The San Marcos City Council considered two items related to a purpose-built student housing development located between West Hutchison Street and Pat Garrison Street as well as North Comanche Street and North Fredericksburg Street in the downtown area at the regularly scheduled meeting Tuesday. The council voted six to one, approving the Conditional Use Permit, which would allow purpose-built student housing in that area, with the restrictive covenant that the applicant could not sell the property to a nontaxpaying entity for 12 years from the Certificate of Occupancy, or the date it is up and running. The council voted six to one granting a request to allow for the increase in maximum building height requirements from five to seven stories; The height would stay the same only the amount of floors would increase.
San Marcos Planning and Development Director Amanda Hernandez said the Planning and Zoning commission suggested a denial of the item.
Hernandez said the location is currently used for office rentals. She said there would be more vehicular and foot traffic due to the new complex. The zoning for that location Character District - 5, which does allow purpose-built student housing with a Conditional Use Permit. Hernandez clarified that they could build multi-family units with the current zoning and without the CUP that could be rented by students but couldn’t be marketed solely to students.
San Marcos City Council Member Matthew Mendoza said this would be a way to keep student housing out of the single family neighborhoods that are losing generational wealth to new developments, which is why he would vote in favor of it.
Rodriguez said she just wants to feel more comfortable about the project.
“Even the five bedrooms. Even the assertion that parents feel more comfortable with a rent-by-the-bed lease. As somebody who has been in a rent-by-the-bed lease, had friends who have been in rent-by-the-bed leases, I can probably tell you at least four people off the top of my mind, including myself, that were miserable in those leases.”
Rodriguez pointed out that there is little to no housing for people that live in San Marcos year round.
“You could make this affordable if you wanted to,” she said.
Kelly Quinn, EmergeHere chief executive officer and the developer for the project, said she would be willing to look at building affordable housing elsewhere, but the price of the downtown area would not be feasible to build affordable housing.
Mendoza had concerns about the availability of parking spaces. He asked if there was a way to incentivize paying for parking in the complex’ lot rather than taking up limited street parking.
San Marcos Mayor Jane Hughson added that she wondered if there was a way to require parking in the complex instead of just incentivizing it. San Marcos City Attorney Samuel Aguirre said, similar to a no-pets clause, it could be enforced if they were caught only.
The pool was set to be on the front of the complex, so Mendoza made the motion to require that the pool be screened so as to avoid being seen by H-E-B customers, which was unanimously approved.
San Marcos City Council Member Lorenzo Gonzalez asked if the council were to pass tenants rights-related ordinances in the future, would the developer incorporate those into their model or consider themselves grandfathered into the current system.
Quinn said she couldn’t agree to that without knowing what exactly they would pass but feels they are already using best practices and it should likely not be an issue.
The CUP initially failed as it was not a supermajority, though the only council members that voted against the item were San Marcos City Council Members Rodriguez, Saul Gonzales and Shane Scott.
San Marcos City Council Member Alyssa Garza reopened the item by making a motion to approve with an amendment that the applicant could not sell the property for ten years.
Aguirre pointed out that the restrictive covenant on selling for whatever amount of years they choose is that they cannot sell it to a nontaxpaying entity. The developer could sell it during that chosen amount of years as long as the entity would be paying tax on the property.
Rodriguez asked Quinn if 15 years would be feasible, and she said that it would make it difficult to finance.
“I don’t know right now because I’ve never asked it on a single project I’ve ever done,” Quinn said. “It’s not being dishonest. In projects, there’s banks. There’s investors. I have to talk to all of them. When I come back to them, to me, 15 years sounds egregious. Ten is a little more palatable. I know, for sure, seven is fine.”
After further discussion, Garza extended the restrictive covenant to not being able to sell the property to a nontaxpaying entity for 12 years from the Certificate of Occupancy, which means from when it was built and in use. The motion passed seven to zero.
Rodriguez said she thought they were voting on the amendment and not the item as a whole. Gonzalez put the item back on the table. Rodriguez made a motion to amend so that the maximum number of bedrooms would be four, but the applicant said that would not work for them. The council voted against the amendment, two to five. The same motion that was previously approved with the 12 year covenant and five bedroom maximum was approved again, but this time it was six to one, with Rodriguez casting the dissenting vote.
As for the request for additional floors, Quinn said the additional floors would allow for more parking; She said the height would stay the same as is in the code, only the amount of floors would increase. She said the two additional floors would allow additional parking spaces and a “unit mix.” There would be the same number of bedrooms. That motion passed six to one, with Rodriguez casting the dissenting vote.
