Time I'd like to ask everyone to please silence or turn off your cell phones. The Planning Commission is a recommending body to the Mayor and City Council and we follow guidelines in conjunction with the public hearing to assist in formulating a recommendation. Copies of the Planning Commission procedures and staff reports are available at the entrance to the chamber. Following the agenda, the presiding officer will call cases for public hearing. First, the presiding officer shall recognize planning staff to present the case and recommendations. We will then open the public hearing. First, the presiding officer shall recognize planning staff to present the case and recommendations. We will then open the public hearing. The applicant shall receive a time period of 10 minutes to present their case. Concurrent variances are granted 10 minutes each. The time is kept by planning staff. The applicant may choose to use their entire allotment or reserve a portion of their time for a bottle. Any member of the hearing body upon recognition by the presiding officer may ask questions of the applicant or the agent of the application. The period of questions from the Planning Commission is not deducted from the applicant's time period. Opposition is granted an equal time period per application to present data, evidence, and opinions. If a large number of people wish to speak in opposition, it's advisable to designate spokesperson to make the presentation. The city is not obligated to provide the full time period to opponents if they elect not to use their time, and the opposition is not granted a rebuttal period. Any member of the hearing body upon recognition by the presiding officer may ask questions of any person giving public comment. After completing this process, the presiding officer will indicate that the public hearing is closed. Upon closing the public hearing, the Planning Commission can no longer be addressed by the applicant or opposition. The Planning Commission will ask the questions of city staff at this time. Once questions have been asked and addressed, the presiding officer will call for a motion, and properly seconded, we'll call for a vote. The presiding officer will then state the vote in recommendation for the record. We'll start by introducing the commissioners and attendance this evening, starting from my left. Commissioner Katzen, commissioner Holst, commissioner Nan, commissioner Sanders, commissioner Carmel and commissioner Horton. First item on the agenda is approval of the minutes from our Tuesday December 6 meeting. Are there recommendations to approve its submitter changes to the minutes? I'll make a motion, but before I do I wanted to say kudos to whoever got all of my comments here, which were substantial. So I'll make a motion to approve. All second. So motion to approve is submitted by Commissioner Sanders, seconded by Commissioner Horton, all in favor. Raise your hands, aye. Motion passes 7-0 and the minutes are approved. First side of a new business is Land Use Petition, RZ 22-0-0-09. Good evening, planning commissioners. My name is Rujiye Garwal and I'll be presenting tonight's case, RZ-22-0009. The subject property is Camden Hall subdivision, which is located at 502-517 Camden Hall Drive and 10725 Jones Bridge Road. The entire subdivision is about 7.47 acres, and the existing zoning is R4 conditional, and the proposed zoning will remain R4 conditional. The request is to change in conditions to eliminate condition number 17 and to allow for a full access ingress egress on Jones Bridge Road. Existing conditions, the subdivision is located south of Jones Bridge Road and west Martin Road intersection and is bounded by Jones Bridge Road to the West, Fulton County Water Tower and West Martin Road to the North, the Gates subdivision to the East and South, and Windbridge subdivision to the South West. This subdivision is a 16-lot subdivision which was approved by the Council, pursuant to zoning case RZ-17-006, and concurrent variance VZ-17-006-01. Staff recommended condition number 8 in the current conditions for one full access drive way on Jones Bridge Road back then. But as a result of the council hearing, council added condition number 17, which is to restrict the entrance to ride and right out only. And on your right on this line is the current entrance shown, which shows the island, which is right and right out only. The rezoning request is the applicant is requesting to remove zoning number condition number 17, which is to allow for a single full access point on Jones Bridge Road, shown on the highlighted circle here. The applicant has indicated that the proposed full access would allow residents to turn left into and out of the neighborhood and reduce some travel times, eliminate the need for residents to make unsafe U-turns, and eliminate additional vehicles entering from entering nearby neighborhoods to make unsafe U-turns and eliminate additional vehicles entering from entering nearby neighborhoods to make legal turns and then make a left on Jones Bridge Road. Next, we'll take a look at the zoning impact analysis, which is the first credit suitability with nearby land uses. These are all thes that surround this subdivision camp in Hall, when bridge neighbourhood to the south, the gates, long Indian creek, oaklanding, Jones Bridge Hill and edge hill place. As you can see, these all neighbourhoods show full access entrance to these neighbourhoods. This is the chart that is included in the staff report and I like to point out that this, the existing density of the neighborhood is 2.14 and there are 16 lots which is pretty similar to the adjacent and nearby residential neighborhoods either the same or higher that they have. And the number of lots is also pretty much at the lower end or higher. And all these neighborhoods have full access entrance. Next is impact to existing uses. The proposed full access driveway for Camden Hall's subdivision is consistent with the development pattern found in the area. The vehicles would be able to enter and exit the site without causing unnecessary traffic movements on Jones Bridge Road or require additional vehicles into adjacent neighborhoods. This proposal would not adversely affect the existing use or usability of the surrounding properties. The property appears to have a reasonable economic use as currently is owned. It is expected to generate 187 daily trips, including 14 trips in the morning peak hours and 18 trips in the evening peak hours. The existing driver is approximately 550 feet away from the closest signalized intersection at Jones Bridge Road and West Modern Road, which exceeds the minimum full access driver distance separation required by the sections in city's development regulations and the distance is 250 feet. The existing centre-turn lane in front of the subdivision entrance provides safe location for vehicles to stack, waiting to turn left into the neighborhood and also a holding place for vehicles exiting the neighborhood before merging into southbound traffic on Jones Bridge Road. Therefore the proposed full access driveway would have little to no impact on the use of existing streets. Next we'll take a look at the consistency with the comp plan. This subdivision is located in OC community area and the comprehensive plan's future lens use map indicates residential three units or less for this area and the existing subdivision has a density of 2.14 units per acre. The transportation vision of comprehensive plan supports the improvement of traffic movements for subdivision, which is indicated by one of the objective listed in the comp plan, which is where supported by existing subdivisions, provide left-turn lanes to allow residents easier access to collector and minor arterial roadways. The full access driveway is compliant with the city's development regulations and existing development pattern found along the segment of the Jones Bridge Road. Therefore, the proposal, as requested, is consistent with the vision, policy and intent of the comprehensive plan. There are no additional conditions giving support for approval or disapproval of this proposal. And lastly, the proposed change in condition would not be environmentally adverse to the natural resources environment and the citizens of John's city of John's Cree. With that, staff recommends approval of land use petition RZ-22-0009 by preserving existing applicable conditions from the prior zoning case and eliminating condition number 17. That concludes my presentation. Thank you, Ms. Sagarwal. Before we open the public hearing, I'll just remind everyone, if you come forward to speak, please state your name and address for the record. And at this time, if the applicant would like to come forward. Fantastic, thank you everybody. My name is Alex Steinwax and I live at 502 Camdenhall Drive and I'm here on behalf of the Camdenhall community. So real quick Camdenhall, could we stand up? All right. So this is, yeah, big chunk of the neighborhood came out tonight in support of this. So we'll be. Move forward here. So you know talk about removal of addition 17. When we initially applied we also had removal of 16 based on feedback from the adjoining neighborhoods we've revoked that request. So we're only talking about removal of 17 within that. Okay, so here it is on the zoning again 17 right in. Okay, good. Reach you did a great job of setting all this up. I wanted to give a picture of this. And I'll talk about the impact this has had and kind of the reasons that we've put together. So the biggest thing is we've seen a significant increase in commute times, to just like the pharmacy, to school, anywhere, in and out left. So that's been a big impact on us. We've also noticed that vehicles entering and exiting, they're going into other subdivisions and making euterns there, right? Because there is no place to do that. There's no eutern at the Morton Road light. There's no roundabouts nearby that we can easily go back. So there isn't a great way from a flow standpoint. We also, barricades were installed. So we're all recent residents because the community is just a few years old. And so we've been doing full access. And then you put the barricades up a year ago, and it's been causing this traffic flow since then. We understand why, right, because that was how it was zoned within that. But we do see that the barricades are causing potential safety issues, because people are doing that. And I've got some pictures and stuff to show that, but let's take a side, the residents, anybody coming into the community, they're not abiding by the right and right now. So I've got some pictures to show, different delivery vehicles, service vehicles, they're coming in out and out then. They're just ignoring what's there. Again, causing unsafe conditions for that. The other piece here is Fulton County Board of Assessments. We're going through reviewing that and they were working with one of the residents on an unrelated case. And they notice, oh, you've got these ugly barricades up. And they're making the recommendation of reducing the grade from grade X to grade A because of that. So that would have an impact. And I think they said 5% to 10% reduction in accessible property values from a tax base as well. So we'll have an impact there according to the Fulton County Board of Assessors. And then it's the only community right and right now. I think she did a great job of talking about that. And then yeah, I can proxively 551 feet from Morton Road Traffic signal. So here's some examples of this is going to, okay, Dolvin Elementary, which is where we're allotted to go. And as you see here, to go from Dolvin back home, it's a two minute, half a mile trip. But if you were to follow Google Maps to get there, it's 3.3 miles going all the way up through Alpharetta to come, we have to go through OSE, you know, going all the way up through Alfa Reda to come. I mean, we have to go through OSE school zone to get to our school, right, to kind of add to that. And similar for the middle school, Audrey Mills middle school is where we're district ed. And so like we have to go through the state bridge and mid-legged intersection just to get to the middle school, which is already a very busy intersection. Again, to do all this according to Google Maps. And then, lastly, just getting to the pharmacy, it was a very short trip there and three and a half mile trip back. Here's some pictures. So you've got a UPS truck coming in through that and another vehicle. Again I mean you're not residents you're just people coming into visit and then I've got this was on Christmas Eve I got a FedEx truck going out to the end again so this is you know not our vehicles they're they're doing these things and it's got I mean you could I love the no left turn sign as well so it's not like it's not there's no signage there And then I've got hopefully this video will play So what we're seeing here I don't know if we got sound But that's a city of John's yeah truck almost getting in an accident by somebody coming in they out So if you need to play it again I can do it one more time just uh so yeah here's the city city truck and then a car coming in avoiding Yeah, so Okay, yeah, so again other local neighborhoods, you know, access. The only thing I want to point out is, the only piece I want to point out is we don't have where the only intersection that we don't have any other driveway across from us. Right? So all the other ones you're having to navigate, potentially two cars coming out, we're just purely with the only one there. So that's the only thing I want to point out. And then here's the picture of the distance measured from ours to the nearest one. So at this point, I will put it like a reserve any time for any rebuttal. Perfect. Thank you so much. Thank you, Mr. Steinwax. Anyone else who'd like to come up and speak in support of the application? If not, please. Please state your name and address for the writer. I'm Chris Wagner and I live at 10 570 Windbridge Drive, and I'm here to support this proposal. We've had a couple of experiences where somebody was doing a U-turn, performing a U-turn in front of us as we're returning into our subdivision, which has almost caused a accident. I think you can see from the images in the video that it's only matter of time until accident happens, until this, you know, the barrier is removed. So that's all I wanna time until next, and then it happens until this, you know, the Sparrier is removed. So that's all I want to say. Okay, we appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. Wagner. You want to know too light to come up and give public comment. Okay, we'll reserve the balance of the time for the applicant. Then we'll reserve the balance of the time if we can. Perfect. Anyone who'd like to come up and speak in opposition? Good evening, council. My name is Mary Beth Commission. My name is Mary Beth Cooper. I'm a resident of Johns Creek. The residents of Camden Hall knew the right and right out restriction when they bought their home. The entrance restriction was one of the first items completed on that build. You can see it by Rushi's own picture. There's three houses built, the pipe is already there. Their displeasure began truly when the City of John's Creek Public Works decided to put up the ballards on John's Creek to stop the neighbors from illegally turning left. Two left hand turn signs were removed from that sign you see and had to be replaced by the City of John's Creek. I don't know who did it, but it's kind of interesting. There's an old average, caveat, mentor, buyer beware. This was a condition. We stated at City Council, because this was a very harsh case. I live in the gates that has been impacted tremendously by the subdivision. We said these buyers better know they can't turn left to get to their zone elementary school. Oh they'll be fine. It'll be fine. That's fine. They knew that the right in right out was put in as a safety precaution. One thing not mentioned is directly across the street is the Baha'i Faith Center. They have two entrances. Almost a full drive-through round circular driveway through there. There's also a long Indian creek. There's also an entrance to get into for this Fountain County to the water towers. That's why that right out was put there. It was a safety issue because all of those turning are there. The other problem we have is their timing is kind of respectfully. Yeah, I can put anything into Google Maps and get a link of 6.5 miles if I want to. You can turn right out of their subdivision, making immediately left turn into long Indian Creek or you can make an immediate left turn into the Baha'i Center which is open and drive through their parking lot and they have a part not even have to make a U-turn circular out. Get there in an extra 200 feet of driving. They can come into our subdivision in the gates, right down Morton Road. We have a huge open cul-de-sac. They can turn around and they will cause no issues. All of these choices are significantly safer than a left hand turn. On page six of the staff report, number four, staff advocates in a legal action. The legal action that staff advocates is additionally a turn lane exists on Jones Merge Road directly in front of the subdivision entrance, providing a safe location for vehicles to stack as needed to turn left in the subdivision. That's legal, as well as a holding place for vehicles exiting the neighborhood before merging into southbound traffic. That is illegal. How do I know that's illegal? Because our Johns Creek police posted on their Facebook page on January 30th. They started a new thing. I suggest you watch it. Laws you may not know. It is OCGA 40-6-126. Whenever a highway or roadway has a central churn, central lane in which traffic may enter from either direction, for the purposes of making a left turn, no vehicle shall be driven into such a central lane except for the purpose of making a left turn. And no vehicle shall enter into such a central lane at a location, whereas more than 300 feet from the location, the vehicle will turn left across one or more lanes of the oncoming traffic. No vehicle which has been driven in such a central lane, shall be operated in such a central lane for more than 300 feet. Basically, you can't drive half a mile down the center lane to turn left. You also cannot turn left into it and sit there. It's against the law. Interesting left, they made a little picture of the whole thing. You can see it is the January 30th Facebook page of the City of John's Creek, of John's Creek Police Department. That's concerning that this is being advocated by our staff. of the city of John's Creek, of John's Creek Police Department. That's concerning that this is being advocated by our staff and it's a legal term. The problem with Jones Bridge is all of you know, Jones Bridge between waters and state bridge is going to be widened at some point. Our council ever decides to do it. Has it been done yet. It will be. The other problem we have, and we went through this when we did it, is you have all these terms. People are going, there have been accidents. The one thing our city has and the one thing we pulled out when we brought this, our city has a massive database that you can access for free. We pulled out the accident data. And we looked at the accident data between BICE and State Bridge. I was shocked when I saw how many accidents occur in that very short span of road. It's worse now. I don't know why they didn't bother to look at that. 18 months ago, there was a turnover accident almost directly in front of that subdivision before the ballerge went up, so it might be more than 18 months. Someone almost died, they blocked the road. There was another one just recently in front of the A's hardware. Car flipped on its roof. They guess you eat. Because somebody was turning left at the A's hardware. A legal left. As far as other subdivisions, there is one. Right pass by us. Jones Estates is a legal, it has a right and right out restriction. It's directly across from Cohen House. The other one that's in the area is right off across from co-in house. The other one that's in the area is right off of Jones Bridge at Old Alabama, Austria States. That subdivision has come to the city multiple times asking for their ballers and their right in right out to be removed. That subdivision is significantly older. Cities deny that every time. See, his answer is it's too close to the light. It's further from the light than the Camden Hall entrance. 700 feet. 551 feet. So, in addition, who's going to pay for this? I don't want my city taxes to pay for it. This was put in by the builder rightfully so. They want it taken out. They need to pay for all the work to remove this. This needs to be reviewed. There was a reason this was put in there. This was not a willy nilly by any means of any chance zoning. It took two and a half hours in front of the council, and that was after two refilings, and three to six delays depending on if you want to count them all. This was done with purpose and with thought. So I asked this commission to take this up with purpose and thought. It's not just 16 homes impacted. It's anyone who travels on Jones Bridge Road between those corridors. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Cooper. Anyone else who'd like to come up and speak in opposition of the application? In that case, opposition's time is forfitted. I believe the applicant has four minutes remaining for a battle. Okay, thank you. Thank you for coming in such large numbers in opposition. I do want to state for the record that the opposition did not state where they live, just at the gates generally. Within that, I do want to point out that the gates, if we look at where they are, they're actually not. There we go. Come on. There are communities over here, right, not even off of Jones Bridge Road, whereas the other communities which did come in support and ones that are immediately impacted did come out in support of that. Let's see, as far as going through a church parking lot to in order to get to and from school, that's private property and we don't see that as a viable alternative to traffic flow. Safety, all the experts that we've spoken with, including the staff as well as the initial recommendation of like, it should be full access based on zoning condition number eight. Indicated that it was safe within that, there was no concerns that we've heard that anything expressed within that. Accidents, again, since the community was fully built, we haven't had any accidents within that, so I don't know what the time period or the counts, so I do want to state that the counts nor the specifics for that. I don't have any way to respond to, there were a bunch of accidents at some point in the past. I don't have any data to go, I can't rebuttal that. I'm sure if you give it enough long enough time to do it, yes. Jones estates, so yeah, it's near the light, right? It's within whatever the number of feet, a very close number of feet, which that's by regulation they have to have right and right out within that. And as far as communities off of Jones Bridge, I don't, I don't, again, have any indication or idea about how those communities are operate off Old Alabama. I mean, that's pretty far down. And there's other contexts that I'm not necessarily aware of. But if we're looking at the section of Jones Bridge, the only other one is that. And then the other thing that I will say is that we're open to leaving that if we put roundabouts around, you know, at the intersection so we can easily turn around. So if you'd want to leave right in, right out and just put some roundabouts, you know, a couple hundred feet each direction, or in front, like you have at Bellmore Park, Off Bell Road, right? So that's the other new, like kind of the newest subdivision here in John's Creek. They got around about in right and right out. So I mean, you want to do around about instead. But that might not be economically feasible. But again, if you want to keep that right in right out, we think around about would be a reasonable recommendation within that. And then, you know, I think the last one was who's going to pay for this? Not sure what the this was. That whole section of road is going to get redone eventually. And so the recommendation was in order for that to get included, because it's all going to get ripped up anyways. We have to change the zoning, otherwise they're going to rip it up and then put up the same thing again. So either way, and I would say go talk to the public works about what, you know, if there's any additional cost on that, but we're not aware of any based on the conversations that we've had within that. I think I got a trigger rate everything down as fast as we were going. So I think I got all the points within that. So I don't believe I have any other rebuttal at this time. We may have some questions for you. Thank you. At this time, we'll close the public hearing. We'll let you know if you have some questions. Thank you, Mr. Steinwax. We'll move to questions for the city. I'm going to start with a couple. On my last time, we started with Commissioner Horton. This time, we'll start at the other end and work our way down this way. So I just have a few to start. What was the impetus to put up the barricades? Whose idea was that? It was a response from public works based upon feedback that they received from the public Okay, so what what has changed obviously between 2017 when we had this come before council and commission before the approval What's changed from then to now where the city can now support? Not so you didn't prior but to now say you would support this action and how is it impacted by upcoming road projects? So if you look at our conditions, actually there was a condition that says to allow for a full access. When that change came about to incorporate the right and right out only as part of the public hearing, it has always been from the staff's perspective to allow for a full access. And you could tell, and again, if you look at the conditions, that specific item should have been removed, but it wasn't. But the evidence is there from the staff's and that it was always meant to be a full access. So staff has always supported this, and I assume public works as always and does support this recommendation. The ones who typically review everything related to traffic and road improvements. Perfect, and the last one and then we'll move on to Commissioner Katzim. But going back to the last item Mr. Steinwax was talking about. So I agree with Ms. Cooper that the city should bear no cost for this project. So who would potentially fund the activity? Sure. There is a portion of that, that the voter that we have to effectively create that right and right out falls in the right way. It's all going to be part of the improvement that's going to be made. Anything that in terms of costs, improvements that are associated with the change, if it goes through, that would be the additional cost would have to be paid by the HOA, by the subdivision. Outside of the scope of the project that we're working on to Whiten and Jones Bridge. Understood. Thank you. Mr. Cazin. For staff, the widening of Jones Bridge, that's a city road, is that correct or is that? And is that in the T-splot, is that in design or concepting evaluation or evaluation of utility relocation? Yeah, so actually they're in right away acquisition. So they're eager to start. It's going to happen as once all the property acquisition has taken place. OK. Is there a planned start date? It's going to start this December, no, this December or a January. Is that actual physical worker or is that utility locations? Physical work. Oh fantastic. OK. Fantastic. I'll have to find another route. And if this is approved today, how long is it good for? Forever? Forever. It doesn't have like a one year building permit type of. No, the all conditions run with the property unless someone goes through the action of changing it, deleting it, what amending it, what have you, but it runs with the property and perpetuity. Thank you, that's all chair. Thank you. Mr. Holt. Thank you. Mr. Holt. Thank you. A lot of the questions you already answered, but I just have a couple of quick, I guess thoughts or maybe the resultant questions is, you know, times change a lot from 2017. I mean, that's six years ago. So I have trouble understanding decisions made in 2017 when there's a million things that changed between 2017 and 2023. So to try to unravel that is I think very hard. My issue is that we need to solve for the fundamental issue here, and maybe that's done through the road widening, which is safety versus legal. To be honest with you, I don't care about what was written in 2017. I care about safety. Now that doesn't mean that I support or don't care about what was written in 2017. I care about safety. That doesn't mean that I don't support what I'm saying is if we have a longer term issue on this road, my question would be why weren't other subdivisions years ago done with this type of access? Or why weren't roundabouts done? I don't think a subdivision should be penalized if they're the only one on the road that has that, because my question would be, you haven't solved the fundamental problem. Safety should be the number one concern. Not the legality of what did we do in 2017, and to the letter of the law, because the health and welfare of people, and right now it doesn't sound like it's a safe venue with people trying to skirt around this and delivery truck that makes total sense to me that that is a safety issue. So I think we answered a lot of the questions you did already, but those would be my thoughts on this topic. Michelle? The question I have is for staff. So if this goes through and then a year from now, you have all the plan for expansions. So it'll be on hold until that happens or how does that work? Technically, it's up to the subdivision if it was to go through if they want to proceed ahead of time. They could always consult the plans that we already have in place for the expansion of Jones Bridge up to the subdivision if it was to go through if they want to proceed ahead of time. Okay. They could always consult the plans that we already have in place for the expansion of Jones Bridge and hire the appropriate contractor to do the work. And it will be, everything will be overseen by the city, right? It's not going to be some private contract. It would have to do a right away, I think in this particular case, it would be a right away encroachment permit that would have to seek through the public works department. Okay, that's the timeline this ward was not driving so that's good. Thanks. Thank you. I'm sure Sanders. So I'm me and Chip might have been the only two up here that heard this case on commission and I remember it really well. I might have been the person that said that there should be writing right out. Sounds like me. But the thing was that there's many times in these bodies, the three bodies, where planning suggests one thing, commission says, no, we really don't like it that way. We would suggest this, but council ultimately makes the decision. On this one, Yall said it was okay to have full access. We said we didn't think it was safe, and council agreed with us, and that's why it's there. So I personally am looking at some of the other neighborhoods in John's Creek that aren't that far from this one, like that Autry Township. It's about 700 feet from the intersection when I drove it. It looked like it was about that far. And it has the ballards up. And then the other one is closer to where I live, is Autry Township. And they also have them. And they're 700 feet from it. And I can't even imagine them allowing a left hand turn off of that subdivision onto Old Alabama. So my concern is the setting of a precedent by allowing this one, then they all come in and say, whoa, what about us? And I think that we're maybe on a little bit of a slippery slope by allowing this zoning to change like this. And then the other thing that I was wondering about is if they decided, I mean, all the subdivisions that are on Jones Bridge there, I think are old. There aren't any newer ones. Are there most of those that you cite are pretty old? Because I've lived here for a really long time and they've all been here. So I think if you're saying, well, they all have it. It's not, it doesn't actually make sense. They all have it, but they all have it because they were built way before you. Yeah, I mean, just to address it, I mean, it's relative in terms of age, right? If we're talking about 90s or are we comparing it to 2000, or 2005, different decades? There are newer ones compared to the ones that were built out in the 90s that they're surrounded by. But I think the newest one is 2006. I think there's one a little bit before that. A little bit? OK. Sorry, after that. I mean, after that, just south of Bice. But at the end of the day, from us, the only reason why we mentioned, we didn't necessarily want to go too far out of these specific character that we're looking at. And that's what we limited to Morton, to Bice, or Bice, to State Bridge. Because the example, if we were to talk about examples, if we look up North on Jones Bridge all the way up pretty much past state bridge there are all full access south there's full access there are some running right out no doubt but there are different elements and reasons as to why that's in place because an entrance could be right up against a left turn lane that deals with queuing there may be a curve to the road that limits sight distance. There are variations. So totally understand what you're saying. Yeah. Just pointing out, it's somewhat relative in terms of age of the neighborhood. And then my other concern was the part in on page six where you said about the center lane. I mean, I learned how to drive in Nevada and I always knew you couldn't turn into a left lane and sit. I always knew you couldn't turn into a left lane and sit. I always knew that. I didn't know that was an obscure rule. But that's what I learned. So when I read that, I thought, I don't think that's legal. And then obviously it's not because I pulled up the post from John's Creek and it's clear it's not. I'll clarify on that. By no means are we saying we're asking anyone to sit and park there. That center lane is created for left turns. Not for anyone to, again, as mentioned, the center lane is not meant for anyone to drive more than 300 feet. But if it's less than through inner feet, you could drive into it for the purpose of making a left turn. If you do stop there, by no means are we saying you park there, you're waiting to make a left turn. If you do stop there, no, by no means are we saying you park there, you're waiting to make a safe turn left. Okay. Coming out of it, same thing. You're waiting there to make a safe turn, to merge onto oncoming traffic, but not purposely to stand there and use it as, you know, sort of like a traveling in any which way, except for the purpose of making that left turn. So my only suggestion also would be that if we approve this, that we put a condition that says if they proceed before they widen Jones Bridge, it's on them. It's their dime. No doubt, I mean, they would have to pay for it. There's nothing that we're going to do for them in any which way. Okay, because I mean, again, I also don't want it. There's no budget for it. Yeah, there's no budget. No, no. There's no budget for- It's a private action. Right. It's just a condition that you approve or eliminate. If they want to proceed, they would have to pay for those improvements themselves. Okay. On record. So those are- and I And I am worried about setting a precedent that these other neighborhoods are all going to be, well, we don't want, because I know I've been at multiple meetings when the people at At Autry Township have come in and said they would like those ballers to remove. Yeah, and one thing about Autry Township, that's always been a consistent opinion and stance from public works. That is unsafe for that to be a full access. Okay, that's good here. That would be terrible, in my opinion. Okay, I don't have anything else. Mr. Carval. Okay, thank you. So I have a question around for you guys. So if have the public safety, you know, public works department, they have thought it's been taking into consideration for this case right now. Oh yeah, most definitely. We wouldn't want to make a recommendation without that. But what are they okay with? They're fine with it, and that's why staff has made the recommendation to support the deletional conditions. Okay, because the number one concern is a CFT, and as we can see from the pictures, like from their side and from the other side too that's a little unsafe right now right Derivitrax going back and forth in wrong direction. So you know as long as the safety is taken into consideration should be okay but I agree with Irene you know I personally know some subdivisions which has a similar case and they've been you know trying to fight these cases so we just don't want to set up presidents. But thank you guys for putting this together. Mr. Ward. OK, first question for staff. The current plan for the Jones Bridge widening. Is that too simply widened to create more flow? Or are there any safety mechanisms that are going to be part of that widening that would change the trajectory of what we saw years ago as an unsafe situation, and now we could say that it's safe? You know what I'm asking? Yeah, I totally understand. I mean, the unsafe part I can't really speak to, right? I understand there probably were accidents, not sure exactly at this specific segment of Jones Bridge or as it closer to the intersection, there may be multiple variables. In this particular case, it has to do with more capacity. OK. Is there an area? As part of that, obviously, the way the engineer and design it there are some safety components but I don't necessarily think that's the initial intent from a safety concern. It's more capacity. Okay. All right and this is a question for your representative. So if you want heard from all of our comments and I think we're all unanimous on this, if this would go through, you all have to fund it. So have you talked about that? Do you have a plan for that? So there's a couple of pieces that I want to say in there. All the conversations that we've had, it's been, there's no point in having this conversation until it's gone through the rezoning process, number one. Number two is there is, you know, the project coming down to widen the road, which would take that, you know, a portion of that segment, right, because you're going to be adding road there, right, so they're going to be doing that piece up. So to answer the correct, directly, I don't have any budgetary figures in front of us because the places that we've talked to you said we can't do anything because there's a zoning condition here. And same thing when we spoke with the director of public works, the same, it was the same kind of answer that we got. So I don't, I don't have anything. I can't begin to go down that route until the conditions removed. I hope that answers your question. It does. So let me ask a follow-up. So you are willing to wait to have that removed if we say that it can be and that's backed up by Council. You're willing to wait a year for that to go away? Yes. OK. So what happens in between now and a year from now when the city starts working on it? I mean, I don't think the FedEx truck guy is going to do anything different than he already did. So the behavior changed when those yellow things came up, within that because they're, they're, you know, started doing most pieces. It made it harder to illegally turn that right. Yeah. Press well, precisely, right? So, you know, the hope, right? I'll say hope because again, we can't make any of these requests because of the current zoning conditions. Would be that when we remove those and allow us to make the turns as recommended by the city. And if the recommendation is you have to continue this because we're living in it a year now. So if the recommendation is you've got to live for another year because that's the only way to do that then we're here for the long term. We're all homeowners and if that's what we have to do that's what we way to do that. I mean, we're here for the long term, right? We're all homeowners. And if that's what we have to do, that's what we're going to do. I mean, obviously, the hope is that we can do that. But, you know, as far as the accelerating the timetable, that's up to the Camden Hall community that we can get together and make a decision, you know, based on, you know, the financials and the timetable, because there's no guarantee that we could get something inside of a year anyways, given the current labor shortages and whatnot. So regardless, it's a year might be a reasonable timeline even if we do it privately. Does that answer, does that address your question? It does, and I would just kind of, and this will be my last comment, I have one more for staff after this. If we would approve this, I am arguing to tell you that there's going to be a stipulation that says the city's not going to pay for it. So I would get your plans together if it gets there. And I'm the president of my H.O.A. and it's not fun to have a special assessment for stuff like this. And I'm pretty sure it won't be cheap. So just kind of putting that out there. So that's all for you for right now. I got a question. Ben. Thank you Mr. Steinbach. If this gets approved, would the city go in and remove those, the balsar that just leave it there till the road gets work? The condition would remain until any project happens. We're not planning to move it. I mean, even from our standpoint, we're not going to remove something that we're going to remove later on any more. Exactly. Okay. All right, I'm good. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Katz, would you have one more question? Yes, just one follow-up for staff. When a road is widened, neighborhoods whose entrances are in the right way to work with the city public works or state G dot to do some reconfigurations of their entrance drives. Really depends, right? It really depends on the extent how much of it happens. It does happen, right? Thank you. Yes, that's all. I can tell you, I'm president of Chartwell, HOA, and the big intersection improvement right now, Haynes, Virginia, Alabama. I worked with the city of public works directly. We actually donated some right of way for that, and we had a reconfigured part of ours. Yeah, I'm on 120 and same thing with G.Dot working with them. Yeah. This is just a question for staff. So we know it's not possible to eliminate accidents on roads, right? We're dealing with human beings. So my question here is, do we have any data on accidents on this section to support that it's either higher or less, more, whatever? Because what I'm struggling with is, even if you do this, you're trading one thing that's maybe causing accidents for something else. It could be causing accidents. I'm not saying that we shouldn't do it for that reason, but it's a high propensity of accidents along this road that is higher in level than other areas within John's Creek. If that's the case, then we should at least know that and consider that, right? Because I don't know the traffic and the flow and how fast people drive. Does everybody drive 80 miles an hour on this section of road? I don't know. But we should have data to at least support that for the commission's consideration. That would be my question. Then was there a response to the question, Mr. Holst? I mean, there's data, you know, and it varies from, and it varies from each subdivision. It's not necessarily a significant pattern per se, but like you said, there could be multiple variables. I don't know if it's just limited to the traffic movement from the individual subdivisions. But I can't know if it's just limited to the traffic movement from the individual subdivisions. But I can't lie. I mean, there are actual data, accidents, data that occurred in front of the subdivisions each one. Well, I guess my only point is we have accidents in my subdivision. I live in 7-0, so we had a guy mo down a stop sign. Now, I have no idea if it was a resident or somebody else, but we're not going to reconfigure our whole configuration because there was an accident. So, you know, I look at inconsistencies that date it to draw conclusions. That was kind of the point of my kind of my question. So thank you for answering that. Thank you. Mr. Holtz. So, you know, I'll say this, you know, and it's back to some commissioner Holtz said, you said, 2017 was a long time ago. There was a set of conditions. There was, we live in a different city than we did in 2017. I think it's refreshing for any government, anybody to go back and say, maybe we made a mistake and nobody wants to say that these days. And so maybe this wasn't the perfect condition for this neighborhood. I like to always default to the experts. We as a city have hired the Department of Public Works to play that role. We have a code in place for a reason. The city of public works thought then and they think now that this is the right, a full access driveways are right. The right condition for this area and safety is the bottom line, number one concern. So having said that, I support the application and I'm going to make a motion that we recommend approval of RC 220009 with a additional or a placement condition 17 that the city will bear no cost for the improvement or the change in the intersection type or the access type. So seconded by Commissioner Anand, All in favor? Let me try to hand say aye. Opposed? The motion passes 6 to 1. Last item of new business department updates? Yes, well you go. No, no, no. So two updates. The first one is we don't have a March planning commission, but we potentially have long for April. I will send an email if there is legal addout. The second one regarding we have four board members that are turned up. So we are working with City Clerk for reappointments so I will contact you later. Thank you. And I have one. It's actually from as you may or may not be aware, council went to their council retreat January 29th over in Greenville. They had a great time learning about wonderful things as public garden and planning and following through on our master plans and so forth. Great. And planning and following through on our master plans and so forth, great. There are multiple items that they discussed. One of the items pertains to boards, commissions, and committees in general. And the appointment process, they're looking into that. That's a little bit different. They may look into sort of like a limitation of terms, like a total of six years. Cuz from the John's Creek perspective, there's a lot of people who want to be part of the city, want to participate and contribute. But again, nothing is finalized, but that's one thing that they're talking about. The other thing has to do with, sorry, attendance. So what they did want us to share with our individual boards based upon attendances. If there is one absence, there would be a friendly reminder in terms of email about the absence. The second absence would be email and a call. And the third absence potentially may be a process for removal. But I just wanted to share with you in terms of what was discussed, specific to what pertains to the planning commission. So, just wanted to let you all know. Thank you. That's great. I let you all know. Thank you. That's great. I'll make a motion to adjourn. Seconded by everyone. All in favor? Motion is carried. Meeting is adjourned. That's good.