Hoschton City Council holds public hearing on conditional use for daycare on Eagles Bluff Way near SR 53

Hoschton City Council opened a public hearing Jan. 7 on CU-24-1, a request by applicant Frank Pittman to allow a daycare center on a 2.0-acre commercially zoned parcel fronting the south side of Eagles Bluff Way and the west side of State Route 53 (SR 53).

The hearing matters because the site is in a mixed-use commercial area where a variety of commercial uses are allowed by right; the council must decide whether to attach conditions before allowing the daycare as a conditional use.

Dr. Weitz, the city planner, told the council that planning staff initially recommended approval with conditions but that the Planning and Zoning Commission had “pretty extensive discussion” and recommended a revised set of conditions. “An ordinance has been prepared in the event that you want to approve it with those conditions,” Dr. Weitz said, and he added the staff expected to “wordsmith some of the conditions in terms of just clarity and to avoid vagueness.” He said revisions could be presented for adoption “on the 21st.”

Frank Pittman, of Pittman and Greer Engineering and the applicant of record, described the site and emphasized it is already zoned commercial. “This property isn't a rezone, it's already zoned commercial with a lot of different options that could be there today by right,” Pittman said, listing typical permitted commercial uses. He said the submittal shows a daycare and a placeholder retail building but that his client’s intent and the current request were only for the daycare.

Kenny Whitworth, representing the current owner, urged the council to drop a traffic-study requirement. Whitworth said an independent traffic study typically “could take somewhere up to 20, $25,000 at a time, or it could take up to 3 or 4 months to do.” He said Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) staff had told him they did not expect a traffic study would change the intersection because the only feasible improvement—an additional traffic signal—was not likely to be approved by GDOT. “There's not enough average traffic throughout the day at that intersection to warrant a traffic light,” Whitworth said, adding he had “documentation” from GDOT to support that position.

Creekside Village resident and HOA board member Rafael Mayberry urged the council to require a traffic study before granting the conditional use. “The daycare's peak times for drop off and pickup will coincide with the same peak traffic for morning school drop off,” Mayberry said, and he asked the council to consider traffic generated by the nearby new charter school and West Jackson Elementary School. Mayberry also highlighted concerns about the location of a proposed playground near SR 53 and the effect on Creekside residents’ ability to enter or exit their neighborhood during peak periods.

Council members and staff asked detailed questions about trip counts, site access and possible roadway improvements. Pittman and Whitworth said the developer estimates 638 “total trips” (in-and-out counts) for the facility; Pittman explained that number “is 638 in out in out. That's not 638 cars. Right. That's divide that by 2 and that's how many come in, that's and then that many more leave. So about a 150 cars at peak time.”

Planning staff and the Planning & Zoning Commission disagreed about a condition that had previously required a right-in/right-out access on SR 53. The commission recommended deleting that requirement and substituting a traffic-study condition; the commission’s draft would make any improvements recommended by a required study binding on the applicant if GDOT later approves them. Dr. Weitz said staff and the commission expected to clarify the final wording of conditions before bringing an ordinance back for action.

On safety measures, council members asked about play-area fencing and a retaining wall along SR 53. The applicant said the site plan would include an 8-foot fence around the playground and that the owners agreed to complete a rear “ride-out” road to provide an alternate entrance; Whitworth said the ride-out would be completed so it would “be assessable … from the day he opens.” One council member asked the council to consider a minimum 3-foot block retaining wall faced with brick or stone along the highway in addition to fencing; the applicant did not oppose adding specifications as a condition.

No final vote was taken Jan. 7. The public hearing was opened and closed; Dr. Weitz told the council staff expected to bring revised conditions and an ordinance for potential adoption on the 21st. Council members said they wanted more clarity in writing on conditions such as access, wall/fence specifications and whether a traffic study would be required for later retail development on the parcel.

Next steps: the council will consider revised conditions and the ordinance at an upcoming meeting (Dr. Weitz indicated a planned adoption review “on the 21st”), and the council may require a traffic study or roadway improvements depending on the final wording of conditions and any GDOT determinations.