Final Hearing and Vote for RZ-22-007

City Council Denies Rezoning for Commercial Complex at Corner of Sugar Ridge Drive and Hwy 20.

At the May City Council Meeting on Monday, May 8, the City Council voted unanimously to deny RZ-22-007, a case to rezone a property at the corner of Highway 20 and Sugar Ridge Drive to build a commercial complex.

The case has been in the public forum since November 2022. During that time, residents gave the developer and his attorney vigorous feedback about the case. Their concerns included the reduced buffer, the lack of a deceleration lane for the entrance off of Highway 20 (which would cause increased traffic at the Sugar Ridge Drive entrance), light pollution, drunk drivers originating from a restaurant serving alcohol, and the use of a septic tank and septic field for the complex.

When the case finally came before the SHPC in February, the developer agreed to limit the buildings to no more than two stories, build only one building, not use the property for a restaurant, and withdraw his variance request. The SHPC included those conditions in its vote to approve the project.

When Planning Director Kaipo Awana presented the case at the May City Council Work Session on Monday, May 1, he showed a new site plan that included only one building and a new rendering that showed the remaining building with only two stories. He also provided a list of amended conditions, including stipulations that the project "substantially resemble" the site plan and rendering. He had also removed the "condition" that would have granted the developer the 35' buffer variance. He had also added a condition that required the developer to conduct a warrant analysis and potentially build a left-turn lane on Sugar Ridge Drive.

Awana did not include any conditions that would prevent the use of the property for a restaurant, because he said the City gets consistent feedback that people would like more dining options in the area. He said that if the Council was interested in including such a restriction, it could be added to the condition with a list of restricted uses for the property (no carwashes, convenience stores with fuel pumps, adult novelty retail stores, pawn shops, hotels, or motels.) No Council Members indicated that they wanted restaurants added to the list of prohibited uses.

When the developer's attorney presented the case at the hearing, he mentioned the conversations with residents. He showed the updated site plan with one building, the standard buffer, and a deceleration lane. He said he had a list of conditions acceptable to the developer and that he thought would be acceptable to most residents. Those conditions were based on the ones Awana presented, with a few key changes. Restaurants were included as a prohibited use, and conditions were added to limit the building to two stories and allow the construction of limited accessory buildings (such as storage or dumpster enclosures). The attorney eliminated the condition for the warrant analysis of a Sugar Ridge turning lane, because they thought their inclusion of the deceleration lane negated the need for the turning lane.

Local resident Parry Gaultney, a representative of the neighborhood, indicated that he was in favor of the development with the conditions stated by the developer, but not the ones stated by the City of Sugar Hill Planning Department. He indicated that his neighbors had stated a similar position on the comment cards they submitted instead of speaking at the hearing.

Local resident and realtor Clifton Prewitt spoke in opposition to the project, taking issue with the building's large footprint and single entrance instead of separate entrances for each business. He concluded his statement by saying that he thought once the property was rezoned, it would be sold.

Council Member Mason Roszel asked several questions about Sugar Hill's sign ordinance and the location of the greenway segment the developer was being asked to construct.

Council Member Jenn Thatcher said she had spoken with some residents on Sugar Ridge Drive and was told the proposal did not resemble what was discussed. She asked Planning Director Kaipo Awana about the differences. He responded that he thought the attorney's proposed conditions showed what was discussed, but he had no way of knowing for certain. No one mentioned what Gaultney had said or what was on the comment cards, which seemed to verify that the attorney's conditions reflected resident feedback.

Thatcher also asked about the design review process going forward. Awana responded that it would not be a public process, but would take place internally with Planning Department Staff.

Council Member Marc Cohen asked Awana several questions about the warrant analysis for the turn lane on Sugar Ridge Drive, and the implications of not having the turning lane. He then asked if the warrant analysis was completely off the table.

Roszel made a motion to deny RZ-22-007, and Council Member Alvin Hicks seconded the motion. The Council voted unanimously in favor of the motion for denial.