Matthews commissioners continue review of 32‑unit 'missing middle' plan at Lakes Drive

Developers seeking to rezone part of 12014 Lakes Drive for a 32‑unit residential neighborhood called the Veranda described the proposal as the town’s first “missing middle” project, but commissioners asked for more detail on design, stormwater, buffers and allowable commercial uses and continued the public hearing to Aug. 11.

Town planning staff presented the application as a split zoning request: a portion of the property would remain B1CD and the rear would be rezoned to RBS to allow up to 32 residential units in a mix of townhomes and cottages. Nadine (planning staff) told commissioners the site does not meet the town’s TIA threshold of 50 residential units and that the proposal would be roughly 8.2 units per acre for the rezoned portion.

The developer team said the project mixes 18 townhomes and 14 cottage units clustered around an interior green and a community building. “This would be Matthews’ first missing middle neighborhood,” Laksh Brumbut, speaking for Matthews 4 Lakes LLC, said, adding that the product is intended for sale, not rental. Architect and civil design representatives gave renderings and noted the site slopes toward a creek; they said the taller townhome massing is planned on the lower portion of the site to create a transition to existing single‑family homes.

Why it matters: Commissioners framed the application as a test case for the town’s effort to expand housing choice and “missing middle” products in locations adjacent to commercial parcels. The project would change the use of a property currently designated as employment in the town’s Envision Matthews plan; staff recommended that Living‑2 (compact residential) is also reasonable as a transitional designation for this site.

Key details, discussion and requests - Units and layout: developer materials submitted a site plan for 32 units (18 townhomes, 14 cottages in quad and duplex groupings) with a shared central green, clubhouse and playground. Reported unit sizes: cottages roughly 1,000–1,200 sq ft; townhomes described as roughly 20x45 with about 800 sq ft per floor and up to three stories. (Developer stated price guidance as “starting point is around $4.50” with a “highest point around $6.50” without clarifying units.) - Schools: the applicant provided a CMS (Charlotte‑Mecklenburg Schools) impact analysis estimating fewer potential students than an earlier 44‑unit concept (staff noted an earlier estimate of about seven more elementary students for the larger scheme; the applicant removed 12 units in revisions). - Buffers/landscaping/fence: commissioners and neighbors asked for specific fencing type, buffer and landscape detail between the new development and adjacent single‑family yards; the applicant agreed to provide fence specification and a landscape buffer plan. - Commercial building to remain: the front parcel’s B1CD zoning and an existing business building would remain; commissioners asked the applicant to limit allowable commercial uses on that building so residents would not later face noisy or intensive uses (applicant agreed to add clarifying notes restricting uses). - Stormwater and grading: commissioners pressed for a stormwater plan and higher standards than the minimum where possible. The applicant said a post‑construction PCO submission to Mecklenburg County is imminent and that the design will include SCM/ponding and retaining walls to control flow to the downstream creek. Staff confirmed the town will review concept stormwater plans as part of the next submittal. - Affordability: commissioners asked whether units would be offered at AMI levels. The applicant said units are intended to be market rate, although smaller footprints are intended to reduce price; the applicant offered to consider one or two units at reduced AMI but made no firm commitment.

Board action and next steps Commissioner Ken McCool moved and Commissioner John Urban seconded a motion to continue the public hearing to Aug. 11, 2025; the motion passed unanimously. The applicant agreed to return next month with requested materials including plain (2‑D) elevations, architectural standards, tree protection/tree survey, stormwater concept plan, fence and buffer details, clarified commercial use list for the remaining B1CD parcel, and sidewalk/connection details.

The town planning staff will post the revised materials and the continued public hearing will be held at the Aug. 11 meeting for further public comment and formal action.