Matthews commissioners approve Crown Point Commons amendment despite concerns over unit mix and road connectivity
Loading...
Summary
The board voted 4–2 to approve a site‑plan amendment for Crown Point Commons that adds 23 apartments while reducing total bedrooms by 14, prompting debate about parking impacts and the developer’s responsibility to extend nearby Clare Drive and sidewalks.
The Town of Matthews Board of Commissioners on Nov. 10 approved a site‑plan amendment for Crown Point Commons after a contentious discussion about unit mix and road connectivity. The board voted 4–2 to permit an internal reconfiguration that netted a 23‑unit increase while reducing the total number of bedrooms by 14.
Planning staff said the developer is adding 28 studio units and 17 one‑bedroom units while removing seven two‑bedroom units and 15 three‑bedroom units. "So basically what's going on here is we're changing the unit count, the unit mix," staff said, adding that the change yields "a total addition of 23 units, but a reduction of 14 bedrooms." Staff told commissioners the approved building footprints and parking counts would not change and that the project remains in compliance with the Unified Development Ordinance.
Commissioners pressed the developer on practical impacts. One commissioner warned that replacing three‑bedroom units with a higher count of smaller units would likely increase vehicle trips and said, "you are increasing the number of cars on this site," expressing concern even though staff characterized the change as a negligible traffic impact.
A recurring point of dispute was responsibility for extending nearby Clare Drive and providing curb, gutter and sidewalks adjacent to the site. Planning staff explained a narrow, privately owned parcel prevents a full Clare Drive connection and said the developer would extend Eastpoint Drive toward Clare but not complete the full punch‑through to Sam Newell. Commissioners asked whether the board could cap future unit counts at this decision; the applicant declined to make such a commitment tonight.
Town counsel advised commissioners that the board has limited legal grounds to deny the amendment where the footprint and parking standards remain compliant with prior rezoning and site‑plan approvals. The motion carried 4–2. The developer said permits for land development and building architecture have been submitted and that it hopes to begin work promptly.
What’s next: The amendment was approved; the developer has permits pending and the town will retain oversight through plan‑review and permitting. Commissioners said they will consider clarifying future UDO language to avoid unbounded density changes via internal unit reconfigurations.
