Seth Mims leads members of the Fayetteville City Council and area neighbors on a walking tour of a proposed student apartment complex Thursday across from the University of Arkansas campus near the intersection of Cleveland Street and Razorback Road.
Photo: Todd Gill, Flyer staff
The Fayetteville City Council will hear a second round of arguments both for and against Project Cleveland, a planned student housing project across the street from the University of Arkansas campus.
Seth Mims and Jeremy Hudson with Specialized Real Estate Group, the developers behind Eco Modern Flats and two other planned downtown apartment buildings (Eco Downtown and Sterling Frisco), are proposing a 122-unit complex at West Cleveland Street and North Hall Avenue.
Mims and Hudson are once again working with Portland-based real estate investor Robert Dant and Fayetteville architecture firm Modus Studio.
The 2.71-acre site is currently home to the 60-unit Bayyari Properties-owned Sunshine Place apartment complex across from a five-story university dorm and a Leverett Elementary School parking lot.
Proposal updated
Mayor Lioneld Jordan (right) listens as Seth Mims outlines plans for Project Cleveland while Modus Studio architect Chris Baribeau talks with Ward 4 Alderwoman Sarah Lewis.
Photo: Todd Gill
Before taking public comment during the council’s first official hearing of the project on June 5, city staff outlined several changes that have been made since the proposal was first presented.
Jeremy Pate, the city’s development services director, said the project originally included structures that staff and neighbors believed were too large and that didn’t provide adequate transition from the campus to the neighborhood.
After several meetings with both city planners and area residents, Pate said the developers scaled back their plans in hopes of gaining staff and neighborhood approval.
The five-story complex was lowered to two stories where it meets the neighborhood and although the south end of the building will remain five stories tall, it will be about 15 feet shorter than the UA dormitory across the street due to a difference in land elevation.
“This current proposal, we felt finally provided a transition that was appropriate with the multi-story student housing to the south and the single-family neighborhood to the north,” said Pate.
Mims said those weren’t the only changes made at the request of the neighbors.
“We have taken public comment very seriously and our proposal has changed dramatically,” said Mims who outlined a timeline which ultimately removed 100 units from the original plan. Mims said the 222-unit complex was lowered to 170 units and then again to 122 units after hearing multiple complaints that the development was too large.
Neighbors remain opposed
Ward 2 Alderman Mark Kinion (left) discusses Project Cleveland with Mims (right).
Photo: Todd Gill
Some neighbors, however, remain opposed to Project Cleveland for several reasons.
Rebecca Harrison, who walks her dog along Cleveland Street, said the project would be “too much” for the already established neighborhood. “We’ve already had Razorback Road widened and Garland Avenue widened,” she said. “I would be happy if it would just stay the way Mr. Bayyari had it.”
During a City Council tour of the area last week, Mims told council members he would address safety and frontage issues by replacing the deteriorating sidewalk with a new, eight-foot-wide sidewalk and by constructing a new curb and protected “climbing lane” for eastbound bicycle traffic from Sang Avenue to Razorback Road.
Other planned additions and traffic-calming items include raised intersections with embedded LED lighting, consolidation of two existing crossings near Leverett Elementary into newly constructed 10- and 24-foot-wide raised crosswalks, and, if approved by the city, prohibited left turns out of the complex onto Hall Avenue.
Mims said with rising attendance numbers at the university creating more apparent housing issues for those enrolled, student apartment construction is inevitable.
“The best place for that sort of housing is right next to campus,” he said. Being across the street from the university will encourage students to walk to class instead of driving which will create a safer situation for everyone, said Mims. “That is all very much in the spirit of Fayetteville,” he said.
Ken Gardner, who lives on Hall Avenue, questioned the motives of the developers.
“Do we believe the altruistic values of the developer to help the university find housing for their students or do we choose to believe this is driven to develop profits for a company in Oregon that has money behind this?”
Gardner said he’d likely sell his property to the university and move out of the neighborhood if the council approved the complex.
Traffic effects to be addressed
Pate said the most discussed item so far has centered around the effects the project would have on traffic in the area.
“Under no circumstances do we feel like traffic won’t be increased,” said Pate, “but it’s not as much as it would be if it were in another neighborhood.”
Modus Studio architect Chris Baribeau said two recently commissioned studies were provided to the city which projected minimal increases in traffic, mostly due to the site’s close proximity to campus which could reduce the chances of students driving to class.
Baribeau said traffic engineers would be available at this week’s council meeting to explain why they believe the area will see traffic increases of no larger than five percent during peak hours of the day.
Tuesday’s City Council meeting is set for 6 p.m. inside room 219 of Fayetteville City Hall.
It’s a no-brainer to put student housing near campus where they can walk to class and not contribute to the traffic in other parts of town. UA enrollment has grown by 10K in the past 10 years, and I wonder how many of those students are living out east of I-540 on Wedington and contributing to the horrible traffic.
An apartment complex in this neighborhood is going to change into a fancy “eco” apartment complex and a tiny little group of people is upset? Two FIELDS near my neighborhood became really ugly apartment complexes and I doubt those developers did anything “green.” Why does land near the UofA have to be placed in bubble wrap because it is “historic” while the rest of the town gets plowed under and pollution goes up because students drive in to class? Redeveloping land that has already been plowed up is a lot better for the environment that more urban sprawl.
For shame! A business trying to turn a profit AND work with the community to develop a plan that pleases everyone? Run them out of town!
Not in my backyard!!!!! Should this tiny contingent of neighbors win this battle then the u of a is going to swoop in and buy the property and the property of the gentleman quoted in the article. Then they will proceed in a good thorough lesson of “watch us build whatever we want, ha ha 10.” If this neighborhood isn’t careful they are going to get what they wish for, and that wish will come in the form of a 15 story university megaplex with no parking. Is that what you want!?!?! is it!?!?!
If not these developers, then who? It seems to me that we want to attract developers who work with sustainability and listen to neighbors and staff members. They’ve made changes to initial proposal to address concerns. As a current neighbor to Eco Modern Flats, I appreciate the curb appeal and the considerable effort and investment put into making those buildings LEED certified which is not easy, nor cheap. I graduated last year from U of A and found it healthier and quicker to walk to class than drive. It’s was too much of a hassle drive when you live this close.
And cheaper to walk. You forgot to mention it’s more than 500 dollars a year for students to get a general parking pass where the parking lots are miles away from their classes anyway.
I totally agree. This property WILL be developed eventually. The current apartment/student housing in that area is old/slummy and the UA needs housing options badly. They kicked a lot of people out of dorms just to house this year’s freshmen. Those students need some place to go.
As to the “Not in my neighborhood” attitude. It will be done by someone. It might as well be someone with a good track record like Eco Modern Flats who is willing to chop their development by 100 units just to please its neighbors. And, historically your property value is going to benefit from this.
I believe more of this type of housing is exactly
what Fayetteville is needing. My favorite part
is the project’s proximity to campus, allowing the
students who live there to walk to campus instead
of driving, benefitting all residents living in and around this area of the city.
I’m failing to see how this is a bad thing… The financier makes a profit, students get housing closer to campus (and ostensibly suited more toward their finances & housing needs), overall traffic in town gets reduced and much needed sidewalk repair is done.
this is not a bad thing if you are not one of the home owners on that street:) This is not a bad news if you are ready to pay 650 bucks monthly for a one bedroom apartment. I agree with all no one can stand in front of greed:) Mr.Bayyari is a good businessman, for sure.
better improvements next to their homes means that the home owners who live next to the development will experience a rise in the value of their property. The developers are going above and beyond to improve the neighborhood’s infrastructure, water and sewer lines and are doing a great job in making the area safer. What about this is bad? How is improving a neighborhood, making it a safer place to live, and providing a logical and safe location for residents to live a bad thing? Greed has nothing to do with anything. The potential for profit is only one of many factors as to why developers choose to do anything. Without that potential NOTHING would ever be built or improved.
I agree that this development will not be a bad thing for the people living in the neighborhood. Luckily for the residents living in the neighborhood, this will be a well designed and thoughtful development that will be tailored to its neighbors requirements in scale. It will attract desirable neighbors/tenants that have the ability to pay $650 a month for a one bedroom apartment. The people living in the surrounding neighborhood could not have expected to live so close to a university that has been there for over 100 years and not expect there to be change of some kind. This is change – well designed change – that happens to be inevitable in this location. If a homeowner does not like positive change to their neighborhood, then perhaps they should not live in a neighborhood at all so as to avoid all possibilities of future change. Hopefully, the university will continue to grow and encourage Fayetteville’s economy, and we will see more of this good change to come. Bravo.
Cities will never become more walkable–more liveable–without private investment. This investment, in particular, would improve pedestrian access and safety–with modern sidewalks, new lighting, and upgraded street crossings–not just for the folks who live nearby, but for elementary school students and for the crowds who pass through on game days. If the council turns down this proposal, it sends a message that a few vocal opponents can overpower innovation. And that it’s too much of a pain to propose anything but more of the same cookie cutter, sprawling apartment developments at the fringes of town.
That area will never be as peaceful again. That is the homeowners’ concern. There will be more people and more cars which called ” Eco-friendly development.” That is not good for the elementary school kids either. I understand people want to make more money by building luxury apartments for rich college kids but please do not sell it as a development. They close their ears when the people living in the neighborhood talk, and they repeat what the businessmen who will make money out of it have to say. This is ridiculous. Yes it is greed. If they cared about people they would listen to the homeowners and the parents first.
from what is said at City Council there has been a lot of listening. The development is just that, there is no other word for it. You can tell by the concessions that have been made on the developers part that they care about what they do in the neighborhood. Judging by what was done at Eco Modern Flats, I’d say the neighborhood would be so fortunate to have something like that built by them.
I agree that this development may change things in this neighborhood. But honestly, ask yourself, what is really wrong with this proposal (besides the same tired argument you state above)? Does the proposal adhere to City Code? YES! Does it thoughtfully embrace and transition into the existing neighborhood? YES! Does it provide safe housing for students? YES! Does it improve surrounding infrastructure and calm traffic? YES!
Will it make your property values go up? YUP!
Is it the smoker’s wall along Cleveland, the ratty rent houses, or the huge parking lot of the existing apartments that you wish to hold on to? I’m sure the developer would consider moving the smoker’s wall into your front yard, if that would make you happy.
Your questions and answers are one-sided. Do the home owners and parents of the kids attending the Elementary school approve it? NO
It provides housing for RICH students who can pay 650-700 dollars a month. It is not for the students it is to fill the pockets of the business men who think they can do anything with money.
It does not improve traffic with bringing more cars to the area:)
The homeowners do not care about the value of our properties. Just leave us alone. Go and make other people rich, if that is your concern.
“the ratty rent houses” that is how you guys view people who are not as rich as others?
This is the problem: GREED
Helen, please can you explain specifically WHY neighbors and (particularly) parents are against it. I think your argument about traffic is misguided, and the one-sided accusation is very pot-kettle-black sounding. Yes, there will be more cars parked there, but not regularly used as the students will walk to class. If they rent places outside the area, they will need to drive ‘through’ the neighborhood to get to campus, which I would think is much worse than having more cars permanently parked there.
What is it about ‘rich’ students that you don’t like? Are they worse neighbors than the poor ones that you argue for? Why should parents be particularly upset. Should ‘rich’ students be kept away from kids?
Your main argument seems to be not against the development, but against developers making money. Is this a correct interpretation?
and before you use your NIMBY argument, there is a similar development in my neighborhood (Maple and West).
You don’t have to be “rich” to afford $650 monthly rent. And what do you have against “rich” people, anyways?
NIMBY syndrome reigns supreme anytime the University Heights residents get involved
You are absolutely right. As long as it is “not in your backyard,” you can approve and support all the projects like this one.
This fits the framework and definition of infill development, approved by planning commission and council, with direct public involvement, some years ago in the Fayetteville master plan. I applaud the thoughtful discourse on all sides and look forward to seeing more Eco-Modern architecture instead of in the box traditional red brick apartments.
This is not a no-brainer as some of you have claimed. Indeed, it has more cons than pros for those in the neighborhood. And I don’t really believe it will increase value int he neighborhood. I do sympathize for those on the street who fear the increase of traffic and the large immigration of college-aged neighbors. However, for someone who lives in a neighborhood that has seen a couple of very undesirable developments in the past decade I will say that my reaction of the Cleveland project is not nearly as aversive. This type of project is thoroughly Fayetteville in so many way, and it is no surprise that there are so many who feel in favor of it. As do I.
Ultimately, you chose to live in a neighborhood bordering the campus. I find it impossible to believe that you did not at least once consider the possibility of some development related to the inevitable growth of the state’s flagship campus of higher institution. I feel for you. Its not going to make your neighborhood a more desirable place for someone to live. But this is the type of development Fayetteville has been vying for all these years. And I am for it.
Will it also be called “greed” when the UA develops that piece as a dorm if this doesn’t get approved?
Like the current administration is even going to listen……no vision….just a big rubber stamp.
Did you read the article? Huge changes (downsizing) were made based on the administration’s demands.
Sebastien wrote “Ultimately, you chose to live in a neighborhood bordering the campus. I find it impossible to believe that you did not at least once consider the possibility of some development related to the inevitable growth of the state’s flagship campus of higher institution.”
I say, this is pretty unfair. Most of the neighboring houses were built way before the word “flagship” was even used, back when the U of A was a small to medium sized university, there was no I-540, no regional airport, not so much commercial athletics, etc. There was reason to hope.
It’s also unfair because I can’t imagine (and you probably can’t either) any place in Fayetteville where some horror that will be excused as unavoidable, market-driven, better than something worse, etc. isn’t going to make you want to move out.
I’m not saying the eco-whatsis won’t be nice for students sharing rent, as long as it doesn’t get neglected and run-down. But the lofty tone of criticism directed at neighbors is really unjustified.
UA – Fayetteville has been the flagship campus since 1871, long before the houses in that neighborhood were built…
John Ruskin– Your response to Sebastien appears to be based on the assumption that all of the residents of University Heights have lived there since the houses were built. However, the ages of the homes in the neighborhood are probably irrelevant to the discussion, as people seldom live in one location for as long a time as you appear to claim. (The average family moves every seven years or so; homeowners tend to move less frequently.) Intensification of development near the neighborhood has been pretty apparent since 1964, when Hotz Hall was built– or 1967, when Reid Hall was built. Sunshine Place Apartments have been there for– what, thirty-five years or so? Enrollment at the University has gone up substantially every year for ten years now. The economy seems to dictate that more people will rent apartments rather than buy houses. Gasoline prices go up and up. I would be very surprised if most of the current residents of the neighborhood have not had plenty of warning that the area is likely to develop greater density.
David Franks writes – “Your response to Sebastien appears to be based on the assumption that all of the residents of University Heights have lived there since the houses were built. However…..”
– No, actually my response wasn’t based on the assumption that all the residents have been living in U.Heights since their houses were built. My response was a reaction to what I took to be castigation of those residents who have been, I agree, privileged to live in a pleasant area, of which there are fewer and fewer in Fayetteville. Anything that’s been here for over 50 years has got to be replaced or renovated into commercial space (Leverett school on the block now). And on the other end of this domino effect, we get west Fayetteville. We also have a university whose mantra (like the Chamber’s) is Growth and which, rather than anchoring or leading or nurturing, is devouring what used to be the town. At one time the university area had a significant number of faculty homes and homes of long-time residents. It was pleasantly walkable, for instance. How many older, settled areas are there in Fayetteville? I suppose you could say there aren’t many in the world these days. But it’s sad to see them go. Even if you frown on the fortunate who live there (complicit though they may be with wreckage elsewhere), the place itself, with its houses and its landscape, were there for future residents and for what we used to call a sense of place.
It is just so disingenuous, Helen, listening to some of the richest and most powerful people in town complain about “greedy developers” and “rich kids.” The argument just does not work coming from this neighborhood, and from people who have been happy to soak up profits from area growth and UofA growth for years now. Now they want the town to pass up privately-funded infrastructure, the city/school district and county to pass on ignore increases in tax revenue, AND they want us to pay for the stuff the developers are willing to pay for with public funds instead. Combine that with the increase in traffic all over Ward 4 so they can keep their neighborhood “peaceful” and this is not just a “neighborhood issue.”
Please come to city council tonight and voice your opinion. Council’s decision should be based on what’s good for the city at large and they need to hear everyone
The chances of Leverett Elementary existing as a school in 10 years is 0%. The long term plan for FPS does not include a Leverett Elementary. Demographic/geographic pressures and the realities of old infrastructure in modern education mean that schools like Leverett are on the chopping block. I spent 7 years there and walked past the site on my way home for 4 years. I think longer term thinking is in order, and denser student populations that concentrate students near campus and near to commerce that they frequent is a good thing.