1. No category

5904 Johns Wood Dr.
Plano, TX 75093
March 27, 2015
Plano Planning & Zoning Commission
P.O. Box 860358
Plano, TX 75086-0358
Dear Commissioners, Chairman Bender and Director Day:
High quality schools are the lifeblood of Plano and the primary reason most of us chose to live here.
From the outset, we have stated that the Plano Tomorrow Plan does not focus enough on our schools and
the question of how to help our schools maintain their quality reputation. Already many of our schools
are under duress and before the state stopped rating districts after 2011, PISD had fallen from being an
Exemplary District to “Recognized.” It is our sense that the school district has continued its descent since
2011. In the attached data, you will see information on the poor test results and performance ratings of
several Plano elementary schools. We have also stated our concern that emphasis on growing the
population through increased dense multi-family housing, including urban mixed used developments and
mid-rise apartments, would put our schools and neighborhoods further at risk.
Did you know?
•
•
•
•
PISD is now rated 157th out of the 940 school districts in Texas, far behind
Highland Park, Carroll, Allen, Wylie and Frisco.
That Huffman Elementary was rated in the 36th percentile of all schools in
Texas for 2014? As recently as 2008, Huffman was in the 90th percentile.
Nearby Jackson Elementary is only in the 46th percentile.
Several other Plano elementary schools are below the 40th percentile of all
Texas schools. (Meadows, Mendenhall, Memorial, Forman)
Plano ISD has
fallen in
performance
rankings to 157th
in Texas; several
of its schools are
in distress
Is this the Urban Development we want?
In this letter you will find a real life example of an urban development that demonstrates our concerns.
We would like to focus attention on the urban development at the northeast corner of Frankford Road
and the Dallas North Tollway and its impact on Huffman Elementary. This area could fit under Plano’s
definition of an urban mixed use development. Study of this area shows that many children live in multifamily housing and that the development has a significant impact on neighboring schools and nearby
neighborhoods. While this development is not in the city of Plano, it is within Plano Independent School
District. The study shows how the City of Plano and its schools can be affected by dense apartment
developments not just within the city, but also by developments in on its border in adjoining cities.
Therefore it is important that the city consider existing developments both within and just outside Plano’s
borders, particularly areas still within PISD boundaries, and how the Plano Tomorrow Plan could
exacerbate existing issues being experienced by the City and PISD. Attachment 2: Plano Schools in
Distress discusses several elementary schools in Plano on the brink of crises.
The area of interest discussed in the following pages consists of approximately 230 acres located
northeast of the intersection of the Dallas North Tollway and Frankford Road bordered by White Rock
Creek on the East and George Bush / State Highway 190 on the north. This area could fit the definition of
an “Urban Walkable Neighborhood.” There are 5,921 apartments in this area in 15 separate apartment
complexes. Without crossing a busy street, it is possible to pass between all 15 of these apartment
Letter to P&Z on high density development and impact on schools
complexes, access a major retail center with a grocery store, several restaurants and local retail services
and to access a City of Dallas dog park and Katie Jackson Park, which has 46 acres with 5 miles of biking
and hiking trails. Also close by, within walking distance on the west side of the Tollway, are office
buildings and more restaurants. The only missing element from Plano’s preferred vision of an urban
mixed use development is that there are not any apartments built on the top of the retail center. We
note, however, that Plano’s new “urban mixed use developments” on both the east and west sides of Coit
Road at Mapleshade Lane also rely on single story retail in these “mixed use” developments.
As shown in Attachment 1: Multifamily Housing and Impact on Our Schools, the 2010 Census counted
approximately 1,250 children under the age of 18 in the apartments in the 230
acre tract. Either children documented in 2010 were greatly undercounted or the
It requires 22 school
number of children has grown significantly in the past five years. Today in 2015,
buses to transport the
PISD uses 22 buses to transport the children in grades K through 10 living in
1,300 K-10 children in
these apartments to its schools every day. We estimate that translates to
this urban development
approximately
1,300 school age children. There are so many students that they
to Plano schools.
are divided up to attend three different elementary schools (Huffman, Mitchell
and Haggar). As shown in Attachment 1, this influx of children has had an immensely negative impact on
neighboring schools.
Several developers with proposed apartment projects, City Staff, and some members of P&Z and Council,
have repeatedly made the statement that kids don’t live in apartments and they do not affect our
schools. Yes it’s true that when the first of the apartments at Frankford were built in the 80’s and 90’s,
not that many had children living there. But as time has passed, more apartments were built and the
apartments have aged, the number of children has increased dramatically as discussed above, and now
includes over 1,300 school age children. While we know PISD is doing all it can to educate the children
within its boundaries, it is clearly being stressed beyond its capacity to deal with this influx of students
and we believe adding even more apartments along the Plano side of the border will, in the long run,
make the situation worse.
High quality schools are the lifeblood of Plano and the primary reason most of us chose to live
here. When Toyota recently announced its move to Plano, the schools were cited as the number one
reason for selecting Plano. We have always touted the quality of our schools, but as shown in
Attachment 2: Plano Schools in Distress, the schools have been starting to slip and this is a dark
undercurrent that could dim our future. One of the Old Shepard residents said it best at the P&Z meeting
in March when talking about the PISD schools going downhill and saying, “once you lose your reputation
for fine schools, it affects whether people will buy homes in that district and then it’s a downhill spiral
with no hope of the district ever regaining its reputation.” Developers argue that adding apartments adds
tax base, but if adding dense new apartment developments drives down the value of single family homes,
the City is a net loser of revenue with more residents to serve. If our schools perform poorly, employers
will no longer be attracted here because their employees will not want to live here.
Proponents of the Plano Tomorrow Plan point to the success of the Shops at Legacy and say we need 10
more just like it. We say developments like that are unique and cannot be manufactured. All the right
elements need to be in place first, including a dense employment base and demonstrated need for
restaurants and hotels. We believe efforts to inorganically create such developments are likely to fail,
resulting in areas that are just dense multi-family developments with no caché.
2
Letter to P&Z on high density development and impact on schools
In Attachment 3: Letter From Real Estate Agent, Margaret Streicher an area real estate agent expresses
her real life experience with relocating employees who are red-lining nice Plano neighborhoods because
of the poor reputation of the neighborhood schools; others are willing to consider the neighborhood only
on the basis that it will be necessary to send their children to private school. She states that in her
experience, Plano is increasingly losing out to Frisco, Allen and Prosper as the prospective buyer compares
the quality of the schools. For those that can afford private schools and want to live close-in, Plano may
lose out to areas of North Dallas like Preston-Forest and Preston-Royal which are closer in and have ample
private school opportunities. We are hearing from some that think charter schools may the best answer
for Plano’s school problems.
Let’s focus on how the Plano Tomorrow Plan can improve our neighborhoods and schools
Once we lose our reputation for fine schools, employers will choose other areas so their employees can
live in an exemplary school district leaving Plano in a downward spiral. We have seen this happen in many
other cities in the US. Please don’t let this happen to Plano. Let’s focus on how the Plano Tomorrow Plan
can improve our neighborhoods and help our schools.
Sincerely,
Jim Dillavou
On behalf of the PlanoFuture.org Council
cc: Plano City Council
Attachments:
Attachment 1: Multifamily Housing and Impact on Schools
Attachment 2: Plano Schools in Distress
Attachment 3: Letter From Real Estate Agent, Margaret Streicher
3
Attachment 1 Multifamily Housing Impact on Schools
Multi-family Housing and Impact on Schools
This paper focuses on apartments in Southwestern Plano Independent Schools District
It is focused on elementary school students, particularly at Mitchell and Huffman
The Plano Tomorrow Plan seeks to urbanize Plano by allowing apartments including Urban Mixed Use and Midrise residential on just about all available land in Plano
The advocates of "urbanization" state that we do not need to worry about schools because children do not live
in apartments. They want dense concentrations of apartments to create "vibrant walkable neighborhoods"
with lots of activity. The city recently enacted a policy for requiring a minimum density for multi-family
developments of 40 units per acre. For the apartments currently being built at Coit South Plano Parkway, by
Central Market, the City specified a minimum density of 50 units per acre.
The Plan for Haggard West proposed a development on 280 acres at Windhaven and the Tollway with 4,900
multi-family units. The developer noted it was fully consistent with Plano's objectives for Urban Mixed Use
Development and growing the population of Plano. The Plan was tabled because it was not specific enough and
it was too much to approve all at once. It was suggested the developer break it up into 5 or 6 different pieces
and come back for approval.
We thought it would be instructive to compare this to the area on the east side of the Tollway between
Frankford and George Bush. Although this tract is in the city of Dallas, it is in Plano ISD. This area is about 230
acres, with 5,921 apartments and is solid apartments. That’s a density of 26 units per acre. What would it be
like if it was 40 or 50 units per acre? This area appears to meet the definition of the vibrant walkable
neighborhood Plano says it wants– it has a major grocery store and several restaurants on its southern edge
that can be accessed without crossing any busy streets, a city of Dallas dog park on its northern edge and city
of Dallas public park along the eastern edge and is dense with 9,000 residents.
Based on US Census data as of 2010, it appears a minimum 1,011 children lived in these apartments during the
2010 census. The actual number was likely much higher. There are 287 homes in the census tract with 732
residents and we assumed there was only one adult in each house and the rest were 445 children to calculate
the maximum number of children living the houses. (reality is probably half that amount of children live in the
houses). Since there were 1,456 children in the two census tracts, the minimum number of children living in
apartments is 1,011 (but more likely around 1,250). Of course, apartments are transient and many of the
children living in these apartments in 2010 would no longer be there in 2015, but we believe it is likely they
have been replaced by other children and overall there are more children today in these apartments than in
2010. Based on the same Census data, we estimate there were over 400 children ages 0 through 6 in 2010 that
would now be in grades K-5 in these apartments, of which we estimate 326 are in the Huffman Elementary
attendance boundaries.
This would constitute over half of the students attending Huffman elementary. Is it coincidental that Huffman
elementary is performing very poorly and is in the 36th percentile of all schools in Texas? Many DISD
elementary schools are far better than that. We hear that many people living in Old Shepard Place refuse to
send their children Huffman, even though Huffman is in their neighborhood. Instead, they are driving their
kids to other PISD schools, have enrolled them in private school or are home schooling them. What a sorry
state of affairs.
We also looked at 2015 bus routes to estimate the number of students enrolled in grades K-10. There are 22
school buses exclusively serving the apartments in this area and we estimate that PISD is transporting 1,300
students to its schools, including over 600 in K-5, 385 in 6-8 and 300 in grades 9-10.
If this is the result of Urban walkable neighborhoods, is that what we want for Plano? Well we effectively
already have four Urban Centers - the Shops at Legacy, the area around Coit & Plano Parkway, Heritage 190
(approved for construction) at Alma & 190 / George Bush and Downtown Plano. Do we need any more? We
don't think our schools can deal with it - what do you think?
1
Attachment 1 Multifamily Housing Impact on Schools
This analysis is focused on Apartments Feeding Huffman & Mitchell Elementary
Apartments in North Dallas / SW Plano - Area West of White Rock Creek and South of Park Blvd.
Feeding Schools Huffman / Mitchell / Haggar / Barksdale
Almost all Apartments Feeding Huffman are between the Tollway and White Rock Creek and North of Timberglenn
Tract 1 Area East of Tollway, West of White Rock, North of Frankford, South of Hwy 190
Huffman - From N Dallas, East of Tollway
535 Grammercy Park
4755 Gramercy Oaks
242 Crestmont Reserve
5050 Pear Ridge
376 Madison on the Parkway
19002 Dallas Parkway
388 Versailles
4900 Pear Ridge Dr
636 Haverly Park / Oaks
4701 Haverwood
228 Idlewyld Village
4849 Haverwood
590 Landmark at Glen Eagles
4909 Haverwood
180 4804 Haverwood
4804 Haverwood
aka Haverly Place
228 Stone Ridge
4750 Haverwood
3,403 Total Apartments from N Dallas in Huffman Attendance Zone
These apartments are on approximately 120 acres - density of 28 units per acre
Mitchell - From N Dallas E of Tollway
522 Verandas at Timberglen
4607 Timberglen
456 Sutton Place
18600 Dallas Parkway
260 Creekside
4750 Pear Ridge
168 Pear Ridge
4754 Old Bent Tree lane
562 Rancho Pallisades
4849 Frankford Rd
1,968 Total Apartments East of Tollway in Mitchell Attendance Zone
Haggar From N Dallas, E of Tollway, West of White Rock
550 Champions of North Dallas
4912 Haverwood
550 Total N Dallas Apartments in this Tract (West of White Rock) in Haggar Attendance Zone
5,921
Total Dallas Apartments - East of Tollway, West of White Rock North of Frankford
This area is approximately 230 acres, or a density of 25.7 units per acre.
Other Apartments in southwest PISD
West of Tollway - Mitchell
242 4343 at the Parkway
236 Willows on Rosemeade
252 The Park on Rosemeade
224 La Salle
224 The Brixton
164 Walkers Mark
1,342 Total Mitchell West of Tollway
4343 Rosemeade
4300 Rosemeade
4141 Rosemeade
18725 Dallas Parkway
18959 Dallas Parkway
4055 Frankford Rd
N of 190, West of Tollway, S of Park - Barksdale
364 Ashmore on Horizon
4300 Horizon
286 The Brazos
4341 Horizon
348 Emory on Horizon
4200 Horizon
372 Wimberly
4141 Horizon
1,370 Total Barksdale,
N of 190, East of Tollway (Plano) - Huffman
338 Collonade @Willow Bend
1100 Meredith Ln
3,741
Total Apartments in Huffman Attendance Zone
3,310
Total Apartments in Mitchell Attendance Zone
2
Attachment 1 Multifamily Housing Impact on Schools
Estimated students based on number of buses
This analysis shows that about 1,300 students attend PISD Grades K-6 from the Apartment described below.
It is based on the number of Buses serving these North Dallas Apartments in
Census tracts 371.13 & 317.14, East of Tollway, West of White Rock creek, North of Frankford, S of SH 190 /Bush
There are 5,921 apartments on these 230 acres north & east of the Albertson's Shopping Center on Frankford
The analysis assumes all students take the bus and none are transported in cars or other private means.
The average School bus holds 90+ students at 3 per seat, but only 60+ for adults at 2 per seat
Elementary school buses depart around 7:00 AM
Middle school buses depart around 7:30 am
High School Buses depart around 8:20 am
Level
School
Elementary s Huffman
Elementary s Mitchell
Elementary s Haggar
Total Elementary - K-6
Renner
Frankford
Total Middle Schools
High school Shepton
Middle
Middle
Total Buses and Students K-10th grade
# of Buses
4
4
1
9
3
4
7
6
22
Bus
Capacity
Expected
per bus
90
90
90
70
70
70
70
70
55
55
60
50
Estimated
students
280
280
70
630
165
220
385
300
1,315
School
Bus #, complex served
Elementary Schools - buses depart around 7 am
813 Haverly Park (the Oaks)
Huffman
837 Idlewyld Village, Versailles, Crestmont Reserve, Gramercy on the Park
Huffman
819 Landmark at Glen Eagles, Haverly Place Apts, Stone Ridge
Huffman
809 Madison on the Parkway
Huffman
834 Verandas at Timberglen
Mitchell
810 Creekside, Sutton Place
Mitchell
838 Pear Ridge Apts
Mitchell
834 Rancho Palisades
Mitchell
Bus 815 – Champions of North Dallas
Haggar
Middle schools - buses depart around 730 am
Bus 810 Idlewyld Village, Landmark at Glen Eagles, Haverly Place, Champions (split w Frankford)
Renner
Bus 825 Stone Ridge, Versailles, Crestmont Reserve, Gramercy on the Park
Renner
Bus 831 Haverly Park (the Oaks), Madison on the Parkway,
Renner
Bus 837 Sutton Place
Frankford
Bus 834 Creekside at Pear Ridge, Champions (Split some go to Renner)
Frankford
Bus 827 Pear Ridge Apts
Frankford
Bus 806 Rancho Palisades
Frankford
High school (9th & 10th grade) - buses depart around 820 am
Bus 835 Crestmont Reserve, Stone Ridge, Gramercy on the Park
Shepton
Bus 804 Versailles, Idlewyld Village,
Shepton
Bus 803 Haverly Park, Madison,
Shepton
Bus 831 Landmark at Gleneagles,
Shepton
Bus 834 Champions, 4804, Creekside, Rancho Palisades
Shepton
Bus 806 Sutton Place, Verandas, Pear Ridge
Shepton
3
Attachment 1 Multifamily Housing Impact on Schools
Census Tracts 317.14 and 317.13 are the areas East of the Tollway, West of White Rock Creek,
North of Frankford and South of Geo. Bush /Hwy 190
SH 190
Frankford
White Rock
Preston Rd
There is one small housing development in that straddles these two census tracts (Oaktree) with 287
homes. Although the census data states there are 363 owner occupied houses in these 2 census tracts,
there are actually only 287 houses and the rest are 5,921 apartments. 174 houses are in Census Tract
317.13 and 113 houses are in Census Tract 317.14 It is important to point out the census data at this
granular level is notoriously under reported especially by minorities and low income households.
Corrections to data occur for underreporting at higher level, so it is safe to assume the number of
occupants in the apartment households are under reported. All of the 287 houses in Tracts 317.13 and
317.14 attend Haggar Elementary.
4
Attachment 1 Multifamily Housing Impact on Schools
Analysis of Census Data for Census Tracts 317.13 and 317.14
All of the apartments in 317.14 attend Huffman Elementary, except Champions attends Haggar Elementary
Most of the apartments in 317.13 attend Mitchell Elementary. Rancho Palisades attends Haggar, Stone Ridge attends Huffman
Census tract 317.13
Number of Apartments in Tract
Children under 18 in Tract
Children under 14 in Tract
# of Households w Children < 18
Number of Houses in Tract
Minimum # Apts w Children
# of Single Par. Households w Children
Average occupants in Owned homes
Max # of Children per Owned home
Max # Children in Owned homes
Minimum # Child < 18 in apartments
# Children under 5 in 2010
# Children under 6 in 2010 (estimated)
Expected # Children in Gr K-5 in 2015
Est. Children from Apts @ Huffman 2015
(Based on 2010 census)
Census tracts 317.13 &. 14
combined
5,921
1,456
1,318
961
287
674
539
n/a
n/a
445
1,011
553
664
664
326
Census tract 317.14
2,196
650
544
414
174
240
205
2.60
1.60
278
372
211
253
253
3,725
806
774
547
113
434
334
2.47
1.47
166
640
342
410
410
326
Note Children in Owned homes & Champion Apt. in 317.14 go to Haggar, but children in Stone Ridge apartments in 317.13 go to Huffman
Table assumes 79% of the children in in 317.14 go to Huffman, which is the percentage of apartments with children to total households
Table assumes that the 287 houses only have one adult and all of the other 445 occupants are children. If instead, was assumed there
were 1.8 adults per house, the number of children living in houses would only be 215, meaning that 1,241 children under 18 were living
in apartments rather than the minimum 1,011 used here.
CENSUS DATA FROM US CENSUS BUREAU
DP-1-Geography-Census Tract 317.13 and 317.14, Collin County, Texas Population Group-Total population:
Profile of General Population and Housing Characteristics: 2010
In 2010 the were a total of 1,318 children age 14 and under living in Census Tracts 317.13 and 317.14, which is the area from
the Tollway, East to White Rock Creek Between Frankford Road and Geo Bush Hwy 190
2010 Census Summary File 2 from US Census Bureau
NOTE: For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see
http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/sf2.pdf.
Summary File 2 has a population threshold of 100. Data are available only for the population groups having a population of 100 or more
of that specific group within a particular geographic area.
Census tract 317.13
Subject
SEX AND AGE [1]
Total population
Under 5 years
5 to 9 years
10 to 14 years
15 to 19 years
20 to 24 years
25 to 29 years
30 to 34 years
35 to 39 years
40 to 44 years
45 to 49 years
50 to 54 years
55 to 59 years
60 to 64 years
65 to 69 years
70 to 74 years
75 to 79 years
80 to 84 years
85 years and over
Median age (years)
16 years and over
18 years and over
21 years and over
62 years and over
65 years and over
Percent
Number
Census tracts 317.13 &. 14
combined
Census tract 317.14
Number
Percent
Number
3,972
211
188
145
175
420
761
587
336
274
261
189
175
126
55
33
21
10
5
100.0
5.3
4.7
3.7
4.4
10.6
19.2
14.8
8.5
6.9
6.6
4.8
4.4
3.2
1.4
0.8
0.5
0.3
0.1
5,028
342
250
182
182
633
1,013
700
418
358
300
226
151
115
85
36
15
11
11
100.0
6.8
5.0
3.6
3.6
12.6
20.1
13.9
8.3
7.1
6.0
4.5
3.0
2.3
1.7
0.7
0.3
0.2
0.2
30.7
(X)
29.4
(X)
3,392
3,322
3,192
198
124
85.4
83.6
80.4
5.0
3.1
4,222
4,162
3,992
208
158
84.0
82.8
79.4
4.1
3.1
Percent
9,000
553
438
327
357
1,053
1,774
1,287
754
632
561
415
326
241
140
69
36
21
16
100.0%
6.1%
4.9%
3.6%
4.0%
11.7%
19.7%
14.3%
8.4%
7.0%
6.2%
4.6%
3.6%
2.7%
1.6%
0.8%
0.4%
0.2%
0.2%
7,614
7,484
7,184
406
282
84.6%
83.2%
79.8%
4.5%
3.1%
5
Attachment 1 Multifamily Housing Impact on Schools
Census tract 317.13
Subject
Male population
Under 5 years
5 to 9 years
10 to 14 years
15 to 19 years
20 to 24 years
25 to 29 years
30 to 34 years
35 to 39 years
40 to 44 years
45 to 49 years
50 to 54 years
55 to 59 years
60 to 64 years
65 to 69 years
70 to 74 years
75 to 79 years
80 to 84 years
85 years and over
Census tracts 317.13 &. 14
combined
Census tract 317.14
Number
Percent
1,929
48.6
107
2.7
82
2.1
73
1.8
90
2.3
177
4.5
394
9.9
301
7.6
182
4.6
123
3.1
126
3.2
86
2.2
82
2.1
51
1.3
24
0.6
15
0.4
12
0.3
3
0.1
1
0.0
Number
Percent
Number
2,416
183
119
99
83
269
489
369
201
195
135
91
65
54
36
13
4
3
8
48.1
3.6
2.4
2.0
1.7
5.4
9.7
7.3
4.0
3.9
2.7
1.8
1.3
1.1
0.7
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.2
Percent
4,345
290
201
172
173
446
883
670
383
318
261
177
147
105
60
28
16
6
9
48.3%
3.2%
2.2%
1.9%
1.9%
5.0%
9.8%
7.4%
4.3%
3.5%
2.9%
2.0%
1.6%
1.2%
0.7%
0.3%
0.2%
0.1%
0.1%
Median age (years)
30.7
(X)
29.6
(X)
16 years and over
18 years and over
21 years and over
62 years and over
65 years and over
1,648
1,608
1,548
87
55
41.5
40.5
39.0
2.2
1.4
1,997
1,971
1,907
87
64
39.7
39.2
37.9
1.7
1.3
3,645
3,579
3,455
174
119
40.5%
39.8%
38.4%
1.9%
1.3%
Female population
Under 5 years
5 to 9 years
10 to 14 years
15 to 19 years
20 to 24 years
25 to 29 years
30 to 34 years
35 to 39 years
40 to 44 years
45 to 49 years
50 to 54 years
55 to 59 years
60 to 64 years
65 to 69 years
70 to 74 years
75 to 79 years
80 to 84 years
85 years and over
2,043
104
106
72
85
243
367
286
154
151
135
103
93
75
31
18
9
7
4
51.4
2.6
2.7
1.8
2.1
6.1
9.2
7.2
3.9
3.8
3.4
2.6
2.3
1.9
0.8
0.5
0.2
0.2
0.1
2,612
159
131
83
99
364
524
331
217
163
165
135
86
61
49
23
11
8
3
51.9
3.2
2.6
1.7
2.0
7.2
10.4
6.6
4.3
3.2
3.3
2.7
1.7
1.2
1.0
0.5
0.2
0.2
0.1
4,655
263
237
155
184
607
891
617
371
314
300
238
179
136
80
41
20
15
7
51.7%
2.9%
2.6%
1.7%
2.0%
6.7%
9.9%
6.9%
4.1%
3.5%
3.3%
2.6%
2.0%
1.5%
0.9%
0.5%
0.2%
0.2%
0.1%
Median age (years)
30.6
(X)
29.2
(X)
16 years and over
18 years and over
21 years and over
62 years and over
65 years and over
1,744
1,714
1,644
111
69
43.9
43.2
41.4
2.8
1.7
2,225
2,191
2,085
121
94
44.3
43.6
41.5
2.4
1.9
3,969
3,905
3,729
232
163
44.1%
43.4%
41.4%
2.6%
1.8%
RELATIONSHIP [1]
Total population
In households
Householder
Spouse [2]
Child
Own child under 18 years
Other relatives
Under 18 years
65 years and over
Nonrelatives
Under 18 years
65 years and over
3,972
3,972
2,323
456
715
621
147
21
14
331
6
2
100.0
100.0
58.5
11.5
18.0
15.6
3.7
0.5
0.4
8.3
0.2
0.1
5,028
5,028
2,928
495
943
805
188
43
30
474
16
0
100.0
100.0
58.2
9.8
18.8
16.0
3.7
0.9
0.6
9.4
0.3
0.0
9,000
9,000
5,251
951
1,658
1,426
335
64
44
805
22
2
100.0%
100.0%
58.3%
10.6%
18.4%
15.8%
3.7%
0.7%
0.5%
8.9%
0.2%
0.0%
Unmarried partner
In group quarters
Institutionalized population
172
0
0
4.3
0.0
0.0
273
0
0
5.4
0.0
0.0
445
-
4.9%
0.0%
0.0%
6
Attachment 1 Multifamily Housing Impact on Schools
Census tract 317.13
Subject
Male
Female
Noninstitutionalized population
Male
Female
Number
Census tracts 317.13 &. 14
combined
Census tract 317.14
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2,323
765
414
100.0
32.9
17.8
2,928
975
547
100.0
33.3
18.7
5,251
1,740
961
100%
33%
18%
456
209
83
39
226
166
1,558
1,311
657
21
654
32
19.6
9.0
3.6
1.7
9.7
7.1
67.1
56.4
28.3
0.9
28.2
1.4
495
213
117
71
363
263
1,953
1,622
804
27
818
47
16.9
7.3
4.0
2.4
12.4
9.0
66.7
55.4
27.5
0.9
27.9
1.6
951
422
200
110
589
429
3,511
2,933
1,461
48
1,472
79
18%
8%
4%
2%
11%
8%
67%
56%
28%
1%
28%
2%
Households with individuals under 18
Households with individuals 65 years
433
106
18.6
4.6
585
137
20.0
4.7
1,018
243
19%
5%
Average household size
Average family size
1.71
2.72
(X)
(X)
1.72
2.67
(X)
(X)
3
5
x
x
HOUSEHOLDS BY TYPE [3]
Total households
Family households (families) [4]
With own children under 18 years
Husband-wife family
With own children under 18 years
Male householder, no wife present
With own children under 18 years
Female householder, no husband
With own children under 18 years
Nonfamily households [4]
Householder living alone
Male
65 years and over
Female
65 years and over
HOUSING TENURE [3]
100.0
2,928
100.0
5,251
2,323
Occupied housing units
10.0
130
4.4
363
233
Owner-occupied housing units
606
(X)
321
(X)
927
Population in owner-occupied
2.60
(X)
2.47
(X)
2.54
Average household size owner2,090
Renter-occupied housing units
90.0
2,798
95.6
4,888
3,366
(X)
4,707
(X)
8,073
Population in renter-occupied
Average household size of renter1.61
(X)
1.68
(X)
1.65
X Not applicable.
[1] When a category other than Total Population is selected, all persons in the household are classified by the race,
Hispanic or Latino origin, or tribe/tribal grouping of the person.
[2] "Spouse" represents spouse of the householder. It does not reflect all spouses in a household. Responses of
"same-sex spouse" were edited during processing to "unmarried partner."
[3] When a category other than Total Population is selected, all persons in the household are classified by the race,
Hispanic or Latino origin, or tribe/tribal grouping of the householder.
[4] "Family households" consist of a householder and one or more other people related to the householder by birth,
marriage, or adoption. They do not include same-sex married couples even if the marriage was performed in a state
issuing marriage certificates for same-sex couples. Same-sex couple households are included in the family
households category if there is at least one additional person related to the householder by birth or adoption. Samesex couple households with no relatives of the householder present are tabulated in nonfamily households. "Nonfamily
households" consist of people living alone and households which do not have any members related to the
householder.
[5] As part of the release of Summary File 2 (SF2) data, the Census Bureau released quick-table DP-1 for 38 states
between December 15, 2011 and April 5, 2012. Some of the data cells in these tables were found to be erroneous (the
male institutionalized population count and percentage). The tables were removed on April 9, 2012, and the data cells
were corrected and re-released on April 26, 2012
100%
7%
x
x
93%
x
x
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010
Summary File 2, Tables PCT3, PCT4, PCT7, PCT9, PCT10, PCT15, PCT18, PCT22, PCT24, PCT28, PCT31, PCT32,
PCT36, PCT37, PCT39, HCT2, HCT4, HCT5, and HCT7.
7
Attachment 1 Multifamily Housing Impact on Schools
Dallas Crime stats Beat # 614 two years ended March 1, 2015 From Dallas Police Website
Numbers in Green are the number of Reported crimes for Theft, Robbery, Burglary and Aggravated Assault, Including murder
Area of discussion
Boundaries:
West - Tollway
North - SH 190 Bush
East - White Rock
South - Frankford
Here is the report, excluding theft and theft of motor vehicle (only Robbery , Burglary and Aggravated Assault)
Note the Black A is for Aggravated Assault
The Black and Yellow B is for Burglary of a Business
The Red and Yellow R is for Burglary of a Residence
8
Crestmont Reserve
The Oaks Haverly Park
Rancho Palisades
Grammercy on the Park
Versailles Apartments
Verandas at Timberglenn
Apartments in Subject Area
Sutton Place
Idlewyld Village
Madison On the Parkway
9
Attachment 1 Multifamily Housing Impact on Schools
Attachment 2: Plano Schools in Distress
Plano Schools in Distress
One of our primary concerns about the Plano Tomorrow Plan has been the impact of all these apartments
on our Plano Schools. High quality schools are the lifeblood of Plano and the primary reason most of us
chose to live here. When Toyota recently announced its move to Plano, the schools were cited as the
number one reason for selecting Plano. While we have always touted the quality of our schools, they
have been starting to slip and this is a dark undercurrent that could dim our future. One of the Old
Shepard residents said it best at the P&Z meeting in February when talking about the PISD schools going
downhill and saying once you lose your reputation for fine schools, it affects whether people will buy
homes in that district and then it’s a downhill spiral with no hope of the district ever regaining its
reputation. The City may think adding apartments adds tax base but if adding dense new apartment
developments drives down the value of single family homes, the City is a net loser of revenue with more
residents to serve. If our schools perform poorly, employers will no longer be attracted here because
their employees will not want to live here.
Some members of the City Staff, P&Z and Council have repeatedly made the statement that kids don’t
live in apartments and they do not affect our schools. We know that is untrue. We have heard many
references by our neighbors to the crowding at their school caused by the number of children coming to
our schools from the high concentrations of apartments built in Far North Dallas and Richardson but
within PISD. PISD’s boundaries extend to the Collin County line in those cities (south of Frankford /
Renner Road). The schools along Plano’s southern corridor have suffered immensely in recent years as a
result of the additional students from these apartments. Yes it’s true that when these apartments were
first built in the 80’s and 90’s, not that many had children living there. But as time has passed and the
apartments have aged, the number of children has increased dramatically. Compounding this problem,
Plano has already approved zoning actions in the past year that will add 5,000 more apartments between
Plano Parkway and George Bush / 190 and those apartments will eventually increase the pressure on
these schools even more. The Plano Tomorrow Plan would seek to add even more apartments along this
same corridor and along Central Expressway and the Tollway in the attendance zones of these same
schools and of other schools whose performance is already suffering.
Two prime examples are Huffman and Jackson Elementary Schools. These were once flagship schools of
PISD – very highly rated and parents clamored to get their children enrolled. Now these schools are
performing very poorly and are hurting the reputation of Plano Schools and of their neighborhoods.
Did you know that Huffman was rated in the 36th percentile of all schools in Texas for 2014? As recently
as 2008, Huffman was in the 90th percentile. Jackson Elementary is only in the 46th percentile (an
improvement from the 36th percentile in 2013). Most Plano schools are in the 90th percentile, yet several
of the schools in the areas where Plano wants more apartments are performing below the
60th percentile. Many parents are now pulling their children out of these schools and putting them in
private schools since the situation is so dire (no wonder there are 4 private elementary schools within 2
miles of Huffman). We also are hearing of teachers declining offers to teach at these schools because of
the situation. We are trying to get real numbers, but we believe over half of the enrolled students at
Huffman are coming from apartments – largely from North Dallas along the Tollway. While we know
PISD is doing all it can to educate the children within its boundaries, it is clearly being stressed beyond its
capacity to deal with this influx of students and adding even more apartments will, in the long run, make
the situation worse.
Here is Information on select Plano Elementary Schools and their poor and declining
performance. Warning - it may shock you or make you cry.
Data From Schooldigger.com March 2015
1
Attachment 2: Plano Schools in Distress
Summary of the Elementary Schools
Here is a summary of seven elementary schools that are significantly underperforming and
not living up to the Plano ISD reputation. The attendance boundaries for many of these
schools include areas that the Plano Tomorrow Plan designates for new multi-family
development (e.g., compact centers, expressway corridors, transit corridors, regional
centers). Currently these areas are primarily Zoned Office/ Retail.
Elementary
Academic
2014
Percentile
Achievement of all TX
2013
schools
Awards
Percent
Economically
Disadvantaged
District average
89%
90%
n/a
Distinction
28%
Huffman
74%
79%
36%
Math
59%
Major Cross Streets
Plano Pkwy - Tollway
High Density Corridor
Tollway - SH 190 Expy Corridor
Jackson
75%
73%
46%
Reading
60%
Plano Pkwy Independence SH 190 Expy Corridor
Mendenhall
78%
67%
38%
Math
89%
M & 18th
Hwy 75 / Downtown Corridor
Memorial
68%
68%
31%
None
80%
Park & Jupiter
Barron
76%
70%
41%
None
89%
Parker & Ave P
Hwy 75 Expy Corridor
Forman
68%
71%
19%
None
83%
15th & Shiloh
SH 190 Expy Corridor
Christie
78%
74%
41%
None
58%
Alma & Parker
Hwy 75 Expy Corridor
7 School Average
74%
72%
36%
None
74%
Academic scores in the 70's and below are very poor - below the statewide average of all schools.
Percentile racks in the 30's and below are unbelieveably poor and threaten Plano's reputation
Many of the most economically disadvantged and struggling schools will be impacted by increased apartments in nearby designated high
density corridors. Several of these schools were once exemplary and highly awarded schools.
Schools like Huffman and Jackson now draw heavily from apartment complexes in their boundaries, including apartments built
in North Dallas but in PISD boudaries (Collin County Line).
The following pages present historical data on the these schools.
2
Attachment 2: Plano Schools in Distress
PISD Rankings
PISD received no recognition from the state. The District has fallen in relation to its peers
Plano ISD ranked 157th
out of 940 school
districts in Texas. Area
districts ranking higher
included:
# District
1 Carroll
2 Highland Park
25 Wylie
27 Frisco
42 Allen
56 Coppell
3
Attachment 2: Plano Schools in Distress
Jackson Elementary
Jackson Elementary was in the 91st percentile of the state in 2005. It fell to
the 36th percentile in 2013, improving to 46th percentile in 2014.
4
Attachment 2: Plano Schools in Distress
5
Attachment 2: Plano Schools in Distress
6
Attachment 2: Plano Schools in Distress
7
Attachment 2: Plano Schools in Distress
Jackson Elementary
Economically disadvantaged students qualifying for free lunch
increased from 8% in 2001 to 57% in 2013
Year
# Students
Fulltime
Teachers
Student/Teach
er ratio
% Free/Disc
Lunch
1988
551
32.0
17.2
n/a
1989
557
n/a
n/a
n/a
1990
606
31.0
19.5
n/a
1991
477
69.1
6.9
n/a
1992
596
32.9
18.1
1.5
1993
631
34.0
18.6
3.6
1994
627
36.1
17.4
1.4
1995
554
37.0
15.0
2.0
1996
554
37.0
15.0
2.0
1997
568
34.5
16.5
3.5
1998
577
35.5
16.3
4.2
1999
593
36.8
16.1
6.7
2000
594
36.5
16.3
8.2
2001
573
40.4
14.2
8.0
2002
604
39.9
15.1
14.4
2003
604
39.9
15.1
14.4
2004
597
45.1
13.2
16.8
2005
566
44.2
12.8
16.6
2006
647
50.1
12.9
30.1
2007
614
48.3
12.7
33.1
2008
628
48.0
13.1
21.2
2009
681
52.6
12.9
41.7
2010
708
56.4
12.5
45.5
2011
692
59.7
11.5
50.6
2012
684
54.4
12.5
51.5
2013
694
55.6
12.4
57.2
8
Attachment 2: Plano Schools in Distress
Huffman Elementary
Huffman was in the 90th percentile for all schools as recently as 2008 but is in the
36th percentile today. Huffman was a blue ribbon school in the 1990’s
9
Attachment 2: Plano Schools in Distress
Huffman Elementary
10
Attachment 2: Plano Schools in Distress
11
Attachment 2: Plano Schools in Distress
Huffman neighborhood parents are sending their children to private school,
home schooling or transporting their children to other district schools.
12
Attachment 2: Plano Schools in Distress
Huffman Elementary
5.3% of the students qualified for free lunch in 2001 versus 55% in 2013.
Year
# Students
Fulltime
Teachers
Student/Teac
her ratio
% Free/Disc
Lunch
1988
838
36.0
23.2
n/a
1989
681
n/a
n/a
n/a
1990
693
35.0
19.8
n/a
1991
489
29.0
16.8
n/a
1992
642
34.4
18.6
1.1
1993
674
39.0
17.3
1.0
1994
785
42.7
18.4
1.5
1995
598
35.9
16.7
1.5
1996
598
35.9
16.7
1.5
1997
633
38.7
16.4
0.9
1998
673
39.8
16.9
1.2
1999
618
39.0
15.8
2.8
2000
528
36.0
14.7
4.7
2001
547
40.0
13.7
5.3
2002
551
40.2
13.7
15.4
2003
551
40.2
13.7
15.4
2004
516
40.9
12.6
18.2
2005
501
37.2
13.5
20.2
2006
497
40.7
12.2
32.0
2007
530
41.5
12.8
35.1
2008
512
43.0
11.9
20.9
2009
567
44.8
12.7
34.6
2010
598
42.0
14.2
41.5
2011
656
50.7
12.9
48.3
2012
718
49.9
14.3
51.4
2013
526
39.7
13.2
54.6
Brinker Opens
Mitchell Opens
Haggar Opens
Barksdale Opens
13
Attachment 2: Plano Schools in Distress
Forman Elementary
Ranked in the 19th percentile of all Texas Schools - DISD can do far better.
14
Attachment 2: Plano Schools in Distress
15
Attachment 2: Plano Schools in Distress
Forman – over 80% of students are economically disadvantaged
16
Attachment 2: Plano Schools in Distress
Mendenhall Elementary
17
Attachment 2: Plano Schools in Distress
Mendenhall Elementary
18
Attachment 2: Plano Schools in Distress
19
Attachment 2: Plano Schools in Distress
Barron Elementary
20
Attachment 2: Plano Schools in Distress
Barron Elementary
21
Attachment 2: Plano Schools in Distress
Christie Elementary
22
Attachment 2: Plano Schools in Distress
Christie Elementary
Christie fell from the 65% percentile in 2009 to the 41st percentile in 2014
23
Attachment 2: Plano Schools in Distress
Memorial Elementary
24
Attachment 2: Plano Schools in Distress
Memorial Elementary
Memorial has fallen from the 56% percentile in 2005 to the 31st percentile in 2014
25
Margaret Streicher
Berkshire Hathaway Homes
Service, Luxury Collection
7501 Lone Star Dr. Ste. 250
Plano, TX 75024
Appendix 3: Letter
Attention Plano Planning and Zoning Commission
I am a resident of Plano and have been for about 15 years. As an active realtor in the City of
Plano, I sell the city of Plano to the public every single day and have for approximately 22
years. The ever increasing number of apartments is highly impacting the ability to sell future
buyers on some highly impacted areas by the influx of apartment saturation.
Let me paint a clear picture of what a realtor deals with when a prospective client is considering
relocating their family to the Plano area. When I have a relocation buyer in my car with me….
Before I ever take them on a tour of homes…. On their own they have researched what’s nearby
as far as restaurants, entertainment, schools, school ratings and yes they are checking out how
many Mid Rise Residential communities are in the area. Buyers take tours of neighborhoods on
Google Maps… they arrive with targeted areas of high interest to them before I ever have my
first face to face with them. Note they determine this all on their own via the internet,
information is abundant for them to gather. They also arrive with areas they want to stay away
from…… Buyers are constantly comparing Frisco, Allen and Plano School ratings…Toyota is
taking their potential employees relocating to this area on tours of our city and other cities via a
bus tour…. Those potential employees to this area are given a drive by tour of Plano, Frisco,
Allen, Prosper, McKinney…..depending on their level of interest in a particular area. These are
Buyers, not renters! They see all of these cities….. Do we really want to attract renters and
not buyers to our city by saturating the area with mid rise residential (apartments)? Which will
provide more financial growth to our city, NOT POPULATION GROWTH? We all know,
those purchasing homes and developing our neighborhood communities. Buyers are looking
for neighborhoods to create strong family values and involvement in our community to protect
their real estate investments. They are looking for communities to grow their families in and live
and thrive in for many years, not just a short term lease….
The ever increasing decline in the public schools is forcing potential buyers who want to
establish strong roots in a community to seek other locations. The Plano ISD website paints a
very clear picture of where the apartment saturation has occurred and has a direct correlation in
the elementary schools already…. The only thing that has changed for Huffman, Hagger and
Mitchell Elementary Schools is the saturation of Apartments falling in their school boundary
lines….. This has a direct impact on the residential resale market in these schools
boundaries. The once highly desired neighborhoods because of their high rankings, which
boosted home values because of the demand to live within the school boundaries, has now taken
a huge turn in the opposite direction.…. Buyers are eliminating these areas because of their now
LOW school rankings….. what does that do to property values? THEY DROP! Buyers pass
these subdivisions by and target areas with higher school rankings…. This creates longer days on
market and lower home values, directly correlated to the schools rankings.
This situation has now turned prime residential real estate Preston and Park area west to the
tollway, to now be considered as locations for Private School Options, rather than public school
1
Appendix 3: Letter
options. We have seen this happen in North Dallas, Richardson and we have now managed to
repeat the same problem in Plano…..
I live in Huffman Elementary school district and I could not with good conscience encourage my
own daughter to purchase a home in which my grandson would attend an elementary school
barely meeting minimum standards. She wanted the same experience for her son, as she had
experienced in Huffman, which at that time was an Exemplary School. She depends on public
school education and was forced to seek home ownership in Frisco to ensure her child could
have the same foundation of education she experienced. This is just one example of many that
draw the same conclusion. It is a travesty to our community and is spreading rapidly throughout
our community. If you think this is limited to only the elementary schools you are sadly
mistaken. It has a trickledown effect that migrates out to the middle, high and senior high
schools.
This is what every realtor has to deal with on a daily basis….. I live in this city and I sell it
daily. What can I say to a buyer or my own daughter who says “My family is most important to
me and I must consider my children’s education a priority above everything”? Staring them in
the face are statistics of Exemplary School Areas compared to barely meeting minimum
standards. Which would you choose for your family? How can anyone conclude that the influx
of apartment saturation does not affect home values & desirability of specific residential
areas?????
Sincerely,
-Margaret Streicher
Berkshire Hathaway Homes Service, Luxury Collection
972.814.4150 - Cell
[email protected]
2