Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning Alex Yards topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Huntersville planning board recommends denial of Alex Yards multifamily rezoning
Summary
The Huntersville Planning Board voted to recommend denial of a conditional TODR rezoning for Alex Yards, an 11.34-acre multifamily proposal on Mount Holly–Huntersville Road, citing lack of walkability, tree preservation and inconsistency with the town's community plan.
The Huntersville Planning Board on a 5-4 vote recommended denial of petition R-25-01 (Alex Yards), a request to rezone about 11.34 acres at the intersection of Mount Holly–Huntersville Road and Alexandriana Road for a 9-building, 320+ unit apartment development.
Planning staff told the board the application did not meet key Transit-Oriented Development Residential (TODR) goals and the town's 2040 community plan. "Staff will not be recommending approval for this rezoning for those reasons stated previously," said Jesse James, planning staff, summarizing the staff report and the site's shortfalls on tree preservation, block and street connectivity, and pedestrian access to the nearby Katz park-and-ride.
The applicant, Ben Geisler of Alexandria and Partners, said the site is within the half-mile transit catchment and that the project includes design features to connect people to a future Mecklenburg County park and the planned Katz microtransit service. "Our entire site is within the half mile catchment area," Geisler said, adding that the team would provide "20 kilowatts of installed active solar power on the clubhouse" and that the plan offers eight deed-restricted attainable units for 15 years.
Board members who supported denial cited limited pedestrian access to transit, a low specimen-tree preservation rate (staff said the plan saves about 2% where 30% is expected), and a mismatch with the 2040 community plan's land-use intent for nearby employment center areas. "The development as it is currently proposed lacks walkability and connectivity," the motion recommending denial said.
Members who spoke in favor of the project argued the site is physically constrained by an adjacent cemetery and a recently purchased county park site and that residential use adjacent to a park could be appropriate. Several commissioners encouraged the applicant and staff to negotiate a sidewalk contribution and other conditions that might address pedestrian gaps.
The planning board's recommendation is advisory; the Town Board will make the final zoning decision. The record shows competing policy readings: staff and some members concluded the proposal is inconsistent with several 2040 plan policies (including LU 1.1, LU 7.1 and LU 8.3), while the applicant and other members argued the built context and future park ownership change the land-use logic.
The applicant and staff discussed possible next steps at the meeting, including contributions toward sidewalk construction and further coordination with CATS on microtransit connections. No final agreement on those measures was adopted at the meeting.
The planning board's recommendation and the staff report, plus the applicant presentation, will be part of the Town Board packet when the matter advances to the next level of review.
