Developers present 'Next Chapter' build‑to‑rent neighborhood next to Underwood Park; council leaves PZD on first reading

Developers presented a detailed plan Tuesday for a 49.2‑acre planned zoning district (PZD) adjacent to Underwood Park, emphasizing connectivity to the park and a market-rate build‑to‑rent product that the developer said would preserve open space and reduce overall by‑right density.

City staff described the site as largely undeveloped and noted a master‑street‑plan connection across Clabard Creek and planned public access through the property. The PZD packet before council would allow approximately 26.84 acres for residential single-family development at a maximum density of 5.618 units per acre and set aside roughly 22.36 acres for stormwater, green space and open space. Staff said one portion of the PZD remains under internal review for consistency and recommended leaving the item on first reading to finalize the PZD booklet.

Andrew Meltzer of Next Chapter Neighborhoods said the proposal is a market-rate, amenity-rich "build-to-rent" neighborhood of roughly 280–300 units (the company described the product as similar operationally to an apartment complex but organized to foster neighborhood connections). He told council the project represents a downzone from the approximately 500 units currently possible by-right and stressed planned sidewalk and trail connections to Underwood Park. Meltzer and staff said many internal streets would be private with public access easements and two public right-of-way connections would be dedicated to match the master street plan.

Council members and residents asked detailed questions about private versus public streets, whether private streets would be built to city standards (developer: yes), stormwater and floodplain management (developer: no variances requested; will meet Fayetteville stormwater standards), tree preservation (PZDs carry a 25% tree-preservation requirement), and compatibility with nearby smaller‑lot cottages. Several council members requested additional detail on which roads would remain private and asked staff and the developer to return with clarified exhibits; the council retained the item on first reading to allow those clarifications and further neighborhood engagement.

Public comments included questions about traffic studies (staff said the project exceeds thresholds that will require one as the development proceeds), neighborhood character and whether the proposed product meets the city’s housing‑needs assessment. Staff and the applicant committed to provide additional detail to council before a final vote.