54 West CCD Approved

At the Peachtree City Council Meeting on June 19th the controversial CCD development Special Use Permit proposal was approved. Some key points in the agreement were:

• 175,000 sq' allowed. That is 25,000 above ordinance.
• Two Big Boxes were in the plan. None are allowed in the ordinance.
• $500,000 is to be paid to Peachtree City for abandoning Line Creek.
• Per efforts by Councilman Doug Sturbaum and myself the plan was redesigned to allow for easy attachment of a Secondary Road that would extend from CCD to Huddleston Road via Fulton Court.
  
• CCD would be allowed to proceed with grading and construction of berms, landscaping etc, pending approval of a light at the intersection of Line Creek and 54.
• If the light is not granted the berms and such would remain. This would be at CCD cost, not city cost.

I read into the minutes the following email forwarded to Councilman Sturbaum and me by a constituent:

In response to your inquiry xxxxxxxxxxx submitted on 6/6/2008 12:26:57 PM to Georgia Department of Transportation:

xxxxxxxxxxx,

Thank you for contacting YOUR Georgia Department of Transportation.

Our District Traffic Operations Engineer spoke with a consultant from A and R Engineering last September; October concerning this area and the installation of another traffic signal. This intersection of Line Creek Drive and Hwy 54 in Peachtree City sits between two existing traffic signals. Adding another signal to this area would not meet with our guidelines for spacing requirements between two signals, a minimum of 1000 feet. The consultant was offered different suggestions at the initial meeting and has not made another request to Georgia DOT for the installation of a traffic signal at this mentioned location.

Again, we thank you for submitting your inquiry to the Georgia DOT. Please continue to contact us with your comments and questions.

Thanks,

Constituency Services
Georgia DOT

So, you can see this issue may be far from over.

If the light is rejected then CCD must return to Council with a new plan. What rights he retains from the agreement made with CCD in a 3-2 vote remains to be seen.

My concern is where this development will end up at the end of the process. Even with a light I believe this development is too big and Big Boxes are not good for Peachtree City.

The approval was 3-2, as follows:
For:
Mayor Harold Logsdon
Councilman Steve Boone
Councilwoman Cyndi Plunkett
Against:
Councilman Doug Sturbaum
Councilman Don Haddix

When noted in prior debates Peachtree City already had a glut of empty retail, that position was challenged. Councilman Sturbaum and I surveyed the largest retail centers and found an overall 19.1% store front vacancy rate, with Wilksmoor units by the developer proposing the above approved plan having a 34.89% vacancy rate on already existing stores.

I also noted Coweta was building too much retail and had a huge vacancy problem. Which was also challenged. But in a report by Southeast Real Estate Business it was said:

Counties with vacancy over the 20 percent level include Coweta, Paulding, Spalding, Hall, and Clayton; Douglasville also has a vacancy rate over 20 percent.

I understand the right of a developer to build within ordinance. I do not understand giving the right to build extra beyond ordinance when many locales that operated under the thinking of 'more is better' have found out it is not and are trying to change to the Village concept, which Peachtree City was founded upon.

We need to return to the Village concept with a realistic approach to the future concerning local employers to allow people to live, work and retire in Peachtree City. Retail employment will not meet that goal.