Trammell Crow Presents Sam’s Club Case to Oak Lawn Council
Share News:
I will tell you this: Joel Behrens of Trammell Crow seems like a nice, earnest young man of 34 who was sweating up a storm last night as he was the anointed. Anointed, that is, to present Trammell Crow’s case for a super-size Sam’s Wholesale Club to the venerable Oak Lawn Committee, the original protectors of the Oak Lawn PD 193, which guides and watchdogs Oak Lawn development. The OLD fosters rows of trees, small streets, maintains the personality of Oak Lawn. The OLC is likely one of the reasons why Oak lawn is still one of the hottest neighborhoods and tax revenue producing areas in Dallas. The proposed Sam’s Club is to be located across Central, next to Cityplace, and not in Oak Lawn.
As someone mused last night: does the Cityplace neighborhood, christened East Village, have an Oak Lawn Committee? Sadly, no.
Joel, who is from Wisconsin, and raised on a farm, was about as earnest as a young man could be. If he was my son, I would be very proud of the way he presented. He was there, he said, for PR because Trammell Crow had been blindsided by the negative reaction they received to the proposed big box warehouse store. They had been totally transparent, he said, in everything from meetings with Pauline Medrano, then City Councilwoman, to the proposal plan. There were two voluntary public meetings in 2013. He explained that this was the Trammell Crow company that had been purchased by and was a wholly owned subsidiary of CBRE, but was the Trammell Crow that had been a fixture of Dallas since 1948.
“I’m 34,” said Joel, “and I plan to work in Dallas for a long time.”
He said the feedback initially was that people liked the Sam’s Club plan. But then, it blew up.
“This wasn’t pre-meditated, we were very transparent,” said Joel. “That’s the only way to get deals done in this town.”
But ever since Steve Brown’s press release first report on the coming Sam’s Club May 19, Trammell Crow Company has been accused of bait and switch and called liars, he said. There has been tons of speculation.
“We’re clean: we were honest and we shared the plan,” said Joel. “We are NOT looking to deviate from it.”
Trammell Crow is planning some landscape etc. to alleviate concerns, and they are open to talk about — well, talk about the project, I guess, but:
“We’re not going to fight in the press,” said Joel.
At the suggestion of Councilman Medrano (Adam), Trammell Crow has had a community meeting or two within the last few days to which about 50 people showed up, most supportive of the new Sam’s Club. Someone on the TLC asked for a list of names.
Then the committee got to ask questions. I’m so glad someone asked if they could switch it to a Costco instead of a Sam’s Club. (Costco, are you listening?) Costco wouldn’t pay up. Sigh. Guess it takes money to pay their (more highly paid than Sam’s Club, allegedly) employees. Frank Stich said he welcomed the club and thought it would do well. I’ve heard this from others who believe it will be highly utilized by small business owners in the area. Word is this could be one of the most profitable Sam’s Clubs in the country. The NEARBY Sam’s at Medallion Center is packed. And it is perfectly walkable.
“If people want to walk to Sam’s, they can walk,” said Frank.
(Envisioning the new super expandable backpack Sam’s Club can market so walkers can balance a ten pack of TP, paper towels and a giant Tide detergent jug in one trip. Oh and a slice of pizza.)
Brenda Marks started to zero in on the traffic study, ingress and egress. She is concerned that northbound traffic has to take Capitol to Carroll to Haskell to get onto Central, and that was going to put a lot of extra cars in a residential neighborhood, not to mention huge delivery trucks.
(Having a thought about what the ruckus would be if this was taking place Behind the Pink Wall instead of in East Dallas. Oh man, mental earmuffs!)
Then someone from Trammell Crow said the traffic study was waived, but I’m not sure about that. Sure it was said, not sure of the context. Will follow up on that, for sure.
It was a short meeting, very civil, and everyone who was not behind the club agreed to disagree and be nice. Demolition on the site begins today. But I got the definite feeling this was a done deal, that Trammell Crow was surprised by the backlash, but they are willing to go to the drawing board and make landscaping/visual/aesthetic changes to please.
To be continued…
27 Comments
Leave a Comment
Can you spot Candy in the second photo? 🙂
Seriously impressed that the meeting was civil, but kind of wondering why they would meet with a committee that doesn’t even encompass the area where the proposed development will be. Have they approached the neighborhood association to alleviate concerns, since they will be the most dramatically impacted?
Joanna
There are no OLC type organizations in East Dallas. There are fragmented historic districts and neighborhood associations. There was an attempt in 2010 to get something like OLC up and running but meet resistance and was scrapped. So no East Dallas is undefended in situations like this.
LOL @ these quotes:
‘“This wasn’t pre-meditated, we were very transparent,” said Joel. “That’s the only way to get deals done in this town.”
“We’re clean: we were honest and we shared the plan,”’
They were anything but transparent in their communication with the surrounding communities and they released the plans THREE days before the final city council vote. If this is the way Trammell Crow operates, they should be banned from any further developments within city limits for the fact that they are willing to bold-face lie to our citizens without batting an eyelash. They cannot be trusted and the city should have no confidence in any further Trammel Crow development. They are promising another “mixed-use” development at the corner of Pearl and Woodall Rogers, abutting Klyde Warren Park. What’s the “real” plan for that, a KFC/Taco Bell combination drive-through? The same organization fighting the CityPlace development will be opposing and blocking that development. Until Trammell Crow decides to behave like the great company they were before the CBRE buyout, they will have a hard time in Dallas.
Why does their rezoning application falsely indicate that the Sam’s Club is less than 1,000 feet from the entrance to the DART rail station, when it is, in fact, one half mile away?
Candy, my confusion and questions about their claim that no traffic study was commissioned — nor required (that seems very strange to me) stems from the fact that I have in my possession a copy of a 2012 memorandum prepared for Xerox Corporation by DeShazo Group for a proposed East Village at this site. The hypothetical upon which the memorandum was based did not include a big box store — it was for mixed use residential, retail, office, medical office, hospital and hotel. Considering the impact this will have on the neighborhood, JL Spence TAG Academy, and Lighthouse for the Blind I think its irresponsible and not very TRANPARENT for the developer to NOT conduct a traffic study even IF the city didn’t require it.
In addition, a critical assumption of the traffic study was that traffic ingress/egress via Haskell street would be maintained. The developer isn’t doing that, so that means that all the assumptions about neighborhood traffic impacts are seriously understated.
Landscaping will not alleviate any concerns. And the Sam’s at Northwest Highway is walkable? Could have fooled me.
Calling Trammel Crow transparent through this process is highly laughable. Why don’t the current renderings for the site match what was presented to Planning and Council?
You bring up an interesting point with respect to “walkability.”
The City staff report states the following:
“The request site is located 1,000 feet from the Cityplace Tower entrance of the Cityplace/Uptown DART station…”
That statement is false. The site is substantially further away. Indeed, to access the front entrance of Sam’s Club from the DART rail station requires a total walk of roughly half a mile, a portion of which is via a narrow sidewalk built hard up against the curb of the Central Expressway service road.
They SAY they were transparent, yet their rezoning application was anything but that…. why does the rezoning application describe a development that was the polar opposite of what they intended to build?
Why was the traffic study waived by City staff? It is not just about traffic volumes, put traffic peaking, and which streets are being used for ingress and egress. The entire site has significant frontage on Haskell, a major thoroughfare… yet the Sam’s Club is being cut off from Haskell— all traffic has to use either the frontage road or neighborhood streets, which is a violation of city transportation policy.
Why didn’t City staff disclose the fact that a Sam’s Club at this location violates the City’s comprehensive plan? Why didn’t they insist on an accurate traffic study? Why didn’t they mention in the staff report that a Sam’s Club in excess of 100,000 sf isn’t allowed as-of-right under MU-3 zoning uses (which is what they told the City Plan Commission they were approving)?
The rezoning application was literally chock-full of lies and misrepresentations. The manner in which this application was handled by City staff was completely inconsistent with the manner in which other rezoning applications have been treated.
Would love to see a formal investigation into this matter.
Nothwithstanding Joel’s ernestness, the record just doesnt support CBRE’s (yes, I’m going to call them CBRE henceforth) claims of complete transparency which is just poppycock. The notice sent to homeowners did not disclose, even obtusely, that the PD would include an additional use – big box – that would customarily require a specific use permit. The city staff report does not mention it. You would not have any idea until you read the proposed conditions language of the Ordinance itself – which says:
“(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]”
Joel was a year off when describing the timeline – he claimed they filed the request in June 2013 – nope it was a year earlier — 2012 – and they waited until May 2013 – during council changeover and right in the middle of the big fracking debate to bring it to plan commission. Wally made motion to approve – Hinojosa seconded – passed with four plan commissioner, including the two most likely to question it, Culbreath and Davis, absent.
Liz Wally told me she relied heavily on city staff on this one — logical and completely understandable. Plan Commissioners are reliant on staff — after all we pay them to watch out for us. That staff dropped the ball on this is bewildering.
I am jaded and experienced and CBRE is most likely going to get their way here. But I’ll promise you — I will look hard on every single thing they do from this day forward. Trust is important. And they don’t have mine.
And home improvements centers are a PROHIBITED use, entirely, in an MU-3 district. So both the notice of public hearing and the report by City staff to the City Plan Commission were false.
You are invited to a neighborhood reception hosted by Trammell Crow Company to discuss the future development of East Village. The reception will be held tomorrow (Thursday, June 5) in the fellowship hall at the Agape Methodist Church at 5111 Capital Avenue from 6:30 pm to 7:30 pm.
All this ex post facto community meeting stuff is well and good… but, as the Trammell Crow Company well knows, the most critical part of the process was the legally required public hearing held in 2012. With respect to that, the public notice sent to adjacent property owners couldn’t have been more deceptive. I’ll be more more specific:
The notice sent to adjacent property owners stated that the application was “MU-3 Mixed Use District uses.” That was apparently false…. it appears to have been a lie. The actual zoning ordinance that was submitted contained new provisions allowing for “general merchandise or food store 100,000 square foot or more…” and “Home improvement center, lumber, brick or building material sales yard.”
As the Trammell Crow Company well knows, a general merchandise or food store in excess of 100,000 sf (big box retail) is PROHIBITED in MU-3 Mixed Use Districts without an SUP, which requires a separate public hearing; and home improvement centers are NEVER allowed in MU-3 Mixed Use Districts.
By allowing the circulation of a materially false and misleading notice of public hearing to 74 nearby property owners— these people were effectively stripped of their legal rights of due process associated with protecting their private property rights. Maybe now you understand why over 2,000 people have signed a petition opposing this proposed development.
We had reserved a meeting time and location for this neighborhood reception on Thursday, June 17. Unfortunately, Trammell Crow has informed us that they are unavailable at that time. We are currently working with Trammell Crow to set up an alternative date and time.
Is this meeting still on for tonight?
Yes and I plan to be there!
Why are people hating the Sam’s Club being at this location? All the small restaurants/cafes in all the large buildings downtown and in the surrounding neighborhoods will have better produce, meats, and varieties that will benefit their customers. All the neighborhood bars will also benefit as well. All of the businesses from downtown, Oak Lawn, and East Dallas will be able to get their commodity products at a local Sam’s Club. I am sure Walmart is paying a premium to be near downtown, as Ronald Reagan said when the Japanese were buying Rockefeller Plaza, ” I am glad that companies from other countries think that purchasing real estate in America is a great investment!” Personally I am glad these large boxes are coming to the area showing the real value over a long haul. Walmart would not spend the money if they thought it would not be successful and profitable. 25 years ago that land was bought up by 7-11 at a premium never heard of before for that area. The ’86 to ’92 real estate bust hurt that area more than anything. Now it is worth more again and Target and Walmart are going to lead the way for more development and a successful East Dallas dreamed by the Thompson Brothers 25 years ago. Thank You Target and Walmart for believing in a 25 year old dream finally coming true.
Evidence exists that shows CBRE to obfuscate the addition of a prohibited use from the surrounding neighborhood. That’s wrong. And the reason that area is so valuable now is because of West Village, Neal Sleeper, Robert Bagwell and other forward-thinking developers who realized years ago that Dallas has to become more dense, with far more residents and less dependent on cars, and that what happens on the ground around those new Dallas residents — sidewalks, greenspace, storefront small retail that serves the resident — is paramount. Those developers honor the requirements specified under the Urban Building Blocks section of the forwardDallas! Plan. Walmart and Sams could care less about these things. Look at what happened to Timber Creek? CBRE took a beautfully old-growth-tree’d creek area with stable apartments that had long-term residents living in them, forced them out, bulldozed the entire area destroying the landscape, let it sit bare for couple of years, and then brought in Walmart. Now the area around it has deteriorated. As have property values. I don’t have anything against Walmart and Sams. I don’t shop at either because they underpay their employees and add to the drain on public health services. Taxpayers cover Walmart’s employee benefits. And as someone who has lived in the neighborhood — albeit on the west side of central — I was around when the Thompson Family laid out its “dream” for the area, and it never included a Sams Club or anything like one.
I know lots of restaurant owners in downtown and Oaklawn/Uptown. They buy their produce at Farmer’s Market and from local purveyors. Better quality, good prices.
I have nothing against Sam’s Club coming to the area, in fact, I welcome them. However, they have to play by the same rules as every other developer. Big box retail is NOT ALLOWED in MU-3 Mixed Use Districts without a special use permit, which requires public notice and hearing and this is for very good reason.
Furthermore, the City’s own regulations require property developers to prepare traffic impact studies in connection with large proposed developments such as this— why were these developers granted special exemption from the process? Why are they being allowed access to their loading dock bays via a small residential street that runs directly next to a school playground and student loading area?
I live in the area where Tramell Crow wants to but this box store. I don’t want it! Last year, Tramell Crow talk to a small (very small) group of neighbors to ask what our thoughts were for this new project plan. We gave them our input and we thought it was going to be family sit down restaurants and small retail shops. There was no mention of a Sam’s club at all.
Christina, what you are describing is consistent with the written public record on the matter. The public notice that was sent to adjacent property owners described a proposed land use category that would have prohibited a Sam’s Club in excess of 100,000 square feet and wouldn’t have allowed the home improvement store at all.
It is unclear to me why they believe they have obtained the rezoning in a proper manner.
If they want to build big box retail, the rezoning process is clear— they must properly notice surrounding property owners FIRST. They have not yet done so.
Among my many concerns is one among a long list mentioned in a Brenda Marks posting.
The traffic will be much heavier by Spence, a middle school. Everyone understands that schools need less traffic, not more, than in other areas. Dallas drivers are terrible and getting worse. And we are going to allow many more of them to get much closer to these vulnerable children and their overstressed parents? NOT.
As I mentioned in another post, the City’s own published procedures require developers of projects such as this to furnish a traffic study. I would be very interested in knowing who on City staff waived the traffic study requirement, why they did it in this case and not others, and under whose authority (if any) they were acting.
Wondering if there would be the same reactions if it were to be a Costco? I agree with the posting regarding the Sam’s on NW Highway and how the site was ruined. Besides being poorly planned traffic-wise for cars turning into the center headed East on NW Highway, the surrounding area is crime-filled and I won’t go to that center day or night by myself. The screwy design of the garage is an ideal site for crime with no apparent police presence. If we’re stuck with the new Sam’s I hope they will construct it more like the Whole Foods in downtown Austin, with multiple levels, monitored parking, etc. rather than a big ugly box taking up lots of space. The comment about the NW Highway store being walkable – LOL, not unless you have a CHL and a death wish!
The concern isn’t about the use… It is about gross zoning violations, unwarranted deviations from the city plan, special favors granted to a specific developer for unclear reasons, false and misleading statements in the zoning application, stripping property owners of their due process rights, and incompatible building site plans.
If Sam’s Club played by the rules (under 100,000 sf), site developed in urban form, I don’t think anyone would have an issue.