Councilmen Robertson made a post recently in a community Facebook group. Since he asked for comments to be turned off by administration and has denied those against the proposed zoning change at 380/S Forest Grove a constructive conversation… I wanted to address some misinformation he provided in his statements, and provide valid, factual information.
Statement: “We have a chunk of community commercial zoned land (~24 acres) that can house buildings up to 20,000sf (this means a grocery store/target/home depot is too big for that site to work) that surrounds the Tractor Supply on 380.”
Misinformation: It is currently zoned C-1. “Community Commercial” is a place type defined in the Comprehensive Plan, which outlines this property as “Highway Corridor Commercial” and is also identified as a Strategic Investment area to be focused on commercial for economic support of our future. C-1 zoning allows up to 20,000sf commercial buildings, but if rezoned to C-2, would and could be a site for larger commercial. For example, The Kroger Marketplace in McKinney at Lake Forest and 380 is a tract of land just over 10 acres… The property in question at 380/Forest Grove is 24 acres – plenty big enough for big retail.
Statement: “It's a tough spot to develop because it's never gonna get a stoplight (too close to the lights on Monte Carlo and on Princeton Meadows, by the liquor store, TXDOT won't allow it because of their rules) so that makes it a reasonably undesirable location when coupled with the fact that Tractor supply is sitting in the lot and the chunk to the east of Tractor supply is protected drainage area.”
Misinformation: The challenge of traffic remains regardless of what is built on this land. At least commercial would capture traffic that already exists; adding 490 apartment units will add 500-700 MORE cars trying to get across 380 at rush hour…
Statement: “The roadway access for commercial applications is lacking adding to the challenge of the location and why it has not garnered developer attention for the last 14 years as it has been marketed to developers by the property owner aggressively and to no avail. Nobody wants it.”
Misinformation: This property was purchased by 380 Forest Grove LP in March 2016 (just over 5 years ago). No doubt, by a land developer hoping to flip the property. (Did you know, if you sell land that you’ve purchased within the first year, you have to pay short term capital gains taxes which are based on your overall income and can cost upwards of 37%? But, if you hold it for more than a year, you only pay long term capital gains taxes which cap out at 20%?) Developers haven’t been ready to build in Princeton because they are waiting for the housing and population to catch up. (There are over 15,000 housing units (SF & MF) approved or existing for a two mile radius within this intersection. Of which more than 3,000 are apartments) To say nobody wants in, when the gentleman pushing for a zoning change is UNDER CONTRACT TO PURCHASE IT.. is misleading at best. Someone IS interested in it, and where there’s one, there will be more.
Statement: “As a city we are currently zoned for community commercial along the 380 corridor and that's it. Our future commercial property zoning will be placed along future Principal arterials according to the collin county thorough fare plan. So most likely along Myrick lane, FM 2753 and the new 380 bypass.”
Misinformation: This is a completely false statement. easily researched. I’ve already mentioned that “Community Commercial” is a place type, not a zoning designation. Currently, we have properties all along 380 with C-1, C-2, AG, SF, MH-1, SF-1 etc zoning designations. The comprehensive plan designates areas along the 380 for ‘Highway Corridor Commercial’, ‘Mixed Use’, and ‘Lifestyle/Entertainment’. The only designation for ‘Community Commercial’ is a small area just south of Downtown. You can see this by looking at the Future Land Use Plan on page 44 of the Princeton Comprehensive Plan. [link for convenience:
Statement: The property to the west of the proposed site is currently being marketed to developers to be used by building 2 small strip malls (like the one housing big spray brewing), one on 380 and the other on Monte Carlo, then backfilling with medical offices (medical offices do not contribute sales tax revenue to the city so they are less useful than residential for tax base). It is attracting significant interest. However, this illustrates that the sales tax generating portion of the land in question will most likely be limited to what directly fronts 380 (this will be the 4 restaurants). Thus the loss of sales tax argument is of little validity.
Misinformation: “(medical offices do not contribute sales tax revenue to the city so they are less useful than residential for tax base)” ß what? A commercial business that doesn’t create sales tax is an EQUAL (if not more) contributor to the tax base as they BOTH provide ad valorem aka property taxes. The rest of this paragraph is more misrepresentation than misinformation. How can you make a statement above, that no one is interested in this area, then later talk about a fully commercial property going in right across the street? AND if that property is planning commercial that will have a large portion not contributing to sales tax, then wouldn’t that be all the more reason to protect neighboring commercial zoning that COULD bring in sales tax?
Statement: We have a developer who has proposed a switch to a more mixed use of the space. They want to put 4 restaurants on 380, then behind the restaurants where the property eventually abuts single family homes they want to transition to a group of 3 3-story enclosed apartment buildings.
Misinformation: Did you know, that when the developer first brought his concept the City Manager, it was 100% residential? And Mr. Borg told him he probably couldn’t get it passed without some aspect of commercial. So, he added 4 small retail buildings and designated them to the one thing residents are begging for… restaurants. His priority isn’t restaurants, and they were an afterthought, so it isn’t what they “want.” And there is no guarantee that they will become restaurants and not any other C-1 designation like doctors office’s.
Statement: To minimize the impact on the residents the developer has then surrounded the 3-story structures with 2-story townhomes. They went further and added a large green space around the entire property that will be lined with trees because there were concerns about privacy. Based on the current site plans the residents of the townhomes will not have a site line into the existing homes due to the 8 foot fence that will separate them. The developer modified the building and site plans multiple times to meet the requests and concerns of the neighbors backing up to it.
Misinformation: Townhomes are not an approved use per the Comprehensive Plan. When this was brought to their attention during the first (of now EIGHT) hearings so, they removed the driveway, and changed the wording to “2 story apartments.” The trees, and privacy wall are REQUIRED by City Ordinance. This isn’t a favor, this is bare minimum. If anyone thinks an 8-foot wall will block the view of a 45 ft building (likely higher with grading) they need a math lesson. Again, the developer has modified the plans in order to meet some requirements in hope to get this zoning change past the Comprehensive Plan.
Statement: Just for background, the city council has approved apartments developments on 380 in the past including when council member Krum was sitting on the council and voted to approve the apartments on 380 to the south of the new city hall site. Thus, the argument that apartments are not consistent with the town vision is also not supported by existing data.
Misinformation: The zoning change for Princeton Crossroads that includes property both on the North and South side of 380 in and around the new city Hall (that was donated by the Crossroads developer), was approved under PD-13 in July 2017. I was elected in Nov 2018, so to state that I made that decision is either a lie, or a failure to review the information you were handed before regurgitating it. I did, in August 2020, second YOUR, Councilmen Robertson, motion, to approve the amendment of PD-13 that REMOVED apartment and townhome designations on the north side of Crossroads and replaced it with Community Cottages. Because they are platted as one, and will be rented out, they fell under “MF-2” zoning, but are single story, single family units.
No one has said that apartments are inconsistent with the town vision. Apartments were planned, and strategically designed throughout the city. But, not in the area or for the property under proposed zoning change.
Reference:
PD-13A https://princetontx.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/PD13-full-with-amendments.pdf
Statement: “The crux of the debate comes down to this. Do you want us to approve this development which has 4 sit down restaurants and apartments or is the idea of allowing people to live in apartments where the rent is higher than the average mortgage too distasteful and thus you do not want this development. The residents of Princeton keep asking for restaurants and the city council changed our impact fees earlier this year to attract more restaurants. It appears to be working.”
Misinformation: Again, this is more misrepresentation than misinformation, however Councilman Robertson misses the mark in understanding what those that are against this zoning change are actually upset about. Apartments can be useful, but like everything else there are appropriate, and inappropriate ways to incorporate them. This is one of the first properties along 380 when entering Princeton from the West. It’s currently zoned for commercial and could capture a lot of pass through traffic we already see, provide much needed services to the 15,000+ families planned for this 2 mile radius, and provide a large amount of sales tax to the city to help offset property taxes and water rates for our residents. Selling out to 75% apartments, and settling for 4 retail building (planned for restaurants, but not guaranteed to be such) would be premature, counter productive and poor future planning.
Statement: Also, if this is not approved and someone decides to develop the property as commercial, there are no concessions that will be made for the privacy of the homeowners adjacent to the property as the developer at that point can do whatever they want to the property in accordance with Texas law.
Misinformation: Absolutely false information. They also have to abide by City Ordinances. Like the one that is already in place that requires the 8’ masonry fence between Commercial and Residential zoned properties so either way the only “privacy concession” doesn’t change.
Statement: Neither the city nor the residents will have any say in what happens to the property if this occurs that's just how zoning works. The only reason this developer is willing to work so hard to please everyone is because they need a zoning change.
Misinformation: If it remains C-1, the city and its residents have a say through previous established ordinances that are designed to protect the city and resident interests… as long as city council holds them to those ordinances.
If you would like to read his orginal post, it is located here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/2890448154352742/posts/4440893865974822