PTC shopping center gets green light

Tue, 12/16/2008 - 5:01pm
By: John Munford

Yet another traffic light may be coming soon to the traffic-choked commute on Ga. Highway 54 West in Peachtree City, and the City Council’s hands apparently are tied from trying to stop it.

Approval of the signal will give the green light to a large commercial development next to Planterra Ridge subdivision.

If ultimately approved by state officials the light will add a fifth traffic light on Hwy. 54 between Ga. Highway 74 and the county line.

The area office of the Georgia Department of Transportation has approved a traffic light permit to erect a new light on Line Creek Drive to serve the planned Line Creek shopping center that will be anchored by a Publix grocery store.

The DOT previously had turned down two previous traffic light applications from Capital City Development for Line Creek Drive and Hwy. 54, saying the light was too close to the other nearby lights: at Planterra and Hwy. 54 to the east and at MacDuff Parkway and Hwy. 54 to the west.

If the request is approved by the City Council it must be forwarded to the main DOT office in Atlanta for final approval, city officials have said. According to a development agreement the city entered with CCD, the city has agreed not to oppose the traffic signal at the intersection.

The issue will be discussed at Thursday night’s council meeting which begins at 7 p.m. at City Hall.

In a Monday night posting on The Citizen’s website, Councilman Don Haddix expressed his dismay at the change in the light’s status.

“Supposedly I have seen the communications, but have seen nothing that justified this permit request being brought before Council,” Haddix wrote. “I have asked what changed to allow this, but have gotten silence for an answer. Which makes me, to be polite, extremely displeased.

“This permit request is not in CCD’s name, but PTC’s,” Haddix wrote. “Without this light, I doubt CCD could build anything.”

CCD will pay for design and installation of the signal and the city will be responsible for paying the ongoing electric and phone bills associated with the light, officials have said.

In a development agreement for the property that was approved earlier this year, the city will receive at least $500,000 in return for deeding part of the Line Creek Drive and Line Creek Court’s rights of way to Capital City. The final amount is to be determined by appraisals from an entity selected by CCD and approved by city officials.

Without that property CCD would have been forced to have smaller stores due to the city’s road setback rules.

CCD has also agreed to pay for landscaping the median on Hwy. 54 from the intersection westward to MacDuff Parkway. The company will also re-landscape the nearby entrance to the Planterra Ridge subdivision along Planterra Way.

In his Monday posting Haddix expressed disappointment in the city’s direction, as exemplified by the proposed new traffic light on busy Hwy. 54 West.

“No, we are not going in the right direction. Having lived here almost 22 years now, this is not the PTC vision we bought a home here for,” Haddix wrote. “One reason I ran for office was to try to stop going down the wrong path, get back to that vision and fix as much of what was done wrong as possible. But on the important votes, that speak direction to this, Councilman [Doug] Sturbaum and I keep losing 3-2.”

login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Mike King's picture
Submitted by Mike King on Thu, 12/18/2008 - 9:40am.

The fervor this entire debacle has created can continue on forever. I can but imagine the frustration the two newly elected Councilmen experience daily, theirs is not a position for envy.

They continue to voice the desires of the majority of Peachtree City despite routine setbacks created by a city staff and an arrogant Mayor who firmly believe that they, and they alone know what is best for our town. I wish them well.

I would like to offer a suggestion, however: Should this light be approved and installed, it be done so with the condition that the newly created intersection be named "The Logsdon-McMurrain Intersection." Which would give ample recognition to the two most prominent individuals who have stood steadfast against the will of residents for this project. Further, when traversing either east or west along one of the slowest miles on the southside of Atlanta, can be reminded of just who it was who made this trek possible.

Just my two cents worth.


Submitted by skyspy on Thu, 12/18/2008 - 6:37pm.

Now we have familiar names to go with the intersection, just like lenox junction and the lenox tennis fraud .....ooooopppppsss... um center.

mudcat's picture
Submitted by mudcat on Thu, 12/18/2008 - 7:47pm.

Research how and when this crap got approved.


Submitted by dollaradayandno... on Fri, 12/19/2008 - 8:41am.

Just like Bush, whom you say is not responsible for our current fate, neither is the current PTC administration!
Bukk malarky. They can as a whole do nearly anything they want, and are.

Submitted by new2ptc on Thu, 12/18/2008 - 10:47am.

As mentioned below let the DOT know about your concerns by going to
GA DOT - Contact Us and send them a note. The issue is a traffic signal at Line Creek Dr. and Ga Hwy 54.

I did.

Submitted by UrKidding on Wed, 12/17/2008 - 11:29am.

I appreciate Haddix's attempts to make some changes but when did the city agree not to stand in the way of the light? Haddix: did that include you and when did you agree to this (as I would think the city meaning city council). I'm sure it won't make a dent but I will not shop at this complex. The arrogance of the developer and city to say they don't care what the citizens think, they will build what they want when they want it and get over it even if the DOT has denied it twice. If they, city council and mayor, can make this happen count on a 10 story hotel in the near future probably across the street from McIntosh.

"According to a development agreement the city entered with CCD, the city has agreed not to oppose the traffic signal at the intersection"

Don Haddix's picture
Submitted by Don Haddix on Wed, 12/17/2008 - 1:58pm.

I began working against this development, last year, during the election cycle, as did Doug Sturbaum. We have voted against all of this, every step of the way, from abandoning the roads on to date, loosing every vote 3-2.

Paragraph 14, of the agreement, says CCD may apply for a traffic light and Council will not oppose that application. It does not say we cannot oppose an application made by anyone else.

This permit application is made outside of the Development agreement, since only CCD is stated as being able to make the application, within the Development Agreement.

This agreement was made, in June, as part of the Special Use Permit for Big Boxes and an Extra 25,000 sq'.

A bit of term definition here. There is the Mayor's office and the City Council Members' offices. Mayor plus Council Members is the Council.

Truly, how Council is used can make clear meaning difficult at times.

So, when something passes or fails, in any combination of 5-0 to 0-5, it is said the Council did it. On all these issues Council passed the agenda item by a vote of 3-2. Often the vote is not included, but that does not mean a unanimous vote occurred.

Also, we cannot override GDOT. This is before us because, after two rejections of CCD, something changed, when PTC got involved, that caused GDOT to move forward on allowing the permit to proceed.

But understand, even allowing the permit to move forward does not mean the next, higher level of GDOT, will approve it.

Don Haddix
PTC Councilman
Post 1
donhaddix.com


Submitted by UrKidding on Wed, 12/17/2008 - 5:10pm.

I sent Mr Golden a message today asking what changed. Hope to hear back from him as per the GDOT website his office is responsible for:

Traffic engineering policies statewide
Traffic signal permits on state routes

Keith Golden, P.E.
State Traffic Operations Engineer
Georgia Department of Transportation
TMC - Building #24
935 E. Confederate Avenue
Atlanta, GA 30316
Phone: (404)635-8115
Fax: (404)635-8116

bad_ptc's picture
Submitted by bad_ptc on Wed, 12/17/2008 - 3:06pm.

Councilman Haddix you stated:

“Also, we cannot override GDOT. This is before us because, after two rejections of CCD, something changed, when PTC got involved, that caused GDOT to move forward on allowing the permit to proceed.”

The meeting minutes state:

City Council Minutes, June 19 2008, Page 2
“Plunkett asked Rast if the plan would be scrapped if the signal were not approved Meeker said the signal was a condition of the approval of the plan.”

So am I to understand that the ‘signal’ was not approved at least twice up to this point and the city council has not canceled the SUP?

Based on what I've read I can only conclude that either the city attorney lied or the city council has failed to act in accordance with the terms and conditions of the SUP. Which is it?

In either case I suspect laws may have been broken and someone should be held legally accountable.


Don Haddix's picture
Submitted by Don Haddix on Wed, 12/17/2008 - 10:02pm.

Correct. CCD started the permit process, twice, and was denied, twice, at the initial stages.

Some on Council are trying to claim PTC is part of the process, by GDOT requirement, therefore part of the Agreement. Also no paper application has been submitted to date, hence no application.

But the application is a process, not a single piece of paper. So, denial at any step is an application denial.

Also, the process GDOT requires has noting to do with what the Agreement stipulates. Two different issues with our concern on being able to vote against it governed by the Agreement, not the GDOT process.

If this approval goes through, then this issue becomes moot and the Agreement is not null and void, regardless of how the permit was processed.

The City Attorney did not lie. He was and is correct. He does not control when it would be declared null and void, Council does.

Some demand the point of being null and void is not reached until GDOT formally gives a final denial at top level, which could very well happen even if this permit submission is approved. But it is a false demand that does not justify a demand PTC must file this application.

There is more, but I am reserving that for the Council Meeting. Sorry, but I have to hold back some things.

Hope that wasn't too convoluted to follow.

Don Haddix
PTC Councilman
Post 1
donhaddix.com


Submitted by UrKidding on Wed, 12/17/2008 - 3:25pm.

It was denied twice and it's now in front of the council. Who's getting paid to make sure this happens. It only makes sense that someone is getting paid off. "something changed" shouldn't that say exchanged? Why does everything read PTC who is PTC and why don't we have a name? I as a citizen (I thought) was PTC but I didn't sign up for this.

Submitted by Arf on Tue, 12/16/2008 - 10:34pm.

There has been nothing but citizen outrage at the proposition of this new light and the city will not hear.

The DOT website (www.dot.state.ga) takes comments from concerned (and taxpaying) citizens. I've already written my comments. If you are concerned about the ridiculous proposal to put another light at 54/74, let the DOT know about it. Maybe they will listen. We pay their salaries too. Bombard the DOT with your concerns!

Cyclist's picture
Submitted by Cyclist on Tue, 12/16/2008 - 5:55pm.

Peachtree City needs it more.
-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.


hutch866's picture
Submitted by hutch866 on Tue, 12/16/2008 - 6:13pm.

A while back our old friend Stevie Brown stated that the one bypass was just to slow traffic out of PTC, because you know the whole county is centered around what's best for PTC.

I yam what I yam....Popeye


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.