PTC OKs deal for road abandonment

Wed, 02/13/2008 - 8:17pm
By: The Citizen

City gets roads back if final site plan unapproved within 5 years

The Peachtree City Council voted 3-2 tonight to approve a development agreement that includes the city abandoning two roads at the southwest corner of Ga. Highway 54 West and Planterra Way so they can be sold to a shopping center developer.

The vote clears the way for Capital City Development to seek up to three stores of no more than 50,000 square feet each and a total combined size of 175,000 square feet for the entire development. But should CCD seek any store larger than 32,000 square feet or the entire development to be larger than 150,000 square feet, it will have to seek a special use permit under the city's current big box ordinance.

Without that special use permit being granted by council, the developer would be unable to build stores above the ordinance's size guidelines.

The agreement was approved by Mayor Harold Logsdon and council members Steve Boone and Cyndi Plunkett. Voting against were new councilmen Doug Sturbaum and Don Haddix.

City Attorney Ted Meeker said the development agreement would be recorded in court so its conditions would be applicable not only to CCD but any other person or business who might acquire the 14-acre site in the future.

According to the agreement, if Capital City Development fails to get a site plan approved for the parcel withing five years, the property will revert back to the city's possession via a quit claim action by CCD.

The agreement does allow CCD to seek a traffic light permit from the Georgia Department of Transportation. Currently there is no traffic light on Hwy. 54 for Line Creek Drive, but there are traffic lights at the intersections on either side: Planterra Way and MacDuff Parkway.

The agreement also forbids the conceptual site plan from containing a gas station or a fast food restaurant.

The agreement calls for CCD to pay at least $500,000 to the city in exchange for the property. Council also modified the agreement to say that should the property be appraised at more than $500,000, the difference would be made up through a land swap to help protect the adjacent Line Creek Nature Area.

Council also agreed not to approve any specific plan for the property tonight. That means the plan will first go before the city's planning commission for review, and if the big box rules are triggered it will then be reviewed by the City Council for a possible approval.

Although city officials and CCD attorney Rick Lindsey read aloud many pertinent conditions of the agreement, copies of the agreement were not made available to the public before or during the meeting. City officials said the agreement had only been finalized about an hour and a half before the meeting began.

Logsdon touted the development agreement as a compromise that would forbid a gas station from being located on the property and also take into consideration the needs of nearby residents in the adjacent Cardiff Park subdivision.

Haddix said he opposed the agreement because the city has big box regulations in order to keep larger stores from locating here.

login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
matt.barnes's picture
Submitted by matt.barnes on Fri, 11/13/2009 - 12:55pm.

What would have been wrong with having a gas station or a fast food place there? We kind of need both there. With as much stuff is in that area we don't have a single drive thru and the only gas station is pain in the neck to get in and out of.


Submitted by Roadrunner on Sun, 02/17/2008 - 10:29pm.

What other damage to the quality of life in PTC can these 3 do before at least one and hopefully all 3 are voted out of office? Certainly there's something else they haven't inflicted on us yet. With Clayton County so nearby, perhaps they should take a junket to Tara Blvd and see how successfully county planners there have integrated many new pawn shops, title loan stores, and other choice businesses to complete that chic 'urban blight' look that's obviously a good 'next step' to all the terrific city planning & code enforcement this group champions. For those who say its better than a gas station & fast food restaurant, are you always so easily manipulated? Very sad series of events, perfectly orchestrated, but still sad.

yellowjax1212's picture
Submitted by yellowjax1212 on Mon, 02/18/2008 - 1:44pm.

Runner, what would you want to see built on that lot?
Because no matter how long you close your eyes and click your Ruby Slippers together, it's not going to go away. Something is going to be built there and the zoning classification came about long before the current council.


Stinger's picture
Submitted by Stinger on Thu, 02/14/2008 - 1:25pm.

The agreement does allow CCD to seek a traffic light permit from the Georgia Department of Transportation.

No doubt he will ultimately win in his bid to get the 7th traffic light installed between 74 and the city limit on the West side, further congesting that stretch of 54.

As it is, many people use the "alternate exit" from Wal-Mart as a bypass. Many of them, who didn't have the patience to stay on 54, drive that stretch at dangerous speeds. Adding an additional light will surely increase the use of that road and it is only a matter of time before a pedestrian gets hit by one of these impatient drivers.

How much of that $500K will be used to ease the additional burden brought on by another traffic light? How about a median on MacDuff so that people who do use the "alternate exit" are forced to turn right onto MacDuff only?


yellowjax1212's picture
Submitted by yellowjax1212 on Thu, 02/14/2008 - 1:04pm.

Now I want to be on record as saying that I am as much against a Big Box in that location as anyone. But really, what are our options?
The property is sold and zoned.
Doug McMurrain is going to build something there. He has too much invested and I doubt in this market that anyone else would want to buy it from him and develop something else (besides with all of the road blocks PTC has thrown up why would someone think they would have any better luck getting something approved).
PTC seems passionately against a gas station (not sure why - a QT would help control the local prices) or auto parts store, so why would we not want to get a first class development? Yes, even if it means a "Small" Big Box store.
Hey, here's an option - why don't the citizens of PTC who are so up in arms about defeating the "Evil" McMurrain, band together and purchase the property from Capitol Development and donate it back to the city as a "Gateway Park". Shouldn't cost more than 40 or 50 million bucks.


Submitted by R. Butler on Thu, 02/14/2008 - 2:10pm.

Our best option would have been to allow Mr. McMurrain to develop the property within the confines of the zoning and setbacks as he had purchased it. If that meant another gas station, another resturant or another small retail complex, then Mr. McMurrain would have undoubtedly factored in the existing market glut of those establishments along W. 54 and made his decision accordingly.

However, if I recall the chain of events correctly, those were never his intentions for the property. He reasoned from the beginning that he could not turn the profits he wanted out of that land as zoned. All you have to do is go back to the 11 January 2007 Planning Commission meeting see that what Mr. McMurrain really wanted out of that property was a multiple big-box project.

The Lowe’s building proposed by Capital City would be 116,000 sq. ft. and the building presumed to be the Kohl’s would be 89,000 sq. ft. Both are in violation of the city’s big box store size restrictions, which limits stores to a maximum size of 35,000 square feet.

So after writing the check for 500K to the city for the two roads, how can Peachtree City defend any later decision to deny a big-box variance should it not be to our liking? No matter what we claim at this point, we are (to coin a phrase) half-pregnant. A we all know what that means nine months from now.

Submitted by Spyglass on Thu, 02/14/2008 - 2:21pm.

That a gas station a few restaurants would have been better than the proposed plan? I'm not sure I could ever agree.

Submitted by Spyglass on Thu, 02/14/2008 - 1:01pm.

Sold off streets (and the maintenance that goes along with them) that only serviced the owners property.

And still no big box approval. Anyone is free to seek one under our current ordinances. I see nothing different from any other commercial property in the City here.

The agreement for no gas station/fast food seems good too.

Now back to the regularly scheduled whining.

Submitted by R. Butler on Thu, 02/14/2008 - 9:06am.

"Although city officials and CCD attorney Rick Lindsey read aloud many pertinent conditions of the agreement, copies of the agreement were not made available to the public before or during the meeting. City officials said the agreement had only been finalized about an hour and a half before the meeting began."

Doesn't anyone on the City Council have any long term memory? It seems to me that this is exactly how we found ourselves "discovering" that we signed a contract to turn over city owned land to Pathways Communities last year along TDK. Would there have been a downside to postponing the decision until the next scheduled council meeting so us citizens could actually see the terms of the contract that our Mayor and his two council-mates were obligating us into?

Looking forward to the next site plan that comes before the Planning Commission...where we will surely discover what CCD really wants for that site (besides a big-box and another traffic light on 54 West).

secret squirrel's picture
Submitted by secret squirrel on Thu, 02/14/2008 - 7:05am.

From mid-article:

According to the agreement, if Capital City Development fails to get a site plan approved for the parcel withing five years, the property will revert back to the city's possession via a quit claim action by CCD.

Also, if CCD sells any portion of the property, even so much as an outparcel, it must

The agreement does allow CCD to seek a traffic light permit from the Georgia Department of Transportation.

"...Even so much as an outparcel, it must..." WHAT? It must what??


Submitted by beenthere on Wed, 02/13/2008 - 10:32pm.

Maybe McBully will have a harder time finding tenents than he did riding roughshod over PTC. He only has five years and it looks like it could be tough.
Retailers Taking Their Medicine and Turning Cautious Over Growth

February 6, 2008
Written by Sasha M Pardy
CoStar Group

Retail Industry Experts Say Closing Stores and Pulling Back is the Right Move in this Market

The past couple months in retail real estate have been laden with more store closing announcements and news of retailers slowing expansion plans than we've seen in a long time. However, two retail real estate strategy executives, a Wall Street retail analyst and a leading Texas retail real estate broker, confide that closing stores and turning cautious over expansion plans may be the best thing for retailers to be doing right now.

Announcements over the last couple months include:

-Movie Gallery closing another 400 stores;
-Charming Shoppes closing 150 stores and cutting expansion plans by 50%;
-Starbucks closing 100 stores and slowing expansion plans by 34%;
-Ann Taylor shuttering 117 stores and slowing store growth;
-Boston Market evaluating its real estate opportunities;
-Buffet Holdings sorting out its underperformers;
-Sprint Nextel closing 125 stores and 4,000 distribution points;
-Cost Plus World Market closing 18 stores;
-Liz Claiborne closing 54 Sigrid Olsen stores;
-New York & Company axing the Jasmine Sola brand and its 32 stores;
-Ethan Allen closing 12 stores;
-PacSun closing all of its 173 demo stores;
-Talbots exiting its kids and men's lines through closure of 78 stores;
-Rite Aid exiting Nevada by closing 28 stores;
-Macy's closing nine stores;
-Krispy Kreme expecting many franchisees to close stores;
-Kirkland's Home likely closing 130 stores;
-CompUSA's remaining 103 stores being disposed of;
-Rent-A-Center closing 280 stores;
-Sofa Express closing 44 stores in bankruptcy;
-84 Lumber closing 12 stores;
-Home Depot closings some call centers;
-Levitz Furniture disposing of 76 stores in bankruptcy;
-Pep Boys closing 31 stores;
-Lifetime Brands closing 30 stores;
-Big A Drugs liquidating its 21 stores.

Submitted by TomCat on Wed, 02/13/2008 - 10:25pm.

Thanks to our new council members for sticking to their principles....actually - Thanks for having principles. From the information above, it would appear that if we couldn't stop it - at least we got plenty of conditions, restrictions and stipulations. Now, let's make sure that they are followed and enforced. Let's make sure that PTC remains the "liveable" community it is - changes do not have to be a negative thing.

...and another thing...just like term limits can be enforced with every election - a moratorium can occur with every vote!

"The Cat is loose...."

Submitted by skyspy on Wed, 02/13/2008 - 9:10pm.

Sold us down the river again!

Actually I think I would have been disappointed with anything else from these yellow-bellied idiots.

Don and Doug, flip a coin to see which one of you wants to be our next mayor. Also thanks for listening to the "little" people of PTC.

Submitted by Spyglass on Thu, 02/14/2008 - 1:43pm.

Would that have made you happier?

Submitted by skyspy on Fri, 02/15/2008 - 2:21am.

a neighborhood sports bar.

I would be happier with a developer who was smarter than a 5th grader. I would be happier with a developer who had enough buisness sense to buy property of the size he needed. Why buy a small lot if you are a loser with no contacts outside of wally-mart??

Every small town needs a big box store to hold drug stings in .....but shheeesh....we already have walley and home despot.....do we really need more?? The cops are scoring pretty good with the ones we have.

Submitted by Spyglass on Fri, 02/15/2008 - 10:48am.

You make good points. I think the economy changed so much on this guy during the past 2 years, he really doesn't know what to do. It wouldn't surprise me at all if this deal doesn't get done in the allotted time and the streets are never conveyed to him.

I still think the agreement Council made was a fair one. Limiting the stores to 50K feet is a good idea in my opinion. I wasn't thrilled about Kohols coming here anyways.

Mike King's picture
Submitted by Mike King on Wed, 02/13/2008 - 10:19pm.

One of the hot issues during the city elctions last fall was that of Kohls and its "big box" and I guess three sitting Councilmen didn't listen. To me, this is hard to fathom. Either they truly believe that their judgement trumps the wishes of those who they serve or they simply do not care.

Kudos are in order for the two new Councilmen for sticking to their guns(Haddix/Sturbaum). The others very well may believe that they have done right by the city and its citizens, but I believe a precedent has now been set that may not be in the best interests of our town. Only time will tell.

Skyspy may be correct in his/her assessment of "one term wonders" for the three in favor, but for the two I've called friends to be bullied.....well, I'll see them soon enough,


Submitted by Spyglass on Thu, 02/14/2008 - 1:47pm.

They only have the right to seek up to 50K square feet. This is a FAR cry from what most areas would consider a Big Box, albeit above the 32K threshold in PTC. Still, I like the limit of 50K MAX on this site.

From what we were chatting about last night, this appears to be a good compromise. No gas station or fast food, and no big box anywhere near the original 100K square feet Kohls they have batting around.

I guess the two new guys would have been happier with my 3 proposals of above. A gas station, Krystal and Burger King.

Submitted by R. Butler on Thu, 02/14/2008 - 4:49pm.

Ease off on the hyperbole a bit...even CCD never threatened the local residents with a Burger King or Krystal's.

Given the fact that we never saw a serious site plan which actually reflected the existing zoning and setback limits, we don't really know what could have been accomplished.

Like everyone else, we will all be waiting to see what the next site plan looks like. But I think we have set a bad city policy precedent concerning the cedeing of public property for the purpose of avoiding existing ordinances.

Submitted by Spyglass on Thu, 02/14/2008 - 5:06pm.

I frankly don't see the problem with my City selling these "streets" to the developer. As they stand now, they are basically driveways.

That said, I do believe the setbacks etc agreed to are greater than the minimum required for this site.

It's fairly obvious, that it's hard to get folks to agree 100% on what is right for the area. I too, will be curious as to how it turns out. Still no 100K square foot store and no gas station is a bonus in my mind.

I guess some of my talking points come from reading some of the folks that post here, NOTHING seems to ever make them happy.

Submitted by sageadvice on Thu, 02/14/2008 - 3:45pm.

It is "WHERE" it will be! In an already congested area!
Who cares what the developer wants?And why?

Submitted by sageadvice on Thu, 02/14/2008 - 7:15am.

I agree that a large box shouldn't be put into that nightmare on 54, however apparently stores such as KOHLS wants the traffic from across the road.
They should be offered a place where the traffic problems won't be made worse. Our City however has not seen fit to have any land for retail development! Not even much for Industrial for that matter.
We allow developers to screw up everything.
As to forgetting soon, it was never forgotten and was always intended to be done at that location. And will be.
I don't know why, but I suspect some sort of conspiracy.

Git Real's picture
Submitted by Git Real on Wed, 02/13/2008 - 10:52pm.

It was expected. Kudo's indeed for Don and Doug on this one.

________
In regards to Democrats, Republicans, gangs, and other scads of coterie Kool-Aide drinkers; Remember this..... Eagles Don't Flock


Comment viewing options

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