height of three feet within three years of planting, a three-foot-high solid wall, or berm.

(6) Trees spaced at a maximum of 30 feet on center must be provided within 20 feet of the primary facade wall and one side facade wall for at least 50 percent of the length of each side facade wall. Trees may be located in the public right-of-way if the requirements of Chapter 43 of the Dallas City Code are met. Trees must be planted in a landscape strip with a minimum width of five feet or in tree wells with minimum dimensions of five feet by five feet.

(7) Shopping cart storage areas at grade surface parking lots must be screened with landscaping along the length of the shopping cart storage area facing any public right-of-way.

(j) Additional design standards.

(1) Service areas must be oriented so that they are not visible from a point five and one-half feet above grade from abutting public rights-of-way or residential zoning districts, or must be screened from abutting public rights-of-way or residential zoning districts by solid masonry screening with a minimum height of eight feet extending the entire length of the service area.

(2) Automotive service bays must be oriented away from any public right-of-way or residential zoning district, unless screened from view with solid masonry or solid evergreen landscape screening with a minimum height of eight feet extending the entire length of the automotive service bays.

(3) Mechanical equipment on the ground must be screened using materials matching the materials and colors used on the main building. Chain link fence may not be used as a screening material.

(4) Except for seasonal displays for a use with less than 100,000 square feet relating to national holidays or the four seasons, merchandise may not be

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 92

Page 93: Request for Injunction

Z112-265 (MW)

20

displayed or stored in parking areas or on sidewalks adjacent to facade walls, except in screened outdoor display, sales, and storage areas.

(5) Outdoor display, sales, and storage areas, such as nursery departments, must be enclosed by screening with a solid base with a minimum height of three feet surmounted by a wrought iron or tubular steel fence with a minimum height of five feet. The screening must be surmounted with a minimum of two feet of facia with materials and colors consitsent with the main building. No merchandise other than trees may be visible above the screening.

(6) Shopping cart storage areas adjacent to facade walls (not in parking lots) must be screened with landscaping or materials matching the materials of the primary facade wall. No more than two shopping cart storage areas (one on each side of an entrance) may be provided on any facade wall. Shopping cart storage areas may not exceed 30 feet in length.

(7) If the use is within 300 feet of a single family residential zoning district containing a residential use, other than this district, the following restrictions apply. For purposes of this provision, measurements are made in a straight line, without regard to intervening structures or objects, from the nearest boundary of the lot where the use is conducted to the nearest boundary of the zoning district in issue.

(A) External speakers are prohibited.

(B) Staging, loading, or idling of commercial vehicles in a service area is prohibited between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Signs prohibiting staging, loading, or idling of commercial vehicles between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. must be posted every 100 feet adjacent to the service area.

(C) An external lighting plan demonstrating compliance with all city ordinances must be submitted to and approved by the building official prior to the issuance of a building permit for new construction, a building permit to expand to 100,000 square feet or more, or a certificate of occupancy.

(8) The following driveway enhancements must be provided:

(A) Ingress/egress points to the Property must have a change in surface materials such as pavers, bricks, or patterned concrete with color. This special paving must have a minimum length of 20 feet, starting at the Property line, and must span the entire width of the driveway throat (from edge of gutter to edge of gutter). Stained concrete does not comply with this provision.

(B) The intersections of main driveways must have enhanced paving such as concrete pavers, pattered concrete with color, brick, stone, landscape islands, or similar feature or materials.

(C) Main driveways must have one tree for every 30 linear feet of driveway. Trees must be a minimum two and one-half caliper inches at the time of

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 93

Page 94: Request for Injunction

Z112-265 (MW)

21

planting and may be planted in naturalized clusters along the driveway. All trees must be located within 35 feet of the paved driveway.

(D) Main driveways must have a minimum six-foot-wide sidewalk on one side of the drive within 20 feet of the driveway pavement. Benches, at a minimum of one (1) per 75 linear feet of driveway length, must be located along the sidewalk.

(E) Pedestrian lighting with decorative fixtures must be installed along both sides of the main driveways, and located within 25 feet of the driveway pavement.

(9) Throughout the Property, all pedestrian walkways that cross vehicular circulation routes must be clearly marked with enhanced paving and signage or other traffic calming devices such as speed bumps. Stained concrete does comply with this provision.

(10) Awnings, canopies, arcades, or similar features must be provided at all main building entrances of buildings located on the Property. If the main building entrance is located within a parking structure this provision does not apply.

(11) Sidewalks with a minimum width of six feet must be provided along the primary façade wall of all structures with air-conditioned space.

(k) Variations and exceptions. The city plan commission, whether or not a specific use permit is required, may approve a development plan that does not comply with the requirements of these design standards provided that the city plan commission finds that:

(1) strict compliance with these design standards is impractical due to site constraints or would result in substantial hardship;

(2) the site plan complies with the spirit and intent of these design standards;

(3) the site plan furthers the purpose of design standards as stated in Paragraph 51A-4.605(a)(1); and

(4) the variation or exception from these design standards will not adversely affect surrounding properties.

(l) The city plan commission shall follow the same procedure used for approval of minor amendments to development plans and the fee for a minor amendment shall apply.

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 94

Page 95: Request for Injunction

Z112-265 (MW)

22

SEC. 51P-.112. OFF STREET PARKING AND LOADING.

(a) Except as provided in this section, consult the use regulations in Division 51A-4.200 for the specific off street parking and loading requirements for each use. Consult Division 51A-4.300 for information regarding off street parking and loading generally. For parking purposes the entire district is considered as one lot.

(b) No more than two rows of surface parking is allowed between a structure with air-conditioned floor area and North Central Expressway if the structure is within 100 feet of North Central Expressway. SEC. 51P-.113. ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.

See Article VI.

SEC. 51P-.114. LANDSCAPING.

(a) Except as provided in this section, landscaping must be provided in accordance with Article X.

(1) The number of street trees required for the Property is determined by dividing the length of street frontage by 30. Street trees must be planted within 25 feet of the street curb and must have a minimum caliper inch of four inches. If this 25-foot-area falls entirely within the right-of-way, the trees must be placed within the landscape buffer area. Street trees must be spaced at a maximum of 50 feet apart on center and a minimum of 25 feet apart on center, except when ingress or egress points or visibility triangles prohibit trees. A street tree may also be a landscape buffer tree.

(2) All parking lots within 100 feet of public streets must be screened by a three-foot-high vegetative screen, berm, or solid wall. Plant material must be spaced in a manner, and be planted at a size large enough, to fulfill this requirement within three years of planting.

(3) Plant materials may not be installed until a landscape irrigation system has been installed and is operating with 100 percent coverage of the proposed landscape areas.

(b) All plant materials must be maintained in a healthy, growing condition.

(c) The parking lot tree requirements in Section 51A-10.125(b)(5) do not apply to parking spaces located within a parking structure.

(d) The parking lot and landscaping requirements in this article do not apply to parking structures.

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 95

Page 96: Request for Injunction

Z112-265 (MW)

23

SEC. 51P-115. TREE MITIGATION.

(a) To qualify for a reduction in the number of replacement trees, the Building Official must determine that the tree protection requirements in Article X have been met. (b) To preserve existing tree canopies, existing large trees with a caliper of 20 inches or greater may reduce the number of replacement inches by a factor of 1.5. For example, a tree with a caliper of 20 inches that is preserved reduces the tree replacement requirement by 30 caliper inches. Trees must be protected prior to and during construction with the minimum standards approved by Article X. Any credits are subject to inspection by the arborist.

(c) If the Property owner provides the building official with a performance bond or a letter of credit in the amount of the total cost of purchasing and planting replacement trees, the building official may permit the Property owner up to 36 months to plant the replacement trees.

(d) Tree mitigation is not required for trees within 10 feet from a building wall.

SEC. 51P-.114. SIGNS.

In general. Except as provided in this article, signs must comply with the provisions for business zoning districts in Article VII. SEC. 51P-.115. ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS.

(a) The Property must be properly maintained in a state of good repair and neat appearance.

(b) Development and use of the Property must comply with all federal and state laws and regulations, and with all ordinances, rules, and regulations of the city.

(c) Buildings existing at the time of adoption of this ordinance shall be considered conforming with respect to building setbacks. SEC. 51P-116. COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS.

(a) All paved areas, permanent drives, streets, and drainage structures, if any, must be constructed in accordance with standard city specifications, and completed to the satisfaction of the director of public works and transportation.

(b) The building official shall not issue a building permit to authorize work, or a certificate of occupancy to authorize the operation of a use, until there has been full compliance with this article, the Dallas Development Code, the construction codes, and all other ordinances, rules, and regulations of the city.

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 96

Page 97: Request for Injunction

Z112-265 (MW)

24

Proposed Conceptual Plan

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 97

Page 98: Request for Injunction

Z112-265 (MW)

25

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 98

Page 99: Request for Injunction

Z112-265 (MW)

26

Multifamily

Single family

Office

Warehouses

Multifamily/ retail

Multifamily

School

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 99

Page 100: Request for Injunction

Z112-265 (MW)

27

1

2

3

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 100

Page 101: Request for Injunction

Z112-265 (MW)

28

CPC Responses

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 101

Page 102: Request for Injunction

Z112-265 (MW)

29

5/2/2013

Reply List of Property Owners

Z112-265

74 Property Owners Notified 6 Property Owners in Favor 3 Property Owners Opposed

Reply Label # Address Owner 1 4410 ATOKA ST HERRERA HORTENCIA 2 4420 ATOKA ST AFFILIATED COMPUTER SVC 3 2921 LEMMON AVE BLACKBURN CENTRAL 4 3925 CENTRAL EXPY JLB CITYPLACE LP 5 3966 MCKINNEY AVE CORPORATION OF EPISCOPAL 6 3966 MCKINNEY AVE CHURCH OF INCARNATION 7 4016 MCKINNEY AVE CORPORATION OF EPISCOPAL 8 4035 CENTRAL EXPY TEXAS CONFERENCE ASSN OF 9 4009 CENTRAL EXPY TEXAS CONFERENCE ASSN 10 4619 COLES MANOR PL DOUGLAS JOHN 11 2602 CALVIN ST MEZA ENRIQUE M & 12 2608 CALVIN ST VALDEZ VIOLETA 13 2614 CALVIN ST MEZA TOMASA & 14 4608 COLES MANOR PL RODRIGUEZ JOSE V & OLIVA 15 4616 COLES MANOR PL DELAY INVESTMENTS LLC 16 4622 COLES MANOR PL ESCOBEDO ANDRES MARTINEZ 17 4609 MANETT ST MONTOYA EVAN PIERCE 18 2510 CALVIN ST MONTOYA JOSE & 19 2516 CALVIN ST PARVEEN TAHZEEBA 20 2506 CARROLL AVE NGO VUI MANH & 21 2512 CARROLL AVE YEPEZ MARLENE 22 2520 CARROLL AVE VENEGAS PROPERTIES 23 4512 BELMONT AVE MEZA AIDA F X 24 4516 BELMONT AVE RILEY PATRICIA 25 4522 BELMONT AVE VAZQUEZ ARNULFO CORONADO 26 2610 CARROLL AVE HSIANG YUEHYUE &

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 102

Page 103: Request for Injunction

Z112-265 (MW)

30

5/2/2013

Reply Label # Address Owner 27 2614 CARROLL AVE HERNANDEZ SANTIAGO DOROTEO O 28 2618 CARROLL AVE NICHOLS M R O 29 2624 CARROLL AVE LEWIS DORIS DIANE 30 2702 CARROLL AVE HUY KOK & 31 2706 CARROLL AVE SOLARES GEORGE 32 2710 CARROLL AVE E S INTERESTS LLC 33 2714 CARROLL AVE SHAW DAVID LEE 34 4510 COLES MANOR PL J PAT PROPERTIES INC 35 2629 CALVIN ST MILLER CHANCE AMEDIO 36 2621 CALVIN ST NGUYEN SPRING 37 2617 CALVIN ST ROMO RICHARD G 38 2613 CALVIN ST YEPEZ MIGUEL EDMUNDO 39 2607 CALVIN ST GARCIA RUNDINA & 40 2603 CALVIN ST MARTINEZ JUAN M O 41 2521 CALVIN ST HOLMES JOHN B 42 2517 CALVIN ST HINKLE FAMILY REVOCABLE X 43 4523 BELMONT AVE ASTMANN ANDREW K 44 4517 BELMONT AVE ELIZONDO EGLANTINA Q O 45 4513 BELMONT AVE WALDIE CLARENCE W O 46 4509 BELMONT AVE NGUYEN DIEM CHI THI X 47 4503 BELMONT AVE ALVAREZ REFUGIO & 48 4040 CENTRAL EXPY SDC 4040 N CENTRAL INC 49 2800 CARROLL AVE THC RESIDENCES AT CITYPLACE LLC 50 4030 CENTRAL EXPY RESIDENCES AT CITYPLACE LLC THE 51 4301 BELMONT AVE MADRIGAL RAFAEL 52 4311 BELMONT AVE BARCUS CYRUS E JR 53 4319 BELMONT AVE BELMONT STUDIOS LLC 54 4325 BELMONT AVE MJRP CORPORATOIN ET AL 55 4329 BELMONT AVE MOTT W E JR SPOUSAL TRUST 56 4331 BELMONT AVE MILAM CARLTON 57 4405 BELMONT AVE MM WHITETAIL PPTIES LP

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 103

Page 104: Request for Injunction

Z112-265 (MW)

31

5/2/2013

Reply Label # Address Owner 58 4409 BELMONT AVE CORBELL FAMILY TRUST 59 4407 BELMONT AVE MM WHITETAIL PPTIES LP 60 4411 BELMONT AVE CORBEIL FAMILY TRUST 61 4415 BELMONT AVE REEVES GEORGE 62 4417 BELMONT AVE BOYD KYLE SCOTT & BETSEY JILL

TRUSTEES 63 2609 CARROLL AVE MONTGOMERY CLINTON LINN O 64 2603 CARROLL AVE EZ CLEANING SOLUTIONS INC 65 2601 CARROLL AVE REEVES GROUP LTD 66 2417 HASKELL AVE DAYTON HUDSON CORP 67 2711 HASKELL AVE DALLAS CPT FEE OWNER LP 68 3504 CENTRAL EXPY BLACKBURN CENTRAL 69 2660 HASKELL AVE CITYVILLE DALLAS HASKELL 70 2600 HASKELL AVE KROGER TEXAS LP 71 3000 BLACKBURN ST LOADSTAR INC 72 4001 CAPITAL AVE Dallas ISD 73 3930 MCKINNEY AVE CRITERION MCKINNEY NOBEL APTS LP 74 2802 CARROLL AVE CRESTMARC LINDEN LLC

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 104

Page 105: Request for Injunction

130917522-13

ORDINANCENO.290 1 9

An ordinance changing the zoning classification on the following property:

BEING a tract of land in City Block 18/2006; fronting approximately 690 feet on the east line ofNorth Central Expressway; fronting approximately 870 feet on the south line of Carroll Avenue;and containing approximately 16.158 acres,

from a GO(A) General Office District, an MU-3(SAH) Mixed Use District, and Subdistrict E

within Planned Development District 305 to Planned Development District No. 889; amending

Chapter 51P, “Dallas Development Code: Planned Development District Regulations,” of the

Dallas City Code by creating a new Article 889; establishing use regulations and development

standards for this planned development district; providing a new property description for Tract B

of Planned Development District No. 305; providing a penalty not to exceed $2,000; providing a

saving clause; providing a severability clause; and providing an effective date.

WHEREAS, the city plan commission and the city council, in accordance with the

Charter of the City of Dallas, the state law, and the ordinances of the City of Dallas, have given

the required notices and have held the required public hearings regarding the rezoning of the

property described in this ordinance; and

WHEREAS, the city council finds that it is in the public interest to establish this planned

development district; Now, Therefore,

BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DALLAS:

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 105

Page 106: Request for Injunction

29019 130917SECTION 1. That the zoning classification is changed from a GO(A) General Office

District, an MU-3(SAH) Mixed Use District, and Subdistrict E within Planned Development

District 305 to Planned Development District No. 889 on the property described in Exhibit A,

which is attached to and made a part of this ordinance (“the Property”).

SECTION 2. That Section 51P-305.102, “Property Location and Size,” of Article 305,

“PD 305, Cityplace,” of CHAPTER 51P, “DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE: PLANNED

DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT REGULATIONS,” of the Dallas City Code, as amended, is

amended to read as follows:

“SEC. 51P-305.102. PROPERTY LOCATION AiND SIZE.

PD 305 is established on property generally located on both sides of North CentralExpressway between the area south of Carroll Avenue on the north and Thomas Avenue on thesouth. The size of PD 305 is approximately 175.89 [160.9862] acres.”

SECTION 3. That Chapter 51P, “Dallas Development Code: Planned Development

District Regulations,” of the Dallas City Code is amended by adding a new Article 889 to read as

follows:

“ARTICLE 889.

PD 889.

SEC. 51P-889.1O1. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY.

PD 889 was established by Ordinance No., L’assed by the Dallas City Council onMax’ 22. 2013.

SEC. 51P889.1O2. PROPERTY LOCATION AND SIZE.

PD 889 is established on property located on the southeast corner of Carroll Avenue andNorth Central Expressway. The size of PD 889 is approximately 16.158 acres.

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 106

Page 107: Request for Injunction

29019130917

SEC. 51P-889.103. DEFINITIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS.

(a) Unless otherwise stated, the definitions and interpretations in Chapter 51A applyto this article. In this article:

(1) BAIL BOND OFFICE means an office or other establishment any part ofwhich consists of the issuance, brokerage, or procurement of bail bonds.

(2) TATOO OR BODY-PIERCING STUDIO means an establishment inwhich tattooing is performed, or body piercing for the purpose of wearing jewelry in the piercedbody part (for any body part other than earlobes) is performed. TATTOOING means thepractice of producing an indelible mark or figure on the human body by scarring or inserting apigment under the skin using needles, scalpels, or other related equipment.

(b) Unless otherwise stated, all references to articles, divisions, or sections in thisarticle are to articles, divisions, or sections in Chapter 51 A.

(c) This district is considered to be a nonresidential zoning district.

SEC. 51P-889.104. EXhIBITS.

The following exhibit is incorporated into this article: Exhibit 889A: conceptual plan.

SEC. 51P-889.105. CONCEPTUAL PLAN.

(a) I)evelopment and use of the Property must comply with the conceptual plan(Exhibit 889A), except that the director may approve alternate locations for ingress/egress if theTexas Department of Transportation does not approve the locations indicated on the conceptualplan. The conceptual plan shows the approximate location of main driveways to be locatedwithin the Property and the proposed ingress/egress points; the final location of theingress/egress points and main driveways to be constructed within the Property must be shownon the development plan.

(iO iT tpr s a rnnflict htwen eh tt of thic art1e and tp eoncenea1 nian thp

text at tnis ani je controls.

SEC. 51P-889.106. DEVELOPMENT PLAN.

A development plan must be approved by the city plan commission before the issuance ofany building permit to authorize work in this district, except that a development plan is not

required before the issuance of a building permit for grading, drainage, demolition, tree removal,or utility work,

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 107

Page 108: Request for Injunction

13091729019

SEC. 51P-889.107. MAIN USES PERMITTED.

(a) Except as provided in this section, the only main uses permitted are those mainuses permitted in the MU-3 Mixed Use District, subject to the same conditions applicable in theMU-3 Mixed Use District, as set out in Chapter 51 A. For example, a use permitted in the MU-3Mixed Use District only by specific use permit (SUP) is permitted in this district only by SUP; ause subject to development impact review (DIR) in the MU-3 Mixed Use District is subject toDIR in this district; etc.

(b) The following additional uses are permitted on the Property:

-- General merchandise or food store 100,000 square feet or more.-- Home improvement center, lumber, brick or building materials

sales yard. [Outside storage is limited to a maximum of 10,000square feetj

(c) The following uses are prohibited on the Property:

(1) Agricultural uses.

-- Crop production.

(2) Commercial and business service uses.

-- Labor hail.

(3) Industrial uses.

— Temporary concrete or asphalt batching plant.

(4) Insfitutional and community service uses.

— Cemetery or mausoleum.College, university, or seminary

— Community service center.— convent or monastery.— Halfway house.— Open enrollment charter school.— Private school.

(5) Lodging uses.

— Overnight general purpose shelter.

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 108

Page 109: Request for Injunction

901 1J0017(6) Miscellaneous uses.

-- Attached non-premise sign.-- Carnival or circus (temporary).

(7) Office uses.

-- Alternative financial establishment.-- Bail bond office.

(8) Recreation uses.

-- Country club with private membership.

(9) Residential uses.

-- College dormitory, fraternity, or sorority house.

(10) Retail and personal service uses.

-- Car wash.-- Commercial parking lot or garage.-- Convenience store with drive-through.-- Mortuary, funeral home, or commercial wedding chapel.-- Swap or buy shop.

Tattoo or body-piercing studio.

(11) ortationuses

-- Heliport.-- Railroad passenger station.- Transit passenger station or transfer center.

(12) Wholesale, distribution, and_storagçuses

Mni_warehniis

SEC. 51P-889.108. ACCESSORY USES.

(a) As a general rule, an accessory use is permitted in any district in which themain use is permitted. Some specific accessory uses, however, due to their unique nature, aresubj ct to additional regulations in Section 1 A 4 217 For more ir ft rmation regarding

c r r u1tS t 5’ 2

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 109

Page 110: Request for Injunction

130912901°

(b) The following accessory uses are not permitted:

-- Accessory helistop.-- Accessory medical/infectious waste incinerator.

SEC. 51P-889.109. YARD, LOT, AND SPACE REGULATIONS.

(Note: The yard, lot, and space regulations in this section must be read together with theyard, lot, and space regulations in Division 51A-4.400. If there is a conflict between this sectionand Division 51A-4.400, this section controls.)

(a) In general. Except as provided in this section, the yard, lot, and space regulationsfor the MU-3 District apply.

(b) Carroll Avenue and North Central Expressway landscape buffer. The minimumlandscape buffer along Carroll Avenue and North Central Expressway is 20 feet. Except forsigns, and as provided in this subsection, no structures or parking are allowed in this landscapebuffer. The buffer may be provided in accordance with Section 5lP-889.1l4(c) and mustcontain large and small trees, a minimum six-foot-wide pedestrian trail, and the followingpedestrian amenities:

(1) Benches at a minimum of one per 200 feet of pedestrian trail frontage;

(2) Trash receptacles at a minimum of one per 200 feet of pedestrian trailfrontage;

(3) Bicycle parking at a minimum of one five-bicycle rack per 200 feet ofpedestrian trail frontage; and

(4) Pedestrian lighting at a minimum of one per 75 feet of pedestrian trailfrontage.

(c) Buildings existing on May 22, 2013, he date of creation f ths district, shall bew dred tc be wforming with respect to F uilding setback A’ expansion of an existing

i a r g ii 5 0 1 ly an the yard, lot, and c r ulat o 15 0 t u s ic

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 110

Page 111: Request for Injunction

29019 130917SEC. 51P-889.llO. MULTIFAMILY DESIGN STANDARD

(a) Purpose. Continuous facades along pedestrian-oriented streets often havenegative impacts on community aesthetics, pedestrian circulation, and the scale and rhythm ofstreetscapes. These design standards apply to multifamily uses and are intended to ensure thatcontinuous facades that are located along well-traveled pedestrian ways are compatible with thesurrounding area and mitigate the negative impact of continuous facades, while allowingcreativity, flexibility, and variety in design.

(b) Facade walls. Facade walls facing a public rightof-way must incorporate at leasttwo of the design elements listed in this subsection. The cumulative length of these designelements must extend for at least 60 percent of the facade wall’s horizontal length.

(1) A repeating pattern of wall recesses and projections, such as bays, offsets,reveals, or projecting ribs, that have a relief of at least eight inches.

(2) Trim, molding, or accent elements using decorative contrasting colors onat least five percent of the area of the facade wall.

(3) At least three of the following design elements at the primary entrance, sothat the primary entrance is architecturally prominent and clearly visible from the abutting street:

(A) Architectural details such as arches, friezes, tile work, murals, ormoldings.

(B) Integral planters or wing waIls that incorporate landscaping orseating.

(C) Enhanced exterior light fixtures such as wail sconces, light coveswith concealed light sources, groundmounted accent lights, or decorative pedestal lights.

(D) Prominent three-dimensional features, such as belfries, chimneys,clock towers, domes, spires, steeples, towers, or turrets,

(E) Awnings or lintels.

1P rprifincr nittrn rf’ nI “ak.& £ ii ‘_J L&1’ IL4%./L4%S% V4 11

minimum of eiah inches or architectural or decorative columns.

(G) Display windows, faux windows, or decorative windows.

(H) Arcades, awnings, canopies, covered walkways, or porticos.

(I) An other comparable design elements approved by the buildingofficial.

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 111

Page 112: Request for Injunction

13091729019

(c) Facade wall changes. Facade walls must have one or more of the following:

(1) Changes of color, texture, or material, either diagonally, horizontally, orvertically, at intervals of not less than 20 feet and not more than 100 feet.

(2) Changes in plane with a depth of at least 24 inches, either diagonally,horizontally, or vertically, at intervals of not less than 20 feet and not more than 100 feet.

(d) Materials. The exterior facade walls, exclusive of fenestration, must beconstructed of at least 80 percent masonry. Masonry includes stone, brick, concrete, stucco,hollow clay tile, cementitious fiber siding, decorative concrete blocks or tile, glass block, othersimilar building materials, or a combination of those materials. For purposes of this provision,Exterior Finish Insulations System (EFIS) materials are not considered masonry. Texturedpainted tilt wall maybe used on no more than 20 percent of the area of the facade walls.

(e) Garage facades.

(1) When adjacent to or visible from a public right-of-way, exterior parkingstructure facades must be similar in materials, architecture, and appearance to the facade of themain structure or the adjacent structure, except that breaks in the exterior parking structurefacade not exceeding 40 feet in width are permitted at driveway and entryway locations.

(2) Except as provided in this paragraph, openings in the exterior parkingstructure facade may not exceed 50 percent of the total parking structure facade area. Openingsin parking structure facades that are visible from an adjacent public right-of-way may not exceed45 percent of the total parking structure, excluding garage entrances and exits.

(f) Roofs.

(1) Roof-mounted mechanical equipment, skylights, and solar panels must bescreened or set back so that they are not visible from a point five-feet six-inches above grade atthe property line. Screening materials must be compatible with the materials and colors used onthe main building. Chain-link fences may not be used as a screening material.

(2) Roofs must have at least one of the following design elements:

(i ?3raoets haing a 1[Lm1L tattein and ]tad ng suc as nrn1Les

moldings, trim, or variations in brick coursing.

(B) Sloping roofs with the following design elements:

(i) Slope of at least 5:12.

(ii) Two or more slope planes,

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 112

Page 113: Request for Injunction

29 1130917

(iii) Asphalt composition shingles, metal standing seam, claytiles, concrete tiles, or similar materials.

(iv) Overhanging eaves extending at least two feet beyond thesupporting wall.

SEC. 51P-889.ll1. NON-RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS.

(a) In general. These design standards apply to all non-residential uses. Thesedesign standards are in lieu of the design standards for large retail uses in Section 51A-4.605,even if the use is 100,000 square feet or more.

(b) Relationship to Article X. The landscape requirements of these designstandards may be used to satisfy any landscaping required by Article X.

(c) Conflict. If this section conflicts with any other requirements in this article,the other requirements control.

(d) Definitions. The following definitions apply to this section:

(1) COVERED MALL BUILDING means a single building enclosing 10 ormore retail, personal service, and office uses that have access into a climate-controlled commonpedestrian area.

(2) FACADE WALL means any separate face of a building, including parapetwalls and omitted wall lines, or any part of a building that encloses usable space. Where separatefaces are oriented in the same direction, or in directions within 45 degrees of one another, theyare considered as part of a single facade wall,

(3) FRONT PARKING AREA means, for developments with a single use, thearea in front of a line parallel to and extending outward from the primary facade wall to theProperty lines, and means for developments with multiple uses, the area between two lines at thecorners of the primary facade wall and perpendicular to the primary facade wall and extending tothe Property line

(4) RIMARY 1 ACADl V Y[ ic cadc wall containina thprimary entrance If two or more facades walls have entrances of equal significance, each facadewall will be considered a primary facade wall.

(5) REAR FACADE WALL means the facade wall containing service areas.

(6) SIDE FACADE WALL means any facade wall that is not a primaryfacade nail or a rear facade walL

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 113

Page 114: Request for Injunction

29O1(7) SERVICE AREA means any area for loading docks, outdoor storage

(other than an outdoor display, sales, and storage area), trash collection or compaction, truckparking, or other similar functions.

(e) Facade walls. Primary, side, and rear facade walls must incorporate at least threeof the following design elements. The cumulative length of these design elements must extendfor at least 60 percent of the facade wall’s horizontal length.

(1) A repeating pattern of wall recesses and projections, such as bays, offsets,reveals, or projecting ribs, that have a relief of at least eight inches.

(2) At least three of the following design elements at the primary entrance, sothat the primary entrance is architecturally prominent and clearly visible from the abutting street:

(A) Architectural details such as arches, friezes, tile work, murals, ormoldings.

(B) Integral planters or wing walls that incorporate landscaping orseating.

(C) Enhanced exterior light fixtures such as wall sconces, light coveswith concealed light sources, ground-mounted accent lights, or decorative pedestal lights.

(D) Prominent three-dimensional features, such as belfries, chimneys,clock towers, domes, spires, steeples, towers, or turrets,

(E) A repeating pattern of pilasters projecting from the facade wall bya minimum of eight inches or architectural or decorative columns.

(F) Arcades, awnings, canopies, covered walkways, or porticos.

(G) Display windows, faux windows, or decorative windows.

(H) Trim or accent elements using decorative contrasting colors ordecorative neor lighting on at least 0 perccnt f thc area of the facade wall ex lusi e offeilcQtratlnn

(f) Facadeji!es Facade walls must have one or more of the following

(1) Changes of color, texture, or material, either diagonally, horizontally, orvertically, at intervals of not less than 20 feet and not more than 100 feet.

(2) Changes in plane ith a depth t at 1 “ast 24 inches either diagonallyr II r 11 t t r i f ot if f t d r r 1 00 fc t

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 114

Page 115: Request for Injunction

130917n1L/LJL 7

(g) Materials and colors.

(1) No more than 75 percent of the area of a facade wall, exclusive offenestration, may have a single material or color. Textured painted tilt wall may be used on nomore than 25 percent of the area of the primary facade walls and 50 percent of the side facadewalls.

(2) The primary facade wall and side facade walls, excluding fenestration,must have a minimum of 75 percent brick, stone, masonry, simulated brick, stucco, or stonematerials.

(h) Roofs.

(1) Roof-mounted mechanical equipment, skylights, and solar panels must bescreened or set back so that they are not visible from a point five-feet six-inches above grade atthe property line. Screening materials must be compatible with the materials and colors used onthe main building. Chain-link fences may not be used as a screening material.

(2) Roofs must have at least one of the following design elements:

(A) Parapets with horizontal tops having height changes of at least onefoot occurring horizontally no less than every 100 feet. Parapets that do not have horizontal topsmust have pitched or rounded tops with a pattern that repeats or varies no less than every 100feet. All parapets must have detailing such as cornices, moldings, trim, or variations in brickcoursing.

(B) Sloping roofs with at least two of the following design elements:

(i) Slope of at least 5:12.

(ii) Two or more slope planes.

(iii) Overhanging eaves extending at least three feet beyond thesupporting wall.

Al] clnnna rnnfc f nrnyidpd rnct hp p-itl,pr me2l tndna

ti ,rc es u sirnihr ILa enais

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 115

Page 116: Request for Injunction

29019 130917(i) Parking lots and landscaping.

(I) Landscaped islands of a minimum of 160 square feet per row of cars mustbe placed at both ends of each grouping of parking rows. Additional landscape islands of aminimum of 160 square feet are required for every 30 parking spaces located in a parking row.Landscaped islands must have ground cover and trees or shrubs. This provision does not apply tostructured or below grade parking.

(2) Parking lots must be divided into sections containing no more than 120parking spaces. Parking lot sections must be divided by landscaped dividers with a minimumwidth of five feet. Landscaped dividers must have trees spaced at a maximum of 30 feet oncenter and ground cover or shrubs. Parking lot sections may contain up to 150 parking spaces if,in addition to the landscaped divider, each grouping of parking rows is divided by a landscapeisland of a minimum of 20 square feet per row of cars. Landscaped islands must have groundcover and trees or shrubs. This provision does not apply to structured or below grade parking.

(3) No more than two-thirds of the off-street parking spaces may be located inthe front parking area. If more than 50 percent of a parking space is within the front parkingarea, then that parking space shall be counted as being within the front parking area. The two-thirds limitation on off-street parking within the front parking area may be exceeded if oneadditional tree beyond the requirements of these design standards is provided within the frontparking area for every 15 off-street additional parking spaces or fraction thereof located withinthe front parking area.

(4) Parking lots must have a pedestrian pathway system distinguished fromthe parking and driving surface by landscape barriers or a change in surface materials such aspayers or patterned concrete. Pedestrian pathways may be distinguished by paint alone.Pedestrian pathways must be a minimum of six feet wide. Pedestrian pathways must coimectmass transit stops, parking areas, public sidewalks, and public rights-of-way to the primaryentrance.

(5) A landscaped buffer strip with a minimum width of 20 feet must belocated between any parking area and any public right-of-way other than alleys. The landscapebuffer may be interrupted by vehicular and pedestrian access areas. The landscape buffer stripmay be located in whole or in part in the public right-of-way if the requirements of Chapter 43 ofthe Dallas City Code are met. The landscape buffer strip must have trees and a berm with aminimum height of three feet, If the topography prevents installation of a berm. an evergreenhedge with a minimum height of three feet may be substituted. if the evergreen hedge issubstituted, the hedge must reach three feet in height within 36 months of planting. The numberof trees required for the landscape buffer shall be determined by dividing the length of streetfrontage by 30. The trees in the landscape buffer may be grouped to create ‘natural” stands.These trees may be spaced at a maximum of 50 feet on center and a minimum of 25 feet oncenter. A landscape buffer tree shall also count as a street tree. Parking lots that must be screenedfrom Carroll Avenue and North Central Expressway may be screened with a solid hedge capableof reaching a height of three feet within three years of planting, a three-foothigh solid wall, orberm.

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 116

Page 117: Request for Injunction

101729019

(6) Trees spaced at a maximum of 30 feet on center must be provided within20 feet of the primary facade wall and one side facade wall for at least 50 percent of the length ofeach side facade wall. Trees may be located in the public right-of-way if the requirements ofChapter 43 of the Dallas City Code are met. Trees must be planted in a landscape strip with aminimum width of five feet or in tree wells with minimum dimensions of five feet by five feet.

(7) Shopping cart storage areas in surface parking lots must be screened withlandscaping along the length of the shopping cart storage area facing any public right-of-way.

(j) Additional design standards.

(1) Service areas must be oriented so that they are not visible from a pointfive-feet six-inches above grade from abutting public rights-of-way or residential zoningdistricts, or must be screened from abutting public rights-of-way or residential zoning districts bysolid masonry screening with a minimum height of eight feet extending the entire length of theservice area.

(2) Automotive service bays must be oriented away from any public right-of-way or residential zoning district, unless screened from view with solid masonry screening orsolid evergreen landscape screening with a minimum height of eight feet extending the entirelength of the automotive service bays.

(3) Mechanical equipment on the ground must be screened using materialsmatching the materials and colors used on the main building. Chain-link fence may not be usedas a screening materiaL

(4) Except for seasonal displays for a use with less than 100,000 square feetrelating to national holidays or the four seasons, merchandise may not be displayed or stored inparking areas or on sidewalks adjacent to facade walls, except in screened outdoor display, sales,and storage areas.

(5) Outdoor display, sales, and storage areas, such as nursery departments.must be enclosed by screening with a solid base with a minimum height of three feet surmountedb’ a wrought iron or tubular steel fenco with a minimum height of five feet. The screening mustbe surmounted with a minimum of Lvo feet of fascia wrth materials and colors matching themain buiIdn. merchandise other than trees may he I%ible above the screening

(6) Shopping cart storage areas adjacent to facade wails (not in parking lots)must be screened with landscaping or materials matching the materials of the pnrnary facadewall. No more than two shopping cart storage areas (one on each side of an entrance) may beprovided on any facade wall. Shopping cart storage areas may not exceed 30 feet in length.

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 117

Page 118: Request for Injunction

2901913•0917

(7) If the use is within 300 feet of a single family residential zoning districtcontaining a residential use, other than this district, the following restrictions apply. For purposesof this provision, measurements are made in a straight line, without regard to interveningstructures or objects, from the nearest boundary of the lot where the use is conducted to thenearest boundary of the zoning district in issue.

(A) External speakers are prohibited.

(B) Staging, loading, or idling of commercial vehicles in a service areais prohibited between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Signs prohibiting staging, loading,or idling of commercial vehicles between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. must be postedevery 100 feet adjacent to the service area.

(C) An external lighting plan demonstrating compliance with all cityordinances must be submitted to and approved by the building official prior to the issuance of abuilding permit for new construction, a building permit to expand to 100,000 square feet ormore, or a certificate of occupancy.

(8) The following driveway enhancements must be provided:

(A) Ingress/egress points to the Property must have a change in surfacematerials such as payers, bricks, or patterned concrete with color. This special paving must havea minimum length of 20 feet, starting at the Property line, and must span the entire width of thedriveway throat (from edge of gutter to edge of gutter). Stained concrete does not comply withthis provision.

(B) The intersections of main driveways must have enhanced pavingsuch as concrete payers, pattered concrete with color, brick, stone, landscape islands, or similarfeature or materials.

(C) Main driveways must have one tree for every 30 linear feet ofdriveway. Trees must be a minimum two and one-half caliper inches at the time of planting andmay be planted in naturalized clusters along the driveway. All trees must be located within 35feet of the paved driveway.

(D) Main driveways must have a minimum sixfeotwide sidewalk onoe ide ft11 un e nn11i 2 fe of 1 e an’ c a pax emo Beu,c it a n inwper 75 linear feet of driveway length, must be located along the sidewalk.

(E) Pedestrian lighting with decorative fixtures must be installed alongboth sides of the main driveways, and located within 25 feet of the driveway pavement.

(9) Throughout the Property, all pedestrian walkways that cross vehicularcirculation routes must he c’early marked with enhanced paving and signage or other trafficcalming devices such as speed bumps. Stained concrete does comply with th.is provision.

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 118

Page 119: Request for Injunction

13O 19I9

(10) Awnings, canopies, arcades, or similar features must be provided at allmain building entrances of buildings located on the Property. If the main building entrance islocated within a parking structure this provision does not apply.

(11) Sidewalks with a minimum width of six feet must be provided alongtheprimary facade wall of all structures with air-conditioned space.

(k) ionu4cxcetins. The city plan commission, whether or not a specificuse permit is required, may approve a development plan that does not comply with therequirements of these design standards provided that the city plan commission finds that

(1) strict compliance with these design standards is impractical due to siteconstraints or would result in substantial hardship;

(2) the development plan complies with the spirit and intent of these designstandards;

(3) the development plan furthers the purpose of design standards as stated inParagraph 51A-4.605(a)(1); and

(4) the variation or exception from these design standards will not adverselyaffect surrounding properties.

(1) The city plan commission shall follow the same procedure used for approval ofminor amendments to development plans and the fee for a minor amendment shall apply.

SEC. 51P-889,112. OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING.

(a) Except as provided in this section, consult the use regulations in Division 5 1A-4.200 for the specific off-street parking and loading requirements for each use. Consult Division51A-4.300 for information regarding off-street parking and loading generally. For parkingpurposes the entire district is considered as one lot.

(b) No rrore than two rows of surface parking are allowed betweer a structurc ithuir- on1itinnpd flnr ra rni1 Nnrth (ntra1 Tprecswv if he ctritiir c vitliin I fl ft if

rth n ra ressv y

SEC. 51P-889,113, ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS,

See Article VI.

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 119

Page 120: Request for Injunction

1’)

SEC. 51P-889.114. LANDSCAPING.

(a) Except as provided in this section, landscaping must be provided in accordancewith Article X.

(b) All plant materials must be maintained in a healthy, growing condition.

(c) The number of street trees required for the Property is determined by dividing thelength of street frontage by 30. Street trees must be planted within 25 feet of the street curb andmust have a minimum caliper inch of four inches. If this 25-foot-area falls entirely within theright-of-way, the trees must be placed within the landscape buffer area. Street trees must bespaced at a maximum of 50 feet apart on center and a minimum of 25 feet apart on center, exceptwhen ingress or egress points or visibility triangles prohibit trees. A street tree may also be alandscape buffer tree.

(d) All parking lots within 100 feet of public streets must be screened by a three-foot-high vegetative screen, berm, or solid wall. Plant material must be spaced in a manner, and beplanted at a size large enough, to fulfill this requirement within three years of planting.

(e) Plant materials may not be installed until a landscape irrigation system has beeninstalled and is operating with 100 percent coverage of the proposed landscape areas.

(f The parking lot tree requirements in Section 51A-l0.l25(b)(5) do not apply toparking spaces located within a parking structure.

(g) The parking lot and landscaping requirements in Section 51P-889.1 11(i) do notapply to parking structures.

SEC. 51P-889.115. TREE MITIGATION.

(a) To preserve existing tree canopies, existing large trees with a caliper of 20 inchesor greater may reduce the number of replacement inches by a factor of 1.5. For example, a treewith a caliper of 20 inches that is preserved reduces the tree replacement requirement by 30caliper inches. Trees must be protected prior to and during construction with the minimumstandards approved by Article X. Any credits are subject to inspection by the arborist. Toquali for a reduction in the number of replacement trees, the Building Official must determinethat the tree protection requirements in Article X have been met.

(b) If the Property owner provides the building official with a performance bond or aletter of credit in the amount of the total cost of purchasing and planting replacement trees, thebuilding official may permit the Property owner up to 36 months to plant the replacement trees.

(c) Tree mitigation is not required for trees within 10 feet of a building wall.

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 120

Page 121: Request for Injunction

1303r29019

SEC. 51P-889.116. SIGNS.

Signs must comply with the provisions for business zoning districts in Article VII.

SEC. 51P-889.117. ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS.

(a) The Property must be properly maintained in a state of good repair and neatappearance

(b) Development and use of the Property must comply with all federal and state lawsand regulations, and with all ordinances, rules, and regulations of the city.

SEC. 51P-889.118. COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS.

(a) All paved areas, permanent drives, streets, and drainage structures, if any, must beconstructed in accordance with standard city specifications, and completed to the satisfaction ofthe city.

(b) The building official shall not issue a building permit to authorize work, or acertificate of occupancy to authorize the operation of a use, until there has been full compliancewith this article, the Dallas Development Code, the construction codes, and all other ordinances,rules, and regulations of the city.”

SEC I ION 4. That, pursuant to Section 51 A-4. 701 of Chapter 51 A of the Dallas City

Code, as amended, the property description in Section 1 of this ordinance shall be construed as

including the area to the centerline of all adjacent streets and alleys.

SECTION 5 That the fract B property description of the Exhibit A attached to

T onr I I ik P..

Ia r

(Exhibit B) attached to this ordinance.

SECTION 6. That development of this district must comply with the full-scale version of

Exhibit 889A attached to this ordinance. A reduced-sized version of this plan shall be provided

n Chapter 511 Prmits shall be issued based on or nation pro ided on the full cale crs or

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 121

Page 122: Request for Injunction

13091729019

SECTION 7. That the city attorney is authorized to insert the enrolled number of this

ordinance in the legislative history section of Article 889 in Chapter 51P.

SECTION 8. That a person who violates a provision of this ordinance, upon conviction,

is punishable by a fine not to exceed $2,000.

SECTION 9. That the zoning ordinances of the City of Dallas and Chapter 51P of the

Dallas City Code, as amended, shall remain in full force and effect, save and except as amended

by this ordinance.

SECTION 10. That the terms and provisions of this ordinance are severable and are

governed by Section 1-4 of Chapter 1 of the Dallas City Code, as amended.

SECTION 11. That this ordinance shall take effect immediately from and after its

passage and publication, in accordance with the Charter of the City of Dallas, and it is

accordingly so ordained.

APPROVED AS TO FORIVL

THOMAS P. PERKiNS, JR., City Attorney

Passed

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 122

Page 123: Request for Injunction

GIS_Approved 290 1 9EXHIBITA 1309 1 t

PD889 -

DESCRIPTION, of a 16.158 acre tract of land situated in the John Grigsby Survey Abstract No. 495,Dallas County, Texas; said tract of land being all of that tract described as Tract NA” in Special WarrantyDeed from American General Life Insurance Company to Affiliated Computer Services, Inc. recorded inVolume 95159, Page 237 of the Deed Records of Dallas County, Texas, said tract also being all of Lot 1,and part of Lot 2, Block 18/2006 of Affiliated Computer Services Addition, an addition to the City ofDallas, Texas according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume 2002047, Page 255 of said Deed Records,and also being part of that tract described in Special Warranty deed to Affiliated Computer Services, Inc.recorded in Volume 20000141, Page 472 of said Deed Records; and part of a 15-foot wide alley acrossBlock 18/2006; said 16.158 acre tract being more particularly described as follows;

BEGINNNG, at a “+ cut in concrete found for corner; said point being the southwest end of a right-of-way corner clip at the intersection of a southeast right-of-way line of Central Expressway (U.S. Highway75, a variable width right-of-way) and a southwest right-of-way line of Carroll Avenue (a variable widthright-of-way);

THENCE, North 68 degrees, 41 minutes, 09 seconds East, along the said corner clip, a distance of 28.30feet to a “+“ cut in concrete found for corner in said southwest line of Carroll Avenue (75-foot wide right-of-way at this point);

THENCE, South 66 degrees, 10 minutes, 34 seconds East, along said southwest line of Carroll Avenue, adistance of 657.91 feet to a 3/4-inch iron pipe found at an angle point;

THENCE, South 44 degrees, 20 minutes, 45 seconds East, continuing along the said southwest line ofCarroll Avenue, a distance of 209.07 feet to a 1/2-inch iron rod found at the beginning of a curve to theright; said point also being the northern most end of a circular right-of-way corner clip;

THENCE, in a southerly direction, departing said southwest line of Carroll Avenue and along saidcircular corner clip, having a central angle of 89 degrees, 49 minutes, 20 seconds, a radius of 30.00 feet,on a chord bearing and distance of South 00 degrees. 33 minutes, 55 seconds West, 42.36 feet, an arcdistance of 47.03 feet to a 1/2-inch iron rod found in the northwest line of Atoka Street (a 50-foot wideright-of-way);

THENCE. South 45 degrees. 28 minutes. 35 seconds West. along said northwest line of Atoka Street. adistance of 150.00 feet to a 58-inch iron rod found for corner: said point being the southwest corner ofthe terminus of said Atoka Street; from said point a i /2-inch iron pipe found bears South 45 degrees 28minutes West. a distan.ce of 0,1 feet;

THENCE, South 44 degrees, 20 minutes, 45 seconds East, along the terminus of said Atoka Street,passing at a distance of 50.00 feet the southeast corner of said Atoka Street and the west corner of Lot 3,Block H/2005, Resubdivision of Belmont Park Addition, an addition to the City of Dallas, Texasaccording to the plat recorded in Volume 8, page 126 of the Map Records of Dallas County, Texas,continuing along the southwest line of said Lot 3 for a total distance of 157.50 feet to a 1/2-inch iron pipefound for corner in the northwest line of a 20 foot wide alley:

THENCE. South 45 dearees. 2/. minutes. 35 secondii West, mono the northeast line of said 2Cofbot wideeiL

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 123

Page 124: Request for Injunction

Approved 290 1 9 309 1of said Lot I, passing at a distance of 591.07 feet the easterly line of said Lot 2 and the westerly line ofsaid 15-foot wide alley and continuing for a total distance of 695.79 feet to a ‘N-” cut in concrete set for

corner:

THENCE, in a northwesterly direction, the following three (3) calls;

North 44 degrees, 31 minutes, 25 seconds West, a distance of 439.96 feet to PK Nail set forcorner;

North 23 degrees. 44 minutes. 38 seconds East, a distance of 94.40 feet to a 1/2-inch iron rod with‘PACHECO KOCH” cap set fhr corner:

North 66 degrees, 15 minutes. 22 seconds West, a distance of3lO.71 feet to an “+“ cut in concreteset for corner. said point being in the southeast line of North Central Expressway. and the of anon-tangent curve to right;

THENCE, in a northeasterly direction and along the said southeast line of North Central Expressway, thefollowing three (3) calls;

In a northerly direction along said non-tangent curve to the right, having a central angle of 02degrees. 11 minutes, 06 seconds, a radius of 2734.00 feet, a chord bearing and distance of North22 degrees, 34 minutes, 36 seconds East, 104.25 feet, an arc distance of 104.26 feet, to a 1/2-inchiron rod with “PACHECO KOCH” cap found at the end of said curve;

North 23 degrees, 47 minutes, 34 seconds Last, a distance of 29.49 feet to a 1/2-inch iron rod with“PACHECO KOCH” cap set for corner;

North 23 degrees. 44 minutes, 38 seconds East, a distance of 65 63 feet to a 1/2-inch iron rod with‘PACHECO KOCH” cap set for corner: said point being the southwest corner of a tract of landdescribed in Quit Claim deed to the City of Dallas as recorded in Volume 96063, Page 1958 ofsaid Deed Records;

THENCE, South 66 degrees, 15 minutes, 22 seconds East, along the south line of said City of Dallas tract,a distance of 5.00 feet to a “4-” cut in concrete found for corner at the southeast corner of said City ofDallas tract;

THECF. Nrth )3 deerees 44 minutes 33 seem d Fast, a1on the cast line - f said City of Dallas tracta distance of 4uun feet to a i 2-inch iron rod ith “PA(HECO KuCH” cap found at the norineasi coniet

•(-- -ç !‘ -

UI aiu 01 hS tuL,

THENCE. North 66 degrees. 15 minutes. 22 seconds West, the north line of said City of Dallas tract. adistance of 5.00 feet to a 1 2-inch iron rod with “PACHECO KOCH” cap found at the northwest corner ofsaid City of Dallas tract;

THENCE, North 23 degrees. 44 minutes, 38 seconds East, along the said southeast line of North CentralIi presswar a d stancc of 44 3 feet to tic PQINT OF BEGINNING.

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 124

Page 125: Request for Injunction

1QñiGIS Approved JL U U J 1. 1

29019Exhibit B

PD 305 TRACT B(East side of Central Expressway)

BEING a tract or parcel of land situated in the John Grisby Survey, Abstract 495, City of

Dallas, Dallas County, Texas, and being all or parts of City Blocks 10/2006, 18/2006,11/606, 1/611, 2/612, 5/614, A/618, A1621, E/622, C/623, D/623, A/624, 8/624, E1624,A/659, B/659, C/659, 661, A/661, G/662, K1662, A/663 and 8/663 being more

particularly described as follows:

BEGINNING at an “+“ cut in concrete set for corner in the easterly right-of-way line of

North Central Expressway, U.S. Highway 75 (a variable width right-of-way), at itsintersection with the northerly line of Haskell Avenue (a variable width right-of-way), saidpoint also being the most southwesterly corner of City Block 18/2006;

THENCE along the easterly line of North Central Expressway, N 08°08’Ol” E, 106.10feet to a “+“ cut in concrete set for the beginning of a non-tangent curve to the right;

THENCE along said easterly line of North Central Expressway, a curve to the righthaving a central angle of 6°31’38”, a radius of 2,090.00 feet, an arc distance of 238.10feet, a chord bearing of N10°06’12”E, and a chord distance of 237.97 feet to a point forcorner at the beginning of a compound curve to the right;

THENCE continuing along said easterly line of North Central Expressway in a northerly

direction along said compound curve to the right, having a central angle of 08°07’22”, aradius of 2,734.00 feet, a chord bearing and distance of N17°25’42” E, 387.27 feet, anarc distance of 387.59 feet, to a “+“ cut in concrete for corner at the end of said curve;

THENCE departing said easterly right-of-way line of North Central Expressway,

S 66°1 522” E, a distance of 310.71 feet to a point for corner;

THENCE S 234438 W, a distance of 94.40 feet to a point for corner:

THENCE S 44°31 ‘25” E, a distance of 439.96 feet to a point for corner;

THENCE N 45°28’35” E, a distance of 119.64 feet to a ‘+“ cut in concrete set for corner,in the westerly line of a 15-foot wide alley;

THENCE S 44°50’32” E, a distance of 149.63 feet to a point for corner in the centerlineof Peak Street (a variable width rightofway); said point being the southeast corner of

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 125

Page 126: Request for Injunction

GIS Approved o i 91 309 1 (

the northern most corner of City Block A1663 Lot 2, Cityplace Northeast Section One-Revised (S023-152), an addition to the City of Dallas, Texas according to the platrecorded in Volume 95051, page 1321 of the Dallas County Deed Records;

THENCE S 45°16’15” W, along the said southwesterly line of Peak Street, a distance of25.00 feet, to a point in the southwesterly line of Peak Street, said point also being theon the north line of City Block A1663 Lot 2;

THENCE S 44°49’44” E, along the southwesterly line of Peak Street, crossing the right-of-way of Weldon Street (50’ R.O.W.), 700.00 feet to its intersection with the westerlyline of Capitol Avenue (50’ R.O.W.);

THENCE S 45°05’16” W along the westerly line of Capitol Avenue 248.74 feet to acorner:

THENCE departing the westerly line of Capitol Avenue, S 44°49’17” E, 282.49 feet to apoint for corner at the west line of City Block 661;

THENCE S 24°24’57” W along the west line of City Block 661, 148.72 feet to a point forcorner;

THENCE S 66°12’27” E, 204.49 feet to a point for corner, in the easterly line of OfficeParkway (50’ R.O.W.);

THENCE N 23°00’42” E along the easterly line of Office Parkway, 319.99 feet to a pointfor corner, said point also being the point of curvature of a curve to the right;

THENCE continuing along the easterly line of Office Parkway, a curve to the righthaving a central angle of 19°26’23” a radius of 223.27 feet, an arc distance of 75,75feet to a point for corner, said point also being the pont of reverse curvature, chordbears N 32°48’25’ E 75.39 feet:

THENCE continuing along the easterly line of Office Parkway, a curve to the left havingan angle of 151°5624”, a radius of 52.59 feet, a chord bears N 23°45’58” E;

THENCE continuing along the south line of Block 661 and the north line of C/662 Lot 5AN 34°14’15” E, 179.23 feet easterly line of Office Parkway, to a point for corner in thenorth line of City Block G/662 Lot 5A:

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 126

Page 127: Request for Injunction

I OñC IGIS_Approved I U U J I

29019THENCE N 45°59’05” E, 81.86 feet to a point for corner;

THENCE S 44°26’35” E, 95.00 feet to a point for corner;

THENCE N 46°05’ 18” E, 2.47 feet to a point for a corner in the southerly line of AshbyStreet (50’ R,O. W.);

THENCE S 44°21’15” E, continuing along the southerly line of Ashby Street, 25.72feet to a point for a corner;

THENCE S 38°30’Ol” W, continuing along the southerly line of Ashby Street, 6.28 feetto a point for a corner;

THENCE S 43°54’55” E, continuing along the southerly line of Ashby Street, 167.23 feetto a point for a corner at its intersection with the westerly line of Deere Street (50’R.O.W.);

THENCE S 46°51’OS” W along the westerly line of Deere Street, 410.00 feet to a pointfor a corner in the southerly line of Peak Street (60’ R.O.W.);

THENCE S 44°22’41” E along the southerly line of Peak Street, 247.81 feet to a pointfor a corner,

THENCE departing the southerly line of Peak Street, S 05°52’50” W, 118.28 feet to apoint for a corner said point also being the most northeasterly corner of City BockC/659, and in the southerly line of Lemmon Avenue (60’ R.O.W.), said point also beingthe point of curvature of a curve to the right;

THENCE along the southerly line of Lemmon Avenue, a curve to the right having acentral angle of 38°53’13”, a radius of 395.63 feet, an arc distance of 268.52 feet to aniron rod found in the southerly line of Peak Street (50° R.O.W.) at its intersection withthe westerly line of a 15 foot alley, chord bears S 65°12’57” E, 263.39 feet;

THENCE S 44°48’58” E, crossing said 15 foot alley, 15.00 feet to a point for a corner atthe intersections of the southerly line of Peak Street with the easterly line of said 15 footalley for a corner;

THENCE S 44°39’08” E, continuing along the southerly line of Peak Street, 200.10 feetto a point for a corner at its intersection with the easterly line of Lafayette Street (50’RO.W.);

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 127

Page 128: Request for Injunction

GIS Approved 1309 17

3fl19— I

THENCE S 44°42’34” E, continuing along the southerly line of Peak Street, 157.99 feetto a point for a corner at its intersection with the westerly line of a 10 foot dirt alley;

THENCE S 46°36’44” W along the westerly line of said dirt alley, 645.40 feet to a pointfor a corner at the northerly line of Haskell Avenue;

THENCE N 44°56’55” W along the northerly line of Haskell Avenue, 418.35 feet to apoint for corner on the common line between Lots 2 and 3 in City Block B1659;

THENCE N 46°08’18” E along said common lot line and its northeastward prolongation,a distance of approximately 142.52 feet to a point for corner on the centerline of a 15foot alley;

THENCE N 44°56’55” W along the centerline of said alley, a distance of approximately103.00 feet to a point for corner on the southeasterly line of Cabell Drive;

THENCE N 46°08’36” E along the southeasterly line of Cabell Drive, a distance of 50.70feet to a point for corner on the common line between Lots 25 and 26 City Block B/659;

THENCE S 44°26’39” E along said common lot line and its northeastward prolongation,a distance of approximately 157.46 feet to a point for corner on the centerline of a 15foot alley;

THENCE in a N 46°08’36” E direction along the centerline of said alley, a distance ofapproximately 50.00 feet to a point for corner on a line, said line being thesoutheastward prolongation of the common line between Lots 1 7A and 25 in City BlockB/659;

THENCE in a N 44°5655” W direction along said line, and continuing along saidcommon lot line and its northwestward prolongation, a distance of approximately I 77O1feet to a point for corner on the centerline of Cabeil Drive (50’ R.OW.):

THENCE S 46°16’46” W along the centerline of Cabell Drive, 100.00 feet to a point for acorner at its intersection with the southeasterly projection of the centerline of a 15 footalley;

THENCE N 44°53’Ol” W along the centerline of said 15 foot alley. 179.90 feet to a pointfor corner on the east line of City Block A1661;

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 128

Page 129: Request for Injunction

GIS Approved 1309 17- 29019

THENCE S 23°24’20” W along the east line of City Block A/661, 226.36 feet to a pointfor a corner in the centerline of Haskell Avenue, said point also being the point ofcurvature of a curve to the right;

THENCE along the centerline of Haskell Avenue, a curve to the right having a centralangle of 26°07’05”, a radius of 170.55 feet, an arc distance of 77.75 feet to an iron rodfound for a corner, chord bears S 65°07’02” E, 77.07 feet;

THENCE S 44°53’Ol” E, continuing along the centerline of Haskell Avenue,approximately 376.82 feet to a point for a corner at its intersection with the northeasterlyprojection of the centerline of Lafayette Street (50’ R.O.W.);

THENCE S 44°48’15” W along the centerline of Lafayette Street approximately 636.41,crossing the right-of-way of Lucille Street (50’ R.O.W.) to the centerline of Caddo Street;

THENCE S 43°56’OO” E along the centerline of Caddo Street, approximately 191.18 feetto a point for a corner at its intersection of the centerline of Cochran Street (50’ R.O.W.);

THENCE S 44°53’20” W along the centerline of Cochran Street, approximately 400.00feet to a point for a corner at its intersection with the centerline of Washington Avenue(50’ R.OW.);

THENCE N 45°1 1 ‘32” W, along the centerline of Washington Avenue, 700.24 feet to apoint for a corner at its intersection with the northeasterly projection of the south line ofCity Block A/624 Lot IA;

THENCE S 44°57’49” W, crossing the right-of-way of Washington Avenue,approximately 30 feet to a point for a corner in the southerly line of Washington Avenueand the southeast corner of City Block A/624 Lot 1A;

THENCE departing said southerly line of Washington Avenue, and the southeast cornerof City Block A1624 Lot IA and going across said Lot the foNowing caNs:

S 44°57’49” W, 164.82 feet to a point for a cornerN 45°14’02” W, 118.00 feet to a point for a cornerS 44°57’49” W, 300.00 feet to a point for a cornerS 45°1402’ E, 120.00 feet to a point for a cornerS 44°57’49” W, 300.04 feet to a point for corner

THENCE N 45°14’02” W along the westerly line of City Block A1624 Lot 1A. 145.00 feetto a point for a corner in the centerline of Thomas Avenue;

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 129

Page 130: Request for Injunction

GIS Approved 1 0 17?9319

THENCE S 46°22’25” W along the centerline of Thomas Avenue approximately 241feet to the centerline of North Central Expressway, U.S. Highway 75, to a point for acorner;

THENCE in a northwesterly direction (N 01°32’40” W) along the center line of NorthCentral Expressway, U.S. Highway 75 approximately 1382.90 feet to the point ofintersection with the southwesterly projection of the (former south line of Weldon Street)at its intersection with the centerline of Lemmon Avenue to a point for corner;

THENCE in a southeasterly direction (S 63°06’20” E) along the centerline of LemmonAvenue, approximately 287.91 feet to the point of intersection with the southwesterlyprojection of the south line of City Block 1/620 Lot 1A to a point for corner;

THENCE departing said centerline of Lemmon Avenue and following around the CityBlock 1/620 Lot lAthe following calls:

THENCE N 46°1 1 ‘29” E, 162.72 feet to a point for a cornerTHENCE N 45°42’52” W, 207.86 feet to a point for a cornerTHENCE S 45°22’Ol” W, 92.45 feet to a point for a corner on the north line of theservice road of North Central Expressway, U.S. Highway 75;

THENCE N 71°43’48” W, 53.76 feet to the centerline of the service road of NorthCentral Expressway, U.S. Highway 75 to a point for corner,

THENCE N 02°55’06” W, 122.26 feet along the centerline of the service road of NorthCentral Expressway, U.S. Highway 75 the point of intersection with the southwesterlyprojection of the centerline of Weldon to a point for corner;

THENCE N 88°24’39” E, 130.12 feet along the centerline of Weldon Street, to a pointfor a corner in the centerline of said Weldon Street

THENCE N 4550 52 E 860 88 feet continuing along the centerline f Weldon Street to

Ie po t ersect i vit[ [ s uttv £5 tIA Block A 66 a th€northeasterly line of Haskell Avenue to a point for corner:

THENCE N 44°27’56” W, 440.95 feet, along the northeasterly line of Haskell Avenueand the southwest line of LotlA, Block A1663 to the point of intersection with thesoutheast corner of Lot 2, Block 18/2006, to a point for a corner;THENCE North 44 degrees 53 minutes 56 seconds West along said northeast line ofNorth Haskell Avenue a distance of 2 9 93 fet cut r b k found at le

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 130

Page 131: Request for Injunction

GIS_Approved 1 0 J 17THENCE, in a northwesterly direction along the northeast line of N. Haskell Avenue andsaid curve to the left, having a central angle of 33 degrees, 27 minutes, 38 seconds, aradius of 511.50 feet, a chord bearing and distance of North 61 degrees, 37 minutes,45 seconds West, 294.49 feet, an arc distance of 298.71 feet to a ‘+“ cut in concrete setfor corner at the end of said curve; said point being in the east rightof-way line of NorthCentral Expressway (a variable width right-ofway) to return to the POINT OFBEGINNING and containing approximately 93.936 acres of land, more or less.

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 131

Page 132: Request for Injunction

sou

sIxs

Plan

ned

Developm

ent

District

No.

889

Approved

City

Plan

Com

mSSiO

fl

M2°.i

IL

3K

LS

YIO

IV

L

‘3

“‘\‘\‘

(83

sov

gv

g.-/.)

tV

V$T

V1li

4’

——

.----

\\\‘‘4

frt

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 132

Page 133: Request for Injunction

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 133

Page 134: Request for Injunction

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 134

Page 135: Request for Injunction

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 135

Page 136: Request for Injunction

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 136

Page 137: Request for Injunction

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 137

Page 138: Request for Injunction

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 138

Page 139: Request for Injunction

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

East Village Association

Plaintiff

v.

Trammell Crow Company, Inc.; The City of Dallas; Michael Anglin, Neil Emmons, Emma Rodgers, Betty Culbreath, Tony Shidid, Jed Anatasomboon, Ann Bagley, Myrtl M. Lavallaisaa, Gloria Tarpley, John Shellene, Jaynie Schultz, Cookie Peadon, Margot Murphy, Paul E. Ridley, and Robert Abtahi in their official capacity as members of the City Plan Commission.

Cause No.

Affidavit of Jonas Park

Defendants.

STATE OF TEXAS

COUNTY OF DALLAS

Before me, the undersigned notary, on this day personally appeared Jonas

Park, a person whose identity is known to me, who being by me duly sworn, on his

oath stated as follows:

1. My name is Jonas Park. I am over the age of 21 years, have never been

convicted of a felony, suffer no legal or mental disabilities, and am fully competent

to make this affidavit. The matters in this affidavit are within my personal

knowledge and are true and correct.

2. I am an Officer on the Board of the East Village Association ("EVA"),

authorized by the members to state the matters in this affidavit concerning EVA.

AFFIDAVIT OF JONAS PARK -PAGE 1

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 139

Page 140: Request for Injunction

3. EVA is an unincorporated nonprofit association organized under Texas

Business Organizations Code § 252.001 et seq.

4. EVA's members include one or more members who reside in and own (and

have resided in and owned continuously since at least January 1, 2013) real

property within 200 feet of property located within Planned Development District

889, located at the Northeast corner of North Central Expressway and North Carroll

Avenue, which Trammell Crow Company, Inc. ("Crow") proposes to develop for a

Sam's Club at the corner of North Central Expressway and Carroll Avenue (the

"Development").

5. The interests EVA seeks to protect through the above-captioned lawsuit are

germane to EVA's purposes, which are advancement of the interests of East Village

Residents, specifically including but not limited to advocacy on East Village land use

and zoning issues for the benefit of East Village Residents.

6. East Village Residents include individuals who own real property and reside

within the following boundaries, including both sides of the following streets: North

Carroll Avenue on the North side, Cabell Drive on the East side, North Haskell

Avenue on the South side, and North Central Expressway on the West side.

7. David Shaw is a member of EVA and has authorized me to disclose that he is

a member of EVA.

8. I own and reside in real property located at 2319 Rusk Court, Dallas, Texas

75204. I also own real properties located at 4331 and 4333 Belmont Avenue, Dallas,

Texas 75204, which I am in the process of converting, in part, into a yoga studio (the

"Yoga Studio").

9. My Yoga Studio is located directly adjacent to the Development.

10. I bought the Yoga Studio on January 9, 2014. At the time that I bought the

Yoga Studio, I did so with the understanding from my realtor, Bill Zemman, that the

AFFIDAVIT OF JONAS PARK-PAGE 2

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 140

Page 141: Request for Injunction

Development would be similar in form to the West Village. This understanding was

also partially based on the name of the Development—the "East Village."

11. Had I known about Crow's intent to use the Development for a 100,000+

square foot megastore like Sam's Club, I would not have purchased the Yoga Studio.

12. I have serious concerns that Crow's plan to lease part of the Development to

Sam's Club for a 100,000+ square foot megastore will result in a substantial burden

and nuisance upon my use of the Yoga Studio.

13. Specifically, I am concerned that increased traffic flow and smell from the

Sam's Club dumpsters located near the Yoga Studio will substantially burden the use

and enjoyment of my Yoga Studio for me and my clients.

14. I am also concerned that increased traffic flow surrounding the Development

will significantly burden my daily transportation needs to and from my home and

my Yoga Studio.

15. Crow has already begun construction work at the Development site, and

counsel for Crow at the June 19, 2014 City Plan Commission hearing indicated that if

the City Plan Commission approves their development plan on July 10, 2014, they

intend to move forward on the Development immediately.

16. Noise and dust from the construction work at the Development site is also a

nuisance for me and the neighbors immediately surrounding the Development site.

AFFIDAVIT OF JONAS PARK-PAGE 3

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 141

Page 142: Request for Injunction

CRAIG JASSO NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF TEXAS

MY COMM. EXP. 4/01/17

Notary Pu Notary's pri

and for the State of Texas ted name:

FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT.

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME on the g". day of July, 2014.

My Commission Expires: q, o i - 10 II-

AFFIDAVIT OF JONAS PARK-PAGE 4

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 142

Page 143: Request for Injunction

Affidavit of David Shaw

STATE OF TEXAS

COUNTY OF DALLAS

Before me, the undersigned notary, on this day personally appeared David Shaw, a

person whose identity is known to me, who being by me duly sworn, on his oath stated as

follows:

1. My name is David Shaw. I am over the age of 21 years, have never been convicted of

a felony, suffer no legal or mental disabilities, and am fully competent to make this affidavit.

I own and reside in real property located at 2714 N. Carroll Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75204. I

owned and resided at 2714 N. Carroll Ave. during all of April and May of 2013. The matters

set forth herein are within my personal knowledge and are true and correct.

2. 2714 N. Carroll Ave. is within 200 feet of property located on Planned Development

District 889, located at the Northeast corner of North Central Expressway and North

Carroll Avenue, which Trammell Crow Company, Inc. ("Crow") proposes to develop for a

Sam's Club at the corner of North Central Expressway and Carroll Avenue (the

"Development").

3. I received notices that the Dallas City Plan Commission would hold a public hearing

on May 2, 2013, on a zoning change request to consider an application for a Planned

Development District for MU-3 Mixed Use District uses, and that the Dallas City Council

would hold a public hearing on May 22, 2013, on a zoning change request to consider an

application for a Planned Development District for MU-3 Mixed Use District uses (the

"Notices").

4. The Notices did not inform me that the nature of the pending zoning change

proposal would include as a permitted use a general merchandise or food store 100,000

square feet or more.

5. I am opposed to the use of the Development for a general merchandise or food store

100,000 square feet or more. I believe this is an inappropriate use for the Development

AFFIDAVIT OF DAVID SHAW-PAGE 1

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 143

Page 144: Request for Injunction

CRAIG JASSO NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF TEXAS

MY COMM. EXP. 4/01/17

because this use is inconsistent with the character of the surrounding community, the

increased traffic flow from this use would substantially burden my transportation needs

and pose a safety risk to the nearby schools and Lighthouse for the Blind, and this use

would suppress the value of my property.

6. I could not determine from the Notices that I should be present at the public

hearings on May 2 and May 22, 2013 to oppose the proposed zoning change because the

Notices did not inform me that the proposed zoning change would permit, or that the

applicant intended to develop, a general merchandise or food store 100,000 square feet or

more.

7. On April 24, 2013, I attended a community meeting held by Crow at Alex W. Spence

Talented/Gifted Academy to discuss the Development with the neighbors living around it

(the "Spence Meeting").

8. At the Spence Meeting, Crow presented a mixed-use development called the "East

Village," and did not inform me that the Development would include a general merchandise

or food store 100,000 square feet or more.

9. Had I known that the proposed zoning change was intended to permit the

development of a general merchandise or food store 100,000 square feet or more, I would

have attended the May 2 and May 22, 2013 public hearings to oppose the zoning change.

FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT.

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME on the e," day of July, 2014.

No r. ry P n and for the State of Texas No ry's ted name:

My Commission Expires: 11_01-- 2,017'.

AFFIDAVIT OF DAVID SHAW-PAGE 2

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 144