Meeting colors

OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD

Record of Proceedings

Johns Creek Planning Commission Meeting - May 6, 2025

City Council — Tuesday, May 6, 2025

BodyJohns Creek, Georgia

SessionCity Council

DateTuesday, May 6, 2025

StatusFILED

Video Record

0:00 / 3:25:54

Transcript — VerbatimClick a timed line to jump · ⧉ to share it

0:00

Call the May 16th meeting of the City of Johns Creek Planning Commission to order.

0:05

At this time, I would like to ask everyone to please silence or turn off your cell phones.

0:11

The Planning Commission is a recommending body to the mayor and the city council, and we follow guidelines in conjunction with the public hearing to assist in formulating a recommendation.

0:22

Copies of the Planning Commission's procedures and staff reports are available at the entrance to this chamber as you entered here.

0:29

The presiding officer will call cases on the agenda for public hearing.

0:34

First, the presiding officer shall recognize the planning staff to make a presentation of the case with the recommendations, and then we will open the public hearing.

0:44

The applicant shall receive a time period of 10 minutes to present their case.

0:48

If there is any concurrent variance, each shall be granted the applicant an additional 10 minutes.

0:54

The time is kept by the planning staff.

0:57

The applicant may choose to use their entire allotment or reserve a portion of their time for rebuttal.

1:03

Any member of the hearing body upon recognition by the presiding officer may ask questions of the applicant or an agent of the application.

1:12

The period of questions from the planning commission is not deducted from the applicant's time period.

1:18

Opposition is granted an equal time period per the application to present data, evidence, and their opinions.

1:25

If a large number of people wish to speak in opposition, it is advisable to designate spokesperson or a spokesperson to make that presentation.

1:34

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.

1:44

Any member of the hearing body, us, upon recognition by the presiding officer, may ask questions of any person giving public comment.

1:53

After completing that process, the presiding officer will indicate that the public hearing is closed.

1:58

Upon closing the public hearing, the planning commission can no longer be addressed by the applicant or opposition.

2:05

The planning commission may ask questions of city staff at that time.

2:10

And once all their questions have been asked and addressed, the presiding officer will call for a motion and if properly addressed will call for a vote on the matter.

2:20

The presiding officer will then state the vote and the recommendation for the for the record.

2:25

I will ask that all present act courteously and to refrain from any outbursts or comments from the audience.

2:30

Talk a little bit more about that.

2:32

I'd like I would like to recognize the commissioners in attendance tonight, beginning with my right, Commissioner Horton, Commissioner Carnwall, Commissioner Jackson, Commissioner Anand, Commissioner Ross, and Commissioner Katzen.

2:46

Um one other thing I'd just like to add, and this is just for me as the uh as the chair is first of all, thank you all for attending.

2:54

Uh, as the planning commission, we spend a lot of time reviewing this material, listening to residents, reading emails, touring sites, and etc.

3:04

Countless hours go into that that that is done to prepare for this evening.

3:09

With so many topics, we don't always agree on this commission.

3:13

We are here to ask good questions, and we try to make a sound decision based on facts and understanding to the best of our abilities.

3:22

We respectfully at times disagree, but we are never disagreeable.

3:27

I would ask such a large audience to abide by that same respect for each other, etc.

3:32

in the room, and tolerance of all views this evening.

3:36

The commissioners come here with an open mind, and while emotions can sometimes elevate, we will try to focus on the topics at hand this evening.

3:44

The first order of business on our agenda is the review of the meeting minutes from April 1st.

3:50

Um have we all had the time to review those meeting minutes?

3:54

I'll make a motion to approve the minutes from the last meeting.

3:57

Thank you.

3:58

All right, great.

3:59

All those in favor.

4:01

Anyone opposed?

4:03

Okay.

4:04

Motion passes 7-0.

4:06

Um, the first item of business on the agenda is land use partition RZ-24 0010.

4:15

Good evening.

4:16

Good evening, planning commissioners.

4:17

Uh, my name is Ruchi Agarval.

4:19

I'm the planning and zoning manager here in City of Johns Creek, Community Development Department, and I'll be presenting you both the cases tonight.

4:27

Our first case is RZ-24-0010.

4:33

The subject property is located at 10505, 10555, and 10655 Embry Farm Road.

4:42

It is a total of 204.10 acres.

4:47

And uh the grid existing zoning is AG1, which is agricultural district.

4:53

The applicant is requesting CUP, which is community unit plan district for this tract.

5:00

And the request is to allow 200 lot single family detached residential subdivision at a density of 0.98 acres units per acre.

5:10

And the entire tract is shown as the black outline on your screen here.

5:30

Shake Rack Park and National Park Service properties to the northeast and east, and Chattahoochee River to the south.

5:41

A little background on this property.

5:43

Embry Farm has 110 acres of pastured pasture land, one used for production of sod and animal grazing.

5:53

It is improved with 6,300 square feet of plantation style residence built in 1975 in the center of the site at the ridge of a slope overlooking the pasture land below.

6:05

The primary residential structure is surrounded by manicured landscaping, detached garage, and swimming pool.

6:12

And the order other structures on the property include 4,100 square feet, two story brick house to the southwest and 1,900 square feet wood building to the northwest of the main house.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting

Zoning Regulations██████████████████████22%

Transportation Safety██████████████████18%

Land Acquisition█████████████13%

Public Engagement████████████12%

Engineering And Infrastructure███████7%

Procedural██████6%

Parks and Recreation█████5%

Environmental Protection████4%

Community Engagement████4%

Summary of Proceedings

Johns Creek Planning Commission Meeting - May 6, 2025

The Johns Creek Planning Commission met on May 6, 2025, at 7:00 PM in City Hall Council Chambers to consider two land use petitions, approve meeting minutes, and receive departmental updates. The meeting featured extensive public comment and deliberation on a proposed 200-lot subdivision on Embry Farm Road (Toll Brothers) and a 20-lot subdivision on Fox Road (The Providence Group). The Commission voted to reject the first petition (5-2) and approve the second with modified conditions (7-0).

Consent Calendar

Approval of April 1, 2025 Meeting Minutes: Unanimously approved (7-0).

Public Comments & Testimony

RZ-24-0010 (Embry Farm Road / Toll Brothers)

Mary Amalek (Spring Meadow Farms resident) opposed the application, citing procedural flaws, environmental oversights, and legal inconsistencies. She argued that the density calculation was gross rather than net, misrepresenting compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, and that wetlands and floodplain encroachments were omitted. She also noted the 2018 Comprehensive Plan reduced Shakerag density to 1 net unit per acre and emphasized preservation of rural character.
Leon (Nellybrook Court resident) opposed, stating the proposal directly contradicts the Comprehensive Plan, threatens the Chattahoochee green corridor, and creates safety risks with a roundabout near school bus routes. He claimed Toll Brothers tried to coerce private agreements requiring letters of support.
Samrat Gangouli (Nellybrook Court) alleged that Toll Brothers told residents the deal was "pretty much a done deal" and presented a private agreement draft that coerced testimony. He questioned why required variances were not addressed and argued net density should be based on buildable acres (60-90 acres), not gross 204.
An original developer of Spring Meadow Farms (Nellybrook Court) spoke against the proposal, stating the original intent was one-acre lots and that the development should maintain that character.

RZ-25-0001 (Fox Road / The Providence Group)

Roy Thomas (Fox Glen resident) opposed, citing the Johns Creek North vision plan that prioritizes preserving green spaces, and noting the property is not consistent with the future land use map. He stated 44 residents opposed the development.
Courtney Evans (Fox Glen resident, adjacent to the site) expressed concerns about the 40-foot setback being too close for construction noise and dust, requested a larger buffer or elimination of common open space to push homes further back, and noted that 10-12 ft trees would not provide a visual or sound barrier due to the slope.
Nick Evans (Fox Glen) highlighted traffic issues on Fox Road, including lack of bus service, dangerous cut-through traffic through commercial parking lots, and safety concerns for children walking to Lake Windward Elementary.
Chad Schlerkey (Fox Glen) warned of the precedent set by multiple pocket neighborhoods in the area, increasing traffic congestion.
Shotima Hendrier (Fox Glen) reiterated concerns about prolonged construction noise/air pollution, increased traffic, and safety of child walkers.
A. P. Wyon (Fox Glen) emphasized dangerous traffic conditions at the intersection near Butler Tire and urged the Commission to observe morning traffic at 7:10-7:50 AM. He also disputed the applicant's claim about drainage direction, stating water flows from the proposed site into his backyard.

Discussion Items

RZ-24-0010 (Embry Farm Road – Toll Brothers)

Staff presented: 204.1 acres, rezoning from AG-1 to CUP for 200 single-family lots (density 0.98 units/acre), with 98 acres open space, roundabout, 250-ft stacking lane, and right-turn lane on Rogers Circle. Traffic study: 1,909 daily trips. Staff recommended approval with 20 conditions.
Applicant (Din Webb) emphasized consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, changes made in response to neighbors (e.g., shifting road away from Nellybrook, eliminating 65-ft wide lots, adding 50-ft buffer, one-acre lots along west boundary). Price points $1.5-2 million. Traffic improvements: $2.5 million roundabout, 250-ft stacking lane, right-turn lane on Rogers/Bell. Argued gross density is standard calculation.
Commissioners questioned: density calculation (gross vs. net), feasibility of roundabout with school buses, environmental impacts (MERPA, stream buffers), tree preservation, and sewer infrastructure. City attorney clarified gross density is the correct calculation per Comprehensive Plan and DCA regulations. Public works explained roundabout diameter will be designed to accommodate school buses.
Motion to reject (Commissioner Jackson) was seconded. Vote: 5 in favor, 2 opposed. The petition was rejected.

RZ-25-0001 and VC-25-0001 (Fox Road – The Providence Group)

Staff presented: 6.067 acres, rezoning from AG-1 and C-1 to NUP for 20 single-family lots (density 3.29 units/acre), with concurrent variance to reduce building separation from 14 ft to 10 ft. The C-1 parcel is landlocked and has been vacant for 24 years. Staff recommended approval with conditions.
Applicant (Kathy Sicker) noted the project is consistent with the North Johns Creek land use plan, which encourages residential redevelopment. The AG-1 parcel alone would allow 14 homes; incorporating the C-1 parcel increased to 20. The project provides a transition from commercial to lower-density Fox Glen. Amenities, price points ($1.2-1.5 million), minimum house size 3,200 sq ft. Proposed conditions: 40-ft setback, 20-ft buffer with shadow box fence and landscaping, drainage improvements. Applicant requested modifications to remove condition 14 (deceleration lane) and clarify density calculation.
Commissioners discussed: buffer adequacy, drainage (water flows from higher elevation of proposed site into Fox Glen – applicant corrected earlier statement, saying water will be captured and piped to avoid impacting neighbors), construction timeline (12-18 months), and traffic concerns. Public works confirmed condition 14 removal is acceptable based on low trip generation.
Motion to approve with modified conditions (Commissioner Katzen) was seconded. Vote: 7-0. The petition and variance were approved.

Key Outcomes

RZ-24-0010 (Embry Farm Road): Motion to reject passed 5-2. The application will go to City Council on May 19, 2025, which can uphold, overturn, or defer the decision.
RZ-25-0001 and VC-25-0001 (Fox Road): Approved 7-0 with modified conditions, including staff conditions plus applicant-proposed changes (removal of condition 14, clarification on density calculation prior to right-of-way dedication, and additional buffering commitments).
Upcoming Meetings: The next Planning Commission meeting is June 3, 2025, with a deferred case (Dutch Brothers rezoning).
Public Works Action Item: The Assistant Public Works Director agreed to investigate pedestrian safety and cut-through traffic issues on Fox Road near Lake Windward Elementary, regardless of the development outcome.

Meeting Transcript

Call the May 16th meeting of the City of Johns Creek Planning Commission to order. At this time, I would like to ask everyone to please silence or turn off your cell phones. The Planning Commission is a recommending body to the mayor and the city council, and we follow guidelines in conjunction with the public hearing to assist in formulating a recommendation. Copies of the Planning Commission's procedures and staff reports are available at the entrance to this chamber as you entered here. The presiding officer will call cases on the agenda for public hearing. First, the presiding officer shall recognize the planning staff to make a presentation of the case with the recommendations, and then we will open the public hearing. The applicant shall receive a time period of 10 minutes to present their case. If there is any concurrent variance, each shall be granted the applicant an additional 10 minutes. The time is kept by the planning staff. The applicant may choose to use their entire allotment or reserve a portion of their time for rebuttal. Any member of the hearing body upon recognition by the presiding officer may ask questions of the applicant or an 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 the application to present data, evidence, and their opinions. If a large number of people wish to speak in opposition, it is advisable to designate spokesperson or a spokesperson to make that 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, us, upon recognition by the presiding officer, may ask questions of any person giving public comment. After completing that 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 may ask questions of city staff at that time. And once all their questions have been asked and addressed, the presiding officer will call for a motion and if properly addressed will call for a vote on the matter. The presiding officer will then state the vote and the recommendation for the for the record. I will ask that all present act courteously and to refrain from any outbursts or comments from the audience. Talk a little bit more about that. I'd like I would like to recognize the commissioners in attendance tonight, beginning with my right, Commissioner Horton, Commissioner Carnwall, Commissioner Jackson, Commissioner Anand, Commissioner Ross, and Commissioner Katzen. Um one other thing I'd just like to add, and this is just for me as the uh as the chair is first of all, thank you all for attending. Uh, as the planning commission, we spend a lot of time reviewing this material, listening to residents, reading emails, touring sites, and etc. Countless hours go into that that that is done to prepare for this evening. With so many topics, we don't always agree on this commission. We are here to ask good questions, and we try to make a sound decision based on facts and understanding to the best of our abilities. We respectfully at times disagree, but we are never disagreeable. I would ask such a large audience to abide by that same respect for each other, etc. in the room, and tolerance of all views this evening. The commissioners come here with an open mind, and while emotions can sometimes elevate, we will try to focus on the topics at hand this evening. The first order of business on our agenda is the review of the meeting minutes from April 1st. Um have we all had the time to review those meeting minutes? I'll make a motion to approve the minutes from the last meeting. Thank you. All right, great. All those in favor. Anyone opposed? Okay. Motion passes 7-0. Um, the first item of business on the agenda is land use partition RZ-24 0010. Good evening. Good evening, planning commissioners. Uh, my name is Ruchi Agarval. I'm the planning and zoning manager here in City of Johns Creek, Community Development Department, and I'll be presenting you both the cases tonight. Our first case is RZ-24-0010. The subject property is located at 10505, 10555, and 10655 Embry Farm Road. It is a total of 204.10 acres.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI

TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com