Print
E-mail
Comment
Ashby plans submitted 6th time
By MICHAEL REED
The developers of the Ashby high-rise have resubmitted the plans for a 23-story high-rise and say they remain committed to permitting process.
“My honest belief is that we complied a long time ago,” said Matthew Morgan, one of the two partner in Buckhead Investments. “But, I’m prepared to try and address their (the city’s) concerns as long as it takes to get a permit.”
The controversial development at 1717 Bissonnet St. has cleared six of seven departmental reviews, but still lacks clearance from Public Works and Engineering’s traffic section, which last rejected plans June 24.
In the comments section of the most recent denial, Public Works representatives asked for supporting documentation concerning “peak-hour turning movements” and suggested a pull-through loading area, rather than having trucks back onto Bissonnet.
Morgan said the developers have asked for a variance concerning the design’s loading dock, adding that “plenty of examples” of similar configurations “can be found on thoroughfares and collector streets” in the area.
One example he cited is the new high-end, 236-unit apartment complex called Fairmont Museum District at 4310 Dunlavy St.
“It seems to have two loading docks that you can’t pull through,” Morgan said. “Dunlavy is a collector street. We don’t feel like the same criteria was used”
The city recently said it will rely heavily on guidelines from an ordinance concerning the connection of driveways into public streets as the method of controlling traffic congestion, rather than continuing work on an ordinance to limit the size of high-density developments.
Those guidelines date back to 1947, and — according to city records — have never been cited in either approving or denying any building permit.
“My honest belief is that we complied a long time ago,” said Matthew Morgan, one of the two partner in Buckhead Investments. “But, I’m prepared to try and address their (the city’s) concerns as long as it takes to get a permit.”
The controversial development at 1717 Bissonnet St. has cleared six of seven departmental reviews, but still lacks clearance from Public Works and Engineering’s traffic section, which last rejected plans June 24.
In the comments section of the most recent denial, Public Works representatives asked for supporting documentation concerning “peak-hour turning movements” and suggested a pull-through loading area, rather than having trucks back onto Bissonnet.
Morgan said the developers have asked for a variance concerning the design’s loading dock, adding that “plenty of examples” of similar configurations “can be found on thoroughfares and collector streets” in the area.
One example he cited is the new high-end, 236-unit apartment complex called Fairmont Museum District at 4310 Dunlavy St.
“It seems to have two loading docks that you can’t pull through,” Morgan said. “Dunlavy is a collector street. We don’t feel like the same criteria was used”
The city recently said it will rely heavily on guidelines from an ordinance concerning the connection of driveways into public streets as the method of controlling traffic congestion, rather than continuing work on an ordinance to limit the size of high-density developments.
Those guidelines date back to 1947, and — according to city records — have never been cited in either approving or denying any building permit.
Submit a Comment
|
You must be logged in to post a comment.
|
Not yet a registered member?
Click here to become one. Comments to stories and articles on the Web site are not edited or pre-approved before appearing online. Readers posting comments are solely responsible for those comments. Comments must be germane to the story to which they apply. Online comments that are libelous, profane or personally attack another site participant can be reported as abuse using the link provided on each comment. Comments reported as abusive will be reviewed and may be removed from view, as will off-topic comments. BE CIVIL. Individuals continually posting abusive comments to the site may have their registrations revoked. |
