Built in 2006, the 138 unit, 450 bed student housing property is a tenant-in-common property with 23 co-owners and is comprised of 177,054 square feet of net rentable area. Located at 3904 South Providence Road, the property is situated on 918 acres and consists of 9 three-story residential buildings and a single-story central clubhouse. The property has an onsite leasing office as well as management and maintenance staffs.

Each student apartment unit is fully-furnished with a plasma TV, washer and dryer and a complete kitchen appliance package. Common areas feature a resort-style swimming pool and Jacuzzi, tanning salon, pool table/game room, sand volleyball court, BBQ areas, 24/7 fitness center, Internet cafe’, computer lab and reserved carports.

“The property’s co-owners have recognized NAS’ successful track record of maximizing property value through an unbiased, objective and transparent approach to managing commercial real estate,” commented Karen E. Kennedy, President and Founder of National Asset Services. “The addition to our portfolio of this Class-A student housing property located near such a prestigious university is the direct result of our asset management team’s nationwide reputation for producing the best possible outcomes and maximum returns for investors.”

The plot of roughly 23 acres of riverfront property is one of the last undeveloped tracts of land along the San Marcos River in the city. Soon, it could have 300 top-of-the-line student apartments.

“This property is very unique in the river access, but it’s also close to downtown to the interstate. It’s consistent with the future land-use plan,” Dave Mulkey with Dovetail Development said.

The land is currently zoned for future development and the city’s master plan recommends most of the land be used for multi-family construction.

Regardless, zoning for apartments has become a divisive issue in the city and for neighbors of the property.

“We know eventually something is going to happen with it, but the timing’s hard,” neighbor Angie Ramirez said. “This is a really contentious issue right now.”

There are already apartment buildings along River Road, but neighbors say a larger scale, student-focused project could change the character of their neighborhood.

“A lot of the neighbors have some fear that this will be seen as a student area and then it just sort of spreads and then it ceases to become a family neighborhood,” Ramirez said.

Other residents are concerned about the potential effects the apartments could have on the river.
The developer says the buildings would be built away from the water, on land that is currently an empty field. The area around the river would remain in its natural state and would include trails that would tie into the city’s parks system.

“The fact that we wanted to do a class ‘A’ project close to town in a picturesque setting, this fits the bill in every category,” Mulkey said.

Developers say the plans are still preliminary and they are working with neighbors and other stakeholders to make sure the project addresses their concerns.

An official request for a zoning change will be presented to the city’s Planning and Zoning Commission later this month. The city council would have to approve and zoning changes.

Campus Crest Development of Raleigh, N.C., is seeking rezoning of six lots, located at the corner of Summit Road and Cline Road, from low-density residential to multi-family residential to allow for the construction of “upscale student housing.”

A drawing of the proposed complex, The Grove at Kent, shows 13 buildings on the site, which is located east of S.R. 261.
Franklin Township Administrator Ken Penix said residents will get their first chance to discuss the project at a Zoning Commission meeting 7 p.m. Thursday, May 24, in Franklin Township Hall on Gougler Avenue in Kent.

In its proposal to Franklin Township, the developer contends the re-zoning “is not a radical change,” noting the property sits across the street from Dix Stadium’s parking lot, and its closest neighbor on the west is the Portage Area Regional Transportation Authority’s headquarters and garage.

“This is right where it (student housing) should be rather than creeping into the neighborhood,” Campus Crest officials wrote in their proposal. The land is mostly vacant..

Of the six properties the developer is seeking to re-zone, four are owned by University Retirement Centers, Ltd. and two are owned by Kent State University.

Campus Crest Development has an option to buy the properties owned by University Retirement Centers, a partnership between Warren L. Wolfson and Charles W. Keiper II, if the zoning change is approved. Keiper is a former Portage County commissioner.

Keiper said University Retirement Centers formed in 1995 for the purpose of building a senior housing complex across from Dix Stadium, a project that never came to fruition.

He said the corporation has “an exclusive right to purchase” the 3.5 acres KSU owns on the site of the proposed apartment buildings, which they plan to transfer to Campus Crest Development if the sale goes through.

Keiper, Wolfson and Gregg Floyd, KSU vice president for finance and administration, signed off on documents stating they had no objection to the proposed zoning change.

Keiper said he did not believe University Retirement Centers will need to seek KSU’s approval to transfer the right to purchase KSU’s property to Campus Crest Development.

Campus Crest also stated in its proposal for the apartments, which would sit on Brimfield’s northern border, that the company planned to purchase “five-plus acres” in Brimfield Township to “supplement” the project. Whether they would build a portion of the complex in Brimfield is unclear.

Brimfield Zoning Inspector Dick Messner said no one from Campus Crest Development has contacted his office.

Usually, Franklin Township Zoning Commission meets to receive the proposal from the applicant, hear public comment and a get a recommendation from the Portage County Regional Planning Commission, using that information to make a recommendation to either approve of deny the new zoning to the township’s Board of Zoning Appeal.

“Student Housing’s Freshest Faces” presented relative newcomers to the student housing sector. All agreed that the sector is attractive because of potential returns and that working in student housing requires more patience and preparation than working with multifamily properties. Nor did the panelists dive into student housing development and ownership without adequate preparation.

“We didn’t necessarily wake up one day and say we want 5,000 beds,” said Rick Perdue, director of acquisitions and development with Tonti Properties. “This was a long-term process.”

Perdue and panelist Billy Ruvelson, principal with the Icon Co., also pointed out the differences between developing and owning student housing and multifamily properties. For one thing, timely delivery of student housing essential, Ruvelson explained. “It’s all about on-time delivery,” he added. “It’s like being late to a cruise – if you miss it, forget it.”

Also present on the panel was CW Capital LLC associate Matthew Wallach, who pointed out that those interesting in working within the student housing sector should  have more than one lender on the roster – debt diversification is effective in this field. Wallach also offered the tidbit that, when it comes to equity sources, “they don’t see much difference between student housing or multifamily properties.”

Speaking of financial information, the panelists noted that priorities are different when it comes to resource allocation. In multifamily properties, financial and other resources are, more often than not, poured into the units. Not so with student housing, Perdue said, where amenities such as swimming pools, fitness clubs, study lounges and bathrooms are important. Adding to the complexity of resource diversification, student wants can differ from campus to campus, Perdue added.

The college student panelists participating in the “Are You Smarter than the Student Housing Professional” would have agreed with Perdue about different campuses and different requirements. The panel, moderated by Greystar’s senior regional property manager Jennifer Roden, introduced student perception on topics ranging from parent input on leasing decision (in most cases, parents DO have a definite impact in this area); to green initiatives (the students like them, but don’t want to have to pay extra for them); to signing leases online (the students prefer a one-on-one relationship when it comes to signing that first-time lease and don’t particularly care for the door-to-door leasing renewal method).

One interesting topic was that of a property’s proximity to campus. Conventional wisdom says that student housing properties need to be very close to campus to be effective (or at least, need to be close to a bus or shuttle line). Moderator Roden pointed out that, in a survey among students, 52% of those polled said, perhaps predictably, that they would be okay living in a B property with few amenities, so long as it was on campus. But she acknowledged that what astonished her was that 47% of those polled said they wouldn’t have a problem living on a class A property with plenty of amenities, even if that property was two or three miles away from campus.

The student panelists’ responses to proximity varied as well. Kayla Butler, a student at UCLA, was emphatic that her housing needed to be adjacent to, if not right on, campus. “One mile from campus is pushing it,” said Butler, who explained that, during her sophomore year, she lived two miles off campus. Because driving in Westwood (the home of UCLA) is almost impossible, “that was a nightmare,” Butler said. “I swore I’d never do that again.”

Krista Graff, who attends the University of Minnesota, agreed that her housing needed to be adjacent to campus, if not on campus itself. Though Duluth, MN doesn’t have the same traffic issues as does Westwood, CA, weather is a huge factor. “Waiting for a bus in the winter isn’t much fun,” Graff pointed out.

On the opposite side of the discussion were Brendon Vickery, who attends University of Texas in Austin and Andrew Bates, a student at Denton, TX-based University of North Texas. Both indicated that shuttles were okay, but also pointed out that the housing needed to be fairly close to campus; no more than a 10-minute drive or shuttle ride. And all the students agreed they’d rather have their housing closer to campus than closer to entertainment or bars.

The students’ comments underscored something Perdue mentioned during his session. “Things differ from campus to campus,” he noted.

SOURCE:  Globe Street Amy Sorter

Built in 2004, The Element is a class-A dedicated student-housing community whose common-area amenities include a pool, spa, sand-volleyball court, covered basketball area and recreation building. The property is surrounded by shops and restaurants, is located approximately one mile from the Cal State-Sacramento campus and offers free shuttle serviced to the university.  “This transaction provides a long-term financing vehicle at an attractive rate, which will complement the strong operational performance at The Element,” says Brian Eby, director of transactions of financing with Henderson Global Investors. “It is also consistent with Henderson’s strategy of owning high-quality, by-the-bed student housing assets at preferred universities.”

The student housing development activity is driven by a number of factors in addition to the obvious supply-demand dynamic within the industry, according to Jamie Wilhelm, executive vice president of public-private transactions for American Campus Communities Inc. (ACC). He says higher education budget constraints, coupled with lengthy procurement and contracting processes, compel state-supported universities and colleges to seek out third-party development partners. Student housing REITs are involved with these schools to develop on-campus and off-campus housing.

ACC has largest development pipeline of all three student housing REITs, which makes sense given the fact that it’s also the largest and oldest REIT in the space. It has $593.4 million in owned development projects currently under construction with deliveries scheduled this fall and in 2013.

The developments are all core class-A assets close to campuses in their respective markets and on track to meet previously announced development yields in the range of 7 to 8 percent. ACC’s 11 new owned development projects scheduled to open this fall, which represent an investment of $385.4 million, are preleased at an average of 76.3 percent for the upcoming academic year as of April 20, 2012. Six of those assets leased above 90 percent.

Among ACC’s most impressive projects scheduled to deliver in 2013 is the development on the Drexel University campus in Philadelphia. The $97.6 million development, which consists of 361,200 sq. ft. of mixed-use student housing and retail space, was structured via American Campus’s American Campus Equity (ACE) program under which the company will develop, own and manage the project through a 70-year ground lease making annual rent payments to Drexel.

Designed by Robert A.M. Stern Architects, the development will include two eight-story buildings that front Chestnut Street while maintaining an open entry corridor to the adjacent Creese Student Center. The broad use of glass at the street level combined with limestone will continue Drexel’s progress toward creating a pedestrian-friendly, mixed-use campus district enlivened by retail amenities.

The building design will also include a 19-story residential tower at the corner of Chestnut and 32nd streets. The two-story street-level space will include retail outlets, neighborhood restaurants, and a new corner entry into the Barnes and Noble—activating student life in an urban setting. Upper floors feature student apartments with both shared and private accommodation options.

In addition to ACC, Education Realty Trust (EdR) and Campus Crest Communities Inc. both are working with universities and developing new projects. Nashville-based EdR, for example, is in discussions with the University of Kentucky to completely revamp the school’s student housing portfolio. The entire industry is buzzing about the implications this one deal might have on other projects.

Last month, EdR On April 17th EdR broke ground on New Central Residence Hall, the first building in a multi-phase project aimed at revitalizing University of Kentucky’s on-campus housing. This first building, which EdR will own under a long-term ground-lease, is designed as a 601-bed, living-learning community with classrooms and meeting space.

This $25.8 million project is being financed through EdR’s On-Campus Equity Plan, which uses the company’s equity and financial stability to fund projects on university-owned land.

Phase II, which has not been formalized, involves EdR assuming management responsibility for the university’s 6,000-bed housing portfolio. Phase II also envisions the systematic demolition and replacement of the majority of the existing on-campus housing as well as its expansion to approximately 9,000 beds over the next five to seven years. In support of Phase II, the Kentucky legislature recently authorized the next $175 million for 2014 and 2015 deliverables in this public-private partnership.

Meanwhile, Charlotte, N.C.-based Campus Crest has six new student housing properties under development, three of which are wholly owned by the REIT and three of which are owned by a joint venture. The six projects have a price tag of nearly $157 million.

The REIT says it has identified more than 200 markets and approximately 80 specific sites within these markets as potential future development opportunities. Its current business plan contemplates the development of approximately five to seven new student housing properties per year.

Breckenridge Land Acquisition LP of Austin, Texas, has proposed a combination of single-family homes, duplexes and row houses on 31 acres east of North College Avenue and south of Conifer Street.

The single-family homes will be zoned as extra-occupancy rental houses to allow more than three unrelated people to live in the units, as required by the city’s three-unrelated ordinance.

The project would total 712 bedrooms, all leased individually and tailored to CSU students.

Neighbors say 712 students and their vehicles would overrun the area of about 235 single-family homes, bringing too many cars to roads not equipped to deal with them.

It also puts too many students right next to Old Town and the city’s many breweries and bars, said Bob Lamar, who lives east of the proposed site.

Neighbors in The Meadows at Redwood subdivision fear trash and damage to the area behind their homes that would abut the property, Lamar said. “It just seems to me they’re trying to build in an area that’s not feasible.”

Officials from Breckenridge Land Acquisition did not return phone calls seeking comment.

Aspen Heights would be the first student housing project formally proposed in north Fort Collins and the first large-scale development specifically designed to include single-family homes with individually leased bedrooms.

The project, which includes 221 units on 31 acres, is located south of Conifer Street, west of Redwood Street and north of the Old Town North subdivision.

The long-awaited realignment of Vine Drive would skirt the southern border. If the plan is approved, Blue Spruce Drive and Lupine Drive would also be extended to serve the site.

The owners of Aspen Heights would be responsible for building a portion of Vine Drive as a condition of approval, but the road would not build out to North College Avenue, said Rick Richter, interim city engineer.

“The connection to North College is dependent on development,” he said, and would not be completed until parcels between the road and the Aspen Heights site are developed.

Mike Bello, who owns property in Old Town North just south of Aspen Heights, said north Fort Collins needs more businesses and single-family homes, not student housing located several miles from campus.

“The fact is that this is pretty far from CSU,” he said.

With several thousand student-beds on the drawing board closer to campus, the North College location will be too far out to draw students, said Bello, who is also a member of the North Fort Collins Business Association.

“If this is going to be one that is not quite as convenient for students to rent, what happens to it if it’s not successful?” he said. “It will bring blight to the area, and that’s the last thing we need right now.”

North College Avenue is experiencing a renaissance of sorts with improvements to the road built through the city’s Building on Basics, or BOB, tax initiative approved by voters in 2005 and the opening of the King Soopers-anchored North College Marketplace last year.

“We’ve been dying for such a long time to have activity up there that anything happening gets people excited,” Bello said. “But that is a short view perspective.

“If we could hold out a little longer and give BOB the chance to show itself, and we make improvements along North College and dress this part of town up, it will grow more maturely and appropriately.”

The Construction manager for the 135,000 square foot residence is Walsh Brothers; ADD Inc. is the project architect. The Massachusetts State College Building Authority (MSCBA) is funding and overseeing the project.

When completed next year, the 5-story University Hall will accommodate 410 students in semi-suite apartment units. The new residence hall will be built with environment-friendly materials and mechanical systems that will provide significant energy and water savings.

The project is designed to meet the standards for a LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) Silver certification from the US Green Buildings Council.

Last fall, Westfield State University Board of Trustees formally voted to undertake projects with a total capital cost of $73.8 million – the largest capital commitment in the history of Westfield State. University Hall is the flagship project in this expansion program.

“You need to speak the same language as all the stakeholders involved with student housing,” commented Jamie Wilhelm, executive vice president/public-private transactions, American Campus Communities in the “Inside the P3 Decision” panel discussion.

Also required is a lot of patience. Noted David Adelman, Campus Apartments President in “The View from the Top” panel: “Doing on-campus deals moves glacially. And I’m being generous.” It isn’t the fault of the schools, he went on to say, but given the variety of stakeholders involved in the development process, any developer or partner needs to expect delays.

Panelists also pointed out that second- and third-tier university sites are being targeted by many developers and buyers. “View from the Top” panel participant Donna Preiss, Preiss Co. president pointed out that second- and third-tier schools offer a good opportunity for newer projects. Furthermore, in general, “it’s an incredible time to buy student housing,” noted Brian Dinerstein, president of the Dinerstein Cos. in “The View from the Top” panel.

Technology was also a huge issue that was bandied back and forth in the morning sessions. Panelists during “The Big Three Perspective” pointed out that today’s millennials are very sophisticated when it comes to technology.  As such, “the important thing is that students have access to all open market solutions,” remarked Bill Bayless, American Campus Communities’ CEO during the “Big Three Perspective” panel.