Wood Partners seeks rezoning for 274 apartments, retail at Newnan Crossing; planning commission recommended denial

Wood Partners asked the City of Newnan on May 27 to rezone 10.48 acres at 521 and 531 Newnan Crossing Bypass from CCS (Community Shopping Center) to MXD (Mixed Use Development) to build 274 apartments, seven townhomes and about 7,700 square feet of retail and restaurant space. The Planning Commission had recommended denial, 7–0, at its May meeting; the City Council held a work-session presentation and follow-up questions but took no final action.

The proposal, presented by developer representatives including Bennett Sands of Wood Partners and Blake Brady, would place a five‑story apartment building with ground‑floor retail along the bypass, separate townhomes, parking, and landscaped detention‑pond improvements. Sands said the site is currently graded but undeveloped and that Wood Partners intends a “class A” product similar to its Ashley Park development. Blake Brady provided preliminary rent guidance: one‑bedroom units starting at $1,500, two‑bedrooms at $1,785, three‑bedrooms at $2,385 and three‑bedroom townhomes at $2,750.

The project team submitted a draft MXD master plan with a proposed unit mix of 135 one‑bedroom units (avg. 761 sq. ft.), 125 two‑bedroom units (avg. 1,074 sq. ft.), 14 three‑bedroom units (avg. 1,383 sq. ft.) and seven three‑bedroom townhomes (avg. 1,575 sq. ft.). The proposed building height was shown at 61 feet, 4.75 inches. Melissa Griffiths, the applicant’s attorney, provided a prerecorded statement to the council in lieu of attending in person.

Traffic and access were central discussion points. Vern Wilburn, the project traffic engineer, told council members that residential development typically generates more trips than the previously contemplated car‑dealership use and that most intersections in the study area would not see new problems attributable to the project. He said, however, that certain left‑turn and through movements at a nearby intersection already operate poorly in peak hours and that the project’s driveway movements could exacerbate left‑turn delays there; he recommended adding a right‑turn lane at that location as a mitigation measure. Wilburn also noted that peak‑hour trip generation for the driveway approach was relatively small (he cited about 20 peak‑hour left‑turn trips in one movement), and he described how modeling can overstate worst‑case conditions because it does not capture some real‑world driver behaviors.

Council members and staff asked about buffering and sight lines where the development abuts auto dealerships. The applicant said the site grading places the dealership above the proposed development and that Wood Partners plans a 20‑foot landscaped buffer with evergreen screening and staggered plantings to provide a visual barrier. The development team said it will fence the rear property line, provide controlled access for residential buildings and leave retail parking and frontage open to the bypass.

Council members also questioned tenant screening and public‑service discounts. Sands described Wood Partners’ screening protocol, which includes ID verification, income verification (cited as roughly three times the rent), credit and criminal background checks and identity-photo verification. He said the company has, at some properties, offered up to a 50% rent discount in exchange for a “courtesy officer” role filled by on‑site police officers; the applicant said that the courtesy‑officer arrangement has typically involved police officers rather than other public‑safety or public‑service occupations.

Applicants and staff discussed internal circulation and school‑bus access. Civil engineer Kenneth Ward said the site includes a full loop around the retail and that turning radii and a 26‑foot road width would accommodate fire apparatus and school buses. The team also said they were exploring an 8‑foot multi‑use trail connection to the city’s existing link trail.

The Planning Commission recommended denial, 7–0, at its May hearing. Council members spent the work session asking technical questions but did not vote; staff and applicants indicated additional design, traffic mitigation and buffering details would be addressed at later, formal submissions to the council.

No formal council motion or vote occurred during the May 27 work session. The applicant said it will return with final MXD documents and any required mitigation measures for formal consideration.