Jump to content

The Pruitt Company At 3001 Canal St.


thedistrict84

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Ross said:

Godstone has the same registered agent as On Time Electric, the current occupant of 3012 Canal.

Curious that On Time Electric is still listed as the current occupant of 3012 Canal (and on Google Maps too). They moved over to a building at Adams  and Sherman maybe a year and a half ago. The building on Canal has been empty since.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, thedistrict84 said:

Curious that On Time Electric is still listed as the current occupant of 3012 Canal (and on Google Maps too). They moved over to a building at Adams  and Sherman maybe a year and a half ago. The building on Canal has been empty since.

Their website shows both addresses. Who knows what's going on, probably had a leaseback arrangement with the new owners of 3012 Canal.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, wilcal said:

 

I'm still holding out hope for the Olshan site for a grocery store.

Signed, this young family moving into Eastwood in the next month or so. 

welcome to the East End!

Fiesta on Wayside is pretty ok. HEB in Gulfgate is also pretty ok. WalMart on Wayside is pretty bad.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is what is on the agenda for Thursday.

It is just a replat. Nothing about parking variance mentioned. It does list "The Pruitt Co" as the developer. Maybe it is going to be sold after the replatting is done?

The application number is 2021-1914 and it is actually going to be dropping the lot from .58 to .57 acres, which I'm guessing is the bit that they are giving to the city for ROW  on the southern edge? 

10' building line along Ennis and Palmer and 13-18 ft building line along Canal. 

Would love to have someone more knowledgeable chime in. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/9/2021 at 9:16 AM, ljchou said:

Interesting. There's a new waste water permit as of March by H2B Engineering, a structural engineering firm. Can't find much else. HCAD still says Pruitt and can't find any recent commercial sales in Biz Journal that would fit this description.

They could be replatting the land to sell. If it has already sold, the plat says the intent is a commercial development which would be great for this area! I can't wait for the Canal and Commerce corridors to connect the development at the East side of Commerce/Canal/Nav to the greater East End community.

I think I stand by this original statement still. The plat tracker has "Andrew Allemand" listed as the applicant, who is a representative from Iron Bridge Realty that specializes in land sales. I would expect when the lady at Pruitt the said "we've sold" was probably speaking in a similar context to that of the Olshan employee, which means the company will be moving from the property and the land will be sold, similar to the Olshan set up.

The lady at Pruitt said they'd remain on site until next August, so I wonder if this is them getting ducks in a row prior to lands sales, and to make the land more attractive to potential developers.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, ljchou said:

I think I stand by this original statement still. The plat tracker has "Andrew Allemand" listed as the applicant, who is a representative from Iron Bridge Realty that specializes in land sales. I would expect when the lady at Pruitt the said "we've sold" was probably speaking in a similar context to that of the Olshan employee, which means the company will be moving from the property and the land will be sold, similar to the Olshan set up.

The lady at Pruitt said they'd remain on site until next August, so I wonder if this is them getting ducks in a row prior to lands sales, and to make the land more attractive to potential developers.
 

The property was sold in 2016. Check my earlier post above, partial here:

"Well, after some more searching, there were a series of transactions in October of 2016 where 3001 Canal was sold by Pruitt to Odessa Brake and Spring, another company run by the Pruitt CEO, and immediately flipped to RDZ Holdings, llc. We are coming up on 5 years after the sale, which would conform to leasebacks we've seen elsewhere."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...

I received a letter from the Houston Planning Commission regarding the parking variance requested, as I live just around the corner. The letter indicates that they will be rehabilitating and subdividing the current building into restaurant space (letter implies multiple spaces). The applicant is asking to opt-in to the Walkable Places Ordinance given the proximity to Navigation and Harrisburg, where that ordinance is in effect.

Limited onsite parking and offsite valet will provide 59 places instead of the required 122 (if the variance request is not granted). It is unclear from the included site plan and area map where exactly the offsite valet lot will be.

Seems to be a promising improvement to walkability in the immediate area, I hope it’s granted.

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Texasota said:

Do more than hope! Make sure the Planning Commission knows a neighbor supports this project. The loudest voices are typically from people complaining about parking. 

From my understanding the planning commission meeting will be virtual as well as in person, if that’s the case I will try to attend if my work schedule permits it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, thedistrict84 said:

I received a letter from the Houston Planning Commission regarding the parking variance requested, as I live just around the corner. The letter indicates that they will be rehabilitating and subdividing the current building into restaurant space (letter implies multiple spaces). The applicant is asking to opt-in to the Walkable Places Ordinance given the proximity to Navigation and Harrisburg, where that ordinance is in effect.

Limited onsite parking and offsite valet will provide 59 places instead of the required 122 (if the variance request is not granted). It is unclear from the included site plan and area map where exactly the offsite valet lot will be.

Seems to be a promising improvement to walkability in the immediate area, I hope it’s granted.

Did you mean Transit-Oriented Development? Walkable Places isn't in effect in this area. As I mentioned above, TOD literally ends across the street right now. 

Some developers have opted-in to Walkable Places even if they are outside as well. Honestly, both would be great. 

2 minutes ago, thedistrict84 said:

From my understanding the planning commission meeting will be virtual as well as in person, if that’s the case I will try to attend if my work schedule permits it.

You can submit written comments ahead of time, and they are likely just as effective since you live nearby. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, wilcal said:

Did you mean Transit-Oriented Development? Walkable Places isn't in effect in this area. As I mentioned above, TOD literally ends across the street right now. 

Some developers have opted-in to Walkable Places even if they are outside as well. Honestly, both would be great. 

The letter characterizes it as a “symbolic opt-in” to be subject to the Walkable Places Ordinance. It does not mention TOD at all.

Only drawback to work from home is I don’t have access to a scanner. I’m actually going into the office tomorrow, so I’ll try to scan the letter and post it here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, thedistrict84 said:

The letter characterizes it as a “symbolic opt-in” to be subject to the Walkable Places Ordinance. It does not mention TOD at all.

Only drawback to work from home is I don’t have access to a scanner. I’m actually going into the office tomorrow, so I’ll try to scan the letter and post it here.

Turboscan is an app that that can scan a document to PDF from your phone! Highly recommend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, thedistrict84 said:

The letter characterizes it as a “symbolic opt-in” to be subject to the Walkable Places Ordinance. It does not mention TOD at all.

Only drawback to work from home is I don’t have access to a scanner. I’m actually going into the office tomorrow, so I’ll try to scan the letter and post it here.

Huh. Like I said, it has been done elsewhere. And it is certainly not a bad thing. I wonder if this is something that planning is pushing for. There is always a little bit of horse-trading with variance requests it seems like. Basically, yes, you can have your off-site parking variance, but we'll only support it if you make the property a much nicer pedestrian experience. 

Walkable Places does not provide for any parking reductions, but does shape where parking can be. It will force the parking lot away from the street (think the opposite of a CVS).

The other changes we can expect are a wide(r) sidewalk and trees along the street. Canal makes a lot of sense as a Walkable Place area, especially with the investment in sidewalks already.

Irony is going to be off the charts if the remote lot that they choose for their valet is going to be in the TOD area. 

57 minutes ago, ljchou said:

Turboscan is an app that that can scan a document to PDF from your phone! Highly recommend.

I'm rather partial to the built in document scanner in the Google Drive app.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I live on Palmer St. and already have put up with the many cars that park in front of my home afrom Moon Tower customers, esp. when  there are events. Pandemic has decrease the flow of parked cars..but i can see that starting up again as the city begins to normalize in outings. Pruitts limited parking will only add to the side street dilemmas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Here is the meeting recording on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/HoustonPlanning/videos/3180050498987408/

This starts at 1:51:20.  I'll do a quick recap. 

There were a few public comments, including from the East End District President:

Quote

Dear Members of the Planning Commission,    Thank you for the opportunity to submit this public comment in support of a variance request for 3001 Canal to allow  the reduction of the number of off‐street parking spaces required and to allow an off‐site parking facility with valet & shuttle service outside of the maximum distance requirement.   Prior to the variance submission, the developer met with neighborhood leadership (a subsequent support letter has been submitted). It is my understanding that as a outcome of the meeting with neighborhood leadership and a separate  meeting with City staff, the developer responded with additional improvements to the site plan.  Additionally, the  development team met with the East End District to discuss the proposed variance request to the site plan and walkable  communities initiative in the East End.  The East End District is supportive of this variance request for several reasons, including:    Development team met with both community members and City of Houston staff to discuss alternatives and  offered changes in response to questions and recommendations.   Proposed site represents a walkable communities aesthetic including transparency at street level, wide  sidewalks, and tree canopy with thoughtful landscaping to create a walkable, pedestrian‐centered space.   Bike parking is included on the proposed site, which supplements and supports efforts of the East End District  Bike Plan.   A pedestrian travel path between the site and the off‐site parking facility is enhanced with circulator shuttle  service.  Ultimately, the site plan adds significant walkability improvements to the corridor and creates multi‐modal connectivity  between several area businesses, residents, and visitors coming to the East End.   Thank you for your consideration and support,   Veronica Chapa Gorczynski  Veronica Chapa Gorczynski  President, East End District 

There is a copy of the variance request in the Agenda.

TLDR: keeping same 16k sf of building. Requires 110 with 10% bike reduction and only has 32. 

Multi-use restaurant development. These are screencaps from the FB vid so they are terrible:

Uty0t8D.png

Basically, they said it is impossible to provide the required parking on-site because of the structure.

The off-site lot they have chosen for remote valet is 2,000 ft down the street. This appears to be the location where Cidercade is. 

dW4fxOw.png

They have 48 extra spaces to allocate evidently:

tXD48ft.png

They also bring up, like I did earlier, that the TOD ends about 30 feet away from their site:

IzGTisP.png

Basis of staff approval:

APMYbZl.png

The applicant mentions that the developer is the same one that did the Cidercade development. 

One of the commissioners talks about how MBP needs to extend into the East End and that the businesses are thriving in areas without parking required. Small businesses can compete better with larger developers this way.

Marty Stein, the chair, says that parking is the "next big thing" the planning commission will take up.

Passes unanimously!

Wow, watching that was like a breath of fresh air <3

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, wilcal said:

The off-site lot they have chosen for remote valet is 2,000 ft down the street. This appears to be the location where Cidercade is. 

dW4fxOw.png

They have 48 extra spaces to allocate evidently:

tXD48ft.png

Thanks a lot for the recap, excellent stuff! My only concern is how the Cindercade lot could be used as off-site valet given than the lot there is at capacity just about every single day. Maybe with the addition of Dealco's new lot off Bastrop and Commerce, there will be some overflow.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, JBTX said:

Thanks a lot for the recap, excellent stuff! My only concern is how the Cindercade lot could be used as off-site valet given than the lot there is at capacity just about every single day. Maybe with the addition of Dealco's new lot off Bastrop and Commerce, there will be some overflow.

Well, they also own the Cidercade lot, so if there is not enough parking then those businesses might suffer and they control both ends of the equation. Cidercade pulls more non-local traffic, but the restaurants might pull more locals. Moon Tower goes pretty well with zero on-site parking. 

I honestly believe they should flip the switch tomorrow and make everything west of Milby as market-based parking. There is so much development pending in the area I wish developers had additional options. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, wilcal said:

Here is the meeting recording on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/HoustonPlanning/videos/3180050498987408/

This starts at 1:51:20.  I'll do a quick recap. 

There were a few public comments, including from the East End District President:

There is a copy of the variance request in the Agenda.

TLDR: keeping same 16k sf of building. Requires 110 with 10% bike reduction and only has 32. 

Multi-use restaurant development. These are screencaps from the FB vid so they are terrible:

Uty0t8D.png

Basically, they said it is impossible to provide the required parking on-site because of the structure.

The off-site lot they have chosen for remote valet is 2,000 ft down the street. This appears to be the location where Cidercade is. 

dW4fxOw.png

They have 48 extra spaces to allocate evidently:

tXD48ft.png

They also bring up, like I did earlier, that the TOD ends about 30 feet away from their site:

IzGTisP.png

Basis of staff approval:

APMYbZl.png

The applicant mentions that the developer is the same one that did the Cidercade development. 

One of the commissioners talks about how MBP needs to extend into the East End and that the businesses are thriving in areas without parking required. Small businesses can compete better with larger developers this way.

Marty Stein, the chair, says that parking is the "next big thing" the planning commission will take up.

Passes unanimously!

Wow, watching that was like a breath of fresh air <3

This city is finally starting to get it. It’s just taking time. Great stuff.

 

Did I understand correctly that if an item is deferred and not posted correctly the second time at city hall that it’s automatically approved and the the planning dept has no say on the item? 

Edited by j_cuevas713
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m leaning more and more towards getting rid of the parking requirements from the city of Houston. Let the businesses decide how much parking they will need rather than the government. The businesses will have an incentive to decide for themselves how much parking they will need, because it will determine how many customers they believe they will receive, relative to how much space for parking they believe they will require.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, j_cuevas713 said:

Did I understand correctly that if an item is deferred and not posted correctly the second time at city hall that it’s automatically approved and the the planning dept has no say on the item? 

I have no idea. That would be kind of wild, but I guess that's feasible.

6 hours ago, Double L said:

I’m leaning more and more towards getting rid of the parking requirements from the city of Houston. Let the businesses decide how much parking they will need rather than the government. The businesses will have an incentive to decide for themselves how much parking they will need, because it will determine how many customers they believe they will receive, relative to how much space for parking they believe they will require.

Especially with how dumb some of the parking requirements are. Bars require the most!

It isn't like we are talking about parking maximums, here. 

Honestly, the only pushback I ever really hear at these public meetings is about homeowners not wanting people parking in front of their homes (and if there are bars, then cans/trash in yards), and we have tools to mitigate the parking component. Plus, there is so much street parking on Canal, and just a small handful of homes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks @wilcal! Great summary. So are the owners the same as the Cidercade/Common Desk building? I thought someone mentioned Landry's in relation to this property. Although I guess they could be tenants of the building owners. The layout and description of the building reminds me of this building off of White Oak. Maybe not in terms of styling, but in terms of space and tenants (multiple restaurants etc).

image.png.9f6cc3b24bd970a493f1c0d9b35c41ab.png

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...