Peachtree City planning commission continues debate on proposed 75‑unit senior rental community at Aberdeen; holds community outreach

The Peachtree City Planning Commission on Sept. 23 heard more than two hours of public testimony on a request to rezone 14.6 acres at 201 Aberdeen from General Commercial (GC) to General Residential (GR), a change the applicant said would allow up to about 75 rental units of ‘‘active senior’’ housing. After extended questioning of the developer and dozens of residents’ comments, the commission voted to continue the matter to a date‑specific follow-up meeting on Oct. 28 to allow additional community engagement and technical review.

Connie Engle, with Strata Communities, described the proposal as an active‑senior rental community designed “so everything faces the courtyard,” with a community building, fitness center, walking trails and on‑site amenities. Engle said the development is not assisted living or memory care and emphasized partnerships — including an arrangement with Kennesaw State University for exercise and diagnostics — intended to promote health for future residents. “It is for people that are maybe divorced, living alone, retired, and they wanna get out of their big houses,” Engle said.

Supporters, including Keith Larson of Sandown Creek and Jeremy Ragsdale of Thrive Senior Living, argued the project would provide housing choices for aging residents within a village‑center walkable area and cited economic and social benefits. Bob Patel, representing Crowne Plaza ownership, said the hotel is not in receivership and described potential synergies such as shared trails and amenity access.

Opponents focused on density, traffic near the Aberdeen/Highway 74 intersection, visual character and the loss of limited commercial land. Several speakers cited specific Peachtree City ordinance sections and questioned whether the proposal met parking and setback standards; John Dufresne, a Preston Chase resident, referenced multiple code sections he said the plan failed to meet, including Section 909.3 (parking) and Section 1004.1.h (rear setback) and urged the commission to require ordinance compliance documentation.

Commissioners pressed the applicant on technical points. Architects and traffic consultants working with the developer said their trip‑generation study assumes a relatively elderly resident profile (the application cited an 80‑year average in its materials) and that trip counts and parking demand for age‑restricted independent living are lower than typical multifamily apartments. On parking, project representatives said they requested a 1.2 spaces‑per‑unit ratio (versus a multifamily baseline of two spaces) based on trip‑generation studies and the senior target market; the applicant also proposed on‑site golf carts for resident local mobility. Attorney Rick Lindsey confirmed age restrictions (e.g., 55+ or 62+) can be written and offered to include a deed restriction or lease condition if the commission desires.

Staff noted the request would require careful consideration of comprehensive‑plan consistency and recommended a 10‑foot evergreen landscape buffer as a possible condition to address adjacency and compatibility concerns. Staff also told commissioners the Crown Plaza parcel would remain a separate, non‑redeveloped entity under the current plan and that the 14.6‑acre tract in question is the portion intended for the senior community concept.

After public testimony and commissioner questions on stormwater (the project will rely on an enlarged pond and reciprocal easements for runoff), parking, age restrictions and emergency services impacts, the applicant and staff agreed additional public outreach could reduce confusion. The commission voted to continue the item to Oct. 28 to allow a city‑advertised community meeting and further technical follow‑up. Robin (staff) said the commission’s recommendation will still be required before the matter proceeds to city council.