Levitt: ‘We’ll reduce W. Village density’

Tue, 08/29/2006 - 4:47pm
By: John Munford

Levitt: ‘We’ll reduce W. Village density’

Levitt and Sons development company has committed to reducing the number of homes it is proposing to have annexed into Peachtree City on the west side.

At a city meeting Monday night, a Levitt representative also said the Seasons at Peachtree City will not be gated as previously proposed, largely in response to a request from the City Council.

Levitt’s current request is for 752 seniors-only homes on the parcel, but the company wants to wait to adjust the figure once it sees what transportation infrastructure will be required by the Georgia Regional Transportation Authority, said Levitt attorney Kathryn M. Zickert.

“We will reduce the density of this project,” Zickert said.

The company also will look at the subdivision design to reduce dead-ends and possibly provide another road into the development, Zickert said. That road likely would need access through an adjoining parcel to reach Ga. Highway 74.

Just to the south of the Levitt tract, John Wieland Homes hopes to annex 379 acres and rezone an additional 89 acres already in the city for 881 homes as part of its proposal for “Connector Village.”

Both companies plan to build a bridge over the CSX railroad tracks so MacDuff Parkway can be extended to Hwy. 74 at the intersection of north Kedron Drive, which already has a traffic light.

Hopes are dim, however, for an at-grade crossing for the Wieland tract that’s currently in the city, said Dan Fields, vice president of John Wieland Homes. The company wants to keep the rail crossing open at the Comcast cable building, but it has been unable to convince CSX railway to allow that to happen.

The city’s traffic engineering consulting firm has recommended that the city have both the bridge and extension of MacDuff Parkway along with the at-grade crossing at the cable building, which lines up with the southern leg of Kedron Drive.

The bridge over the railroad tracks to extend MacDuff Parkway does have a silver lining, however: there will be room for golf carts, Zickert said.

Planning Commissioner Marty Mullin cautioned against pigeonholing MacDuff Parkway as just two lanes when there will be so many cars generated by the development that four might be needed.

Several council members told Mullin the reason for keeping MacDuff at two lanes was so the road didn’t become a cut-through for commuters hoping to avoid the intersection of Hwys. 54 and 74.

“They don’t want MacDuff to become a bypass,” said Mayor Harold Logsdon, “and the bridge is going to be two lanes.”

Fields said the company plans to build houses close to MacDuff Parkway in an attempt to slow traffic down on MacDuff, but the homes would not have driveways off MacDuff; instead they’ll be accessed by streets to the rear of the parcels.

Zickert said Seasons at Peachtree City would be restricted to persons ages 55 and up, though younger persons can live there up to three months a year so they can visit their grandparents for the summer. Because of that, the development will not burden the school system but at the same time will generate property tax revenue for schools, she added.

Demographic data shows that persons 55 and up don’t travel as much during peak travel times, and the path system proposed will also keep more cars off the roads, Zickert said.

But former mayor Fred Brown, a member of the city’s comprehensive plan advisory board, said though he is in the age group targeted by the Levitt development, he doesn’t often use his golf cart.

“I can do it faster in my car,” Brown said.

Zickert said Levitt would make its traffic study available, and Fields said Wieland would do the same once it is reviewed by the Georgia Regional Transportation Authority and the Atlanta Regional Commission.

Seasons at Peachtree City will have a 27,000 square-foot community center with an indoor and outdoor pool, a teaching kitchen, fitness room, theater area and other amenities, Ziegert said, adding that Levitt also plans to help bring other city residents to participate by perhaps busing them from The Gathering Place.

There will also be eight outdoor tennis courts and an events director to help it all take shape, Ziegert said.

“If you think ‘Love Boat,’ we have a Julie on board who manages all those activities for our residents,” Ziegert said.

Wieland’s Connector Village will have more than 100 acres of open space, most of it preserved along Line Creek, Fields said. But most of that is undevelopable land, Fields indicated. The open space would be deeded to the community association with restrictions that it can’t be disturbed, Fields said.

The commercial element of Connector Village, projected to be a 15,000 square-foot retail center, was added at the request of GRTA and ARC, Fields said.

Phyllis Aguayo, a member of the comprehensive plan commission, asked if the 89 acres zoned for townhomes could be better suited for office development. Fields said that would be nice but unlikely because of the lack of road access to Hwy. 74.

Fields said the townhomes at Centennial, which is further south on MacDuff Parkway, have attracted “young professionals, empty nesters and some families.”

The “Peach Pit,” a former dump, is also on the site of the 89-acre tract Wieland owns that’s already in the city and an environmental study has already been completed on the site, Fields said.

login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Spear Road Guy's picture
Submitted by Spear Road Guy on Wed, 08/30/2006 - 3:17pm.

We really don't have to guess why Levitt and Wieland went running to the ARC for early approval without first going the the city's annexation process. Trying to sneek around the city to secure their "high" numbers shows that they really don't give a darn about the city.

Vote Republican


bad_ptc's picture
Submitted by bad_ptc on Tue, 08/29/2006 - 6:22pm.

Several council members told Mullin the reason for keeping MacDuff at two lanes was so the road didn’t become a cut-through for commuters hoping to avoid the intersection of Hwys. 54 and 74.

“They don’t want MacDuff to become a bypass,” said Mayor Harold Logsdon, “and the bridge is going to be two lanes.”

Exactly who is “they”?

Why not let the traffic that’s heading to Coweta County use it as a bypass and keep the traffic off of the 54/74 intersection?

Why not divert the traffic away from the middle of PTC?

Diverting the traffic away from the 54/74 intersection is about the only intelligent thing I’ve heard about this development.

It will have to be widened anyway in a few years to accommodate the additional growth along the ease side of Coweta County.

Don’t forget that there are also plans to increase the number of homes along 54 south and 16.

If you’re going to build the damn road, build it right the first time!


Submitted by McDonoughDawg on Wed, 08/30/2006 - 2:48pm.

4 lanes with a divider? IF there isn't, then I agree, the road should be kept 2 lanes. This area is too residential to turn it into a "defacto" bypass. Just my opinion. It will be a nice alternate, but not a bypass per say.

I still say Coweta and the State need to start 4 laning Fisher's Luck right now to serve the new developments being proposed on the Coweta side of Line Creek. If Coweta votes for/wants all this new development, they should be held accountable as to how they will get to/from I-85.

And oh yeah, regarding the Density, I didn't think it wasn't set in stone, and now we need to work on Wieland to greatly reduce/eliminate the number of townhomes he wants to build.

Submitted by johenry on Tue, 08/29/2006 - 8:45pm.

Bad_ptc, what makes you think that you are dealing with rational people? They tried to convince us TDK was for traffic relief.

Submitted by PTC is A OK on Thu, 08/31/2006 - 9:50am.

but other than the typical online parnoia prevalent on this site,
do any of you have any idea what it really means to obtain ARC approval, as compared to actually getting a project approved by the local government? It's an admission ticket, not a project approval.

Do you realize that it is completely non binding on the local governing authority?

Or that a project CAN'T be submitted to a local governing authority for approval without first obtaining ARC approval if the project meets ARC jurisdictional criteria?

I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with size, traffic impact, etc. of this project at all, but can some of you at least take 5 minutes to understand the issues before clogging the airwaves. The developer did nothing wrong here, like "try to pull a fast one', because he did exactly what he had to do. Get an ARC approval before starting the local process. No more, no less.

Too many conspiracy theorists dominating this site. Perhaps some of you should actually run for office.

Comment viewing options

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