Developer outlines 7‑story student housing plan for South University, seeks rezoning and alley solution

Core Spaces, a national developer of university‑anchored housing, told the Fayetteville City Planning Commission in a special meeting that it is the contract purchaser of a split‑zoned site at South University and is proposing a seven‑story, 281‑unit multifamily building there.

Core Spaces representative Andrew Savoy said the project would total 736 bedrooms with 482 parking spaces under current code, and that the team expects to request rezoning of all parcels in the site to Main Street Center (MSC) from their current Downtown General (DG) and RMF‑40 designations. Savoy said the developer is also seeking to resolve an alley that runs through the site—either by vacating it or by pursuing a licensed encroachment that would allow construction to span the alley.

Commissioners and staff raised several technical and policy questions. The site has about a 60‑foot grade change and a constrained alley that Savoy said includes a roughly 14‑foot vertical change in a 20‑foot span and several encroachments. The property also contains high‑voltage transmission lines that the team said require a 25‑foot construction setback, and several large, high‑priority trees adjacent to the Putman House that the developer said it is trying to preserve. "This is probably one of the more complicated sites I've ever worked on," Savoy told commissioners.

Why it matters: The rezoning and alley request would change allowable height and form and could remove an existing block connection. Commissioners said the site sits in an area where long‑term residents live near student housing, and several asked the developer to consider reserving some nonstudent, market‑rate units or townhome‑type units to reduce displacement pressure.

The developer’s plan and technical issues

Savoy presented early massing and site plans showing stepped floor plates up the hill, subterranean parking, an internal courtyard and a roof amenity deck with views toward downtown. The team described options for a shared loading area off University Avenue to avoid removing mature trees along the southern property line. "We have…set our building back so we don't impact those trees at all," Savoy said when asked about the plan to protect the three trees on the lower left of the site diagram.

Civil engineer James Dibble explained the stormwater approach: the project team would evaluate existing conditions, provide underground detention sized to meet the city's drainage criteria and route runoff into the city's right of way so there is, in Dibble's words, "no adverse impact to the downstream neighbors" compared with preconstruction flows. Commissioners pressed that the intersection and adjacent parking areas already show chronic erosion and standing water; one commissioner said those conditions could require off‑site improvements if engineering determines the development would worsen existing problems.

Alley vacation versus bridging the alley

The developer and staff discussed two paths: a traditional alley vacation (which would substitute a replacement right of way elsewhere) or pursuing a permanent encroachment/license to span the alley. Staff member Jesse (planning staff, Fayetteville City) and others said a licensed encroachment would likely require coordination with public works, utilities and the fire department and might be precedent‑setting for Fayetteville. Staff described existing city processes for easements and encroachments and noted that some encroachments are covered under downtown design standards, but that a full structure spanning a public right of way would require additional legal and technical review. "It would probably require some form of public works approval, maybe even City Council authorization," Jesse said.

Commissioners’ concerns and requests for more information

Commissioner Madden said the commission needs a better sense of how much student housing is already in the pipeline and how this project would fit within broader city planning goals. Several commissioners sought more detail on:

- Drainage and whether onsite measures would create downstream impacts or require broader intersection upgrades; staff and the engineer said detailed design would determine required off‑site work. - Tree preservation: which trees can be saved under each configuration and how root zones would be protected. Savoy said three of the five prominent trees along Center Street would be preserved under the current scheme. - Parking and code changes: the proposal meets the developer’s understanding of current parking ratios (482 spaces) but the team acknowledged the city is considering parking reductions that could change requirements. - Housing mix and displacement: commissioners asked whether the developer would voluntarily include market‑rate or multifamily units with separate entrances so nonstudent households could live there; Savoy said Core Spaces has used that approach on other projects and would consider it here.

Next steps and schedule

The developer submitted a technical plat showing the full alley vacation scheme and said the rezoning and alley item are scheduled to return to the commission on a later hearing date (the team referenced the meeting date it expects to return). Staff told the applicant to provide the alternative bridging concept to allow public works, utilities and fire to evaluate both schemes. Staff described the commission’s standard practice for repeated tabling: after multiple continuances the item can be tabled indefinitely and require renotification before returning, and applicants may withdraw instead of allowing indefinite tabling.

No formal action was taken at the special meeting; the discussion produced staff direction to coordinate technical review of a bridging/encroachment scheme and for the developer to provide supplemental materials, including the ordinance and conditions of approval referenced from a nearby redevelopment as precedent. Savoy said the team is aiming to start construction about a year from now, contingent on approvals.

Ending

The planning commission meeting closed with staff and the developer agreeing to follow up with engineering, fire and public works reviews and for the development team to supply additional materials and design options. Commissioners emphasized they want more technical detail on drainage, a clearer plan for tree protection and consideration of some market‑rate housing in the final proposal.