Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

You all good? You all good? Call this regular meeting of planning and zoning commission to order on Tuesday, 05/12/2026 at 6PM. Roll call, please.

Sure. William Magnum? Here. Randy Brand? Here. Sean Berlisson? Here. David Case? Here. Luby Costin? Here. Miranda Dunn? Allison Hardy? Here. Lucy Johnson? Here. Der

Vanden We have

a quorum.

Vanden All right. I'd to welcome everybody to tonight's meeting. Ask that you please sign up your cell phones. The Commission may only discuss items posted on tonight's agenda. All their inquiries will be forwarded to staff. The Commission will strive to ensure that meetings are conducted in a courteous manner in an atmosphere free of defamation, intimidation, personal insults, profanity, or threats of violence. Before we begin, I'd like to recognize Andrea Villalobos. Missed you messed me up. Villalobos. Villalobos. If you have not heard, it's out there on social media and in the parking lot, everywhere in San Marcos. She has been nominated as the employee of the city of San Marcos. The employee of the city of San Marcos.

She deserves it.

So I thought that was appropriate. Thank you very much. Now brings us to our assistant comment period. Each speaker may speak once during assistant comment and may not give their time to someone else. When it's your turn, please state your name for the record. You'll have three minutes to speak. The timer will be green when you start. With twenty seconds left, it will turn yellow when you'll hear a ping. When you hear a ping, your time is up. It is red. The commission will work to keep meetings respectful and civil without personal attacks, profanity, intimidation, or threats of violence. Do we have anybody signed up for a system comment? Seeing none, I could have skipped all that. Brings us to our consent agenda. Do we have a motion?

I'll move to approve the consent agenda.

I'll second.

Thank you. It's just our meeting minutes. Motion is approved by Commissioner Burleson, seconded by Commissioner Johnson. Any further discussion on this item? Seeing none, roll call please.

Randy Brand.

Aye.

Michelle Burleson. Aye. David Case. Aye. Libba Castilla. Aye. Allison Hardy. Aye. Lucy Johnson.

Aye. Ronnie Van Notrekirke. Aye. William Agnew.

Aye. Motion to approve carries.

This brings us to public hearing item number two.

CUP twenty six twenty one Archie's hold a public hearing and consider a request by Ryan Bunker on behalf of Archie's for renewal of conditional use permit to allow on premise consumption of mixed beverages located at 301 North LBJ Drive, Suite 119.

At this time, we'll open public hearing.

Good evening, commissioners. Caitlin Buck with Planning and development services. The subject property is approximately zero point one eight seconds of an acre and is located on the Northwest corner of Hutchinson Street and North LBJ Drive. The subject business is an existing restaurant with on premise consumption of alcohol located within the central business area. The business has held a mixed beverage CUP since 2024.

Surrounding uses include personal services, retail, bars, and restaurants. The subject property is zoned character District 5 downtown and is surrounded by CD 5 D on all sides. Proposed hours of operation are from 6AM to midnight every day of the week. The current CP expired on December 31. The business's initial CUP became effective upon the issuance of a TABC license and was valid for one year.

In early March of this year, staff discovered that the seat that the TABC license for Archie's had been issued on 12/31/2024, resulting in the expiration of the conditional use permit. Upon identifying the expiration, staff issued a notice letter to the business in March, and the applicant promptly submitted a renewal application to bring the use back into compliance. All criteria for approval have been met from sections two as well as sections five. All CBA restaurant criteria have been met. No changes have been made to the site plan or floor plan.

Staff recommends approval with the following conditions. The permit shall be valid for three years and shall expire on 12/31/2028 provided standards are met. No outdoor amplified background and or acoustic sound shall be permitted after the closing of the business, but in no cases later than 10PM sat Sunday through Thursdays. No outdoor amplified background and or acoustic sound shall be permitted after the closing of the business, but in no case later than 11PM, Friday and Saturdays. The business is responsible for cleaning the area within 100 feet of any exit.

The business must have a kitchen and food storage facilities in sufficient size to enable food preparation. The kitchen must be equipped with and must utilize a commercial grill, griddle, fryer, oven, or similar heavy food preparation equipment. The business must serve meals to customers during at least two meal periods each day the business is open. A meal must consist of at least one entree, such as a meat serving, a pasta dish, pizza, or sandwich, or similar food in a serving that serves as a main course for a meal. At least three entrees must be available during each meal period.

A meal period means a period of at least four hours. The business must be used to maintain advertised and held out to the public as a place where meals are prepared and served. The occupancy is required to remain compliant with the fire code to include ensuring that occupant loads stay at or below posted levels and the permit shall be posted in the same area and manner as the certificate of occupancy. Staff has sent out personal and posted notices for the site in compliance with state law. Staff has not received any comments regarding this case. I believe the applicant is with us via Zoom tonight, and that concludes my presentation.

All right. Thank you. With the applicant, I'd like to speak at this time in favor of your permit.

Chair, we have actually two applicants online. We have Zach Perez and Daphne Vindelli. And I probably mispronounced mispronounced that too. But Mr. Perez, Zach, if you'd like to go first, go right ahead.

Are a Archie's Fine Coffee. We're basically a coffee shop with a select food menu as well. So, yes, we are here.

Miss Perez, can I please get you to state your name and address for us, please?

Absolutely. Zachary Perez. And then the store address? Or

Either one's fine.

Okay. Yeah. It is 301 North LBJ Drive.

Thank you, sir.

Absolutely.

And I believe we got Daphne. That's correct. Daphne, you please state your name and address, and we have three minutes.

Yes. My name is Daphne Bendele, and my address is the same, 301 North L LBJ Drive, Suite 119.

Thank you. Would you like to state anything? You do not have to.

No. I don't believe so. Thank you.

Okay. Well, I did visit your location about a week ago. It's very nice. We have Maddie Hurd.

Maddie Heard couldn't come today. Sorry about that.

Okay. Thank you. Anybody else in the chambers wish to speak? Do we have anybody else online? Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing. Do we have a motion?

I motion to approve CUP-twenty1. Second.

Got a motion to approve by Commissioner Costilla, seconded by

Commissioner Brian, sorry, my mic With was

the conditions as outlined.

Seconded by Commissioner Brian with the follow the staff conditions.

Do

we have any further discussion on this item? All right. Seeing none, roll call.

Sure. Michelle Bullison? Aye. David Case? Aye. Libby Castillo?

Aye. Mariah Dunn? Aye.

Allison Hardy? Aye. Lucy Johnson?

Aye. Rodney Van Notrekirke? Aye. William Hagman?

Aye.

Randy Bryan?

Yes.

The motion to approve with conditions passes.

That brings to item number three.

CB2624, Southbound Social, hold the public hearing and consider a request by Dylan Wilde on behalf of Southbound Social for conditional use permit to allow on premise consumption of mixed beverages located at 119 East Hutchinson Street.

We'll open the public hearing.

Good evening commissioners. Caitlin Buck with Planning and Development Services. The subject property is approximately 0.3 acres and is located approximately 80 feet west from the corner of North LBJ Drive and East Hutchison Street. This location has formerly been multiple businesses including Lloyd Louis Oyster House and Bull Daddy's, all of which has have held a restaurant CUP with the sale of mixed beverages and a late hours TABC permit. The most recent business at this location, Bull Daddy's, received a restaurant CUP for mixed beverages in 2021.

The business permanently closed in December 2025. Surrounding uses include personal services, retail, bars, and restaurants. The subject property is zoned character District 5 downtown and is surrounded by CD 5 D on all sides. The proposed hours of operation are from 4PM to 2AM Tuesday and Wednesdays, 3PM to 2AM on Thursdays, 2PM to 2AM on Fridays, noon to 2AM Saturday and Sundays, and closed on Mondays. All criteria have been met from sections two as well as sections five.

All restaurant CBA criteria have been met. This is the proposed site plan and floor plan. Staff recommends approval with the following conditions. The permit shall be valid for one year and shall expire on 05/12/2027, provided standards are met. No outdoor amplified background and or acoustic sound shall be permitted after the closing of the business, but in no case later than 10PM, Sundays through Thursday.

No outdoor amplified background and or acoustic sound shall be permitted after the closing of the business, but in no cases later than 11PM, Friday and Saturdays. The business is responsible for cleaning the area within 100 feet of any exit. The business must have a kitchen and food storage facility of sufficient size to enable food preparation. The kitchen must be equipped and must utilize a commercial grill, griddle, fryer, oven, or similar heavy food operations equipment. The business must serve meals to customers during at least two meal periods each day to the the business is open.

The meal must consist of at least one entree, such as a meat serving, a pasta dish pizza or sandwich or similar food, and a serving that serves as a main course for a meal. At least three entrees must be available during each meal period. A meal period means a period of at least four hours. The business must be used, maintained, advertised, held out to the public as a place where meals are prepared and served. The business shall not pursue or hold a TABC late hours permit.

The occupancy is required to remain compliant with the fire code to include ensuring that occupant loads stay at or below posted levels, and the permit shall be posted in the same area and manner as the certificate of occupancy. The applicant has agreed to all conditions except number eight, that the business shall not pursue or hold a TABC late hours permit. Staff has sent out personal and posted notices for the site in compliance with state law. Staff has not received any comments regarding this case. That concludes my presentation.

Okay. If the applicant is here, would you like to speak in favor of your permit?

Yes, sir.

Okay. Sir, are you please just state your name and address? And we have three minutes.

Evening commission. My name is Dylan Wilde. You need my address?

Yes, sir. 9 or home?

109 East Hutchinson Street. I just wanted to this timer is there a time?

Yes, sir. Three minutes.

Got it.

Own a bar in New Braunfels. It's called Wildside. It's right across the street from Porehouse. I'm part of the Small Business Association and part of the chamber of commerce, Hispanic business association, and now I'm venturing back to San Marcos. I went to school here, and I used to go to Louie's. I realized that talking to some of the kids now, I age myself. Nobody knows what that is. I'm looking to bring the idea of Wildside to here. It's more of an elevated experience. I do have a food truck there.

It's called Tejas Media. They stay open now or later than us. The staff also comes in about three hours earlier than us to prepare food. At Southbound Social, we plan to do the same thing, and I'm asking the commission to allow us a late hours permit being that we are a new business and the provinces have had late hours permits, I believe, since the lease opened in 2013.

Thank you, sir. Do we have anybody else in the chamber who wish to speak? Anybody online? Seeing no close the public hearing.

I'll make a motion to approve CUP 2,624 with staff conditions.

Okay. Second.

Got a commission or a motion to approve by Commissioner Agnew, seconded by Commissioner Van Odegerke. Discussion? David. Yes, Commissioner Agnew?

I know I asked you this this morning, but is this new ownership not the same ownership that Louie's That's correct.

This is a new business owner.

New ownership? Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Braylison?

I'm sorry.

I just had a question about the late night hours. How do we handle that since we vote? The motion is?

I would mean, like to have a discussion on that as well and make an amendment to remove item number eight. But I wanted to get the discussion from you all first to see what you thought.

I don't have a problem with them having late night hours, but I wanted to ask staff the reason why

The reason for it is based on the CUP committee matrix that they've been provided. So this might be an unintended consequences that happened from that committee. And I do think it's something we should look into. Everyone around him does have this late hours permit, from what I'm aware of. So, it'd be kind of tying one hand behind his back.

So, to be consistent.

Yes, ma'am. Yeah.

That was my question as well. And also, I thought I read that Alan Shai was an owner of the new business.

Looks like he owns the real estate. Is that the case?

That's correct.

Okay. Yeah, I would like to make a motion that we strike number eight and allow them to get late hour permits from TABC.

I'll second that. Okay.

Got an amendment on the table by Commissioner Brian, seconded by Commissioner Agnew to strike item number eight from the conditions from staff conditions. Do we have any further discussion on this item?

All

right. Seeing none, roll call.

Sure. David Case. Aye. Libby Costilla? Aye. Mariah Dunn?

Aye.

Allison Hardy? Aye. Lucy Johnson?

Aye.

Ronnie Van Odekirke? Aye. William Agnew? Aye. Randy Bryan? Aye. Shel Brolison? Aye. Motion to amend carries.

Thank you. Brings us to item number four.

Does it

We have

a vote on the original. Oh my goodness, I apologize. I missed the meeting. We're back to our original motion with the amendment that was approved to strike item number eight. Do we need further discussion on this item? Roll call, please. Sure.

Lupe Cristina?

Aye.

Brian Dunn? Aye. Allison Hardy? Aye. Lucy Johnson?

Aye. Ronnie Van Odegirky?

Aye. Wayne Magnum? Aye. Randy Bryan?

Yes.

Michelle Brillison?

Aye.

David Case?

Aye.

Motion to approve with conditions carries.

Thank you, team. Item number four.

CUP 2571B, 325 North Comanche Street, Student Housing, hold the public hearing and consider a request by Shannon Mattingly, Drenner Group, on behalf of two zero two Hutch LLC for a conditional use permit to allow a purpose built student housing development for the property located at 325 North Comanche Street.

Alright. We'll open the public hearing.

Good evening everyone. Lauren Clanton, Chief Planner. I am joining you virtually tonight and I am glad to present this joint conditional use permit and alternative compliance request. So these two cases will be closely related to each other. So to begin our discussion of the conditional use permit for purpose built student housing, it's always helpful to look at the definition through the development code.

In section five one four nine, purpose built student housing is defined as one or more buildings, each containing two or more living units that are designed, marketed, or used for the primary purpose housing college students. As we look at the table on this slide, we see that there are some similarities as well as differences between purpose built student housing and the conventional multifamily use, which which could also be pursued in the CD 5 D zoning district. As we can see, rent by the bed leases are allowed, for both purpose built student housing and conventional multifamily. A key difference is the allowed number of bedrooms. So for purpose built student housing, there is no limit in the number of bedrooms while we see a limit of three for conventional multifamily.

We also see a higher parking requirement in the form of one point o five spaces per bedroom. And, of course, the reason for this request is that in character District 5 downtown, purpose built student housing is only allowed with a conditional use permit. On this next slide, we have background on the property. So this property is one acre. It is located at the Southwest Corner of Pat Garrison Street and North Comanche Street.

And we can find it, just south of the Texas State University campus. This request is running concurrently with an alternative compliance request for seven story building height. This site is the the location of the former Pennington's funeral home and a duplex. These properties were requested for demolition. A demolition permit was submitted and issued and the property has completed the demolition delay process, which is required due to the priority of the buildings under the historic resources survey.

So the demolition delay process has been completed and has been through the historic preservation commission, and the buildings have been demolished currently. When we look at the surrounding neighborhood, we see Balconi's residence hall to the West, purpose built student housing, a couple examples to the North and Northeast, a grocery in the form of HEB, as well as a church multifamily in Texas State. The existing zoning on the property is Character District 5 Downtown or C D 5 D. And continuing on, And it is good to take a look at the surrounding neighborhood. This neighborhood is constantly transforming and on this slide we can see examples of approved requests in the past two years.

At North And Lindsay Street, in 2024, we can see there was an approval for a conditional use permit, for purpose built student housing as well as an alternative compliance, for seven story building height, as well as a number of conditions attached to that request. And to the east, we see a Comanche And Hutchison Street. This is a development that is related to the item we are discussing tonight. So this was phase one of the development, and tonight we're talking about phase two. In 2025, a conditional use permit was approved for the site to the east to allow purpose built student housing as well as an alternative compliance for seven story building height.

And one additional condition that was included with the final approval was a maximum building height of 75 feet. Later tonight we will talk about the alternative compliance request that is currently being discussed and it has a similar condition proposed by the applicant. When assessing this request, staff took a look at the criteria of section two eight three four, which deals generally with conditional use permits. As we run through the criteria, we can see that some are some received a consistent response. For example, the consistency of the request with the comprehensive plan.

The purpose built student housing use appears to conform with the designation of the area as mixed use medium. On the other hand, we see other criteria that were deemed inconsistent. For example, the consistency with an adopted neighborhood character study. So when we talk about the downtown plan, there is, there is mention of the fact that quite a bit of housing in downtown is focused on students, and there is a need for housing for all demographics. As we continue, we see we see a collection of neutral responses and a couple other responses as well.

In regards to nuisances and the impact of the property on the neighborhood, that remains to be seen and the property will meet all development code standards as it goes through plotting, site permitting and traffic impact analysis. Next slide. Alright. As mentioned, no adverse traffic impacts or adverse effects were identified that would be any different from another multifamily development. And it is yet to be seen through plotting and, the traffic impact analysis, what roadway adjustments will be required.

Additionally, we will just look for meeting the development code, meeting the activation standards, meeting varied massing standards consistent with the development code, and that will all be done as the site and building design is worked out. Additionally, the criteria of section five thousand one forty nine, which is specific to purpose built student housing, were also considered. As you can see, there were quite a few neutral responses dealing with the kind of the makeup of the building, whether the building can be transitioned into another use, what the longevity of the building will be adverse impacts. Impacts. Again, there was nothing that stood out that made this development different and made it particularly prone to impacting impacting the neighborhood.

Also, nothing stood out that really that separated it in a positive way. For example, there is no LEED certification promised for the building. The property is near Texas State, so that offers a great deal of accessibility and, ability to access the university by foot. And then finally, just reiterating that the downtown plan calls for a diversity of housing types. Here we can see that excerpt from the downtown plan.

So we see a couple places where it is mentioned that most rental housing options in downtown are student oriented and additional non student oriented rental housing options are needed. And furthermore, there's a mention that housing should be marketed to all demographics and not just to students. I'll also mention here that notices were mailed consistent with state law. One response was received pertaining more to the alternative compliance. So we'll return to that in a bit.

Continuing to the recommendation, due to varying factors including the conflict with the downtown plan, staff is providing a neutral recommendation, leaving the decision to approve deny or approve with conditions to the commission. If the commission chooses to approve, staff has a a list of conditions, to consider, including with that approval, and that is on the slides, the subsequent slides. And just to make sure that we all, just to make sure that the conditions are out there, I'll go ahead and read them. So first, the development shall register with the city of San Marcos long term rental registration program per chapter 34 article seven division three of the city's code. The lease shall be made publicly available on the property's website.

The lease shall contain the following text and I will summarize this here. Per the development code, a block of text is required to be included in the lease. The gist of this this text is just that, if for whatever reason something interferes with the ability to deliver a lease on time, a student will not be required to pay rent and will be presented with other options of where to find housing. And can here we can see that text. And then condition number four, the development shall offer both individual leases and conventional leases where units may be rented in their entirety.

The development shall comply with the parking calculation of 0.6 spaces per bedroom. The developers shall not sell the property to a non tax paying entity for twelve years from the effective date of the conditional use permit. The condition prohibiting sale to a tax exempt entity for twelve years from the date of this approval shall be memorialized in a restrictive covenant approved by the city attorney that is recorded in the official public records of Hays County. Right of way shall be dedicated to the extent that the standards of the design manual, and the development code are met. This COP shall expire within three years unless an application for a permit is submitted to the city.

The development shall comply with all other development code regulations. Packet materials are provided for informational purposes only, and the number of bedrooms shall be limited to five. This concludes my presentation. Staff is available for questions, and we also have the applicant and the applicant's representatives and design team here. Thanks.

Thank you. Would the applicant like to come to the podium to speak in favor of your permit? If you please just state your name and address, and we have three minutes.

Hi, my name is Kelly Quinn. I'm the CEO of Emerge Here, a known development company. My address is 325 North Comanche. Some of you may recognize me, as Lauren said, from a year ago when we had a similar request for 202 Hutch, which was improved for the same entitlements. I understand the structure tonight is CUP and then alternative compliance, but I'd like to address both together because I view they go hand in hand for a more functional building.

I would like to clarify my exact request for tonight. I am asking for a CUP not to just rent to students, but to have a more diverse unit mix. The project is located adjacent to Texas State University and among student housing, so it will naturally attract a student base. What I'm asking for with the CUP is the ability to build up to five bedrooms. I am also asking for alternative compliance, which allows me to take two mezzanine levels and convert them into two full functional levels.

This will allow me to provide an additional 80 parking spots for the development and more amenity space. Importantly, I am not asking for more height. I'm not asking for a bigger building. I'm not asking for more mass. I'm simply asking to have a more functional building in the existing layout. Regardless, the building will be 75 feet. It will be around 300 beds. It will primarily rent to students, and it will be the exact same massing regardless of the approvals tonight. From a street view, if you were to look at the building, it would look the same to the average person regardless of what happens tonight. So the question isn't whether the building becomes developed, it's is it parked better and is it more functional.

So again, the alternative compliance and the CUP will allow me to provide additional parking, more amenity space, a more diverse unit mix, enhanced architectural elements, all with the same scale and intensity that's allowed under the current zoning code. I'm around for questions. Also, I apologize that it was a bit late tonight, but I did pass out a sheet of paper to visually help with the height difference, because I know that we've talked about it. It's also in the presentation, but for those that can see things more visually, I thought that maybe it would be helpful, and I'm around to answer any questions regarding that. Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you, Ms. Quinn. Anybody else wish to speak in favor?

Chair, I may just mention you do have two of the applicant's representatives online as well.

Good evening, commissioners. Patrick Quinn, 325 North Comanche. Kelly is my wife and did not give me a title of the company, so I'll just be here to let you know that I'm around to answer any questions. And thank you for your time this evening.

Thank you, Mr. Quinn. Mr. Terrio?

Good evening. My name is Ed Theriault. I'm with the Driner Group, and my address is 120 Lakeview Circle in Lockhart. I have very little to add, just stressing that our request is for a better development, more efficient development, and no additional height, just the way the floors are oriented within the same building mass. Happy to answer any questions, and we'll be available for you to do that.

Thanks. Thank you, sir. Shannon Mattingly online. If I could please get your name and address.

Of course. Good evening. Sorry that I'm not there tonight, but, Shannon Mattingly with The Drunner Group, 2705 Bee Cave Road in Austin, Texas. And I just wanna add a couple of things, to the end of the presentation. I think what makes this project and these owners unique is that they wanna be part of the community.

They will continue to manage so they don't build a project and then turn it over to somebody else or flip it to another property owner. They are long term, family owned business that, manages the property for an extended period of time, and they have several, letters of reference from other universities and businesses that have worked with them in the past that, can kind of tell you a little bit about, and they should be in your packet about just the type of business and the type of project that they run. Some of the things that they've done since purchasing their properties in San Marcos is that they've allowed the fire department and the police department to have access to their properties for training. They've, allowed nonprofits to come in and get personal property artifacts, that they donated to, these nonprofits to clear out any of the buildings of anything that they wanted and that they felt like were usable. The, public parking access was available that they made available to the university and to the public prior to the demolition.

Now that the demolition has been ongoing, it's more difficult to allow the public in there, but something else that they did they're members of the Chamber of Commerce in San Marcos. They've donated to local charities, including the food bank and, you know, a sponsor at the United Way Beer and Wine Walk. And so, you know, they wanna be a part of the community, and they wanna continue to work with the city of San Marcos. They wanna be good stewards. The biggest thing that I would say, and I know miss Quinn mentioned this, but, the project is entitled now.

So they have c d five. They can do student housing on the prog property currently. They can do 75 feet on the property currently. They can do their 300 bedrooms. The reason that they're asking for the alternative compliance and for the CUP is to be able to build a better product to have about 80 additional parking spaces that they wouldn't be required to do in a regular c d five project.

And so, you know, the the council, when we were working with them on phase one, these were the conditions and, that miss Clinton mentioned and that were negotiated with counsel previously, and we hope that you will consider those conditions. We're happy to extend those onto our phase two project, and, I'm available for any additional questions.

Thank you, miss Mattingly. And we have miss Rund.

Hi. I'm Audrey Rund. I'm the COO of Emerge here, 325 Comanche San Marcos. And I just wanted to make myself available for any questions you may have because I do a lot of boots on the ground operations. So thank you for your consideration.

Thank you, miss Marin. We will close the public hearing. I will provide a motion to approve with potential staff conditions as presented.

Second. I've got questions.

Motion to approve by Commissioner Case, seconded by Commissioner Johnson. Now we have discussion. Commissioner Perlison.

I just have a few questions because before when you all were here, it did not involve the property where Pennington Funeral Home is. And I guess this is for the applicant because growing up, we always knew that that area had been a cemetery. And there were a lot of slaves and stuff buried there and unknown graves and things like that. So my question is, I need to know if y'all even know where the boundaries are or if anyone did any type of archaeological survey that would ensure us that there are still no bodies buried there or still remaining there?

Certainly. Yes. We were we were aware of the cemetery, which we understood was relocated to the new San Marcos City Cemetery. And the confines of those sites were south of our location, primarily residing under where the current where the old city library, now the new Calvary churches. And, yes, we did do testing, and we did look into everything. And during the demolition of the buildings, we did excavation. And fortunately, we we did not uncover anything.

Okay. Because that is just extremely concerning to me. Because back in the day, when you have cemeteries, it's not just in one small boundaries. It can be here or there, and I just need to really make sure because that's one of the reasons I've been extremely concerned and upset and just really couldn't really support this project because I couldn't be for sure if there were people buried there.

If I'd like to point out that popular opinion from old timers is that headstones were moved to the new cemetery, not necessarily the actual bodies. So I'd be really surprised if they're warning that's just opinion, but I'd be really surprised if there weren't still bodies there.

And that's why

completely understand. No disrespect.

I just have to ask because that's very important to me.

I do understand. And if it yields any comfort to y'all sitting up there right now, I know that the Pennington family was with us the whole time, and they've been along for a long time. And I hate to use the pun, but they're very active in knowing exactly everything on where those locations were. And he erected his own mortuary right there. So I would assume that he would have done his homework as well.

What in staff now?

I don't know because he when I asked Bill Pennington, just said he wasn't sure he did. Is that not

What Bill had told me and I don't want put words in Bill's mouth, but what he had told me in the past was that even though there was an effort to move, but it was mainly up to families to go out there and move their loved ones, and there's really no guarantee that they were actually moved.

Because you had slaves. At So the time, people really weren't concerned about slaves, but I am. So I just no disrespect. I'm having to ask these hard questions because this is very setting to me.

Is there a process that would occur if you did uncover a body?

For sure.

What would that be?

I don't know all the specifics of it, but if something was encountered we would alert local authorities and they would advise us to next steps.

I believe there are state regulations as lots of builders have reached out to the local historical commissioners or in some cases appointed officials whenever they find human remains they have to notify the authorities.

Further questions to

the applicant while we have them up?

I have a question. Yes. I know that this is housing made for students, but if you're not a student, you can live here, correct?

Yes, that's correct. So it primarily, given its location, will attract students, but we do have non students living in other properties. Like for example, we have a property in Daytona that Audrey manages called 1060 Halifax, and it's 95%, I would say, Embry Riddle students, but we do have nurses from Halifax Medical Center that live with us as well. So, we are open to everyone. We market to everybody, including students. Anyone can live there, but I would be lying if I said it's not going to primarily be students. And that's mostly because in general, students prefer to live with students, people that aren't students prefer to not live with students.

Just because that differs from what staff has told us that you would only be marketing to students.

No, actually by fair housing, can't do that.

Okay. So you and you wouldn't would you be able like, do students get priority in applications, or is everyone is every applicant graded equally?

Every applicant is graded equally.

Commissioner Van Oatkerky. And I'm

kind of concerned about the parking situation.

Sure.

And I'm relying on my memory, that's kind of scary, so don't let me put words in your mouth from the last time we were here. But if I remember right, we have 0.6 parking spaces per bedroom.

And

form that you provided shows one level of parking and then the other one has two levels. Why is that now important to have more parking?

Sure. So under what I was trying to show by that is under the current zoning, we technically only have to do one level of parking. So it's one parking spot per unit. So 100 parking spots for the 300 beds, the way it's zoned now. With the CUP and with this request, you guys could condition it to require more parking.

And quite honestly, I want a project that has a we did a parking study, it came out to be about that number. And so we want more parking for the development as well. But, I can't provide that additional parking if I don't have the alternative compliance because I don't have enough space to provide it. So, which is why we're extending those two mezzanine levels into full parking because then it allows me to add an additional level of parking. I know it's a little bit confusing and it was This

actually helps a lot.

Oh, good.

That was actually a plane ride over, if I'm going be honest, this afternoon, so I'm glad it's helpful.

Commissioner To address what Commissioner Johnson said, I believe with student housing, quote unquote, you can rent by the room. Whereas in your typical multifamily, you rent by the unit, which includes three rooms, up to three rooms. So, zoning currently one unit up to three bedrooms and this would change it to up to five and they would be individually rented. So you're typically not especially this close to university, it's going to be students that would be there. But I do have one question and legal maybe has to stop me from this, but why are we not considering these together at the same time?

Because for me, one of my biggest hang ups is the 0.6 parking where the extra story brings in 80 more parking spaces. It's already a madhouse downtown. It's a madhouse with the little H E B. I mean, that's life. We all love it here. It's just the way it is, though. Why are we not considering these together? And is it not good that I brought that up because it's out of turn or whatever? But that's a real hang up for me because I don't believe that the developer has to do one or the other. We're just giving them the right to do one or the other.

And so, if the caret is the second one, but they don't have to do it and we didn't consider it together, it just makes me a little suspicious It's wondering

the way that we typically do it. And there are two different ways that these are being considered by planning and zoning commission. One of them is going to be a recommendation to council and then council will vote on the recommendation on the CEP and then the alternative compliance is is going to be a decision by the PNC and that's just the way it's in the code.

Can I just answer that question a little bit more to give some context? This one here, the conditional use permit, is about use. So what is the use on the property? There's all kinds of uses in our code retail, restaurant, day care. And so the question for this case is about, should this property be this use in this location?

And the code says it requires a conditional use permit approved by recommended by PNC and city council for that question. The second case is not about use. It's about height. So we're talking design and, you know, is that the right height for this location in the code? So they're sort of two different questions, and they have to be looked at individually while they are the same project. They are technically two different actions and two different ways to two different sections of the code.

Okay. Well Correct.

On the handout, it says the height's the same on both of them, on both the use that we're voting on and both of the change in zoning that we're voting on.

And I would say this just to answer your question, this is probably yes, it's applicable to this, but this, to me, is showing a little bit more about the alternative compliance, as it references alternative compliance on the right hand side. So this might be more applicable for the second

case.

Commissioner Garcia?

We had an analysis on the traffic there. A couple of years ago we had another project that came before the PNC regarding on a corner right some point close by regarding the issue of a parking lot and I think there was some discussion regarding it's right there, it was right in the corner, very congested and I think there was a lot of concern regarding traffic in there. So this, while maybe the heights might be the same, but we're adding more parking to it. With the alternative.

Correct. And then I guess I would I don't know if that argues the word, but say that it wouldn't increase the traffic. Like if you think of the site itself, and if you think of a student's life, the three things that they go to in this town school, the grocery store, and the square, you couldn't drive from that site and be any closer. There's no parking on Texas State's campus, so you wouldn't drive there. You couldn't drive to the H E B and be any closer, even if you came out of the parking garage and went there.

And then same with the square, you're two blocks away. So, we're providing the additional parking spot, quite honestly more because I was told that Texans love their cars and that if you don't have a parking spot, even if they're not using it, you're not going to lease apartments for some people. So I see the parking spots being there and being used a couple times a month, but daily traffic, I actually think it will cut down daily traffic. The students are already there. They're living further from campus right now, and they're driving it.

And this project, just like 202 Hutch, is pedestrian. So now you're bringing the students right next to campus, where they don't have to drive in every day. They don't have to drive to go to the grocery store. They don't have to drive to go to the square. So, I would actually argue that it would create less traffic by being a true pedestrian project.

Do we have any I'm sorry. Do we have is there any studies from within that would show any concerns there for congested traffic?

We did do a traffic impact study. And actually, Patrick's want to engage that. You can talk a little bit more about it if you want.

And I'll add from staff, a plat is in process. To my knowledge, the supporting permits such as traffic impact analysis are not in process yet.

Mister Quinn, did you wanna speak on Yeah. That real

think, at least to my knowledge I mean, the traffic impact analysis is complete. Why it's not been handed in yet? I will make a phone call after this to follow-up to figure out why. But we did conduct the traffic impact analysis and it did not show any impact or deviations from the the current level of service are met and everything was going to be

Well, understand that it's something, this is something we're not talking about traffic there. But the concern comes out I think from maybe the majority of us regarding that issue. I wish we had that because it's so congested there to begin with. I think the discussion that we had in prior years when we had the other one was the mere fact that your wife mentioned regarding the fact that you know the cars are going to be parked there. If they're going to bring a car they're going to park it there.

So I couldn't understand why they would we would need a parking lot there. And then of course it was right there at the corner which is next to the other corner from where you're at and adding to the congested traffic already was there. And knowing being around young people, I think whether they want to leave their car or not, most of them want to take their car with them, you know, wherever they go. So that was, I think, lot of concern that I remember hearing from the dias at that point in time. But I think it would have been good to maybe look, have had that. Even though we're not looking at traffic to approve or not approve.

And I have one more parking question. So I know that more than likely it's going to be students living there. But there is a possibility that a family can move in there, husband and wife and 2.2 kids or whatever. They're going to have because it is Texas, they're going have more than one car. Where are they going to park that second car? Is it just find a place on street parking and what happens to that car?

I can address that. So currently so all or most of the buildings around are parked at the same level that we have. So, if people require more than one spot, there are off-site available, like Methodist Church I know rent spaces, Chewy's rent spaces. So, like Aspire, for example, when they run out of parking or if they have residents that request more than their one parking spot, they do look to park the car off-site. But, obviously, we would look to house them at the current development, but if it was more than that, second car, then it would have to be off-site.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you.

Under

the current zoning, if they were to develop as permitted by right today, they would have one space per unit or be required to have it a minimum of one space per unit. The CUP with the associated alternative compliant allows them to increase that to what is proposed as point six per bedroom. So if you have a three bedroom unit, that would basically be two spaces for that or a higher bedroom, that would increase. With the approval of the CUP and the alternative compliance, there will be approximately 80 more spaces with the same number of units and beds. Thank you.

If you don't mind, a little input from staff as well. So mister Terrio was correct that with the conditional use permit allowing the purpose built student housing use, that increases the required parking from one space per unit, which we would see with multifamily to one point o five spaces per bedroom. So what that would result in is a total parking count that is required. However, a buy down or a fee in lieu is possible. That's why you hear one point o five spaces per bedroom, which is the required ratio, but the applicant is proposing less.

The fee in lieu would allow them to get to that number that they consider appropriate. Also worth noting is the parking study included in the packet, and it's just worth noting that this is a condition attached to the potential, approval, which the commission could could give their thoughts on.

Miss Mattingly, did you want to interject?

Thank you. I just a couple of things. One, I know that there was a statement a minute ago about planning commission approving the alternative compliance and council approving the CUP, but both of those items actually go to council for approval. Height alternative compliance goes to the council as well as the CUP. So, so city council will be the final say on both of those, which is what they did on the last one, is how we ended up with all of the conditions that we added and agreed to as part of that.

And then I just wanted to kinda reiterate really quickly. Right now, if these don't go through, the project can still be built at 300 dwelling units with approximately a 100 parking spaces, one per bedroom at 75 feet. If the CUP and the alternative compliance get approved, it will still be around 300 units dwelling or bedrooms. I'm sorry. 300 bedrooms, still will be 75 feet, and, will be parked at 80 more spaces.

So so can build it today. They can build it the same height, the same number of units with less parking. The reason for the alternative compliance in the CUP is to be able to add an additional layer of parking that we can't do still at 75 feet. So although it says it's a height alternative compliance, there's no height difference. It's just how the code is worded on stories and how you fit it all inside the building.

So when miss Quinn mentioned earlier that from the outside looking in, you won't be able to tell the difference whether they built it now or whether they built it under the alternative compliance in the CUP. That's why. It the it's the internal mechanisms for how it works. But it's 75 feet now and 75 feet with the alternative compliance. So there is no additional height being asked for. No additional dwelling units. I mean, everything is being proposed the same. The only difference is that they'll be able to add that additional layer of parking.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner Dunn, do you still have a question? Okay. Commissioner Agnew?

Yeah, thank you. Mainly, I'd like to talk about parking since we've been talking about that anyway. But one thing that I have a problem with is the applicant continuing to refer to the requirements of just CD5, CD5D, as if somehow that's some, you know, relevant baseline. And it isn't. I mean, they want to do purpose built student housing, which is a CUP, which brings with it its own parking requirements.

And so as far as I'm concerned, the basis for comparison as far as what they are proposing for parking is the parking requirements of purpose built student housing, which is 1.05 per bedroom, which is I believe computes to three fifteen parking spaces, a number that nobody has mentioned I think doesn't want to mention at this point. But that to me is the real basis for comparison as far as whether they're providing adequate parking. And one thing I do not understand so it's not like they're in my mind, it's not like they're providing 80 more spaces. It's like they're providing 135 fewer than what purpose built student housing requires. One thing I don't understand is the fee in lieu of parking.

And I guess, and obviously they're intending to do that to some extent. Will that and I don't know how that is calculated, but will that be based on the 1.05 per bedroom? Did you work from there to come up with what the fee is?

Go ahead, Lauren.

Okay.

So, yes, the total required parking would be the outcome of the parking ratio for purpose built student housing applied to the development?

So it would be three fifteen spaces as a starting point compared to whatever it is they want to build, which I guess is 180, correct? And somehow the fee in lieu will account for that 135 space shortfall? Is that the way it works?

And if I understand your question correctly, it seems like you're aware of the number of parking spaces being offset. And your question is how a an actual sum, like an actual dollar sum will be reached?

What I'm more concerned with is that somewhere in this process, we recognize what the real parking requirement for this project is as long as they're requesting purpose built student housing. And I'm getting a little bit tired of hearing about how they're giving us 80 spaces because they're not. They're giving us 135 fewer than what they are requesting requires. And I'm okay with that so long as somehow we're being compensated. Well, I'm not really okay with it for other reasons.

But I want to at least make sure that we're not, I guess, lack of a better word, falling for this 180 for this 80 whatever it is, this comparison of 180 units to 100 spaces because I think that's just not valid. And that's and so it's hard I'm an accountant, as you may know, so I'm fairly simple minded. And I look at numbers fairly simply. But I just want to make sure that somehow wherever this comes out, we're properly recognizing the fact that the real parking requirement in this case is three fifteen spaces, not 100 or 180 or some other number that they throw out. That's my real concern.

And also, I mean, is maybe a digress. I shouldn't do this because we really haven't answered the question that I'm asking, but I'm not sure I'm going to get one. There is a parking study in here, which we actually had last time also, if I can quickly get to it. And if you look at that parking study, the 0.6, doesn't to me, doesn't support this 0.6 at all as far as the parking they're actually going to provide because I can't find the thing quickly. Virtually every I think every apartment project that's in that parking study has a ratio more than 0.6.

And four of them have available spaces of zero, which means that whatever they provided is not enough. And those are all more than 0.6 as far as what they've actually provided. So I don't think the 0.6 is all that is going to be anywhere near adequate to park the cars that are really going to be there. But yeah, I just got here we go, thank you. My more technically advanced chairman.

But this is actually not the page.

Me.

And Commissioner Agnew, I can answer your first question.

Okay.

If you're ready for it.

Yeah, would like to get an answer. Okay.

So we have a little analysis on this in the staff report. So fee in lieu of parking is an option in the development code for the use of purpose built student housing to reimburse up to 50% of the minimum required spaces within the zoning district. And so the applicant is going to request that fee in lieu. So there isn't it's not like this is a variance per se. It would be process.

So they've indicated they're going to request a fee in lieu from 50 up to between 5060%, which is what they would be allowed. We don't have an exact parking ratio at this time, but point six is what we came, you know, came up with. And this is where that fee in lieu process, it's gonna happen at the site permit stage. So before we can ever issue a site permit, building permit, that fee in lieu is collected. So to answer your question, it's not a variance per se. It's using the fee in lieu process of the code that is already established.

Yeah. You know, I understand what that is, Andre. I just wanted to make sure whatever we do in respect is using real numbers, you know, that they're really relevant to this situation and not what I think are kind of somewhat contrived numbers that the applicant's throwing out. The other but the problem I've always had with fee in lieu is, you know, we collect money. But as I understand it, there's really, that money doesn't really get spent to provide parking anywhere.

It or it doesn't have to be. It can be spent on a variety of things that seem to be like to make downtown more pedestrian friendly and stuff like that. So we're collecting money in lieu of providing parking spaces, but then that money doesn't seem to be going to provide parking spaces elsewhere that could somehow compensate. It just seems to go into some pot that can be, you know, spent on a variety. To me, there's kind of a distinction between this and fee in lieu of parkland, where that money actually does go into parkland.

Here, it doesn't really go into parks into providing parking spaces elsewhere that might compensate for the ones they're not going to provide here. So then I still worry about, you know, how many cars are not well, I guess, yeah, how many cars belonging to people living in this complex are going to have to find parking spaces elsewhere in San Marcos. I mean, everybody knows the parking situation in downtown, which is close to hopeless. So I'm just I guess I'm not at all comfortable with what they're going to provide as parking. I don't think it could be anywhere near enough for how many cars they're actually going to have to accommodate.

I mean this is going to be this is new this could be a new apartment. It is close to campus. So this is not going to be cheap. I mean, in relation to what students pay elsewhere. This is new this is kind of, you know, the flavor of the month type thing.

It's going to be a, you know, certainly market rate type thing. And just candidly, students whose parents can afford to house them here probably are also going to easily afford, you know, to give them a car. So, you know, the point six ratio does not make me comfortable at all either, for whatever that's worth. Also, and I know this is I don't want to forget to say this has nothing to do with it, but it's so simple. Condition number 10 says the number of bedrooms shall be limited to five.

I'm sure that's intended to say five per unit, and it makes a big difference because I'm sure they intend to have more than five bedrooms in their project. So hopefully that can be fixed without somebody having to make a motion and so forth. So that that's all I've got. I just did not wanna forget that. But, yeah, I'm I'm still struggling with the park parking aspect of this.

Okay. Let's, let miss Mattingly go real quick. I believe she's trying to respond.

Just one thing that I I did wanna note because, as mister commissioner Agnew mentioned, we did, have a parking study that was done with the first phase of our project, and, you know, all of the conditions that are in here now were conditions that came from city council on phase one. And the other distinction that I just wanted to make sure we understand because, yes, we're asking for a CUP for purpose built student housing, but that really is giving us the three versus the five bedrooms per unit. You can still rent by the bedroom under c d five d. So in the current zoning that they have right now, they can still do individual rent by the bedroom leases. Those are allowed in both zoning districts.

So that doesn't change. The number of units, is going to be approximately the same. And so, again, you know, the rationale and the reasoning behind the request is to be able and I and I understand what mister Agnew is saying. In a traditional rent by the bedroom, it is one point o five. The code does allow you to ask down and buy down 50%.

Again, as mentioned by staff, that isn't something that's a separate variance request that goes to anybody. That's just something that is provided in the code as an option. And and I also believe that a TIA has been submitted for I know phase one and possibly phase two is has already been submitted because I believe the plat is almost ready to be approved on that first one, and it would be requirement of the plat. So anything that comes out of that TIA when the engineering department is reviewing it, if there's any types of improvements or anything that needs to be done, that is something that the, applicants will be required to do as part of that traffic impact analysis. So as, as the city engineer is reviewing that, those would come up at that time.

Thank you.

I've got some more. I can wait. I

think Okay.

Just real quick. Just one bedroom equal one person, or can you have two people in per bedroom? Three people in a bedroom? One bedroom, one person? Thank you.

This

question is for staff. So in our packet, we have the parking study, but does the city do we do our own parking or traffic study when it comes to developments like this? Are we relying on the developer to do their own traffic parking study?

And I think the the instant answer that comes to mind is that, in a way, the parking ratios you see in the development code are already sort of a diagnosis of the amount of parking needed to serve the use. As mentioned, when we discuss the parking ratio for this site, we start with that total number, the required amount. And from there, the applicant can assess whether they need that full amount or whether, fee in lieu for 50% or less of the parking is appropriate for their use. We do leave that to the applicant, to make that choice, based on their unit count, their unit mix, and what they have seen from the neighborhood. So the process we've followed, I I think, is appropriate here.

So, like, before a developer just goes and throws up a big old 15 story high rise, the city doesn't go out there and do our own traffic study to make sure that wherever this development is, that the road, the pedestrians, whatever's in the surrounding area can withstand that load even I mean, let's just say it's not a congested area, but in this case, it is a highly congested area. It used to be at 05:00, 04:00. That was like a no go zone. And, I mean, I went to Texas State. I I drove to campus, and I lived right around the corner from I'm not walking in that traffic.

That's for sure. I would never walk again. But in that area, it is I mean, forget going to H E B. Just starve to death at that point. But do we not as a city, do we not go and do our due diligence before we just say, hey, build your eight story, 15 story high rise to make sure it can sustain? Lauren, I can

answer this. So the due diligence comes in from the development code and the parking ratios, like Lauren mentioned, which have changed significantly over time. In the '70s, you know, there weren't any parking, you know, ratios, or they were just starting to, you know, come to fruition as cars became more of a a thing and development patterns changed. In 2004, we had another code that had completely different parking ratios. In 2018, we updated our code and had totally different parking ratios.

And even right now, through our development code process, we're refining that. So a little bit of parking is tricky because it's it's going to change over time as new research comes out as and it's also dependent upon where locations are and what type of use is at a certain location. You know, for example, is it near a transit stop? Does that give folks another option instead of driving? Or in this case, is it downtown, and therefore, parking ratios might be less less strict because it's in a walkable area.

And so that's why you see a different ratio for c d five d, which has been discussed. That's one space per unit. And so with student housing, that's a different type of use. And through the years, through council discussions, through PNC discussions, the number that was landed on through that policy decision was 1.05. And so it's it's a mix of research.

It's a mix a mix of, you know, what is the policy. And so, you I just wanna give some context on how ratios change. But, for example, we have some deviations in the code, like the fee in lieu for purpose built student housing to say, ah, if you can't quite meet it, here's another option. And that money, to commissioner Agnew's point earlier, that money that goes into that fee in lieu fund can be used to advance parking management. That could be a variety of things, including parking garage, to advance transit, or pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure plans within the CD 5 D District.

So it's about how are people moving? Are they using a car? Are they choosing a different type of transportation system? And then I wanted to touch on one other point you made earlier, which is, you know, are we doing research or relying on the developers' numbers? So anything that builds within the city since we've been permitting so pretty much since 2012 when our new permitting system went into effect, we have all of those parking ratios because there was a development code that said what the ratio should be.

So we have all of that data. We can tell you exactly how many spaces are within there. And so that the numbers that were in the packet in the parking study, they were all reflecting the site plan site plans that we can check for accuracy. Some of the other things that we can't always, you know, know is are they full? Are the graduates full? And that's a little we've had our interns even call the complexes complexes and, you know, try to get some information. But some of that is a little bit harder to track just because it depends on the day, it depends on the season, it depends on if we can get an answer. And so I just wanted to give touch on all the points you said. Let me know if I missed anything, though, or need any more clarification.

No. You did. But I understand the parking. Like, my what I'm trying to convey is more on the surface level. So when we're conducting these, whenever I'm driving, let's just say, down a road and you see those guys with the little camera, is that what we're doing? And then is it to conduct not just the parking spots, it's the traffic, how much flow is going down Hutchinson, how much flow is going down, what is that in front of H E

B? Hutchinson.

Hutchinson? I mean, is that part of the traffic study, not just the parking places? I'm saying are we looking at considering that as a whole when doing the study?

Yes. So traffic impact analysis have to they're reviewed by our engineers. They're developed by an engineer. And it's going to say, what are the impacts of a development on the surrounding road systems? Sometimes that could mean timing changes in greenfield development, new development. That could mean new lights. So it does look at those things. And, again, that's reviewed through there. There are recommendations that come out of that, And then our engineers will then work to see, well, what implementation items need to be done on the road system.

Okay. Thank you, Andrea.

I'll just give you my personal opinion of what it was like for me when I lived on North Street and I was working at Wells Fargo at the same time you were. And I was walking to work from the time in 2026 to 2013 when I finally met my wife and she said, hey, let's move in together in your spot. I was like, no, it's 500 square feet. Said, that's probably not a good idea. And so I bring that up only because parking is market driven. Parking is an amenity. Parking is something that's gonna fix itself throughout you know, someone's not gonna move there if they're not gonna space the park. And that's one of the reasons why I'm a very conservative person. So I thought maybe we do wanna spend $500 a month and you live with me. But I knew that wouldn't be good for our relationship.

So that's why we did not do that. But I'd say if we start looking at parking a different way instead of what needs to be there by the ratios, it is a market driven, almost a commodity in a way. Commissioner Agnew?

Just one quick comment that sort of came to mind because of what several people have said. It's interesting to me that the parking ratio for purpose built student housing is as much higher as it is compared to the parking ratio for just regular CD5D. I mean, just in the example we're talking about here, they like to throw out 100 spaces as what they would have to provide if it were CD5D, whereas purpose built student housing would require three fifteen. So it seems like there's some recognition somewhere in the process that student housing requires more parking. I mean, that's just what those ratios somebody recognizes that.

Mr. Garcia?

Well, realistically, think that we've had a good discussion, Shannon mentioned that one way or the other, that's going be built. We're just looking at heights right now. We're looking we're talking about parking. You have the number of people living in a building and you should have enough parking. Apparently that's not gonna happen. That's not realistic. We have a congested area. We have two items before. I like to ask the question. I think it's on the conditions here.

Having retaining the facility for twelve years without selling it. So I'm assuming that at some point in time if there is an interest in selling it, it will be sold and have no doubt there's no conditions to not selling it to Texas State. It's just selling it to anybody. Am I understanding?

Right now there's no conditions on the sale but the condition for two zero two Hutch was that we couldn't sell it to a nonprofit for twelve years. Without the approval tonight.

Beyond the twelve years.

Beyond the twelve years we've

Yes, there's no conditions to where I mean, you know, the older we go we get, the sooner the time passes by. And twelve years we'll be here and no telling, you know, the encroachment from the university. I don't say it critical because I'm an alumni from up there for two degrees but I know that it just hurts the community when you take a property off the tax rolls. Having been connected to the school board and what they go through as far as getting money from everybody possibly and you know, I know taxpayers carry the burden, the local taxpayers because of so much property that's been taken off the textiles here. Plus the fact of, of course, we don't have a high number of businesses around here.

That was my concern. So beyond the twelve years, it can go either direction. Is that correct?

Yes, ma'am. And then, so I think that was a point of the approval last year is that if it's not approved tonight or going forward for that matter, then we could sell tomorrow, for example, to the university. It would pull off the tax roll, where at least this gives twelve years on the at least twelve years.

Twelve after the CO.

Yeah, after the CO, to be clear. Not twelve years from today. It's twelve years after our CO, which is a couple So of years from it's actually a lot longer than twelve years.

Well, like I said, time does go by. Unfortunately, too fast. Who knows where it's going to end up, if you all don't keep it and yourself. Okay. Thank you.

Commissioner Van Odekirke?

One thing that I'm still can't get off of is parking downtown. I hate using the word unique, but this is kind of unique. When we bring in more people and more cars than we have parking spaces for downtown and expect them to park on off street or in some parking lot, those businesses that are struggling downtown, I don't I used to love to go to lunch downtown, but I can't find parking spaces. So if we're going to have permanent cars parked down there, the only people who are going to be paying for that are the businesses who are trying to keep their doors open. And I have a problem with that.

Mr. Eggman?

Yeah, kind of to that point, this involves a different apartment complex, the parlor on San Antonio Street. But my barber shop that I went to for years, you know, had to move because people come you know, their big day is Saturday and customers coming down on Saturday couldn't find parking because the kids who live at the parlor, who don't have parking at the parlor, and I guess just find whatever they can during weekdays all use that parking on Saturday and Sunday so their customers couldn't get in there. So yeah, it is a real problem to downtown businesses.

Well, we've gone around the room quite a few times, so I want to make an amendment. Oh, yes, Commissioner Ryan.

I had a clarification or I have a question of staff

that I wanna ask about.

Just mic. Because Your mic. It's on. I'm just not talking into it. Sorry about that. I have a question for the staff just for clarification because right now, the way I understand it with current zoning, 100 units up to three bedrooms on each unit, 1.05 parking per unit. So that's three one hundred times 1.05. Is that correct?

No. It's

1.05 per bedroom for purpose built But student

I'm talking about how it is right now, CD5.

Oh, yes. One per unit.

Okay. And can staff tell me on either this one or the next one, is there a maximum number of bedrooms currently allowed? And will the vote on number four, if it was positive, could it affect the maximum number of bedrooms allowed? And then the vote on number five, if it was positive, could it affect the maximum number of bedrooms that are allowed?

And I'll weigh in. So in terms of where we get that maximum number, it's from the section of chapter five that defines multifamily. So the statement is not that there is an unlimited number of bedrooms for purpose built student housing. The way it actually manifests is that the maximum of three bedrooms is mentioned in the definition and the use regulation of multifamily. So what we conclude, because we also take a look at the purpose built student housing definition, there is not a similar limitation on bedrooms there.

So we don't have a hard and fast number of the number of bedrooms allowed in purpose built student housing. However, the limit of five so however, we've seen precedent for the number of bedrooms being limited through a condition. The way we got this condition that is currently being proposed with this request is from the approved conditional use permit on the block to the east. Council chose to add that condition in, and that made it into the resolution. So to answer your question, there's no maximum number of bedrooms stipulated per the development code for purpose built student housing, but a condition could introduce a limit on the number of bedrooms.

Commissioner Hardy?

If we're worried about the parking, then we should vote to approve it, right? I mean, I'm just confused. Right? Am I looking at this wrong?

Yes. You're looking at it wrong.

There's a couple ways you can look at it. One way you can

Well, look our at it is concern is that the parking they're proposing won't be enough.

But the fee in lieu is offered for either one.

Yeah, but that's just money. And that doesn't provide any that doesn't do It doesn't

take care of the problem.

Exactly. Doesn't do anything to take care of the parking shortfall.

Female But it doesn't seem that we can change that. We don't have that's a staff decision, not a PNZ decision.

That's not a variance is what she was saying.

Yes. By rights, they have the option to ask for 50% of the required parking as fee in lieu today. Right? I actually ran those calculations. So 50% of 1.05 spaces per bedroom, it's 0.53. And they're proposing 0.6. Right? So they're asking for they're going to provide a little bit more than what we have given them what the ratio would have been if they had done 50% of all of the required parking at 1.05.

Just keeping in mind, in regular multifamily housing, you have usually a couple of adults. If it's three bedroom and one to however many kids, none of those kids will drive. So that's not exactly an apples to apples. It might be close, but it's not exactly an apples to apples comparison.

Can I just have a point of

clarification? Point

of clarification. You are correct in what you said. So the approval of the CUP will require me to provide more parking. Right now, if it's not approved by code, I could do 300 bedrooms and a 100 parking spots. Now if it gets approved, I would have to do a minimum of a 150 parking spots. I said I need about a 180, and then I would pay a parking in lieu fee from $3.15 to $1.80 to the city. So yes. So if parking is a concern, approval helps with that concern.

I ask a question of the are you seriously considering that you would develop under CD5D here if this gets denied? Is that really a serious consideration?

Yes.

You would do that? Yes. You wouldn't be able to do many of the things you've said you wanted to do then. I mean, you'd end up with something that doesn't sound like what you want.

I guess it's a lesser of two evils. It's still what I want. It just would be a better project for everybody if we do it this way. It would be more parking, same number of beds. Regardless with the approval, it's 300 beds. If it gets approved, 300 beds. If doesn't get approved, 300 beds. If the alternative compliance gets approved, I can add 80 more parking spots. If it doesn't, it's 100 parking spots. To the comment earlier about the parking, as a developer, we look at the building.

I don't want to under park my building either because I can't get leases if I don't have the parking. As Mr. Case said, if they if he comes to me and I don't have a parking spot, then they're gonna go and find another building that has a parking spot. So we do our homework to make sure that the building's parked appropriately. The international population at Texas State is 10 times what it was a couple years ago. International kids don't bring cars. We look at stuff like that. We look at the kids that come to the buildings, and that's how we evaluate your parking. We don't willy nilly, oh, I'm just going to use this ratio. We study it more than anybody in this room because it's something that we can't screw up either.

So we need to make sure that we have the parking for the residents that we think we're going to have. Like Champaign is a perfect example. We have four buildings at University of Illinois. One building that we had there, 192 parking spots, 192 beds, I have 100 parking spots that sit empty. They don't even have a parking requirement in Champaign anymore because the students aren't bringing the cars. The students learn if there's not spots for the cars, don't bring them or they find a building that has them. And I've been doing this for sixteen years, and I'd say, actually a little bit longer than sixteen years, I have a very good handle on parking and my residents and their requirements.

I'll say it's never a bad idea to have a plan B in San Marcos. I like the more parking, more amenities, and enhanced architecture that's gonna come with this project, and I like what the potential conditions the staff has in here. And I feel like we've gone back and forth and back and forth on this parking. And so if we want to make an amendment, I think we need to do something. But I think what we have in front of us here is a great product to push there in front of council. Yes, Commissioner Agnes.

I don't have an amendment on parking. I do think it sounds like you're trying to wrap this up. And there is one thing that hasn't been mentioned at all. It has nothing to do with the park. Thing that hasn't been mentioned at all that's very important is the fact that at least as I understand the downtown area plan, this is not what is desired by that plan.

There was a desire for more non student housing rather than more student housing. And that was actually my big hang up the first time we dealt with this. And you were on the downtown oversight committee, as was I, that was a subcommittee of the comprehensive plan steering committee. And I know in those meetings, I questioned the desire to have a plan that wanted to make downtown more family friendly, which was kind of what the downtown stakeholders, as they were called, wanted to have. It was an area of plan the downtown plan that made it family friendly rather than so student oriented as it is today.

And I argued against that because I thought that just was not realistic. It's a great idea. I would love it if we could do it, but I thought there's just no way that would ever happen. I mean, couldn't get I did not think you could get there from where we are today. But, I mean, stakeholders I mean, they prevailed.

I mean, they wanted a plan that had provisions in it that would make downtown more family friendly. And one of those was they specifically wanted housing downtown that was not student oriented but more family oriented. And that's how the plan got finalized and that's what got approved by city council. And I just have a lot of trouble seeing us just completely disregard a plan that is that recent and seem to have such strong support from the people who are downtown stakeholders. So and incidentally, something that hasn't been mentioned tonight that's sort of related to what I'm talking about.

The first phase of this, which got approved by city council, that was denied by planning and zoning, as was the alternative compliance. So that's the history of this. I mean, this is phase two. But phase two, this body denied. And I just throw that out for the newer commissioners on here who weren't around at that point for whatever it's worth. So a lot of the discussion we're having tonight we had back then as well is what I'm saying. Okay. I'm finished. Mr. Dunn. Mr. Dunn?

You called me mister again.

Can we note that? Carmen? You called her mister.

No, said commissioner. I'm not confused. Okay.

So that's exactly what I was gonna bring up was last year, those were my reservations. And my question to my colleagues and to staff is the downtown area plan comprehensive plan. I mean, this is something when I ran two years ago that I was really passionate about was more diverse housing, especially downtown. I have a business downtown, and my business isn't on in the middle or where the where there's more high traffic. So, however, throwing up another high rise on that part of town, I mean, as a business, that's I mean, people aren't gonna walk their dogs all the way to South LBJ or people aren't gonna walk from Hutchinson to Chances R And R, Tomah, Logies, you name it.

That doesn't benefit us as much as Central And North LBJ would. But when we're looking at this, because I share the same thing, when it doesn't when it's not consistent or it's not compliant with the downtown area planner, are they looking at the project as a whole, as a student property, student housing, or a CEP, or both? Because I know last year when this came before before us, that that was my biggest hang up is this project is not consistent with the plans. So is are we looking at that as a whole together, CEP only?

Well,

so that was my other thing. Council approved it. So then what are we doing?

I know. That's my point. You know, I

was thinking the same thing. If I'm being told it doesn't matter what I do tonight, I'm gonna vote my conscience and it's gonna be no.

I mean, because we did a year ago.

They're still going to go on.

But sorry, Andrea, I think I know you're going to answer. Sorry.

The thing is looking at it, is a plus for the two evils here, that we would consider to be evil, you know, so I don't know.

So I'll I'll provide a response. And Lauren, you're welcome to add to this too. You know, the downtown plan did emphasize this need for lots of different uses. And this idea of it being family friendly, right? It's a twenty year plan.

And so, you know, how we achieve all of the different recommendations and the goals in there is something that we're thinking through constantly, particularly working with our economic development department, our main street division is how can we, you know, incentivize the types of uses that we'd like downtown? These are private properties and, you know, we can't necessarily just go build the things that we want as a city, but how do we encourage the different types of uses that we'd like to see while also being cognizant of what property owners are requesting. Right? And it and it's a balance. And and I think that's why you see us have a neutral recommendation.

We we understand that this project and all multifamily can be rented to students or not students. And so there's no stipulation that says that it's only one. You also noticed we have a recommendation within our staff report. The development shall offer both individual leases and conventional leases where units may be rented in its entirety. So we are trying to find ways within our control through the CUP process to try to ensure that there is some flexibility that it can be, you know, open to everyone.

But at the same time, the use being requested is purpose built student housing, and so we're really trying to take that balanced approach. And I think that's why you see that neutral recommendation from us is, you know, there's one you asked the question, should we be looking at it at a site level or a whole downtown level? I think that that's, again, a policy decision of your recommendation. You know, the downtown is it's a downtown plan, so we should be looking at it holistically. But it it's it's tricky, and so we're really just trying to take it by the cases that we have at hand.

But I will say we thought about that, and that's why we have the conditions in there. And that's why you see that if you do choose to recommend it, staff is good and recommends those conditions that we have in there because we do think that that helps us move the needle and be flexible.

Thank you, Andrea.

Going off of Commissioner Dunn, Andrea, if you could just tell me if I'm right or wrong with this. Right now, they can't build by right what they said before and what Ms. Quinn said before, but they want to go forward with this CFP process so they can build a better product. Is that what we're gathering from the applicant here?

Yes, that's what the applicant stated, yes.

Okay. So I think it's very important what we do here today. I don't believe that's what was in front of us the last time. It was kind of a gut punch last time when it came to us, and it was overturned at counsel. I don't think we need to

What was an overturned?

Well, it was denied here. Was overturned there as approved. So, I don't think we need to bring we don't need to worry about that. Yes, it kind of changed the layout of what the uses are in that general area. But I do think right now, what we have in front of us is do we not want to approve this and have the option to move forward to something different? Or do you want to approve this and help with their vision and have a better product of what they're looking to build? Commissioner Brian?

I just want to make sure when the motion was made, was it to approve plus the staff Yes, sir.

I was intentional to say approve with potential conditions as presented.

Does someone make a motion though to amend? We

have a motion to approve on the floor right now.

And we have a discussion and we

can discuss amendments at this time if we like.

If I might just make a comment, and I know if someone calls a question on me while I'm talking, I won't even be upset with them because we've talked about this a lot. But just to and I I intend to vote yes on this. And I understand the argument about sticking with the comprehensive plan and sticking with traditional multifamily downtown. For me, I can't understand why we wanted to have more family friendly multifamily downtown and then put a limit of three bedrooms on units downtown. To me, that's not family friendly, at least not the way I like to live.

But I think considering that we want density downtown, we want density in walkable areas of downtown, which this is to both campus and the small HEB. And we you know, it apparently, it's the right of the developer to cut their parking almost in half if they want to. We can't change that. I think this is a pretty good development. And I will also say, having a teenager and around too many 18, 19, and 20 year olds at the moment, It's not like it was twenty years ago when, like, I couldn't wait to have a driver's license.

A lot of them don't have cars. I mean, I forced Mandy to have a car because I wasn't gonna have her to ride. Like, there was only so many days I could wake up at 06:30 anymore. I will say, I think that to me, knowing how many teenagers no longer have cars, talking to folks who teach at Texas State, finding out how many incoming freshmen do not have cars with them anymore, I think one eighty might actually be kind of a good guess as to the parking they're gonna need.

But

even if we could control the parking and we can't, I mean, that's out the window. The thing is, I think this gives a good opportunity for families if they want to be downtown and they or just people who aren't students to be able to rent downtown. And to me, I know it's considered technically purpose built because they can rent by the room and or by the the unit. I still think this is a pretty good compromise and close enough to fitting the comprehensive plan to where I don't have a plan with any of it.

Thank you, Commissioner Johnson. Commissioner Brillison?

I think what the elephant in the room that no one is talking about is most of these apartment complexes charge a fee for parking. So students don't want to pay the fee. So that's why you have these parking lots empty because they go park on the street and elsewhere because in the Dunbar neighborhood we can't even drive down the end of Center Street because there's a big apartment complex right catty corner to the church and their parking's empty because all the kids parked on the street because they don't want to pay the 2 or $300 a semester for the parking. That I I just I think I just have an issue with it because I'm not sure there's not bodies buried there. So I just have a whole other issue, but that's the problem is that people don't the the students and I know a lot of kids are graduating this year from San Marcos High School.

My niece is one. They all have a car, and they plan on taking them to campus. I don't know where she's going to live, but I just I don't know. I have a problem for a whole different reason.

Commissioner Agnew?

Just as far as what Commissioner Johnson said about we can't control the parking. I mean, yeah, we the fee at Lou is their right, and there's nothing we can do to stop them from doing that. But at least as I understand it, if we don't like the result of that, as far as, you know, what parking will they actually end up providing after they paid the fee in lieu, I mean, I think we just vote to deny. I mean, it's not like we're hopeless and hopeless in this situation. Yeah. I mean, I think we still have a right to judge whether or not we think the parking they are going to provide will be adequate. That's, I guess, all I'm saying.

A little input from staff here. So as you mentioned, fee in lieu is an option available to the applicant. A conditional use permit though, the word condition is in the name, You're able to levy conditions that you feel would make the use more palatable. So as you think through your choice of how to act on the item, keep in mind, the same way that, fee in lieu is the right of the applicant, choosing conditions is the right of the commission. And it doesn't push you into a denial because you could just discuss the parking condition.

You're gonna need to clarify that, make it crystal clear. We can make an amendment to require additional parking as part of the CUP. Is that what you're saying?

I believe you could give feedback on that condition, and I might run that past a couple of the other minds in the room.

Yes. You can deviate conditions. The conditions proposed in front of you are what staff has has recommends if you choose approval, and we've worked with the applicant on these. But you can always modify conditions just like you can on our alcohol CEP permits or anything like that.

Right. Because that was certainly not the impression I got just five minutes ago.

So in the code, there is the ability to request the fee in lieu that you're referring to up to 50%. But this is a conditional use permit process, so you can add conditions that might get you to a ratio you feel more comfortable with. That's an option.

Andrea?

Yes,

sir. And whatever ratio we would come up with, that's what they would have to do. Like if we said we would be more comfortable with point seven five than point six zero or something, and if the commission passed that, do they have the ability through the fee in lieu to get back to where they want to be and just pay a little more money to get there, if that makes sense, is what I'm saying?

Well, first, let me just say your recommendation would still need to go to counsel. Counsel will If be the final decision you were asking for a point seven five ratio, yes, the fee in lieu would still be they would be paying the difference, right? So they'd be paying whatever that number comes out to, less than 50%. But they would still be paying a fee in lieu. It wouldn't be that they wouldn't have to pay the fee in lieu.

No, I understand that. But I guess all I'm saying is if we and I'm just throwing 0.75 out as an example. I'm not proposing that. But they want to provide, I think, 180 spaces is what they want to do. And if we were to pass an amendment, and that's which is point six zero, point six zero gets you to 180 spaces, as I understand it.

If we were to approve an amendment that took that to point seven five, which would then be something more than 180 space, I ought to be able to do that in my head, but I two twenty five maybe. I don't know if that something like that. If we were to pass an amendment to that effect, would they still have the ability through the fee in lieu to get back to where they're only going to have to provide 180 spaces like they really want to do right now? Just, you know, whether may they have to pay a little more money to do it, could they still do that? And obviously I'm not entirely clear on how the fee in lieu works.

No. So the way the condition is written now, the development shall comply with a parking calculation of point six zero spaces per bedroom. So you would change that to point seven five and that would be what they would be we wouldn't be able to accept fee in lieu of up to point six zero. We'd only be able to accept fee in lieu if they choose that up to point seven five.

Okay. That answers my question. Okay. Yeah. Thank you, Andrea.

Andre, by chance, do you have the parking ratios of the previous development of what was approved?

Lauren, that was Point 60, correct, across the street?

If you will allow me to check, I want to give correct information.

That

appears to have been point seven.

Did you say point seven?

Correct.

Okay. On phase one?

Yes.

Okay.

That kind of stumped my argument.

I guess that raises an obvious question for the applicant, I guess. It's why 0.6 on this one and zero point seven on the previous one?

The site by comparison, you know, the right across the street, the site's roughly three times bigger. So we have three times more area to work with. Here on a concentrated one acre site, which I'll also call to your attention that in the rear of the property runs a pretty substantial stormwater easement, which conveys stormwater from the north to the south. I can't build over that. I can't move it. It's a permanent fixture in a permanent structure. The parking calculations are purely a mathematical equation of how many spaces can we fit per deck in ratio with the units that we can provide above. So simply put, the more parking, the less density.

Okay. Yeah.

Thank you.

So I mean, and it's you know, the the size is a huge component of it.

Zero zero

point nine six acres versus 2.3.

Commissioner Dunn.

I have

a question for the developer. Since this is the same project, phase two the kids that are in phase two, can they park in phase one?

Yes. Yes. If there's yeah. They can cross pollinate, so to speak.

I'm not a parking expert. I don't have any certifications in it. We have a developer, and we have staff that I trust immensely here that came up with a 0.6 that know what they're doing and know how to run our city and know our traffic counts and what's appropriate for the area. So I'm, you know, I'm leaning on the experts over here.

But we do know what it's like to go downtown and try to find a parking space. You don't have to be an expert to realize there's not enough parking down downtown.

What time of day? Every time I go downtown at lunch, it's almost I

did not park today all the Guys,

that's a problem. That is a problem in San Marcos that's not going get fixed in the next ten years. We've to get a downtown We've parking to do other things. This is something we have right here in front of us. Vote. Let's Call to We're going to call to question. We're calling to question. No one has made an amendment. So we're going call to question. As I understand this, we have to do a vote on this.

Think you need a second also.

May I

have a

second, please?

I'll second you.

Yes, second for Commissioner Burleson.

For calling the question?

Yes, it's the calling question, so we vote. And no is to deny the call in question.

Can you please clarify what we're voting on?

If you vote yes, then we're going to end up voting on the motion. If you vote no, then we'll continue the discussion.

It was no further discussion. We just stopped talking and vote.

If it's no, we're no further discussion?

If it's yes, there's no further if it's yes, we just stop talking and we vote.

Oh, we're just voting on the question,

not Yeah, that's all we're We're

just ending the conversation. So if you vote yes, we're going to end the conversation. If you vote no, we're gonna continue the conversation.

Thank you.

Yeah. No. It's a great question.

Great question.

You ready? Yes, sir. Mariah Dunn? Yes. Allison Hardy? Yes. Lucy Johnson? Yes. Randy Binodegrookie? Yes. William Agony? Aye. Randy Bryan? Yes. Michelle Burleson? Aye. David Case? Aye. Lupe Castillo? Aye. The motion carries.

Look at us.

We agree with that.

Alright. This now brings the motion at hand with all potential conditions as presented by staff. And we have roll call.

Sure. Allison Hardy? Yes. Lucy Johnson? Yes. Ronnie Van de Krieg? No. Wayne Magnum? Nay. Randy Bryan?

Yes.

Michelle Perlison? No. David Kings? Yes. Luby Costilla?

Yes.

Mariah Dunn? No. The motion passes five to four. Recommend approval with conditions.

Thank you. Brings us to item number five. This show continues.

AC 2509 B, 325 North Comanche Street, seven story building height, hold the hold to carry and consider a request by Shannon Mattingly, Drenner Group on behalf of two zero two Hutch LLC for alternative compliance to the maximum building height requirements in section 4,437 of the land development code increasing the permitted building height from five to seven stories for the property located at 325 North Comanche Street.

We will open the public hearing.

Thank you all. Once again, Lauren Clanton here to present the request. As we've mentioned before, this is a one acre parcel at the intersection of Pat Garrison Street and North Comanche Street near Texas State University. As mentioned before, there are a variety of surrounding uses, including student residences, purpose built student housing. And when we look at those nearby uses, we also look at the heights of those residential developments.

So for example, to the Northeast, we have the Cypress Apartments that are six stories tall. To the East, we have not an existing development, but a development that has been approved at seven stories tall and a maximum of 75 feet. And to the north and west, we have a range of four to five stories. It gets a little lower as you go to the south. As mentioned, the existing zoning is Character District 5 downtown, which allows five stories by right, and it is also possible to request two additional stories through alternative compliance.

And that is the request we have for us tonight. As mentioned, this neighborhood, the face of the neighborhood is changing somewhat with the approval of alternative compliance for seven stories at a site to the north and a site to the east. I will note that there were some conditions attached to those alternative compliance approvals. For example, to the east on the sister property, there was the allocation of a pedestrian plaza at the Pat Garrison And Comanche Street Intersection. And, additionally, there were some facade improvements along North Comanche Street.

The criteria, used to assess this request are from section three four I'm sorry. Four three four six, which deals with the exact request we're talking about, a height alternative compliance. When we take a look at the criteria of this section, we do see that, for example, the first criterion is partially met. So when we take a look at the comprehensive plan and the downtown master plan, we see that the site is within a somewhat favorable preferred scenario type. The mixed use medium place type kind of envisions a mid to high density area with a mix of shopping, employment, residences, and buildings anywhere from two to seven stories tall.

The downtown plan also views this as a a center with uses that build off of each other. However, as we move into the requirements dealing with certain amenities or certain services being offered within the building, it we begin to take a look at things that could be included in the building to help make those second those two additional stories have an impact for the community. We see things that could be included within those two stories that could be positive for the neighborhood. When we take a look at the provision of affordable housing, workforce housing, these are not being proposed by the developer. Professional space and commercial space are not being proposed on the 1st Floor.

Continue. The building is not proposed to be LEED certified. In terms of childcare, I know the applicant mentioned that there was the possibility of a child care service. However, it was not indicated exactly how this would be done. In terms of providing public parking, this is dependent on the the total amount of parking and the ability of the development to meet the needs of residents.

So we did not have a decisive answer on that. Additionally, no open space is proposed, And there might be a few more. So as we look at the design manual, which is a key part of originally, when staff looked at this, this was a really pivotal part of the recommendation. It still is because the design manual is a tool which provides different areas of downtown and different recommendations for the urban form of those areas. So in this case, there is not a favorable recommendation for seven stories in the downtown core design context.

We'll take a deeper look at that on a future slide. However, staff is also acknowledging that this part of town looks different than it used to. We are seeing taller buildings than we did before and a seven story building that matches the height of its neighbor would not be out of place in the same way that it would have been five years ago. And then finally, in terms of architectural elements, this is met this is met just by the fact that the development will meet development code standards for activation. And additionally, the applicant has proposed a condition for a townhome style facade along Comanche Street, which will mirror the facade of the adjacent development.

When we refer to the downtown area plan, we can see a number of intersections that are called out. So among the recommendations of the downtown area plan, some intersections are flagged as downtown gateways, which are viewed as significant intersections that create a sense of place. In terms of the Pat Garrison Street and Comanche Street intersection, this is designated as a pedestrian gateway, so you can see it called out on the map on the right. And specifically, the goal of these downtown gateways is to create vehicular multimodal and pedestrian gateways into downtown to provide an arrival experience and increased sense of place. We will also look at the parkland recommendations of the downtown plan.

According to the the parkland portion of the downtown plan, this property is located within a swath of downtown where a park is envisioned. And one of the recommendations, we can see on the slide, is to study the potential for new parks throughout downtown to serve the density of residents in Northwest Downtown. Here we see here as we explore the design manual further, we can see the site called out. And as the site is shown on the map, it is within the downtown core design context. And as we can see, we have a further description.

So this is from table 1.1 and provides a recommendation on height specific to this design context. So for the downtown core, regarding additional height in the third layer, No additional height adjacent to the downtown historic district. Additional height may be considered where it will not obscure key views, but additional height above five stories is discouraged in this design context. Here we can see rendering submitted by the applicant. So we have a view from the South.

The perspective is from Hutchison Street. We also we have a view from the Northeast showing the proposed pedestrian plaza. So consistent with that designation as a pedestrian gateway, there will be a recessed corner which will include amenities such as benches, lighting, charging stations, you know, minor landscaping. And this is illustrated in the Northeast corner of the site. Here we can see a view facing the building from Comanche Street and that town's home style embellishment.

And as we move into the recommendation, I'll mention once again that notice was mailed consistent with state law. We did receive one response in opposition, and the basis of that response, it came from a nearby resident who was concerned about the proposed scale and the effect on, the ability of light to get into her home. So in light of all of these, in light of all of these factors, staff recommends denial and proposed conditions in the event approval are listed here. The development shall comply with the activation and varied massing standards described in chapter four divisions four and five of the land development code. The development shall include an enhanced pedestrian gateway in the form of a publicly accessible plaza at the intersection of Pat Garrison Street and North Comanche Street.

The plaza will incorporate amenities including bike pump station, water bottle refill station, benches, lighting, and shade canopy. The building facade facing North Comanche Street shall incorporate horizontal and vertical expression elements within the first three floors, including cornices, material changes, horizontal bands, vertical wall offsets, and recessed entrances that are visually similar to the perspective views attached as exhibit b. Fourth, the height of the building shall not exceed 75 feet. And finally, the development shall comply with all other development code regulations. Packet materials are provided for informational purposes only.

That is staff's presentation. We're here for questions, and the applicant is here as well.

Would the applicant like to speak in favor of your permit? Alright.

Kelly, Quinn, 325 Comanche. I'll try to keep this a little bit shorter. Again, for the alternative compliance, I am not asking for more height. 75 feet if it's approved, 75 feet if it's not approved. I'm asking for alternative compliance to take two mezzanine levels, make them two full levels to provide additional 80 parking spots.

I know we talked talked a lot about the parking. One thing that I will note as far as the parking is you have to remember that a lot of our tenants, actually almost all of them, will likely come from the dorms. They're not used to having cars. They own less than half of the kids freshmen at Texas State can bring their car. So, when they come to us, they're already used to not having a car with them, which is why the parking of 180 makes sense for our development. As far as the height, again, not asking for more height, but just to throw it out there, I am the same height as all of my neighbors, and in fact, I actually look lower than Cypress because of the grade change. My building will be about 10 feet lower than Cypress, which is the apartment building directly to my north. That's all I have. I'm around for questions. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, can I just say something?

Yes, ma'am.

I have to correct what I said earlier. You are voting to make a recommendation to counsel on this one. This is one of the alternative compliance items that counsel gets to decide.

Okay. Thank you for the clarification. Anyone else from the applicant like to speak?

Just to address part of the recommendation of staff relating to the downtown master plan. The corner of Pat Garrison And Comanche is shown in the master plan as a gateway into the downtown area. There was recommended that there be a feature or some type of acknowledgment of coming into the downtown area at that location. 202 Hutch, which is a project approved last year, did a plaza on that same corner with amenities, water, bike racks, benches, those kinds of things. And this project will mirror plaza on the other side of Comanche.

So that function as a gateway into the downtown area. The facilities can be discussed and modified to make that appropriate to what everyone's looking for. But the facilities will be there for a type of downtown gateway type of improvement. But just wanted to add that as an effort to address that recommendation of the plan.

Thank you, Mr. Terrio. Do we have anybody online that wishes to speak? Miss Mattingly?

Yes. Thank you. Again, Shannon Mattingly, Joyner Group, 2705 just a couple of quick points. I know we've talked a lot of this to death tonight, but, again, 75 feet now, 75 feet in the future. There's no additional height from what they can currently do.

The whole reasoning for this request is to be able to park it better than we can under the current zoning. And so I know there's been a lot of conversation about parking, and, you know, that's why they want the additional stories, and, that's why it's important to them to get this request. They can't build the project. Otherwise, the way we're talking about it currently with all of the amenities and with all of the additional parking, if it's only, the 75 feet and five stories, they need that additional story to get that additional parking so that it's a better project better product for the community, allows more parking for the students who are living there that do choose to bring their car. And with that, any questions if you have them.

Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else online wish to speak? We will close public hearing. Come on, guys. I will motion to approve the potential status conditions as presented.

I'll second that.

We got a motion approved by Commissioner Case, second by Commissioner Costilla. Any further discussion on this item?

Yes. Commissioner Agnew?

Yeah, there's a specific section of the land development code, you know, that deals with granting approval for additional height. And we have the 10 criteria in the presentation. And of those 10 criteria, six of them are not going to be met by the applicant. One apparently is, although I think they don't have much choice but to meet it. And then there's three that are shown as partially met.

But if I read them, that seems to be a pretty generous interpretation of where that stands. And in a couple of cases, I think relies on faith that they may ultimately come around on certain things. And but those are our criteria. They're basically not meeting them. And when you talk feet versus stories all you want, but I mean what's in our land development code is based on stories. And that's so I think we follow the criteria for that and they're not meeting them. So I mean, I think this is largely why I voted to deny the first phase one, and it's no different here. So I'll probably vote to deny this one too. Okay.

Would you like to

You know, just a point of clarification, we're not requesting more height. CD five d permits a building up to 75 feet tall. We've provided an exhibit that shows you how we would achieve 75 feet by using five structured floors and two mezzanine levels. The look of the building is not going to change. Again, we're just asking to repurpose and use the interior in a more efficient manner to provide more parking.

Regarding the other conditions, and if staff can correct me if I'm wrong, but we don't necessarily have to meet every condition in order to be granted approval. And of those that we can meet, we have strived to meet. And I will call attention to the fact that we could have installed a day care facility in the 202 Building, but city council asked that we not do that to create a competitive situation for our neighbor right across the street. We could have added office and additional retail into the Ground Level Of 202, but council asked us. Please don't do that. We do not want additional vacant space sitting. There is plenty of retail elsewhere in the city. Those are just two that come to mind quickly. Happy to address more. I would add just a few more on there.

Could you repeat that last part? Did you say the council asked you not to put a daycare because there's a competitor across the street?

Because of the church that provides a pretty substantial daycare center right across the street.

Thank you.

That's very helpful. I appreciate it.

Yeah. So it was all possible, but we opted to not show that or do that. So thereby, we would have met the condition.

Chair, I have a question for the applicant. So there's four different levels of LEED certification. There's certified silver, gold, platinum. And I know under criteria for approval that you have not met, you're not meeting the silver level. But are you meeting the certified level?

This I

think 40 points or higher?

Likely not.

Is there a particular reason that being LEED certified was not a priority?

Personal belief, LEED certification requires an additional fee to be paid every year. And in order to do that, we would have to pass that on to our residents like some of the other properties do in the market. We do enough that we're at that level without requiring the certification without passing additional costs and expenses onto the residents.

Okay. I also had a question for staff.

Yes, ma'am.

Staff, I noticed in one of criteria you suggested was the public plaza, but there was no square footage requirement for that that public plaza. Is that something that in this request we can require as a minimum square footage?

Yes, ma'am. You can. Okay.

That's correct. And I think we would probably draw that square footage from so their plot is in process, and, the Parkland fee, there has at least been some discussion about it. And, we have a form that contains the acreage required and then a little bit of a deduction because of the size of the plaza. So we do know the size of the plaza and can put it in that condition.

Okay. Chair, with that in mind, I'd like to move to amend specifically the condition regarding the plaza to meet the minimum square footage as presented by the applicant in their original application and shown in their original rendering or greater.

We able to add

that to the slide?

Could could I add something really quick, chair case?

One second, miss Mattingly, One second.

Okay. Thank you.

Can we add that amendment?

There's a second.

Okay. We we have a motion on the table. Do we have a second? Seconded by commissioner Van Odekirke? And we now have discussion on this item. Would we like to have miss Mattingly speak, or does anybody have any other further questions?

She can go ahead.

Okay. Miss Mattingly, please go.

Thank you very much. I apologize for interrupting. I just wanted to note that the, Parkland dedication fees have actually already been paid, and all of that has already been submitted and approved just along with the plot.

And Steph can follow-up on that. Thanks.

And just the reason I made that was to make sure that, you know, two years later when they're building this, they don't just have, you know, a little rinky dink piece of shade and a water filling station and say, hey. We met the requirements as written. So just that there's a minimum square footage that matches their rendering. Okay.

We have a first and a second. Do we have further discussion on this

item? On the amendment.

On the amendment. I apologize.

Yes. Chair, can I just clarify? Is the amendment just a generic statement that says that it should match I just want to get the wording right. It should match what was included within their was submitted as part of their plat application. Or miss Johnson, if you wanna clarify

for their original application Mhmm. And specifically their original rendering that they submitted, which I guess would be a part of the Platt application or greater. It can always be a greater square footage.

Because the rendering doesn't specific number, I would maybe suggest we tie it to the plat number. And if that's the recommendation, then at the council level, we can specify that specifically. And then we can add the the maximum or greater

Changing that to the specific plat application square footage rather than the rendering. That's okay with my secondary.

Works for me.