54 West Development

[Don Haddix]

54 Abandonment (http://www.donhaddix.com/?p=30)

January 23rd, 2008



The following is a copy of an email I sent this morning and will send to those making general inquiries on the issue of 54 Abandonment.
………………………………………………………………………………..
Thank you for your email. I have had a number of emails, phone calls and verbal contacts on this issue.


Approximately 5 contacts were pro abandonment while well over 100 have been opposed. At my HOA annual meeting there was 100% opposition.

Here are some general comments of my views on this issue:
1. We cannot sell the street to Doug McMurrain. While we control the street the street is actually part of the deed for the whole site. We do not have a separate deed. The second we abandon the street it reverts fully to the deed owner, Doug McMurrain. We only control the street as long as it is a legal street.
2. Therefore we cannot write restrictions into a deed we do not possess nor can we guarantee such restrictions added by Doug McMurrain would hold up in court if Doug McMurrain chose to challenge them after the fact as being coerced.
3. I have attended several meetings including Tim Lydell and/or Doug McMurrain. The statement was made several times a Big Box was necessary to turn a profit on the property. That is a clear statement to me that small retail proposals are made to serve other purposes. This view is shared by a number of knowledgeable people to whom I have spoken.
4. Some argue a Big Box or smaller Big Boxes will bring in significant sales tax income. But they fail to consider the negative sales tax impact suffered by other retailers in a market that is already super saturated, the increased empty retail space that will result, the increased infrastructure and service (i.e. police) costs that will come, disposable income is decreasing, not increasing, such retail has a known pattern of high initial usage that decreases over time and often then goes dark, impact on home values, regional traffic increase and more. Studies across the nation demonstrate Big Boxes, which include those supposed smaller Big Boxes some try to label Large Boxes or similar, actually end up with negative tax income and increasing traffic and crime. Lumping all retail into one pot gives false results on numbers. Small, medium and large all have different realities. Increasing the amount of retail space does not increase the number of customers, it redistributes them, at some businesses’ expense. Citing old GMA material is not accurate.
4. A petition was legally filed opposing the abandonment.
5. If we abandon a lawyer told me a lawsuit is guaranteed.
6. State law prohibits abandoning a property in which there is public interest. There most assuredly is a huge amount of public interest in maintaining this street. Public interest is not a narrowly defined term, it is in fact a broad one including non tangibles having nothing do, as in the instance, with actual traffic counts. In this case disposal is automatic reversion to deed holder control.

Official Code of Georgia Annotated, Title 32-7-2, as stated below:
“When it is determined that a section of the municipal street system has for any reason ceased to be used by the public to the extent that no substantial public purpose is served by it, the municipality, by certification recorded in its minutes, accompanied by a plat or sketch, and after notice to property owners located thereon, may declare that section of street shall no longer be a part of the municipal street system and the rights of the public street shall cease. The property may be disposed of by the municipality as provided in Code 32-7-4.”
7. Caselaw says it is gross abuse of power to abandon a street to enable anyone, which I translate to mean malfeasance. The comments by Mayor Logsdon in the December Update newsletter clearly demonstrate a desire to abandon to enable, especially considering there was no move to abandon prior to the developer requesting abandonment.
“Dec. 1904.] MARIETTA CHAIR Co. v. HENDERSON. 161
Neither the general assembly nor a subordinate public corporation acting under its authority can lawfully vacate a public street or highway for the benefit of a private individual. The street or highway cannot be vacated unless it is for the benefit of the public that such action should be taken. The benefit may be either in relieving the public from the charge of maintaining a street or highway that is no longer useful or convenient to the public, or the laying out a new street or road in its place which will be more useful and convenient to the public in general. If the public interest is not the motive which prompts the vacation of the street whether partial or entire the act of vacation is an abuse of power and especially would it be a gross abuse of power if it is authorized without reference to the rights of the public and merely that the convenience of a private individual might be subserved. As the reason for vacating a highway must therefore 408 always be that the public interest is to be subserved,’"
Yes, a developer has a right to build, but only if within legal limits. It is not a blanket right.
No, developers do not come in concerned about the needs of PTC, they come in to make a profit building a store that will make them money. Remember Walmart, Home Depot and Target came in by legal force over the desires of PTC. Remember the Hyde - Lowe’s case.
Each Council Member must make up their own minds. But I cannot vote for an abandonment that I see as illegal. Nor one that would allow even more retail footage to be added to an already overwhelmed local market, especially in view of the Flexon development next door adding so much more retail space and the large amount of retail space being added closely in other Coweta County.
Will Doug McMurrain ultimately build something if he does not get the abandonment? I don’t know since I know he has vacant space right across the street never occupied, new construction next door and empty space throughout PTC. But I do know that knowledge is a motivation for pursuing abandonment and Big Boxes.
This issue makes the need for tightened ordinances with no Special Exception Loopholes to get rid of personal opinions crystal clear. It also demonstrates the Moratorium should have been passed.
Don Haddix


Peachtree City
Council Post 1

[Don Haddix]

The reason given for rejecting Doug McMurrain's proposal was that it did not contain the standards of the 54 W Master Plan for that area.

The following extract and attachment contain pertinent information. The highlighted text specifically applies to the rejected proposal.

Please note that none of Doug McMurrain's plan proposals conform to the 54 W Master Plan, the secondary road, golf cart paths and the round about on Planterra Way.

-------------------------------------------------

GA 54 West Corridor:

Elements of the plan


Taking into account the existing, proposed and future developments within the study area, the Advisory Board has recommended a master plan for the GA 54 West Corridor that will assist in blending all of these developments together. The master plan also addresses most, if not all, of the goals and objectives identified early in the planning process.

The Advisory Board proposes the following elements for the GA 54 West Corridor master plan:

§ Integration of multi-use path system with remainder of City

One of the most important and dynamic elements of this study is the design and incorporation of an extensive multi-use path system. This system must be designed to connect the existing 80-mile path system to the emerging developments within the study area, which will encourage existing residents to utilize alternate transportation to travel to and from this area. Additionally, the system must extend through all proposed developments and subdivisions within the study area to provide new residents access to the existing path network throughout the City.

The existing path system north of GA 54 includes a multi-use path bridge over GA 74, which connects the Wynnmeade subdivision to the Westpark commercial area. The existing path system in Wynnmeade is connected to a path that extends the entire length of MacDuff Parkway, then is connected to the east side of MacDuff via a newly constructed tunnel. The plan identifies an extension of the MacDuff path south to GA 54, where a new multi-use bridge will provide access to the new path system on the south side of GA 54.

The developers of the North Wynnmeade, Centennial, and Cedarcroft subdivisions will extend the path in this area approximately 3,600 linear feet. Additionally, the developer of the commercial outparcels on the north side of GA 54, The Home Depot and Wal-mart will extend the system approximately 4,200 linear feet through these developments. When the Line Creek Baptist Church property is redeveloped, the path system could be extended an additional 1,200 feet.

Utilizing TEA funding and extensive coordination with GA DOT, the City plans an innovative ‘clover-leaf’ path system to connect the east and west sides of the CSX rail line to the south side of GA 54. When the existing railroad bridge is reconstructed, tunnels will be placed underneath GA 54 on both sides of the rail line, which will allow safe access to the north and south sides of GA 54. Additionally, TEA funding will be utilized to install a pre-fabricated multi-use bridge within the GA DOT right-of-way immediately north of the new road bridge, which will allow access across the rail line. Extensions of the path system will extend west through the Line Creek Baptist Church property to the Home Depot/ Wal-Mart development and east to the Market Place retail development.

On the north side of the bridge, the path will circle down to the tunnels and provide access underneath GA 54 to The Avenue/ City Circle development to the east and Huddleston Road to the west. This creative solution will allow safe access to all quadrants of the GA 54/ CSX rail line and both sides of GA 54.

An existing path system connects all developments within the Market Place retail center. At present, this development is isolated from the remainder of the path system and a path connection from this development to the Westpark development east of GA 74 is proposed as a part of this plan. Several alternatives were considered, including an at-grade crossing on GA 74 to Westpark Drive, a multi-use bridge, and a tunnel underneath GA 74.

Due to safety factors involved with an at-grade crossing and the existing topography within the area, it is recommended that a tunnel be constructed underneath GA 74 and a path provided to the existing path along Commerce Drive as a part of the GA 74 widening project. Until that time, a surface crossing on GA 74 should be explored along with the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of GA 74 and Westpark Drive. It will be important that this signal be synchronized with the existing signal at the GA 74/ 54 intersection.

The existing path network on the south side of GA 54 includes an extensive path system throughout the Planterra Ridge subdivision, which connects through the industrial park to an existing tunnel underneath GA 74 at the Kelly Drive intersection. Additionally, the developer of the City Circle and Clover Green developments has installed an extensive path system throughout these areas.

New paths within this area would include a path connection from Planterra Ridge to the Line Creek Nature Area. A new path would also extend from the Days Inn property to Planterra Way and would be constructed when the access road is built. Additionally, the path from Planterra Way to Huddleston Road adjacent to the new access road would be the responsibility of the developer of that property.

As a part of the tennis center expansion, a path will be constructed through a greenbelt from the tennis center to Huddleston Road. A new path connection would then be constructed by the City to the existing path adjacent to Planterra Way.

§ Development of a secondary road system to assist in reducing traffic on GA 54

A variety of elements will be utilized to enhance vehicular, pedestrian, and alternate transportation within the study area. Incorporating the latest road-widening information from GA DOT, the plan proposes the construction of a secondary road system on the north and south sides of GA 54.

Phase One of the secondary road north of GA 54 would extend from MacDuff Parkway to the Home Depot/ Wal-Mart entrance drive and would be constructed by the developer of the commercial outparcels. It is imperative that the road be in place prior to development of any of the outparcels north of GA 54. Vehicular access to these outparcels should also be oriented from the internal secondary road system rather from GA 54.

However, it must be noted there are approximately twelve (12) existing curb-cuts off of GA 54 which provide access to these outparcels, and it is uncertain how many of these curb-cuts will remain once GA 54 is widened. Once the site planning for these outparcels commences, the owner/ developer should be encouraged to eliminate as many of these curb cuts as possible and utilize the secondary road system for access. However, should the owner/ developer be unwilling to eliminate these curb-cuts, they should be limited to no more than one right-in/ right-out access point located between each traffic signal. This scenario would create a total of four (4) right-in/ right-out access points to serve the outparcels in addition to the secondary road system.

Phase Two of this northern secondary road would extend from the Home Depot/ Wal-Mart entrance drive to Huddleston Road through what is now the Line Creek Baptist Church property. It is envisioned this property will be redeveloped in the future, and this road should be constructed as a part of this re-development. Construction of this important road connection should be the shared responsibility of the City and the developer of this property.

Phase One of the secondary road south of GA 54 would extend from the traffic signal at the Days Inn entrance to Planterra Way. The undeveloped property west of the Days Inn could be developed as an assisted living facility or combined with the Days Inn property to create a large parcel for a retail or commercial development.

The secondary road would extend through and provide access to the Line Creek Nature Area property, where a freestanding Nature Center building is planned. The road would then extend through what is now the Line Creek Office Park property and then connect to Planterra Way. It is envisioned the majority of the property within the Line Creek Office Park will eventually be combined to create one or more parcels for a retail, commercial, or mixed-use development.

The secondary road would extend behind the existing open space adjacent to GA 54 and terminate at a new roundabout on Planterra Way. The roundabout would provide an opportunity for traffic calming on Planterra Way. A second roundabout would be constructed adjacent to the existing Planterra Ridge amenity center and would provide an opportunity for a new, formal entrance into the Planterra Ridge subdivision. The construction of the secondary road from the Days Inn property to Planterra Way should be the shared responsibility of the City and the developer.

This secondary road could eventually be extended to Huddleston Road, which would provide access to what could be another potential re-development opportunity at the intersection of GA 54 and Huddleston Road. Construction of this portion of the secondary road system would require acquisition of portions of existing developments which may preclude a connection at this time. Nonetheless, a cart path connection should be provided between Planterra Way and Huddleston Road as a part of the overall improvements.

§ Limit vehicular access to GA 54

It is strongly suggested that vehicular access to and from GA 54 be limited solely to major intersections. At present, there are four traffic signals within the study area (GA 74/ GA 54, GA 54/ The Avenue, GA 54/ Huddleston Road, GA 54/ MacDuff Parkway). Additionally, a new signal has been approved for the GA 54/ Planterra Way intersection and will be installed as a part of the Home Depot/ Wal-Mart development. All of these traffic signals will be linked together with fiber optic cable and synchronized to assist traffic movement through the area.

A new intersection with full turning movements and a traffic signal is recommended for the GA 54/ Line Creek Drive intersection. This intersection will provide access to an existing connection to the northern secondary road along with access to the Line Creek commercial property to the south. Additionally, this new traffic signal will provide signalized intersections approximately every 800 linear feet throughout the study area and will alleviate the need to have separate driveways from GA 54 to serve each outparcel.

§ Improve inter-parcel access and easements

All development within the study area should be encouraged to provide interparcel access, which will allow the opportunity to travel from one parcel to the other without utilizing the secondary roads or GA 54. It is strongly felt the addition of a secondary road system on both the north and south sides of GA 54 will eliminate a significant amount of traffic on GA 54.

Evaluate existing properties for re-development potentialSeveral parcels within the GA 54 West corridor have been identified as sites for potential re-development opportunities. Many of these sites were developed prior to current site planning guidelines and are not in conformance with current Land Development Ordinance guidelines. It will be important to work with these property owners on a case-by-case basis as development opportunities emerge to encourage them to re-develop their properties in conformance with current regulations and with the finds of this study.


The following properties have been identified as potential candidates for re-development:

Line Creek Baptist Church property

This 7–acre tract could ultimately be subdivided into several parcels. The property between the new secondary road and GA 54 should be developed as retail or commercial to blend in with the other retail developments along this corridor. The rear portion of the site should be developed as retail or office space.

Emphasis should be placed on the existing cemetery to include this feature into the overall planning of this parcel. Funding should be secured to enhance this feature as a part of the overall design. Additionally, the area on either side of the secondary road adjacent to GA 54 should be developed into an entry feature for the retail development.

Days Inn/ adjoining undeveloped parcel

This overall tract could be combined to create a sizable parcel for a commercial or retail development. It may be prudent to consider this site for an office or assisted living development due to the prime location at the entry to Peachtree City. The site will have a signalized entrance from GA 54 and is bordered on three sides by open space.

Line Creek office park (Peachy Clean car wash, Line Creek office building, warehouse building), undeveloped property

A variety of property owners control the parcels within this commercial subdivision. It is envisioned that all of the property will eventually be combined to create a single parcel for a sizable mixed-use development. The proposed signalized entrance from GA 54 along with access from the proposed secondary road system should make this a viable candidate for a significant development. The site is bordered by open space to the east and west and a residential subdivision to the south.

[Don Haddix]

Blog polls have 75% saying no.

49 of 56 HOA's in the PTCCA have voted opposition.

Planterra is not solidly backing these plans, contrary to what has been implied.

[Don Haddix]

The original plan submittal for Plan 3 was forwarded to Planning stating the basic concept was fully legal but some aspects were not and needed changed.

As in the 30' rear setback had to be 75', not 30', as has been claimed.

Changing the required numbers will greatly shrink the developable area. Combine in the secondary street, golf cart path and not abandoning the road does not leave nearly as much land to develop as originally thought by many. There will be fewer buildings than the plans show.

[Don Haddix]

A lot was said at this meeting. I will try to hit the high points.

Mayor Logsdon and Councilman Boone were for abandonment. They believe all retail is good. They reject the national studies that say Big Boxes are negative income for a city.

Councilman Doug Sturbaum and I were against abandonment. Not all retail is good and the national studies clearly prove Big Boxes ultimately cost a city more than they bring in, not only economically but by traffic and crime.

I cited GMA stating successful cities in Georgia were succeeding based on moving to the Village concept with shops and institutional, in example, and away from Big Box and super centers. Suwanee was used as an example, with them rising to number 7 in the nation for places to live, while Peachtree City use to be number 8 but in moving from Village to Big Box and super center has fallen to number 64 as of last year.

Councilwoman Cyndi Plunkett wanted a compromise and had a laundry list of pros and cons for Big Boxes and abandonment.

A legal issue was state law on abandonment. It says you cannot abandon if public interest opposes. For Harold Logson and Steve Boone public interest was money and sales tax income from the development. For Doug Sturbaum and myself public interest was in the fuller legal definition of public interest that did not rest solely on money or road traffic, but the PTC citizens' view it was a valuable asset in controlling unwanted development. For Cyndi Plunkett, the public interest was in using it as a negotiating tool to get the best bang possible.

As for citizen input, public interest, Harold Logsdon seemed to dismiss it. I spoke to the importance this issue played in the election and polling on The Citizen, both of which showed about 75% opposition. Doug Sturbaum agrees. Steve Boone tried to dismiss the significance of the election and spoke of the input of the 'silent majority' of PTC citizens. Cyndi Plunkett said she was elected to represent the citizens and would thus make her decision based on her criteria.

An added note on the 'silent majority' issue. Steve Boone said it was 2 to 1 for abandonment. My reply was that 'silent majority' meant they were silent, thus we could only go by those who spoke.

Interestingly, in review of emails sent to Council as a whole, I counted 39 emails, 13 opposed to abandonment and 26 for. That is the cited 2 to 1 for abandonment. But, I personally know many of these citizens were not silent in the election, they were vocal and in fact voted. Further, the big majority who supported abandonment live in Cardiff Park and the second highest count lived in Planterra. But the total of all hardly represented a statistically unnoticeable number of those who did not vote, even if they had not voted.

My point here remains the same, expressed public opinion was about 3 to 1 opposed to abandonment and Big Boxes.

February 13 has a special call Council Meeting to consider the abandonment and rejected plan concerning the 54 Development. The deal proposed is suppose to limit the Big Boxes to no more than 42,000 sq' and no gas station.

This scheme vastly increases the amount of retail footage that can be added, will allow multiple Big Boxes, require special exceptions be granted and gives implied consent to other facilities that might be more objectionable than a gas station.

For clarity, I do not like any of the plans, prefer nothing be built, see the possibility, but not guarantee, from an economical standpoint, nothing might be built if the abandonment is not approved and from history with this developer cannot dismiss the threat he will seek the overturning of any agreement based on the agreement as being coerced.

Finally, we don't own the road but control the road by maintenance law, not deed/title. We abandon and it is his since the land is in his deed. The money offered would be a gift, not a purchase price. Thus another thing that could be potentially challenged as coerced.

From history, the idea the developer will go away never to return to PTC is one I find extremely doubtful.

I remain opposed to abandoment and Big Boxes and will vote against them.

[Don Haddix]

We are still working. Attempting to find a way to not increase the site capacity and no Big Box while accomodating the no gas station and increased buffers desires.

Proposal submitted but no guarantees at this time.

I will not vote for anything that increases the developable site size or any exception that allows a Big Box.

The original Big Box ordinance was correct in being a firm site size. The exception clause was added in 2006 by the last Council, of which three are still seated, and is the source of all the issues we are currently facing. If it had not been add the personal opinion arguments would not be occuring, it is debatable McMurrain would have even purchased the site and the Hyde win would not have occured. A problem that will hopefully be rectified with ordinances rewrites.

[Don Haddix]

Currently there are three staked out positions.

Logsdon and Boone just want to abandon and give Kohl's.

Sturbaum and I are behind a proposal that would trade the road area for green space, thus not increasing the developable footage and no Big Box or gas station. McMurrain gets a better land configuration for development in return. This is because three Council Members are presently willing to abandon with Big Boxes.

Plunkett proposed to abandon with a cap of 42,000 on buildings, no gas stations and some logistical concessions.

Abandoning with no restrictions allows even more footage to be developed on this site. Capping at 42,000 still gives us Big Boxes with all the known negative impacts and opens the door to another Hyde type lawsuit loss in the future. Trading for green space with a cap satisfies the reasons of the majority public for not abandoning, thus public interest is met, protects Cardiff with the buffer they want, does not create regional draw, gives space for retail with positive financial return and no gas station.

While efforts are being made to prevent a lawsuit overturning concessions made by both parties in a compromise, the risks remain, thus making a straight up no vote by Council on abandonment the best and only safe option. But three members are willing, it appears, to abandon, with one willing to take the lawsuit risk.

I will vote no on anything that gives more retail footage and Big Boxes.

[Don Haddix]

I just got my copy of the proposed agreement. I am voting against it.

It allows three 50,000 sq' Big Boxes, 32,000 is ordinance limit with special exception, and 175,000 total cap, 150,000 is ordinance cap.

[Don Haddix]

Lindsey, when asked about the no smell and no see clause not being there, said there would be no traffic after 8:00 PM. No guaranteed visual, sound or smell prevention.

Under this offer the amount of Big Box footage goes up to 150,000 sq', the maximum under the Big Box ordinance for the total site without an exception.

So, now an exception for total square footage has been added to the mix, 25,000 sq'.

He also wants a traffic light. So, traffic increases on 54 and it further gets slowed down by yet another traffic light.

So Cardiff and and Planterra wanted to lessen the impact on them? This increases it. Not that the Kohl's would not have had more of a traffic impact than a gas station.

The only one who gains from this deal is the developer. Cardiff, Planterra and all the rest of PTC loose from increased traffic, crime and empty retail space and operating in the negative because Big Boxes and Big shopping centers have been proven, with nationwide research and realities, to cost more than they bring in. I can see possible increased traffic on Planterra Way from this as well.

The best answer here is nothing built. The second best is just local shops. The third, but unwanted, is a gas station, since it is not a regional business, but a local one.

Other than nothing there is no plan that is good for PTC. So we need to minimize the footage built and not let it be regional.

[Don Haddix]

More information in the UGA - Athens - Training (http://donhaddix.com/showthread.php?t=19) thread.

[Don Haddix]

There is a misconception out in public for some.

No retail Big Box has ever been approved to date by any Council. The existing ones were forced in by developers going to court.

The Big Box ordinance was created to stop Big Boxes. The Special Exception was added in 2006 by Council to enable allowing Big Boxes.

The current efforts by some on Council will be the first time any retail Big Box was deliberately enabled and allowed by any Council if it occurs.

[Don Haddix]

It needs to be said here we never voted on City Council to approve the development agreement with CCD.

What happened was Cyndi Plunkett said she would be willing to go with two 50,000 Big Boxes, increased buffers with Cardiff and no gas station to justify abandoning the road. She also said what was proposed would determine if she voted for Big Boxes or not.

From there CCD and elements of City Council negotiated a proposed agreement over what could and could not happen. Never did a majority of Council get involved in those discussions. It was presented at the next Council Meeting. I stress here again we never voted on approving that agreement, ever.

In the eyes of some Council Members this agreement is a disaster for Cardiff and PTC as a whole. We note Cardiff has gone very silent on this issue and we have no idea how they feel about the current status of the issue.

If this passes many do not understand there will either be another traffic light on 54 or a roundabout or light added to Planterra Way. Remember here many or all of those not wanting a gas station on the development also opposed adding an intersection to Planterra Way.

At this moment, it appears, but is unclear, the votes are 2 for, 2 against and 1 unknown.

[Don Haddix]

During discussions at Workshops and Council Meetings I pursued the Secondary Road until we were informed it could not be built due to a deed restriction on land between the CCD site and Planterra Drive and between the CCD and the Shoppes site.

But it turns out a citizen had made and inquiry to another part of City Hall and was told there was no such deed restriction between Planterra Way and the CCD site.

In turn I asked for a legal finding on this and some other issues. The first part of that finding has come in as follows, questions in blue and answer in red.
Why was this condition included in the deal?

"There would be no internal road connection between the development and Planterra Way."

There is no deed restriction or covenant to the property prohibiting the road to be cut through from Planterra Way. Ask David Rast, I did. He was unable to find any.

Having the main entrance located adjacent to the tennis center and not on Hwy. 74 is what's stated in the 54W Overlay District document. For God's sake, it was in the original design to have the main entrance off of Planterra way. Mr. McMurrain knew that the requirement was there because he helped to author the document.

So could you please tell me why there is not going to be a road cut through from Planterra Way to this shopping center?

Based on my review of the documents, this condition appears to have originated with the homeowners’ group that met with McMurrain regarding the project. I do not know all that comprised the group, but my understanding is that people from Cardiff Park were involved, and perhaps some residents of Planterra.

The minutes of the 2/7/08 meeting include this among the conditions agreed to by the residents and McMurrain. Cindy and Doug read those conditions into the minutes. As of that date, the City had no involvement with the conditions or terms.

That term was carried forward into the initial draft prepared by Rick Lindsey, as well as the draft prepared by the City. As for why it was included, I am not sure.

There is no other property between McMurrain’s property and the City property adjacent to Planterra Way. To my knowledge, there are no deed restrictions on the city property that would have prevented a connection.

Now, I have finally had a chance to review the 54 West LCI map and study. The Council approved sending the LCI study to ARC in 2001 via a resolution adopted by the Council. From what the minutes reflect, the council approved the concept and sent it to ARC. I have not determined if the access road on 54 South was ever included in the City’s PIP or in the Transportation Plan for the City/County.

Based on what I have seen so far, the LCI Plan was not incorporated into either the zoning ordinance or land use plan. I am double checking to see what else is in the City’s records.

Additionally, "It would be the responsibility of the homeowners associations to maintain the improvements not the City or the developer."

Isn't the entrance way to Planterra Way owned by the city?
How can the city force an HOA to maintain city owned land?

To my knowledge, there are other subdivision entrances that are on City property but are maintained by the HOA. Can we force the HOA to maintain the property? No. But, the City can elect to not improve the entrances unless the HOA agrees to maintain. The development agreement is consistent with this approach as it does not mandate this condition, but expressly states that the Developer is to design and install (subject to approval) on the condition that the City and HOAs enter into an agreement for maintenance.

I am pursuing a Council reconsideration of this whole issue, even if it means returning the road to a pre-abandoned position.

This discussion and vote was based on false information. The Secondary Road is superior to a traffic light as demonstrated by the Secondary Road on the north side of 54. The DOT should consider and reject a light if one is requested since the better alternative would have been rejected to enable CCD to build a larger development.

Will the Secondary Road reduce what CCD can build on this site? Yes. Should there be any Big Boxes? No. Can CCD actually develop this site profitably with the Secondary Road and no Big Boxes? I doubt it. Would granting a Big Box exception set us up for another Hyde type Lowe's lawsuit that we would loose? Yes.

Those who backed CCD thinking it would give Cardiff and PTC protection and a better deal need to take this opportunity to reconsider and urge the Council to abandon this whole scheme, return to basics, demand the Secondary Road and not allow any Big Boxes. Councilman Sturbaum and I warned everyone where these negotiations would lead to and we are there, but with an opportunity with these legal findings to correct many of these issues.

I will pass along the remainder of the findings as available.

[1smartcookie]

We need to go back to page one and handle this situation the way it should have been handled in the beginning. Our roads should not be abandoned to help developers-and we definitely do not need to use any of the preserved area adjacent for other than what it was intended. It seems once these roads were "abandoned" everything changed. Now there is talk of three big boxes but we aren't told what 'big boxes" they will be. How can a developer not make available to a city government what they intend to put in that city? Why wasn't this entrance matter handled properly at the time? Some residents of Planterra Ridge thought they were doing the right thing by backing the abandonment of the roads because they were promised an adequate buffer--now this buffer area is being reduced, also. Are not developers bound by their promises--or am I being naive? What can we as citizens of PTC do to see that things are handled properly?

[Don Haddix]

We need to go back to page one and handle this situation the way it should have been handled in the beginning. Our roads should not be abandoned to help developers-and we definitely do not need to use any of the preserved area adjacent for other than what it was intended. It seems once these roads were "abandoned" everything changed. Now there is talk of three big boxes but we aren't told what 'big boxes" they will be. How can a developer not make available to a city government what they intend to put in that city? Why wasn't this entrance matter handled properly at the time? Some residents of Planterra Ridge thought they were doing the right thing by backing the abandonment of the roads because they were promised an adequate buffer--now this buffer area is being reduced, also. Are not developers bound by their promises--or am I being naive? What can we as citizens of PTC do to see that things are handled properly?
It has been a big issue beginning months before Doug Sturbaum and I were elected.

So, we are working to change what happened before and get it all on the right path. That involves digging out all the issues that had occurred before, stopping the events in progress, digging out all the correct legalities and so forth, correcting passed claims and assumptions and changing the direction toward the correct outcome.

In other words it has been an uphill battle the whole way for the two of us.

Fact is the abandonment took place with absolutely no development plan proposed. Fact is there was no absolute agreement on every detail CCD would or would not or could not do. Fact is there was no promise CCD would be allowed any Big Box on the site. Fact is that all of this was basically guidelines and principles and now that the abandonment took place that is when CCD actually began formulating an actual proposal and began working it through Planning. Fact is the vote gave CCD huge gains at little to no true cost to CCD.

What can a citizen do? Well, now that I am posting materials here, keep abreast of the input, email Council with well thought out positions and facts, get others involved and do not accept how things were done is how things must be done now.

In all probability this will most likely boil down to how Councilwoman Plunkett votes since two votes are firmly locked against Big Boxes, etc., and two seem pretty firmly locked for them. Councilwoman Plunkett tried a middle position of limited Big Box size and count against warnings it would not go the way she anticipated, and has not.

Either on this Council or the next the Special Exception clause of the Big Box ordinance, which was added by the Council under Mayor Logsdon in 2006, will be removed and it will be restored to an absolute cap of 32,000 sq' for a building and 150,000 sq' for the whole site.

As of right now getting the absolute cap in for industrial zoning stopped a repeat of the Hyde-Lowes loss in industrial zoning. But, allowing a big box in General Commercial will allow a future loss in another GC zoned site until we get that Exception out if any Big Box of any size is allowed at 54.

Change is being pursued, but please remember we are but two votes of five and it takes three to win. Also remember as of today we have been in office only 77 days.

We will keep trying.

[Don Haddix]

It appears the CCD development is on the June 5 Agenda, so far.

From what I see it has two Big Boxes, 39,000 and 42,000 sq' , plus 175,000 sq' total, 25,000 sq' more than the ordinance normally allows.

Additionally, there is no Secondary Road, which is on the 54 W Master Plan for traffic relief on 54. Therefore, there will be a request to DOT for yet another traffic light on 54.

I will be voting against this.

[1smartcookie]

Thank you so much for looking out for Peachtree City and its citizens. It is too bad that there are only two of you to seem to have the best interests of Peachtree City at heart. Keep up the good fight.

Cookie McClure

[Don Haddix]

Why add so much more retail space to PTC?

Adding space increases the Tax Digest. That means it adds property to the tax roll to increase some fees and property tax collection.

But it does nothing to add sales tax. Only increasing the consumer base increases sales tax revenue.

It also increases, not immediately, PTC infrastructure and service costs.

So, in the short term some fees are gained and property tax collections go up. But in the long term retail vacancy rates and infrastructure and service costs go up. This impacts both residential and commercial values negatively as well over time.

[Don Haddix]

More information to regard on the total impact of the CCD proposal.

GRTA's proposed recommendations include two transportation projects in Peachtree City -- lengthening turn lanes on Ga. Hwy. 54 at Planterra Way and Huddleston Road, as well as some lane changes.Full Article (http://www.times-herald.com/Local/GRTA-nixes-Fischer-plans)

Adding in the turn lanes for Shoppes at the Piazzas and the CCD development gives us a continuous series of turn lanes along 54. Shoppers will be moving on and off 54 if they visit multiple locations.

Next add in a new traffic light that makes distances between lights shorter than ever.

Then consider the 54W Master Plan contains a Secondary Road to relieve traffic and keep it off of 54 as shoppers move from store to store. There is one on the north side of 54 and it works.

In the full plan the Secondary Road goes all the way to Huddleston, which would relieve some traffic from 54, eliminate the hopping on and off of 54 and discourage drivers from using Planterra Way as a cut through.

Adding Big Boxes and a super center to this location will increase regional traffic and shopping into Wilksmoor, thus increasing crime and ultimately costing us more money than it brings in, while closing more stores elsewhere in PTC, including the Avenues where shops are already closing. That will mean more cut through traffic for Planterra, especially without the Secondary Road, something I do not believe many there have considered.

PTC is on the wrong path. We are becoming what many of us moved here not to be. In 2005 and 2006 we were ranked number 8 in places to live. We are not even in the top 100 now.

I believe this vote on CCD is more citical to our future than many realize.

[CitizenAl]

Thank you for detail and good logic and for fighting for the best interests of PTC. CCD is not working for our best interests. Perhaps the other council members will read your blog and get a clue that they are way out of step and hurting our city and way of life.

The road improvements that may be mandated will hurt us and we should fight them.

[1smartcookie]

Mr. Haddix--Thank you so much for keeping us informed. We need more like you in our council who are willng to work for the good of our community and not bend to every demand from greedy developers. Please continue the fight and please continue to keep us informed on the road abandonment and all other issues that concern us.

Thanks again,
1smartcookie

[Don Haddix]

Here (http://www.peachtree-city.org/index.asp?NID=544) is a link to the most current plan.

Note the Big Boxes with the largest now over 45,000 sq'.

Also note here (http://www.peachtree-city.org/documents/Planning%20and%20Zoning/Rezoning-Annex-Special%20Use/Central%20Park%20at%20Line%20Creek%2021.pdf) how close together the lights will be if a light is added for this site. Additionally think about trying to get out of here and over to the left to turn into Walmart/Home Depot.

[Don Haddix]

John Munford called for a telephone interview about the CCD development vote in the upcoming Council Meeting. Link to article here (http://www.thecitizen.com/%7Ecitizen0/node/28746).

[Don Haddix]

Currently we are at a 2-2 with Cyndi requesting some changes, as in more buffers.

As of now we are looking at 175,000 sq' with two Big Boxes, a traffic light and no Secondary Road. It will probably return to Council June 19th.

[Don Haddix]

An argument we hear is that retail sales will increase by allowing the Special Use Permit to build this site. The counter argument that it will only increase vacancies is being rejected.

It has also been argued Coweta does not have a large vacancy rate nor is it growing. But here is an interesting article on that issue from Southeast Real Estate Business site:
Counties with vacancy over the 20 percent level include Coweta, Paulding, Spalding, Hall, and Clayton; Douglasville also has a vacancy rate over 20 percent. Rental rates in these counties range from $7 to $17.

Full Article (http://www.southeastrebusiness.com/articles/MAY07/highlight1.html)
Remember, this is from May 2007 and since then the housing market has taken a dramatic down turn and the retail market has declined even worse.

This decline is not a recent development. It has been growing for a number of years now.

[Don Haddix]

At the Council Meeting tonight I read an email from GDOT to a constituient into the minutes. It said a prior request for a traffic light at Line Creek and 74, in late 2007, had been rejected because the requirement was 1,000 feet separation, minimum, and this light would be located between two lights and less than 1,000 feet from either.

But the vote was taken and the SUP tentatively approved 3-2 (Sturbaum and Haddix). The conditions were:


They could proceed with creating the berms, landscaping and such but not begin any building until the light was approved.
If the light was rejected they could not remove any of the berms or landscaping and had to start over in planning at less than 150,000 sq', which means they still could do Big Boxes.

Now, my concerns are Big Boxes on a site with only one entrance/exit without a light and when it gets to the bottom line what will CCD do in fact?

Now we wait to see what GDOT says, in fact. But either way I don't think this is good for PTC.

[Don Haddix]

One item that was added to the plan for the future was the Secondary Road due to demand by Councilman Sturbaum and myself. The development was redesigned to readily attach to a road all the way to Huddleston, but the road would be built at PTC expense.

[CitizenAl]

Hopefully the next election will fix the problem and put people in the Mayor's seat and on the council that will protect our city rather than line their pockets.

[Don Haddix]

According to an article (http://www.thecitizen.com/%7Ecitizen0/node/29778) posted on the Online Citizen the light has been rejected. In fact it is stated no new light request has been submitted since the one that was rejected last year and the email I read into a Council Meeting minutes stated it was rejected.

By the terms of the vote such a rejection nullifies the voted SUP. But Doug McMurrain claims the light request is still in works and could take up to nine more months to process.

What is next I cannot tell you at the moment. I have suspensions but probably will not be able to prove them if this goes as I suspect from here.

[Don Haddix]

Efforts are underway to try to secure access to a light via The Shoppes. How that will work out with all the parties involved is an unknown at this time.

Another thought that comes to mind is that McMurrain may have a plan to salvage the development by paying for a connector to Planterra Way. The reaction to such an effort by Cardiff and Planterra would be interesting, to say the least.

My opinion would be an offer to build the full Secondary Road to Fulton Court would be preferable.

[Don Haddix]

Another issue that was raised by some from Planterra was the claim that the Secondary Road to Huddleston had been removed from the October 2001 LCI and there were lawsuits blocking purchasing a right of way through the undeveloped narrow portion of land between PTC property and Fulton Court.

There are no legal obstructions. In fact if mandated by GDOT, since Planterra Way and Huddleston Road are Connectors, it would be taken by Eminent Domain. Or, Council could actually do the same, an avenue that holds no appeal to me whatsoever.

The attachment shows the connection to Huddleston was not nor has ever been removed from the LCI.

[1smartcookie]

Currently we are at a 2-2 with Cyndi requesting some changes, as in more buffers.

As of now we are looking at 175,000 sq' with two Big Boxes, a traffic light and no Secondary Road. It will probably return to Council June 19th.

What good would more buffers do when there is not a light there, and the traffic on 54 certainly isn't condusive to another traffic light so close to the existing lights. How much more are we supposed to give up for this bully to get what he wants?

[1smartcookie]

Another issue that was raised by some from Planterra was the claim that the Secondary Road to Huddleston had been removed from the October 2001 LCI and there were lawsuits blocking purchasing a right of way through the undeveloped narrow portion of land between PTC property and Fulton Court.

There are no legal obstructions. In fact if mandated by GDOT, since Planterra Way and Huddleston Road are Connectors, it would be taken by Eminent Domain. Or, Council could actually do the same, an avenue that holds no appeal to me whatsoever.

The attachment shows the connection to Huddleston was not nor has ever been removed from the LCI.


Why would eminent domain be used? This is usually done when land is needed for a highway or such, or has been done lately (which I consider criminal, personally) to take someone's land to build a shopping center etc (usually if a depressed area needing such to bring in tax dollars). The only needs here are the developers! We have to stop giving in.

p.s. You might want to correct the spelling of eminent in you post.

[Don Haddix]

Corrections made and thanks, 1smartcookie.
What good would more buffers do when there is not a light there, and the traffic on 54 certainly isn't condusive to another traffic light so close to the existing lights. How much more are we supposed to give up for this bully to get what he wants?The theory is to better hide the development from 54 and Cardiff.

We have give far too much in my opinion. These so called improvements are not worth it.

Doug Sturbaum and I voted against the road abandonment. That would have made a drastically smaller development upon which I don't think anything would have been built.

Really, paying $10 mil for the property, then $83,000 debt service a month, legal fees and all the rest says he has to have Big Box(es) to make money and/or satisfy conditions promised to get the loan. Else why pay all these months of debt service?

This all began with an effort to guarantee no gas station or fast food eatery. It has spiraled out of control.

Maybe we will even end up the road back? Time will tell if any Big Box tenant would be willing to take up shop in a development with a non lighted intersection.

Or maybe Planterra will end up with Planterra Way connected to CCD?

I have no idea how Councilwoman Plunkett will move forward on this. All I know is there are two firm votes against an SUP and this has become a true fiasco.
Why would eminent domain be used? This is usually done when land is needed for a highway or such, or has been done lately (which I consider criminal, personally) to take someone's land to build a shopping center etc (usually if a depressed area needing such to bring in tax dollars). The only needs here are the developers! We have to stop giving in.The point was made to counter those in Planterra who said it was impossible to put a road to Huddleston. They were just being told it is not impossible.

But to do it? Distasteful at best.

No, it would not be done to build the shopping center. If it happened it would be because it had been built and the traffic impact was such State said put it in all the way, not just to Planterra Way.

It is a road that would connect two Connectors together. So it is feasible it could occur.

Better scenario is that if Big Boxes are added we end up with multiple dark boxes. Very damaging to Cardiff and Planterra home values.

How will this progress? I don't know.

[Don Haddix]

At the July 19th Council Meeting CCD Attorney Lindsey stated a request for the light had been submitted and was in work. It could take up to 9 months to receive a reply.

Then I read into the Council Minutes an email I received in stating the light request had been rejected in 2007, and no follow up efforts for the light had been made.

Following that Council voted 3-2 to approve a site plan contingent upon getting the light.

Please read the attached file, noting the dates. Names have been deleted since any questions of this issue should go to Council, not Staff.

[Don Haddix]

The most current light application is under review, but I think it will be denied.

The area is already rated D/F by GDOT, and have said this light will make it worse.

Further, just a connection to McDuff via The Shoppes is not sufficient to meet traffic demands. A minimum of a connection to Planterra Way, as well, is required to even begin to consider approval.

As of today the claims Publix at this site is unknown to the office I communicated with on this issue. No contract has yet to be signed was a firm statement from them.

So, the saga goes on.

[Don Haddix]

Unfortunately, it appears some efforts have been successful in moving the light permit request forward. The District office approved the permit application and is is coming to Council for vote on December 18th.

If passed it will then go to Atlanta for final approval.

Yet another reason why who occupies which positions at City Hall is so extremely important.

The original approval of the SUP was 3-2. Will this be the same, I do not know.

With the vacancies all over PTC, the worst at the RAM properties, and The Shoppes being built, for which I hear no enthusiasm, why this development is wanted by some on Council is a big question.

[Don Haddix]

Here is a summary the meeting. positions and current standings.

The Development Agreement:


Clearly only authorizes CCD to submit a permit proposal. Logsdon and Boone take the position PTC can submit and we remain under the Agreement.
Says we cannot oppose a submission by CCD. This application is by PTC, so we can oppose.
Says that if unclear on conflicting interpretations exist, the strict letter of the GC shall apply. There is no SUP under the strict GC only.
Says that the Road Abandonment and Site Plan are not complete until a traffic light is installed/allowed, so the roads still belong to PTC and there is no approved Site Plan.

Logsdon says that we must honor the agreement made whether required or not. The old Tennis Center debt assumption argument that it is the right thing to do. Truth is he wants this development.

I addressed the concern about a connection to Planterra Way as well. PTC is under absolutely no obligation to allow that connection. That limits this development to a right turn, single driveway access, to 54 East only.

The proposed traffic impact numbers only show the best impact is no development. The claim that a light is better than no light with a closed median is, to me, flawed and biased because:


It is based on people doing a U-turn to access the shopping center, which is a flawed notion, they won't.
It is a known, already, business on stretches requiring U-turns are not doing well in PTC. Certainly not like those who have a turn lane at an intersection.
For those who remember, we had a Del Taco, on 54, at the current DQ site. It did well until GDOT closed the median, causing it to go out of business. When the DQ went in and it, along with other businesses, kept claiming harm, an intersection with turn lanes was added. Business came back. And that was an area that was far easier to do a U-turn on, then, than in Wilksmoor, now.
Businesses, especially Big Boxes, depend on high traffic flow. They are not going to get it on single, right turn only, driveway that only accesses 54 East. So they will not locate there.
So, adding a 6th light to this stretch will do nothing but add driving time and congestion.
This area is already graded F by GDOT. It will be a worse F with another light.

The claim was made this will help Planterra Way traffic. This claims is, to be polite, incomprehensible, because:


Adding a light automatically adds driving time and causes more congestion.
There is no conceivable way it will keep people from using Planterra Way as a cut through.
The argument of having to add a connection to Planterra Way is false. Council does not have to do so.
As to the theory that this center will attract additional shoppers, if true, which I reject, it will make 54 worse, which makes Planterra Way issues worse.
If additional shoppers were attracted from south of 54/74, what is the fastest way to get there? Up Planterra Way, left onto 54 and then left into the center. And reverse the course to go home. Cut out 74/54 altogether.

The the claim CCD will build something worse if we don't grant it. I disagree because:


If CCD could have made money building no Big Boxes on a smaller developable lot with roads still in place and single driveway connection to 54, it would have already happened.
McMurrain has stated he needs Big Boxes to make it work.
He isn't going to get tennants in a cubby hole like this.
Just making it look prettier does not make the overall situation better.

Some have argued this is good for PTC. They mainly live in Cardiff Park and some in Planterra. So, they are actually saying they believe this is better for them, as being adjacent to it.

With all due respect and with every desire to protect homes, this was built next to GC and they did buy next to GC. So it is not as if they didn't know they might get actual GC built next to them.

Truly the best protection they can get is to make this the smallest and hardest to access development possible.

Rest assured, many in Planterra, and some in Cardiff, do not want this to be allowed.

I have to add here, while Logsdon and some other others on Council, believe The Citizen is slanted, in its views, and does not always get it 100% accurate, true on the accuracy, I do not think it begins to compare with Today in Peachtree City on being slanted.

You would think there is no one speaking or having any knowledge on issues other than Logsdon, with Plunkett in back up. It is happening in article after article.

The article on this issue was way over the edge in that arena. Harold got about half the column, followed by Cyndi and then Boone. The rest on Council, not even named, and some in the audience, had 'questions.'

No one there would say either the audience or I had 'questions,' only. There were very strong statements and reactions by the audience. I spoke extensively on the issues and laid out clear, backed statements, in opposition to this light.

Even the title said the light permit had not been approved yet.

Sorry, but I had to vent on this a bit. Putting out false views on what happened is not helpful to the citizens of PTC.

In a nut shell, Council can limit CCD to what the basic GC ordinance allows, keep the Line Creek roads in place, thus restricting developable size, and only allow a single right turn only driveway connection to 74. Enabling the developer is not exerting greater control or making a better product, it is making the whole set of issues worse than they have to be.

[ptcga2]

Agree 100%. Please keep fighting for the (apparently) silent majority on this issue.

[Don Haddix]

Agree 100%. Please keep fighting for the (apparently) silent majority on this issue.
Thank you.

Doug and I have had MANY contacts on this issue. It is opposed strongly.

Emails to Council, past and present, have been extremely negative about it as well.

Council fully knows how much this is disliked, but some believe they know what is best best for PTC over the wishes of the citizens.

At the Council Meeting, citizens actually moaned when comments about how good this would be were made. There was actual applause when opposition was expressed, causing the Mayor to gavel silence.

[1smartcookie]

Here is a summary the meeting. positions and current standings.

The Development Agreement:


Clearly only authorizes CCD to submit a permit proposal. Logsdon and Boone take the position PTC can submit and we remain under the Agreement.
Says we cannot oppose a submission by CCD. This application is by PTC, so we can oppose.
Says that if unclear on conflicting interpretations exist, the strict letter of the GC shall apply. There is no SUP under the strict GC only.
Says that the Road Abandonment and Site Plan are not complete until a traffic light is installed/allowed, so the roads still belong to PTC and there is no approved Site Plan.

Logsdon says that we must honor the agreement made whether required or not. The old Tennis Center debt assumption argument that it is the right thing to do. Truth is he wants this development.

I addressed the concern about a connection to Planterra Way as well. PTC is under absolutely no obligation to allow that connection. That limits this development to a right turn, single driveway access, to 54 East only.

The proposed traffic impact numbers only show the best impact is no development. The claim that a light is better than no light with a closed median is, to me, flawed and biased because:


It is based on people doing a U-turn to access the shopping center, which is a flawed notion, they won't.
It is a known, already, business on stretches requiring U-turns are not doing well in PTC. Certainly not like those who have a turn lane at an intersection.
For those who remember, we had a Del Taco, on 54, at the current DQ site. It did well until GDOT closed the median, causing it to go out of business. When the DQ went in and it, along with other businesses, kept claiming harm, an intersection with turn lanes was added. Business came back. And that was an area that was far easier to do a U-turn on, then, than in Wilksmoor, now.
Businesses, especially Big Boxes, depend on high traffic flow. They are not going to get it on single, right turn only, driveway that only accesses 54 East. So they will not locate there.
So, adding a 6th light to this stretch will do nothing but add driving time and congestion.
This area is already graded F by GDOT. It will be a worse F with another light.

The claim was made this will help Planterra Way traffic. This claims is, to be polite, incomprehensible, because:


Adding a light automatically adds driving time and causes more congestion.
There is no conceivable way it will keep people from using Planterra Way as a cut through.
The argument of having to add a connection to Planterra Way is false. Council does not have to do so.
As to the theory that this center will attract additional shoppers, if true, which I reject, it will make 54 worse, which makes Planterra Way issues worse.
If additional shoppers were attracted from south of 54/74, what is the fastest way to get there? Up Planterra Way, left onto 54 and then left into the center. And reverse the course to go home. Cut out 74/54 altogether.

The the claim CCD will build something worse if we don't grant it. I disagree because:


If CCD could have made money building no Big Boxes on a smaller developable lot with roads still in place and single driveway connection to 54, it would have already happened.
McMurrain has stated he needs Big Boxes to make it work.
He isn't going to get tennants in a cubby hole like this.
Just making it look prettier does not make the overall situation better.

Some have argued this is good for PTC. They mainly live in Cardiff Park and some in Planterra. So, they are actually saying they believe this is better for them, as being adjacent to it.

With all due respect and with every desire to protect homes, this was built next to GC and they did buy next to GC. So it is not as if they didn't know they might get actual GC built next to them.

Truly the best protection they can get is to make this the smallest and hardest to access development possible.

Rest assured, many in Planterra, and some in Cardiff, do not want this to be allowed.

I have to add here, while Logsdon and some other others on Council, believe The Citizen is slanted, in its views, and does not always get it 100% accurate, true on the accuracy, I do not think it begins to compare with Today in Peachtree City on being slanted.

You would think there is no one speaking or having any knowledge on issues other than Logsdon, with Plunkett in back up. It is happening in article after article.

The article on this issue was way over the edge in that arena. Harold got about half the column, followed by Cyndi and then Boone. The rest on Council, not even named, and some in the audience, had 'questions.'

No one there would say either the audience or I had 'questions,' only. There were very strong statements and reactions by the audience. I spoke extensively on the issues and laid out clear, backed statements, in opposition to this light.

Even the title said the light permit had not been approved yet.

Sorry, but I had to vent on this a bit. Putting out false views on what happened is not helpful to the citizens of PTC.

In a nut shell, Council can limit CCD to what the basic GC ordinance allows, keep the Line Creek roads in place, thus restricting developable size, and only allow a single right turn only driveway connection to 74. Enabling the developer is not exerting greater control or making a better product, it is making the whole set of issues worse than they have to be.
Don, thanks, have been out of town so just got message. Keep fighting for us.

[Don Haddix]

We have some additional engineering feedback, from LAI, which is CCD's firm, on the impact of the proposed light. In summary:


Synchronizing the lights, from McDuff to 54/74 would increase 54 flow, but cause increase delay times on side streets, such as Line Creek, McDuff, Planterra Way, Walmart, etc.
Access to such as Planterra Way is not available. They were evaluated and rejected as options.
A Secondary Road was considered and rejected.
Center line to center line, Planterra Way to Line Creek, is 782'.
Center line to center line, Line Creek to McDuff, is 819'.
The study assumes that the number of turns into the shopping center with the light would be the same as then number of U-turns without the light.

Bottom line is they assume the SUP development will go ahead be the same whether they only have a single drive, right turn only, access or a light. No change in tenants or anything else.

Further, there are only two options for accessing this development; a light or a single driveway with right turn only access and egress.

No other options, approval of the Signal Application, by Council, or the SUP is dead, meaning CCD has to go for a GC only development or apply for another SUP.

Without the light, anyone going into this area would be at the mercy of the good graces of drivers allowing them back on 54 in heavy traffic, having to U-turn to access going west and more.

Now, who would locate a business there? What pre-build leases could CCD get to justify building?

Then kick in 1/3 vacancy across the street with better access than this site, and the under construction Shoppes at the Piazzas.

This does not make sense.