1717 Bissonnet
Timeline of Salient Events
Due Diligence/Acquisition
June 2006 - Water & wastewater capacity reservation letters issued by City for 255 apartment units, 30,000 s.f. office, 30,000 s.f. retail and 5,000 s.f. restaurant; (updated Dec. 2006).
August 2006 – Site acquired.
June 2007 – New public sanitary sewer completed by developer as required by wastewater capacity letter for approx. $450,000. $216,000 in impact fees are paid by developer to City.
July 2007 – Plat recorded.
Permitting
July 30, 2007 – Foundation permit application submitted to City for a 236 residential unit, 23-story mixed use project with 9,582 s.f. ground floor retail and 6,712 s.f. executive office suites. Letters detailing project design sent to Mayor White and CMs Brown and Clutterbuck, requesting personal meetings to discuss plans. Site plan approved by City Planning Dept.
August 2007 – Mayor directs developer to meet with Public Works Department and Planning Department personnel. Meeting occurred 8/21/07 with Deputy Director of Public Works, Andy Icken; Deputy Director of Planning and Development, Leah Hayes (representing Director Marlene Gafrick); and other City representatives, where the project was fully discussed and no City concerns mentioned. Developer meets with CMs Brown and Clutterbuck (both 8/31/07).
September 2007 – Traffic Impact Analysis (“TIA”) approved by Director of Traffic (9/4/07). Developer meets with civic club presidents and executive directors (9/7/07). Joint town hall meeting is convened by Southampton & Boulevard Oaks residents with extensive media coverage (9/20/07). The next day, the Director of Traffic rescinds Traffic Impact Analysis approval (9/21/07).
October 2007 – Mayor directs staff to draft “emergency” high-density ordinance specifically targeted at 1717 Bissonnet.
November 2007 – March 2008 – Developer agrees to 90-day permitting hiatus at City’s request to allow development of a more fully considered ordinance. The hiatus is extended for two 2-week periods at the City’s request. Mayor declines additional requests for personal meeting with developer.
January 2008 – 195-unit, 20-story compromise proposal presented by developer to Mayor in writing, and rejected (1/16/08). Revised 195 or 110-unit, 19-story and alternative 160-unit, 6-story compromise proposals presented by developer to Mayor in writing, and rejected (1/23/08). Mayor declines additional requests by developer for personal meeting.
February 2008 – Mayor acknowledges during City Council public session that developer has vested rights which preclude application of new regulation to the project, places “emergency” high-density ordinance on hold (not subsequently revisited), states that the City does not and will not regulate height, then announces he has personally issued new interpretations of the Driveway Permit Ordinance (Code Sec. 40-86) [last revised 1968] and that its application alone stops the project (2/13/08). Developer meets with Deputy Director of Public Works, Andy Icken and CM Brown with a 4th 134-unit compromise proposal (22-story building with reduced footprint including a park, landscape buffers and detached townhomes) (2/22/08). Proposal submitted in writing to the Mayor on 2/25/08 with request for personal meeting, both of which are denied.
March 2008 – Small meetings with neighboring residents are held to discuss the project and alternatives that have been presented to the Mayor’s office. None of the options achieve consensus with the neighbors. Consequently, developer moves forward with original permit application. z
March - July 2009 – Permit application, including a second Level III TIA (a copy of which may be found here, is submitted and rejected 10 times for various reasons, but it is obvious that, ultimately, only Sec. 40-86 will remain as a claimed basis for denial. All required approvals (i.e. Planning (site plan), Water/Sewer, Electrical, Plumbing, Storm Drainage and Structural) EXCEPT Traffic have been received. Developer is unable to find other developments stopped by a Driveway Permit denial. The City’s most recent denial states that the project will create an “extraordinary traffic hazard” and “excessively interfere with the normal use of the street right-of-way” (directly quoted from Sec. 40-86).
August 2009 – Revised permit application is approved by the City. The approved documents confirm the completely arbitrary manner in which the City chooses to apply an old and arcane ordinance designed to govern driveway locations (Sec. 40-86). To achieve this permit approval, modifications were required eliminating amenities designed to foster pedestrian, not vehicular, traffic in the area and to integrate our project into the surrounding pedestrian neighborhood. Changes included: elimination of a small retail store, a wellness spa as well as a handful of private offices. Also, a pedestrian plaza in front of the residences was replaced with a driveway. Buckhead Investment Partners has reserved the right to challenge and appeal these important losses to the original design.