Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Snellville council tables decision on Wisteria Drive apartment change after neighbors press parking and stormwater concerns
Summary
The council deferred a vote to Aug. 10 on a change-in-conditions request to increase units at 2380 Wisteria Drive from the previously approved 171 to 203 after residents raised issues about parking ratios, potential runoff and loss of wooded buffer; staff and the applicant said underground detention and a deceleration lane are options under technical review.
The Snellville City Council on July 27 voted to table a final decision to its August 10 meeting on a change-in-conditions request for a multifamily Town Center Flats development at 2380 Wisteria Drive.
The application would modify prior approvals (RZ24-03, SUP24-01) to increase the project’s total units from 171 to 203 and to add a second building. Planning Director Jason Thompson described a negotiated compromise that keeps parking counts unchanged while increasing units, resulting in a proposed parking ratio of roughly 1.22 spaces per unit (below the original ~1.5 per unit). Thompson said the proposal met the city’s town-center approach to parking and recommended approval of the redesigned plan with the updated detention and parking concept.
Elizabeth Swift, representing the applicant, said developers had sought as many as 239 units previously and reduced the request to 203 to address concerns while retaining feasibility. She said an updated traffic study requires a deceleration lane and that it will be provided and reiterated that the project could use underground detention to avoid an above-ground bioretention pond. "We are asking for a change in conditions to increase the unit count from 171 units to 203 and permit the second building," Swift said.
Multiple neighbors spoke in opposition, citing parking adequacy, the proximity of a daycare play area, removal of rear wooded buffer for a bioretention pond, potential mosquito and trash issues around ponded water, and concerns that the Greenway could be disrupted during construction. Tom Flynn, an Eastwood Drive resident, urged the council to deny the application or insist on design features such as a deceleration lane and stronger parking protections. "I think insufficient parking will cause problems with adjacent owners," Flynn said.
During council discussion several newly seated members asked for more time to review technical materials, particularly stormwater and the rationale for changing the wooded area. An initial motion to approve was withdrawn and the council voted 6–0 to table CIC 2601/ordinance 2026-06 until the Aug. 10 meeting. The public hearing portion is closed; the council only postponed the vote to allow additional review and staff follow-up on stormwater, sidewalk widths and traffic mitigation.
