Johns Creek council denies rezoning for Dutch Brothers at Rivermont Station after traffic and small‑business concerns

The Johns Creek City Council voted to deny rezoning RZ‑24‑0012 and concurrent variance BC‑24‑0009 that would have allowed a Dutch Brothers drive‑through at 8483 Holcomb Bridge Road in the Rivermont Station shopping center.

The proposal, presented by counsel Alex Brock for Rivermont Station 2 LLC and Phillips Edison & Company, called for a 950‑square‑foot drive‑through‑only Dutch Brothers with a covered outdoor patio, two drive‑through lanes and internal circulation routed through the existing shopping‑center drive aisles. Brock told the council staff and planning commission recommended approval with conditions; he said the project would use internal access and install pedestrian connections to Holcomb Bridge Road. "We are providing 15 queuing spots," Brock said while outlining site changes and a conceptual sidewalk connection.

During the public hearing multiple residents urged denial, raising two central concerns: traffic and the displacement of a local, family‑run emissions business. John Stroup, who said he lives near Rivermont Station, warned the project would add "300 to 350 more cars" and worsen congestion near Holcomb Bridge Road, and Angelie Singh asked the council to "save this local business and family," arguing the emissions shop provides a community service that a corporate coffee shop would not. Several commenters said there are already multiple coffee options in the corridor.

Council members pressed the applicant on trip counts, internal queuing and how the site would function during peak hours. The applicant submitted a trip‑generation memo that it said showed about 358 daily trips and said it would accept a condition requiring a traffic study and signal analysis before issuance of permits. Director Song told council that a traffic study would likely require 60–90 days to complete.

Council member DiBiase moved to deny the rezoning, noting repeated deferrals and public fatigue over the item; the motion was seconded and the council carried the motion to deny. The meeting transcript does not include a roll‑call vote or a recorded tally; the council moved to the next agenda item after the motion was acted on in open session.

What happens next: staff and the applicant discussed the option of a traffic study and potential deferral to return with revised plans if the applicant chooses that route; applicants also noted lease‑termination rights mean the current emissions tenant likely will not remain on site regardless of the zoning action. The transcript records the denial motion and the council's return to regular agenda business.