Overall sentiment is mixed: reviews include strong praise for location, community, and many apartment features, but also numerous and serious complaints about management, maintenance, and cleanliness. Several reviewers describe a positive living experience — calling the property safe, convenient, and community-oriented — while others describe frustrating operational issues that materially affect daily life.
Facilities and location are frequent highlights. Multiple reviewers emphasize the convenient location across from groceries, restaurants, and shopping, and note that the facility is newer and locally owned. In-unit washers and dryers are appreciated, there is a pet-friendly policy, and the complex offers attractive outdoor amenities (a water feature and bridge) that contribute to a sense of community and pleasant common spaces. Organized activities such as a book club and general friendliness and diversity among residents are repeatedly mentioned as strengths, and several reviewers explicitly state they would recommend the property and are very happy with their apartments.
However, management and staff performance appear to be a major dividing line among reviewers. Some residents praise management and helpful staff, but other reviews portray staff as unprofessional or unfriendly and even suggest staff may be connected to ownership, raising concerns about conflicts of interest or lack of accountability. There are explicit accusations of "horrible management," after-hours noise issues, and disputes over security deposits with complaints about lack of itemized deductions. These management and communication concerns are recurring and significant for prospective residents to consider.
Maintenance and cleanliness are recurring negative themes. Multiple reviewers report dirty units that required cleaning upon move-in, ongoing maintenance problems, and pest issues — specifically ants around the common coffee counter. The elevator reportedly breaks down frequently, forcing residents (including those for whom stairs are a burden) to walk or use stairs; this is a safety and accessibility concern, especially for older adults or those with mobility limitations. The combination of elevator unreliability and reported maintenance shortcomings increases the potential impact on elderly residents and those with mobility needs.
Policy enforcement also appears inconsistent. The community has a no-smoking policy, but several reviewers note that smoking still occurs and is a nuisance. At the same time the pet-friendly policy is noted positively. Financial concerns come up: while many describe the property as affordable, other reviewers report price increases and express worry about displacement of elderly residents. There are also specific complaints about security deposit handling and a lack of transparent itemization of charges, indicating administrative or trust issues between residents and management.
In summary, Residences at University Hills has strong positives — a convenient, newer property with in-unit laundry, pet-friendly rules, a sense of community, and attractive outdoor spaces. Yet there are consistent and substantive negatives around management responsiveness, staff professionalism (with conflicting reports), cleanliness and pest control, elevator reliability, and administrative transparency (deposits and pricing). Prospective residents should weigh the appealing location and community features against these operational and management concerns. Practical next steps before deciding would include an in-person tour, a careful inspection of unit cleanliness, questions about elevator maintenance history and pest-control protocols, clarification of deposit and fee itemization, confirmation of current pricing policy and any planned increases, and asking how the property enforces its no-smoking policy.
