Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning Mission Properties topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council presses developers over plan for 176-unit apartment complex near Mount Holly Road
Summary
Planning staff told the council the Mission Properties rezoning to allow up to 176 stacked apartment units is inconsistent with the newly adopted West Outer Community Area Plan; the developer pledged traffic mitigation and facade and buffer commitments but council members pressed on rail-adjacent noise, air pollution and compatibility.
Planning staff told Charlotte council members at a public hearing that a petition by Mission Properties to rezone a 12.67-acre site on Mount Holly Road to allow up to 176 multifamily apartment units is inconsistent with the newly adopted West Outer Community Area Plan and the city’s 2040 policy map.
“The plan is inconsistent with the goals and policies of the West Outer Community Area Plan,” City planning staff said during their presentation, noting the site’s current Manufacturing and Logistics place-type designation and nearby industrial activity. Staff recommended denial of the petition in its current form.
The petitioner’s attorney, John Floyd, emphasized traffic and design commitments and said the project team had sought early engagement with neighbors. “We do have the support of the Mountain Lake Community Association,” Floyd said, adding the developers plan to build left- and right-turn lanes, provide a 25-foot landscape buffer, and use at least 40% brick facades on buildings facing Mount Holly Road.
Councilmembers pressed the petitioner and staff on site compatibility, noting a freight rail corridor along the site’s southern boundary. “There is potential air pollution as well as noise pollution for our future residents,” one councilmember said, pressing whether a less intense zoning district had been considered. Another asked whether enhanced window packages or other noise-mitigation measures would be possible for future residents; the petitioner said the development team would explore options.
Petitioner representatives also described internal project amenities and traffic-mitigation features they said would reduce off-site trip generation compared with some industrial uses currently permitted by right on the parcel.
Councilmembers asked staff and the petitioner to walk the site and return with additional information. The public hearing closed without a final vote; councilmembers signaled they wanted more technical follow-up, including a site visit and further scrutiny of buffers, noise and air-quality mitigation before final action.
