PTC warily OKs annexation study

Tue, 06/20/2006 - 5:36pm
By: John Munford

A developer wanting to annex 400 acres into Peachtree City for an “active adult” gated community was given a cautious go-ahead by the City Council last week, allowing city staff to work on the proposal.

The approval came with a warning. Four council members said Levitt and Sons should lower the number of homes they want to build or risk a negative vote from council.

The proposal as it stands would provide 762 homes aimed at “active adults” 55 and over, with homes ranging from $200,000 to $500,000. Although the property is 400 acres, it abuts Line Creek and due to floodplain and other issues would have about 300 developable acres.

The company is pledging to provide its pro-rata share of funding to build a bridge over the CSX railroad track to extend MacDuff Parkway north to Ga. Highway 74 at the intersection with the northern end of Kedron Drive.

Councilwoman Judi-ann Rutherford said such a high-density subdivision is not pondered in the city’s land use plan, which states that zoning should be less dense near the city’s borders. This property, if annexed, would bring the city limits far closer to Tyrone.

Councilwoman Cyndi Plunkett echoed Rutherford’s comments and said the density troubled her too.

“It’s so not what we do here,” Plunkett said. “You can tell me it’s the best thing since sliced bread, but I’m here to tell you that I don’t think it is now.”

Although the 55-and-over demographic wouldn’t overburden the schools, Rutherford noted the subdivision would certainly put a burden on the city’s fire, EMS and police services.

Logsdon has said even if the land remained in the unincorporated county, the city would still have to provide public safety services without receiving property taxes in return to pay for those services.

And, he added at Thursday’s meeting, “We need a senior development here.”

Councilman Stuart Kourajian said he liked the idea of the development’s demographics and the construction of the MacDuff bridge. But he too had reservations over the density.

“The thing I don’t like is the number of homes,” Kourajian said, noting that he wouldn’t vote to annex under the current proposal offered by Levitt and Sons.

Councilman Steve Boone said he, too, was bothered by the proposed density for the project.

“750 homes is just way too many for that area,” Boone said.

Plunkett told Levitt officials that she couldn’t support the project unless it came back at a “much” reduced density.

Rutherford noted that the proposal to have the community gated isn’t in keeping with what Peachtree City has done either.

“You’re telling us you don’t want to be a part of Peachtree City,” Rutherford said.

Other than the extension of MacDuff Parkway, the remainder of the streets Levitt would build would be maintained by the homeowner’s association instead of the city, said Levitt attorney Shannan F. Oliver.

The homes would range in size from 1,500 to 3,000 square feet with lots of at least 7,000 square feet, about a sixth of an acre, Oliver said. There would also be a 27,000-square-foot clubhouse with a performing arts center, a library, a computer room and classroom, a fitness room and eight outdoor tennis courts.

The company is asking the city to annex the property and zone it for limited use residential, which would allow Council to put more specific restrictions on the development than the regular zoning classifications call for.

Resident Phyllis Aguayo told Council the road would be wonderful to have, but not if it comes at the expense of additional traffic. She noted that the Fayette County Commission fought and won a legal battle to keep the area zoned for parcels with a minimum lot size of two acres, which would end up with far less density than the Levitt proposal.

“I can’t believe we’re even considering this ... in that area of Peachtree City,” Aguayo said.

Resident Bill Nigro said the company’s proposal for just under 100 acres of open space was really just land that is undevelopable.

“It’s not open space. It’s land you really can’t build on anyway,” Nigro said.

Dan Grosswald, president of Levitt and Sons Atlanta office, agreed to contribute up to $20,000 to reimburse the city for staff time spent assessing the annexation application.

A similar deal was struck with John Wieland Homes, which is seeking to annex 360 acres in the same area to build 360 homes. Wieland originally proposed 750 homes but trimmed the number down due to density concerns from council.

login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
PTC Guy's picture
Submitted by PTC Guy on Wed, 06/21/2006 - 8:19am.

When Logsdon backed a Seasons development, a long time ago, I posted it was a gated community from just an Internet search. He knew it was gated because he visited one. He knew the density.

He is so out of step with PTC. And it is appearing the Council is getting more willing to voice he is out of step with them.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.


Submitted by McDonoughDawg on Wed, 06/21/2006 - 7:08pm.

At the Penninsula, I believe. On PTCParkway, north of Walt Banks. I don't see the issue with the gates, I'm fairly sure the cart paths will connect through the neighborhood without gates. Maybe if the gates would keep out Young Men from Sharpsburg, we would all be a little safer.

I think this community will be a real asset to PTC myself. I have been in their development in Cherokee County. It looks good, and the development here will bring good folks to live here.

PTC Guy's picture
Submitted by PTC Guy on Wed, 06/21/2006 - 7:33pm.

The paths will be gated. Gated MEANS closed to all but owners.

Everything within the community is owned and maintained by the community. It will have its own security, I bet.

Seasons, Leisure World and all other such type communities are private.

And what does Walt Banks area have to do with the Seasons?

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.


Submitted by McDonoughDawg on Wed, 06/21/2006 - 8:37pm.

I just told you that they were being installed at a Subdivision north of Walt Banks on Peachtree Parkway. For what it's worth, the cart path still runs through at said subdivision.

What's so wrong with private property having gates? It's not my cup of tea, I live in Spyglass and really enjoy the interaction at Battery Way Park, but it may appeal to some.

PTC Guy's picture
Submitted by PTC Guy on Wed, 06/21/2006 - 9:02pm.

You confused me because we were talking about Seasons.

Seaons will be behind fence and totally private. I didn't see the connection to what you were saying. And still don't UNLESS you can clarify that we already have a completely private community in PTC? Or a community that at a minimum built its own private paths.

See my confusion? Meaning comparing apples to oranges does not add up.

Seasons are not a community on public roads and paths. They are self contained and private property in totality.

Think of a condo behind a fence. Even the pipes in the ground are privately owned. Not city property.

Notice I never said I had anything against it. I have spoken of its impact and how it compares against the current norms of PTC.

I have not seen the gates. Are they decorations or pass keyed?

If they do not own the roads they best not try to close off the road.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.


secret squirrel's picture
Submitted by secret squirrel on Wed, 06/21/2006 - 7:02am.

Logsdon has said even if the land remained in the unincorporated county, the city would still have to provide public safety services without receiving property taxes in return to pay for those services.

Isn't the current debate that PTC citizens are being (and have been) double-taxed for EMS by both paying the city and the county? If this is true, how does PTC EMS extend outside PTC? I recall Mayor Logsdon's vocal objection to this being along the lines of, "why should PTC residents pay for services the city offers?" Are PTC residents paying for PTC EMS which actually does service areas outside PTC?


mudcat's picture
Submitted by mudcat on Tue, 06/20/2006 - 6:48pm.

Judi and Cyndi, please study things before you make stupid blanket statements about density.

When it involves senior housing - more is better. You want to force seniors to have a large yard that they have to mow themselves? Yes, emergency calls will then increase. Instead, allow density and additional services, like lawn care - then life goes on.

Is Village Park or Lexington Park or Dover Square a problem for you and Phylis? Density there is 5 houses per acre and some of the best non-criminals, non-child producers and good people live there. What do you want instead 2 acre lots with McMansions and refugees from Clayton County? Think the whole thing through. Density is not bad - only bad planning is bad.
meow


nuk's picture
Submitted by nuk on Wed, 06/21/2006 - 8:26am.

FINALLY, someone in PTC "gets it" about density! Density is used in PTC like it's the spawn of Satan himself when that isn't the case at all.

To all of those who have moved to PTC and immediately wanted to slam the doors shut and allow nobody else to live here yet expect the City to provide fantastic services and amenities: get a clue!

NUK


PTC Guy's picture
Submitted by PTC Guy on Wed, 06/21/2006 - 3:21pm.

I have gotten it for 20 years. I am a first owner in one of those listed.

One of our units goes up for sale and it rarely lasts a week. We get asked by realtors several times a year if we want to sell.

But it is not a 55 plus community only, even with a lot of elderly in it.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.


Comment viewing options

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