Architect creating possibilities for vacant Lexington Circle

Fri, 11/24/2006 - 9:27am
By: John Munford

A professional architect shared several visions he has for the mostly-vacant mixed-use Lexington Circle development at the intersection of Ga. Highway 54 East and Banks Road Monday afternoon.

Roberto Paredes of ASD Inc. has been contracted by the Development Authority of Peachtree City to design plans in an effort to get several landowners of the project convinced to go ahead with development of the vacant land that is viewed by many neighbors as an eyesore. The land sits behind a passel of several stores including a Zaxby’s, Bruster’s Ice Cream, CVS Pharmacy and Newnan Community Bank.

One of the main problems is that the landowners are holding out for $400,000 an acre, which would be a record in Peachtree City according to those familiar with the local real estate industry. Another problem is the tracts closest to the intersection is so close to the Holy Trinity Catholic Church just across Walt Banks Road that alcohol could not be served at any establishment there under city ordinance.

The DAPC recently held a meeting of property owners and residents who live in the area who indicated they would like to see the eyesore vacant land developed. A number of homeowners also asked the city to annex the Peachtree East shopping center across the highway from Lexington Park so the city can build a golf cart bridge linking to the shopping center.

At Monday’s DAPC meeting, Paredes suggested putting office-condominiums on the corner of the intersection and live-work units further to the north along Walt Banks. The office theme could be extended further into the property with either more live-work space or perhaps townhomes, Paredes added. Commercial usage hasn’t proven viable at the site, since the property has been on the market since about 2000, Paredes noted.

Paredes presented a number of proposals, but said more research is needed before a final plan can be devised. To create a more urban atmosphere, Paredes is proposing bringing a number of lower-level storefronts right up to the property line, but he is unsure if the city’s ordinances will allow such a concept.

Paredes also is suggesting that on those buildings awnings, balconies and shallow porches could be used on the upper office and residential units on the second and third floor to create character along with architectural elements such as bay windows on the street-level shops.

Paredes said the main access road that has been built is unappealing and needs to have landscaped medians featuring trees separating traffic in both directions.

Another problem in the area is the recently built townhomes that have unscreened mechanical units on the bottom floor facing into the future mixed-use development, Paredes said, adding that the rear of the buildings is better from an architectural standpoint than the front.

Paredes said he has some clients who develop office condominiums who might be interested in the parcels.

login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Submitted by IMNSHO on Sun, 11/26/2006 - 3:38pm.

A number of homeowners also asked the city to annex the Peachtree East shopping center across the highway from Lexington Park so the city can build a golf cart bridge linking to the shopping center.

NO. That shopping center was built there, the developers thumbing their nose at PTC by building right outside the limits, after Publix et al., did not want to conform to the PTC standards. There is NO WAY that they should be allowed to be a part of PTC now. If you want to play by the PTC rules, then do, and reap the benefits (golf cart path access, bridges, etc). But they didn't. (Hmmmm, sounds similar to a recent Group VI request, doesn't it?)

Now, as to why Lexington Circle isn't doing so great yet... certainly the greedy property owners is part of the problem. But the mixed-use property that has been built so far is UGLY. The homes above, the offices below... not attractive from either side, either entrance. The townhomes behind them are very nice. But not those that supposedly have "business space" on the first floor. The "business" space is about the size of a home office, with a bathroom. Outside access is, as mentioned, unattractive. But the only business that I can see going in here is an accountant or lawyer or someone who doesn't need a receptionist even. It is really not what I would consider a usable space for a business.

When they talked about mixed use development, with residences above businesses, I guess I imagined the businesses to be things like stores, or (usable) offices. That's how it is up north, and even overseas. I was excited that PTC was going to embrace such a concept.
But Lexington Circle... phhhbbbbbttt. Maybe the new guy will do a better job, but I refuse to get my hopes up, again.

Submitted by dollaradayandfound on Sun, 11/26/2006 - 2:41pm.

An architect is going to solve the Lexington "problem, huh? I assure you he will say: build someone a shell building and they will come. That is: taxpayers build it.
Where was this architect guy when we allowed disneyland west? (from 74 on 54 to 34).
Wasn't this the same group who built the tennis center? No that was Peachtre National Bank, wasn't it? Or, G VI?

Submitted by dc on Sun, 11/26/2006 - 12:23pm.

The neighbors of this parcel have fought for years against development in this area. I guess now they will reap a haphazard approach to development instead of a well thought out development proposed years ago.

mudcat's picture
Submitted by mudcat on Sun, 11/26/2006 - 4:23pm.

You got it! When the neighbors cooperate good things usually happen. When unreasonable obstacles are created - for example requiring an expensive and unnecessary widening of Walt Banks Road (for $400,000) and another $200,000 in impact fees to build a roundabout at Walt Banks and the Parkway - then land prices go up to the point that developers and builders walk away from contracts and the only ones left are the amatuers who pay too much for the land and then wonder why they are not running a profitable business.

CVS was first - they haven't made a profit yet, but hang on because of corporate pride. Buckhead Brewery? Brewster's - lead complainer because he's not surrounded by restaurants. Liquor store doesn't have a chance, but will survive by becoming a discounter after it sells to someone named Patel or Kim.

Then everyone wonders why the land is so expensive and other businesses don't want to jump in and risk millions of dollars to do business in the area that has more restrictions on signs and other things thanks to the neighbors.

Yes dc, you hit the nail on the head. You reap what you sow.
meow


Comment viewing options

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