GC/LUC Ordinance Changes

[Don Haddix]

How high can buildings be in Peachtree City?

2008-10-30
By Cindy Morley (cindy@fayettedailynews.com)
Peachtree City Planning Commissioners want to meet with members of the City Council before moving ahead with several changes to the city’s current zoning districts.

Plans for the workshop followed a request by PTC Mayor Harold Logsdon at the last planning commission meeting that they not recommend limiting the height of buildings in general commercial to 35 feet.

“This is probably a first -- to address the commission like this,” said Logsdon, during the public hearing portion of Monday’s meeting.

“You have heard that there has been some concern on the city council about the height limit, but it’s not from the majority.
Full Article (http://www.fayettedailynews.com/article.php?id_news=2423)

The changes under question specifically were introduced by me and I know Doug Sturbuam backs them.

They do not touch OI or Industrial, where the taller heights are allowed. Therefore sealing out And as for residential height restrictions, such was addressed by three members of Council when we worked on residential.

Harold keeps referring to past issues as if once done you cannot change. But reality is buildings like the Delta in GC are recent developments, not historical. Further, when built there was an outcry from the citizens opposing such height.

Harold saying the Council majority does not back this is a claim I can neither support or refute as Cyndi Plunkett has never made a comment to me on the proposed 35' limit.

All I can say is that she granted 60' on the Hilton to get additional landscaping but voted against it for Fairfield when the developer did not want to give additional landscaping.

I have spoken to a number of citizens. They did not want 60' in the general commercial areas.

As for Planning having mechanisms to screen 60' Marty Mullins is incorrect. By ordinance they can do no more than make recommendations that must be forwarded to Council, who then must do the work to screen them, as illustrated by the Fairfield and Hilton applications. Planning is bound and limited by ordinance.

Further, Harold's claim there is no available office space in PTC is false. There is an almost empty office building at Wisdom Point and several 10s of thousands of sq' currently available in West Park with over 100,000 total at the beginning of next year.

That claims do not match the realities.

[Don Haddix]

In follow up I emailed the Planning Commission stating my opinions and observations.

That has resulted in notification there will be a joint meeting of the Council and Planning Commission on December 2 to discuss these issues.

This might be a good one for citizens to attend to voice their opinions on the issues of Big Boxes, overall size, density, height, etc.

[1smartcookie]

I hope that this meeting in December will be well publicized as it is important that as many residents as possible be there to voice their opinions.

Re: Wieland--has he put his plans on hold? After reading in today's AJC (Nov 1) where many of his homes are only shells waiting for the economy to improve before he goes further with them, I cannot understand why he would want to proceed with his latest Peachtree City efforts. Is there anyway to restrict the number of Section 8 homes allowed in the area?


Don, again thank you for keeping me informed. As I stated before, I will be glad to help you in any way I can.

Cookie McClure

[Don Haddix]

I can only answer via theory and what I have heard.

He has pulled out of the Carolinas and I have heard from developers and developer related (yes, I have friends in the industry) lost most of his best builders, is drastically cutting prices to unload inventory, would not touch the property for building for at least 10 years and so forth.

Probably would deny most of these points as being false.

So why now? Two potential reasons rise to the top for me:


He believes this is the friendliest Council he is going to get for rezoning and approving the density he wants. He sees changes coming next election, as many do.
He might be wanting to sell the property, which chances would be greatly enhanced by getting it zoned R.

Remember this is just unproven speculation, but I cannot see an alternative possibility. But please do not mix Scarbrough and Rolader into this mix. They are trying to do the right things so far.

The big glitch is R rezoning requires more than just R, but R1, 2, 3 etc.

Centennial residents I have spoken to, in the majority agree with me, using it for educational, medical, medical research, tech and so forth is far more desirable and a better use for the property. If residential then one home per either 1 or 2 acres.

But Wieland says he has to have the around 321 homes. But getting a 3 vote to approve that on Planning and Council? Remains to be seen, but I know there are those who will vote for it on both if they can get their way into a majority.

On top of all of this we have a lot of homes for sale and many homes that failed to sell or have lost too much value to sell are up for rent.

We need to just leave this property under the current zoning until a real need of use comes up. The only zoning change I would consider now would be to OI, which isn't going to happen, I believe.