At its March 25 meeting, the San Marcos Planning and Zoning, or P&Z, Commission denied two requests 8-1, with only Chair David Case dissenting, related to a proposed purpose-built student housing development on multiple lots near the West Hopkins H-E-B.
The two items denied included:
- A request for alternative compliance to exceed the city’s maximum building height, increasing the limit from five to seven stories
- A request for a conditional use permit, or CUP, to allow a purpose-built student housing development
The proposed development spans approximately 2.2 acres and would rise to seven stories, prompting the need for alternative compliance to exceed the city’s standard five-story limit, according to city documents. The site currently consists of multiple lots with six different property owners, each with a different existing use. According to city documents, current uses on the site include:
About the project
The proposed apartment project was intended to be a purpose-built student housing development, which the city defines as one or more buildings with at least two living units that are marketed or primarily used to house college students. Developments of this kind require a CUP when located in certain zoning districts.
Shannon Mattingly, director of land use and entitlements at Drenner Group PC—a real estate law firm—said the apartment would not be exclusively for students but open to anyone interested in a rent-by-the-bed arrangement.
Mattingly was previously San Marcos’ director of planning and development services from 2015-22, according to previous Community Impact reporting.
The applicant proposed a mix of one- to five-bedroom units to accommodate a range of living arrangements.
The design also included three floors of structured parking, with a parking ratio of 0.83 spaces per bedroom, according to a letter from applicants. However, the number of parking spaces that are going to be available varies throughout city documents. The CUP would require 1.05 parking spaces per bed, according to city documents.
The applicant justified the need for the project by citing Texas State University’s continued growth and the resulting demand for student housing near campus. According to the submission, the development team met with university representatives, who acknowledged the ongoing shortage of walkable housing options for students.
The proposed apartment complex sits directly next to an apartment complex that Texas State bought in December 2023 to house 1,086 students, once called The Vistas and now called the Cypress Apartments, according to previous Community Impact reporting.
Commissioner Amy Meeks said that the congregants of the Methodist Church nearby were told that the developers were not going to request a CUP and were only going to build what they could do with the permissions they already have, concerning her now that they are seeking two proposed items. Meeks also said that she doesn’t like the developer’s reasoning to make it purpose-built student housing and have four- to five- bedroom apartments.
“You’re saying to us tonight, ‘Oh, that will help bring down the cost, then everybody that lives in that unit has to pay less’—that doesn’t fly,” Meeks said. “We know what that means is the developer’s just getting more money—the students aren’t paying less, it’s just more money for the developer.”
In response, Mattingly said the proposed development is an opportunity to supplement Texas State’s student housing. She mentioned that the Cypress and Balcones apartments, formerly known as Sanctuary Lofts and recently purchased by Texas State, are expected to transition into housing specifically for freshmen and graduate students, though this change has not yet been confirmed. Currently, those complexes are open to upperclassmen and non-first-year students.
Mattingly emphasized that five-bedroom units offer more affordability than one-bedroom options. She shared that her daughter moved into a five-bedroom apartment, location unspecified, and pays $500 per month. By comparison, a five-bedroom unit in Texas State’s Cypress apartments, cited throughout the meeting, costs $4,120 per semester, which breaks down to $824 per person for the August-December term.
The following applications have also been submitted for the same project:
- Traffic impact analysis
- Demolition permit for 209 Pat Garrison St. (ready to issue)
- Demolition permit for 213 and 215 Pat Garrison St. (in process)
The height of the overall building is going to remain the same, and the stories are the only thing affected by the request for alternative compliance, according to Mattingly.
However, the proposal fails to meet several criteria required for approval. It does not include affordable or workforce housing, lacks LEED green building certification and does not provide accessible open space, according to city documents.
According to the city’s assessment, the project only satisfies two criteria:
- Providing space for additional professional offices
- Incorporating architectural elements to help mitigate impacts on nearby properties
“To put another 500, 600, 700 cars in this part of San Marcos, to me, is absolutely insane,” Garber said. “Parking is horrible as it is—we’re working on that ... but just the traffic, certain times of day, it’s just backed up. ... It’s like Austin. ... I don’t want to be like downtown Austin.”
Garber, who served more than a decade on the commission, died a few days after the meeting.
The proposal also failed to align with the Downtown Area Plan, as it did not meet the recommended housing types and conflicted with the plan’s guidance on building height as it may obstruct key views, according to city documents. Other evaluation criteria were either partially met or considered neutral.
City staff recommended denial of the alternative compliance request and provided a list of conditions for consideration in the event the commission chose to approve it in the city presentation. For the CUP, staff issued a neutral recommendation but still outlined several suggested conditions if it were to move forward.
The action taken
The commission denied the items in an 8-1 vote, with Case dissenting. Case also attempted to postpone the items, but other commissioners disagreed, noting the presentation and public hearing had already concluded.
