But you raise a good point, are Townhomes, which are sold "fee simple", considered multi family? I know apartments are, but I'm not sure Townhomes are in this category.

in that nothing currently has been approved. What is left to be sorted out is the density question. Personally, I would prefer residential estate requirements, but Mr Wieland has a business to run and will be driven by profit margin.
That said, it is my understanding that it is Wieland who is footing the bill for the MacDuff Parkway Extension and bridge. Our Council will surely meet a compromise that is mutually beneficial.
This property will be developed and whatever concession(s) granted the city by the developer will be how the current Council will be regarded.

It was clear to me when reading the newspaper articles and attending the meetings that MacDuff Pkwy was a condition of the Wieland annexation and NOT the property in question above. We don't need more houses on the westside.

I remember Cyndi Plunkett saying there would be no more residential after the last annexation. And I'm pretty sure townhomes are multi-family.

Please, since the owners of each property has a connection to the developer, does it not make since that both parcels be developed simutaniously? My point is that our City Council stands to gain quality of life concessions for us.
We both realize that it will not go undeveloped, don't we? The alternative would be another attempt such as the recent Kohls on the west side.
Having read your posts for about a year now, I have assumed that you and I are on the side of quality development that benefits Peachtree City. I, for one do not wish to see another strip mall of any type.

How do you go from Industrially zoned to Townhouses and "gain quality of life concessions for us" in the same thought?

Aren’t you reaching, just a little, for "strip malls" in an area that is not zoned commercial?

Mr. King, your statement above, "That said, it is my understanding that it is Wieland who is footing the bill for the MacDuff Parkway Extension and bridge. Our Council will surely meet a compromise that is mutually beneficial."

Why should they? If Mr. Wieland so much as blinks at that obligation the annexation is off. The whole thing is currently up for grabs if any other developer attempts to change any of the existing conditions.

Essentially, Mr. Wieland is already committed to the MacDuff Parkway Extension and bridge and isn't entitled to any additional consideration.

"One of the many conditions of the rezoning requires the developer to participate in building a bridge over the CSX railroad tracks that will allow MacDuff Parkway to be extended north to link with Old Senoia Road to access Ga. Highway 74." See story

I would suggest that the city leaders use Mr. Wieland’s previous commitment as a tool to keep the 89+ acres zoned just as it is.

You and I both know that residential development is the least beneficial, tax wise, for PTC.

This is one of those rare occasions where the city finds itself in full control over the ‘what’ and the ‘how’ parts of what can be developed.

Any business person would take FULL advantage of the situation, so should the city council.

It is not my week to give anybody directions, let me just say that!

Thanks for the notice and I've already corrected the article online.

are some of you people going to continue to say "if it is zoned then whatever the zoning says, the developer can do?"
The zoning is constantly being changed "UP" to home building, and will be until all land is gone!

under the annexation plan. It probably should have been. This piece is currently zoned industrial, and has been in the city limits, if my understanding is correct. How are claiming Logsdon has been not trustworthy on this property?

of the Wieland/Levitt annexation. It is a separate piece of Wieland owned property.

And blaming Logsdon is just another conspiracy looking for a theory.
Baseless. Appears the only exercise some of these bloggers get is "jumping" to conclusions.

From the other side of the tracks