PTC gives airport board more time to respond

Fri, 05/08/2009 - 3:29pm
By: John Munford

A proposal to build 80 homes, an event center and 12 villas on a 37-acre site near Falcon Field Airport was postponed this week to give more time for Peachtree City’s Airport Authority to weigh in on the development, city officials said.

The proposal, dubbed Callula Hill by developer Pathway Communities, involves rezoning the tract from industrial to residential and commercial uses. The site is part of the Southpark International Park and is adjacent to the Planterra Ridge golf course.

The Southpark industrial park includes mostly office and distribution facility uses along with some manufacturing. Companies there include Rinnai, Aventure Aviation, the Shinsei Corporation, FieldTurf, Metal Forming and Jasper Transmissions. But those sites are zoned for industrial use and ultimately could be used in the future by other companies that have a more intensive manufacturing type process.

If ultimately approved by the council, the rezoning would be a significant departure from the city’s village concept and most recent land use plan, as the subdivision would not be directly adjacent to any other residential area.

Pathway Communities has argued the land’s proximity to Lake McIntosh makes it a prime site for lakeview homes that would also border the Planterra Ridge Golf Course.

The limited use residential and limited use commercial classifications sought by Pathway Communities would allow the city to specifically tailor the uses of the property and also enact special restrictions such as increased buffers.

The city’s planning commission will get the first crack at considering the proposal at an upcoming meeting. The commission’s vote, whether for or against the rezoning, is only a recommendation.

The final decision rests with the Peachtree City Council, which is tentatively set to consider approval at its June 18 meeting.

Pathway Communities is the entity once known as Peachtree City Development Corporation, the initial developer of Peachtree City.

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 Imker on Tue, 05/12/2009 - 2:45pm.

As a potential future city council person (Post #1), I cannot agree with the proposed Callula development. It's not what the citizen's want or expect from our city leaders. I see problems in the future all over the place if this were to be approved. If this issue persists it needs to come to city council for a final vote. Unfortunately, we the citizens might be saddled with this project and the genie let out of the bottle with a 3 to 2 vote in favor. I certainly hope not. I keep asking myself what would be the possible motivation by any city council representative to vote for this? Perhaps with enough negative feedback like this letter some rationality will prevail. Eric Imker, hopefully your next Post 1 council member.

Steve Brown's picture
Submitted by Steve Brown on Mon, 05/11/2009 - 11:24pm.

There is some arm-twisting going on at Falcon Field. It is very obvious this development plan is very wrong for that site.

I am concerned because attorney Doug Warner is probably involved.

Hopefully, the Airport Authority will have the guts to protect their interests, and, in the long run, our interests (because our tax dollars will have to bail them out of future trouble regarding such developments).

Don Haddix's picture
Submitted by Don Haddix on Sun, 05/10/2009 - 9:44am.

There are several comments about process below. I think most do not really know what the process is to begin with.

Sometimes a developer will put a plan into the Planner, get the basics done and then do a preliminary meeting with Council if it will require a variance, rezoning, etc. It involves one or two from Council at a time to not constitute a legal meeting and its purpose is to get opinions about the project. Not always done, but it happened with 54 W, Callula Hills and a some others.

If it is obvious there isn't enough support the project will get tweaked, abandoned or they might push forward anyway.

So much for the claim people on Council are not suppose to be in the process or have an opinion prior to reaching them for a formal vote.

But not all plans go to Council. If they are fully within the ordinances, Council is not have a part in the process and does not even have to be contacted.

After finalizing the basics with the Planner it moves to the Planning Commission. There input from the citizens, other parts of government, etc. are part of their process.

If a project that does not require going to Council, the Planning vote to approve is final. If to deny then the developer can appeal to Council.

For projects that have to go to Council, Planning sends it to Council with a recommendation to either approve or deny.

At Council more public input is received and considered. If approved the developer proceeds. If denied it cannot be brought up again for 6 months unless someone on the winning vote side moves to reconsider.

Maybe that will help to actually understand the process and give a feel about where votes potentially stand on projects the public has strong feelings about.

To ensure one point is very clear, from the preliminary the developer already has strong indicators of where the vote would fall if made on the day of the preliminary reviews. The public knowing as well is not illegal nor uncommon.

The public can submit opinions to any part of the process at any time.

Don Haddix
PTC Councilman
Post 1

Robert W. Morgan's picture
Submitted by Robert W. Morgan on Sat, 05/09/2009 - 5:05am.

The Airport Authority. What are they going to say - "Sure, build houses at the end of the runway - what can go wrong?"

No, they will probably say bad idea because of safety reasons - just like anyone with a room temperature IQ would. Once the safety concern is on the record, the city council would be taking a huge risk by approving this irresponsible proposal. The risk would come from a future plane crash which would spawn a John Edwards attorney clone who would successfully argue that the city was at fault for allowing houses to be built there. Think we have financial trouble ow - just wait. The liability insurance carrier would even be able to squirm out of that one.

Robert W. Morgan's picture
Submitted by Robert W. Morgan on Sat, 05/09/2009 - 5:08am.

An afterthought to the above - what role would our new Insurance Commissioner play in the drama caused by a plane crashing into Mitchellville - or whatever the name is of that horrible project is.

Spear Road Guy's picture
Submitted by Spear Road Guy on Fri, 05/08/2009 - 9:39pm.

You've got to know Mayor Logsdon is keeping this sour deal alive!!!

Everyone thinks the Callula idea stinks, but it's still around. Watch out for LAME DUCK Harold!!! Don't bend over to pick up that bar of soap people.

Vote Republican

Submitted by Spyglass on Sat, 05/09/2009 - 7:28am.

I'm curious as to how this is being done...

As stated below, ANY landowner can be heard on a land use change.

I'm not for it myself, but I yet to see any inklings of wrong doing.

You seem to have one standard blog comment..."it's the Mayors fault"..

Submitted by GAltant on Sat, 05/09/2009 - 6:41am.

That comment is ridiculous.
Every landowner is entitled to "due process". Just because the project is being thoroughly reviewed does not mean anything other than the fact that the developer is being given his or her due process.
If you owned this land, you would also want to be be sure that the people charged with reviewing the process is doing a professional job in properly reviewing it.

Vote Democrat - they're smarter!

Comment viewing options

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