The Heights Restaurant And Bar Scene - More Coming

[s3mh]

Yeah, be careful s3mh, you're starting to sound like a Historic District opponent.

Sorry. Not taking the bait. Every thread ends up about the historic districts. It is old. And this is apples to oranges.

For those who are not obsessed with arguing about the historic districts, the City has agreed to defer the application to do further study to formulate the staff's recommendation. They will go back before the planning commission on March 28. I hope the Coltivare folks start lobbying the City and the planning commission members heavily. The City planning staff likes to hold their recommendation off until the day before the meeting, making it impossible to lobby the planning commission members to go against the planning commission. With enough time to lobby, you can get the PC to go against the staff (as they did with the new Audi store on Greenbrier and SW Freeway feeder). Hopefully, the City staff will get this worked out and support the variance.

[s3mh]

Here is the email appeal sent around to those on the Revival Market email list:

COLTIVARE NEEDS

YOUR HELP!

The Plea:

As many of you know, we are in the process of opening Coltivare, our interpretation of an Italian-inspired, American, neighborhood restaurant, at the corner of White Oak and Arlington Streets.

Undoubtedly, one of the most unique aspects to Coltivare, is the potential to have a 3,000 square foot, fully-functioning vegetable garden, directly to the East of our building.

From day one, we envisioned the green space as having the potential to become that, but knew we faced a few hurdles with the City of Houston, fulfilling our parking code requirement. We didn't let ourselves get our hopes up just yet.

Many of you have probably noticed a lot of "not much" going on with the construction process. This is because we've been going through the variance process with the City of Houston Planning Department.

The variance that we are seeking is one allowing us to utilize parking lots that we have leased adjacent to Coltivare, as spaces to count towards our code requirement.

Across Arlington Street on the North side of White Oak, sits a warehouse space that has been in existence since 1938, best we can tell. Dating back to the 50's, via Google satellite images, those same spaces have been used for parking. They are used for parking today as they will continue to be used for parking tomorrow. Over the last 80 years, as White Oak's right-of-way has widened, it has slowly encroached on the depth of these spaces. They sit between 15'-16' deep now. The City likes 19'. However, there is another 13' from the back of the spaces to the actual street, leaving plenty of room to maneuver safely. These spaces are already legally being used by the warehouse during they day; we simply want to use them at night.

These spaces are what we are trying to get the Planning Commission to approve regarding our variance. Spaces that are already in existence and being used for parking.

We have historically had a very good relationship with the Planning Commission and do not envy their jobs. Given everything that is thrown at them, they do a phenomenal job keeping the City moving in the right direction. The idea of turning existing green-space into another parking lot does seem counter intuitive to Mayor Parker's green initiatives though.

Regarding our variance, they have afforded the Heights community an opportunity to voice your support in their approving our parking plan.

In a perfect world, we would love for you to inundate their emails with a quick note saying you support our variance to utilize existing parking, rather than turn one of the few green-spaces the community has, into another ugly parking lot.

Contact Planner Dipti Mathur Dipti.Mathur@houstontx.gov

Dipti has been graciously reading through all of these emails, but she needs to hear from you.

Also wouldn't hurt to cc:

pd.planning@houstontx.gov

Marlene.Gafrick@houstontx.gov

We also would like to invite you to the Planning Commission hearing, March 28th, at 2:30pm, to verbally support the variance. We will send a follow up email as that date approaches, with more details.

Thank you all in advance for your support. We at Coltivare look very forward to serving you for years to come, and cannot imagine doing this in another neighborhood in Houston. The Heights is our home too.

Best Regards,

Morgan Weber & Ryan Pera

Owners, Revival Market & Coltivare Houston

Edited March 14, 2013 by s3mh

[RedScare]

I think I will oppose this change. People will never understand the problem of giving city government power if we keep asking for variances. It would be best for the neighborhood if Coltivaire is forced to play by the same rules the homeowners do.

[kylejack]

Thinking about opposing this one. I think I'll go take a look in person.

Edited March 14, 2013 by kylejack

[s3mh]

I think I will oppose this change. People will never understand the problem of giving city government power if we keep asking for variances. It would be best for the neighborhood if Coltivaire is forced to play by the same rules the homeowners do.

How rich. You are completely whipsawed by this, but won't admit it. You would normally rail against the City for taking this kind of position but know that doing so would align you with my position. I guess you are then going to admit that you were wrong about the variances sought for the condo tower on E 5th and Fraiser and for the Trammel Crow project on Yale and 6th? And you will run down to the Planning Commission to oppose the variance sought for the setback for the new construction on Tulane and 11th? Without it, they will probably be forced to build only 5 of 6 planned homes and lose out on a $500k+ sale. They should play by the same rules as everyone else, right? (even as much as I do not like that development, I will readily admit that they should get the variance as the new setback is inappropriate for that project and the immediate area). And you will also get down their asap to call out the City for supporting the variance for Town in City's brewery and tasting room on Cavalcade? Rules are rules.

[Angostura]

Thanks to pressure from the community, the City and Town in City have made peace on the variance issue. The deferral is to give Town in City time to have their architect finalize a compromise plan that the City will support for the 15 ft variance.

 

 

According to the planning commission's twitter account, variance was granted this afternoon.

[Angostura]

I think I will oppose this change. People will never understand the problem of giving city government power if we keep asking for variances. It would be best for the neighborhood if Coltivaire is forced to play by the same rules the homeowners do.

 

 

Since I'm opposed to parking minimums on principle, I'm in favor of any and all variances granting relief from them. I think of it kind of like jury nullification. 

[RedScare]

Actually, it is more akin to plea bargaining. Government cannot nullify itself. However, it can bend its rules to favor one group over another. It appears that today the City bent its rules in favor of business, just as it did for the condos down the street, Walmart on Yale, and Kroger on Studewood. I am not terribly whipsawed over this, so long as the sidewalk is kept accessible. In fact, having been a restaurant owner, I would normally favor helping them out. I just want the same benevolence extended toward homeowners, something that my Stockholm Syndrome neighbors seem to oppose.

[kylejack]

Rules are rules.

 

Except when they aren't. Which is the whole point of requesting a variance.

[kylejack]

Actually, it is more akin to plea bargaining. Government cannot nullify itself. However, it can bend its rules to favor one group over another. It appears that today the City bent its rules in favor of business, just as it did for the condos down the street, Walmart on Yale, and Kroger on Studewood. I am not terribly whipsawed over this, so long as the sidewalk is kept accessible. In fact, having been a restaurant owner, I would normally favor helping them out. I just want the same benevolence extended toward homeowners, something that my Stockholm Syndrome neighbors seem to oppose.

 

Variance was approved for Town In City, but Coltivare is still waiting.

[kylejack]

I took a look and talked to Morgan Weber and I am satisfied if some parking stops are installed on the spaces fronting Arlington.

[J008]

Variance was approved for Town In City, but Coltivare is still waiting.

 

http://blogs.houstonpress.com/eating/2013/03/openings_closings_99.php

 

Looks like Coltivare is asking for community support for their parking plan.

[s3mh]

Actually, it is more akin to plea bargaining. Government cannot nullify itself. However, it can bend its rules to favor one group over another. It appears that today the City bent its rules in favor of business, just as it did for the condos down the street, Walmart on Yale, and Kroger on Studewood. I am not terribly whipsawed over this, so long as the sidewalk is kept accessible. In fact, having been a restaurant owner, I would normally favor helping them out. I just want the same benevolence extended toward homeowners, something that my Stockholm Syndrome neighbors seem to oppose.

So, you went from hurling invective at the folks opposing the condo tower to joining them because doing so somehow supports your opposition to the Historic Ordinance all at precisely the same time I post something about the Coltivare folks. Correlation may not always equal causation, but you aren't fooling anyone here. And from a principled standpoint, it is hard to reconcile now supporting people who petition government in order to impeded private development in order to show that people should not be able to petition government to impede private development. It is like voting for your political opponent in hopes that they win and do so badly that their ideas are discredited (although this sort of tactic actually was employed by the majority of the US Supreme Court in the infamous snail darter case, so maybe you are onto something--or maybe not).

[s3mh]

Except when they aren't. Which is the whole point of requesting a variance.

I was just needling Red Scare. And variances are also rules with a set of standards that are supposed to be satisfied. In fact, while some scoff at variances as just being a way for the politically connected to avoid the rules everyone else has to follow (there is definitely some truth to that, but it is not a rule), variances are actually a very important function of real estate law. Even the most positivist of positivists will conceded that there are infinite combinations of problems and solutions in the world of real estate that can not ever be predicted by even the best thought out set of regulations. Variances give government the opportunity to respond to unforseen circumstances and mitigate the problem of one size fits all regulation.

[kylejack]

He's trolling you because of what he perceives to be your own hypocrisy, I don't think he actually opposes the variance. "Kcking a small business (or home) owner in the pants in order to celebrate form over substance" is exactly what the Historic District does.

Edited March 15, 2013 by kylejack

[s3mh]

He's trolling you because of what he perceives to be your own hypocrisy, I don't think he actually opposes the variance. "Kcking a small business (or home) owner in the pants in order to celebrate form over substance" is exactly what the Historic District does.

I know he is trolling. But he is only doing so because he cannot stand to admit that I am right about anything. And there is nothing comparable between the City not wanting to let someone count a parking space that the City has already permitted to be a parking space with a Historic Ordinance that has made a substantial difference in stopping the systematic tear down of historic architecture and has also stopped the new construction of out of scale and character faux-orleans boxes, and "what the ????" moderns and Woodlands-esque "custom homes". For all its flaws, there is a ton of substance in the Historic Ordinance. There. I took the bait, but not from Red Scare. Partial credit.

[kylejack]

I know he is trolling. But he is only doing so because he cannot stand to admit that I am right about anything. And there is nothing comparable between the City not wanting to let someone count a parking space that the City has already permitted to be a parking space with a Historic Ordinance that has made a substantial difference in stopping the systematic tear down of historic architecture and has also stopped the new construction of out of scale and character faux-orleans boxes, and "what the ????" moderns and Woodlands-esque "custom homes". For all its flaws, there is a ton of substance in the Historic Ordinance. There. I took the bait, but not from Red Scare. Partial credit.

 

So in fact you do believe in celebrating form, just so long as it's the forms you approve of.

[SilverJK]

I know he is trolling. But he is only doing so because he cannot stand to admit that I am right about anything. And there is nothing comparable between the City not wanting to let someone count a parking space that the City has already permitted to be a parking space with a Historic Ordinance that has made a substantial difference in stopping the systematic tear down of historic architecture and has also stopped the new construction of out of scale and character faux-orleans boxes, and "what the ????" moderns and Woodlands-esque "custom homes". For all its flaws, there is a ton of substance in the Historic Ordinance. There. I took the bait, but not from Red Scare. Partial credit.

 

The random "what the ????" moderns were one of the major drawing factors of me to the neighborhood.  Eclecticism is what made The Heights what it is today.  From Houses, to Restaurants, to art galleries and all other sorts of things. 

 

 

Why are you wasting your time here though... isn't there an inadequate bridge to be found near wayside?

[s3mh]

Eclecticism

That is just realtor-speak for bad architecture.

[s3mh]

So in fact you do believe in celebrating form, just so long as it's the forms you approve of.

No, I believe that there is substance in the Historic Ordinance and there is no substance in the application of the ROW to exclude the availability of parking spaces to Coltivare.

[kylejack]

Here's the issue I saw on Arlington.

 

 

Nothing prevents someone from just pulling all the way forward to the building, blocking the sidewalk. I think this could be fixed by installing some parking stops at the end of the parking spaces. I talked to Morgan Weber, and he said he'd be willing to do that, if possible.

 

Other than that, these grassy areas just need to be paved and then there's a workable sidewalk that can be used by pedestrians, handicapped, etc.

 

 

 

I wrote to the Planning people with conditional support for the variance based on those items.

[J008]

Thanks for this post.  It is really hard to see the issue here. Easy remedies and plenty of room.

 

Strangely, you can see two homeowners parking on the sidewalk in your third picture. 

 

Also, note that there is nothing open on white oak west of oxford past say 8pm at night. 

 

I could see if you lived next woodrows or onion creek, but I am stil puzzled why this project would be so difficult to permit.

 

 

 

 

Here's the issue I saw on Arlington.

 

 

Nothing prevents someone from just pulling all the way forward to the building, blocking the sidewalk. I think this could be fixed by installing some parking stops at the end of the parking spaces. I talked to Morgan Weber, and he said he'd be willing to do that, if possible.

 

Other than that, these grassy areas just need to be paved and then there's a workable sidewalk that can be used by pedestrians, handicapped, etc.

 

 

 

I wrote to the Planning people with conditional support for the variance based on those items.

 

 

[SilverJK]

That is just realtor-speak for bad architecture.

 

 

I'm not a realtor, nor do I have bad taste in architecture (I don't need to qualify myself to you).  My opinion is not singular. 

 

 

 

 

As far as Diversity...  I'd like to see the following move in to the hood':  Dedicated Sushi Restaurant, Indian, Ethiopian, Bagels.

 

 

Ruggles has to be getting close to opening, anyone have the offician opening date yet?

[TGM]

Other than that, these grassy areas just need to be paved and then there's a workable sidewalk that can be used by pedestrians, handicapped, etc.

The grassy areas, they need a saving not a paving. Without them that spot becomes a concrete heat island devoid of green space. History lost inch by inch, foot by foot at the hands of nazi-uniformed, hipster concrete workers. Save the square if you care.

[s3mh]

Kraftsmen has a row of spaces along 22nd that are all over the right of way with no sidewalk access. Chilosos has a row along Gostic that are identical to the row along Arlington in the photos above. Cedar Creek has pull in diagonal parking that has the tail end of big trucks hanging over the sidewalk.

Coltivare is going to be relatively small. 3000 sq feet for kitchen and dining room with a sliver of outdoor terrace seating. This should be a no-brainer for the City.

[kylejack]

The grassy areas, they need a saving not a paving. Without them that spot becomes a concrete heat island devoid of green space. History lost inch by inch, foot by foot at the hands of nazi-uniformed, hipster concrete workers. Save the square if you care.

 

Every sidewalk should have a usable sidewalk on both sides of the street. Streets are for pedestrians and handicapped too, not just motorists.

[kylejack]

Kraftsmen has a row of spaces along 22nd that are all over the right of way with no sidewalk access. Chilosos has a row along Gostic that are identical to the row along Arlington in the photos above. Cedar Creek has pull in diagonal parking that has the tail end of big trucks hanging over the sidewalk.

 

Those all need to be remedied. Unfortunately they're not up for a variance right now, so I doubt anything can be done. Doesn't mean we should keep making the same mistake. Pedestrian access is very important. I'm honestly surprised that sidewalks don't figure in to your historic utopian vision for The Heights.

Edited March 18, 2013 by kylejack

[RedScare]

Kraftsmen has a row of spaces along 22nd that are all over the right of way with no sidewalk access. Chilosos has a row along Gostic that are identical to the row along Arlington in the photos above. Cedar Creek has pull in diagonal parking that has the tail end of big trucks hanging over the sidewalk. Coltivare is going to be relatively small. 3000 sq feet for kitchen and dining room with a sliver of outdoor terrace seating. This should be a no-brainer for the City.

 

Reading your examples, the "no brainer for the City" would be to deny a parking permit on Arlington, and then to proceed to either revoke the permitted parking in those other areas, or to begin citing those who block the sidewalk when parking there. I know that is not what you intended, but it is what your comments provoked.

[TGM]

Every sidewalk should have a usable sidewalk on both sides of the street. Streets are for pedestrians and handicapped too, not just motorists.

I agree streets are for pedestrians and the handicapped. Bicycles are also vehicles. Anything with wheels or shoes should be required to register, receive plates and tags, and undergo inspection. These added fees will go to support the historic district and restaurant diversification programs oversceen by Paunchous Parker.

Edited March 19, 2013 by TGM

[Subdude]

Any more posts that:

• are off-topic
• exhibit troll behavior, or
• involve personal attacks of any kind

and the topic is closed.

 

Please review the terms of service that you agreed to when you joined HAIF.

 

 

 

[SilverJK]

If this was a waffle house... people would be jumping all over this saying the city shouldn't allow the variance. 

 

Berry Hill also has ROW parking and trucks stick way out into the street  (i once saw a crew cab f250 parked there and they almost completely blocked the lane). 

 

What happens if someone else takes ownership of that warehouse and repurposes it though?

 

 

[s3mh]

If this was a waffle house... people would be jumping all over this saying the city shouldn't allow the variance. 

 

Berry Hill also has ROW parking and trucks stick way out into the street  (i once saw a crew cab f250 parked there and they almost completely blocked the lane). 

 

What happens if someone else takes ownership of that warehouse and repurposes it though?

It would be the same situation as if a restaurant satisfied their parking requirement through leased off-site parking and lost the lease. They have to find new parking or close up shop. In the case of Coltivare, it would just mean that they would then have to pave over the garden if they could not secure other parking. So, there is no risk in granting the variance as they will have a permanent back up plan should the warehouse parking ever become unavailable.

Some in the neighborhood have expressed concerns about the parking variance as they do not want to see a westward expansion of the parking situation around White Oak and Studewood. It is a fair concern for folks on Arlington as their street is not curbed and guttered. However, there are very few good opportunities for further restaurant development on that stretch of White Oak that the parking intrusion on the neighborhood should be minimal in comparison to what is going on down the street.

As for the Waffle House/Heights snobbery comment, the Walmart development failed to build a sidewalk along the west side of Yale St. between the White Oak bayou bridge and Koehler. I do not recall anyone here advocating for denying the development their cert of occupancy until the sidewalks were completed.

The fact of the matter is that redevelopment in the Heights is going to be a messy affair. The original design of the commercial areas did not anticipate the need for the kind of parking that is now required. The commercial streets (White Oak/6th, 11th, 20th, Yale) should have plenty of restaurants and shops and will need some bend in the parking rules to get that done. The lots that are ripe for redevelopment just are not big enough to do much other than a little strip mall here and there. The Heights already has plenty of those and they are of little benefit compared to something like Coltivare.

[kylejack]

As for the Waffle House/Heights snobbery comment, the Walmart development failed to build a sidewalk along the west side of Yale St. between the White Oak bayou bridge and Koehler. I do not recall anyone here advocating for denying the development their cert of occupancy until the sidewalks were completed.

 

Well then check my posts, because I was totally opposed to both Walmart and the 380.

[JJxvi]

The west side of Yale between Koehler and the bayou is frontage in front of San Jacinto Stone, so I fail to see what it has to with Wal*Mart or how it relates to this property trying to meet its parking requirements.

[s3mh]

The west side of Yale between Koehler and the bayou is frontage in front of San Jacinto Stone, so I fail to see what it has to with Wal*Mart or how it relates to this property trying to meet its parking requirements.

Only relevant to the extent a prior post used the old Heights snob argument to claim that people would oppose the parking if it was a waffle house. My retort was that people on this message board showed little concern about the sidewalk issue on Yale.

The sidewalk was eliminated in order to widen Yale per the 380 because no one anticipated that the utility poles were in the way. The sidewalk was supposed to be part of the 380. Only relevant to parking requirements to the extent it shows selective enforcement of ROW all over the place by the City. Thus, it is unfair for the City to come down hard on Coltivare while at the same time giving the big project soaked in free tax dollars a pass on their ROW foulup.

[RedScare]

Only relevant to the extent a prior post used the old Heights snob argument to claim that people would oppose the parking if it was a waffle house. My retort was that people on this message board showed little concern about the sidewalk issue on Yale.

The sidewalk was eliminated in order to widen Yale per the 380 because no one anticipated that the utility poles were in the way. The sidewalk was supposed to be part of the 380. Only relevant to parking requirements to the extent it shows selective enforcement of ROW all over the place by the City. Thus, it is unfair for the City to come down hard on Coltivare while at the same time giving the big project soaked in free tax dollars a pass on their ROW foulup.

 

So, now you believe it is unfair for the City to be capricious and arbitrary in its dealings with the citizenry? I must agree with you on that point, even though your analogy to the Walmart situation could not be less analogous to this situation.

[s3mh]

Looks like Coltivare is offering up a baby splitting compromise if the Planning commission does not let them use the spaces along White Oak. They will put in 5 spaces on the east end of the lot that will be the garden and keep a little more than half of that lot as their garden space. Those five spaces plus the eight along the warehouse on Arlington that do not have ROW issues (only the spaces along White Oak have the ROW issues). That would meet the 13 space minimum and still let them have a big garden.

Edited March 25, 2013 by s3mh

[kylejack]

Those five spaces plus the eight along the warehouse on Arlington that do not have ROW issues

 

Unless of course, you consider a sidewalk a right of way. I do. The Planning Commission sent me an e-mail with details of what they'll propose. I'll post it when I have access later.

Edited March 25, 2013 by kylejack

[s3mh]

Unless of course, you consider a sidewalk a right of way. I do. The Planning Commission sent me an e-mail with details of what they'll propose. I'll post it when I have access later.

There is no sidewalk issue on Arlington. The sidewalk is right where it is supposed to be and is not affected by the parking. You would have to get rid of all the parking along 19th if that kind of front in parking was a problem. In fact, most new urbanism planners prefer that kind of front in parking over strip mall surface lots as they are more pedestrian friendly. The parking on white oak does go where the sidewalk is supposed to be, but should not be an issue as there is still a sidewalk that has been built around the spaces.

[kylejack]

There is no sidewalk issue on Arlington. The sidewalk is right where it is supposed to be and is not affected by the parking.

 

If the sidewalk doesn't conflict with the parking, then why are the lines for the parking spaces painted directly across the entire sidewalk? Look at my pictures, posted earlier.

[s3mh]

If the sidewalk doesn't conflict with the parking, then why are the lines for the parking spaces painted directly across the entire sidewalk? Look at my pictures, posted earlier.

Go on the DRC and see what they submitted. They do not intend on parking cars on the sidewalk along Arlington. They have measured 17' parking spaces on Arlington. The lines were probably painted for a point of reference as the parking is on gravel.

[kylejack]

Well since the average customer doesn't consult PDFs before pulling in to a space, perhaps it would be good to install some parking stops to prevent them from pulling across the sidewalk. That's what I asked Morgan Weber about, and he said he'd be willing to do so. Which would fix the ROW problem on Arlington which you claim does not exist.

[s3mh]

Well since the average customer doesn't consult PDFs before pulling in to a space, perhaps it would be good to install some parking stops to prevent them from pulling across the sidewalk. That's what I asked Morgan Weber about, and he said he'd be willing to do so. Which would fix the ROW problem on Arlington which you claim does not exist.

There is a difference between the practical problem of a parking space being flush with the sidewalk and the permitting problem of having a parking space that is cut off by the encroaching right of way making the space to short for the City's standards. The former exists on Arlington. The latter exists on White Oak. The former is not a permitting issue. The latter is.

[kylejack]

There is a difference between the practical problem of a parking space being flush with the sidewalk and the permitting problem of having a parking space that is cut off by the encroaching right of way making the space to short for the City's standards. The former exists on Arlington. The latter exists on White Oak. The former is not a permitting issue. The latter is.

 

Doesn't matter, when an entity requests a variance (which is an exception to what the code requires) it is a good time to get some concessions such as fixing a sidewalk ROW issue, especially one which would be easy to fix.

[s3mh]

Latest from the folks at Coltivare. It sounds like the City staff is doing their usual drill of keeping their recommendation under wraps until the day before the planning commission meeting. But it sounds like the City staff will support cutting the garden by a 1/3rd to get an additional few spaces. It also sounds like the Coltivare folks would agree to do that, but are trying to push forward with "plan A" of keeping the entire lot a garden and not adding any parking. I hope the planning commission will go for Plan A.

The email from Coltivare:

COLTIVARE PARKING VARIANCE

The Home Stretch

First, thank you to all for the overwhelming support for our parking variance that we have received over the last two weeks. When we fired off that email, we never expected the responses to flow in with such abundance and positive enthusiasm. So thanks for A) putting up with these laborious and tedious emails and being such an amazing community and neighborhood in which to live and work.

Hopefully, everything will be wrapped up tomorrow afternoon. The Planning Commission Hearing is upon us.

Last week, we received a response from Dipti Mathur and Brian Crimmins that the Commission understood the "uniqueness of the situation" and were running the traps to make sure they make the right decision was made for the community.

As it stands, the Commission is seemingly more comfortable with the idea of turning one-third of our proposed garden into parking spaces, as well as adding bike parking, which we were, of course, planning to do anyway. They also would require planting trees along the sidewalk. Twist our arms. We were planning on doing that as well. We love the idea of both those requirements/suggestions.

The obvious issue is that by adding parking adjacent to the proposed garden, it takes the garden from 3,000 square feet to 2,000 square feet (1/3 less yield on delicious fruit and vegetables, no?) and they still want us to ADD PARKING WHEN PARKING EXISTS ACROSS THE STREET.

We need as many people as possible to show up to tomorrow's Planning Commission Hearing to support the idea of the variance AND using 100% existing parking. And the bottom line is this: irrespective of whether the City counts those existing parking spaces for our code requirement, they will be used, as they have been used for 60 years.

Here are the details:

The Commission hearing starts at 2:30 pm in the City Hall Annex Building, City Council Chamber, Public Level:

900 Bagby Street

Houston, TX 77002

We are at the end of the agenda, so they probably won't get to us until a little after 3:00.

Our variance will begin with a two-minute introduction from our parking consultant, after which the floor will be opened for public comment. Anyone wishing to speak will have to sign in before our variance request is heard. Each person will be given one minute to voice their support for the variance. From past experience, one minute flies by and often times it is better to write your commentary beforehand and read it or have a few talking points jotted down--just to make sure you get all your points across.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to email Morgan at morgan@revivalmarket.com

And if you want to re-iterate your stance to the Commission or will not be able to attend tomorrow's meeting, shoot them another email.

marlene.gafrick@houstontx.gov

Dipti.Mathur@houstontx.gov

mayor@houstontx.gov

pd.planning@houstontx.gov

Brian.Crimmins@houstontx.gov

Again, thank you all for your support. We hope to see as many of you at the hearing tomorrow as possible and understand what a sacrifice it is to make time in the middle of the day to do something this tedious. We cannot thank you enough for that.

-Morgan Weber & Ryan Pera

Owners, Revival Market & Coltivare

Edited March 27, 2013 by s3mh

[Angostura]

Staff will recommend granting the variance:

 

https://twitter.com/HoustonPlanning/status/316957879745781762

[s3mh]

Word is that the variance was granted for Coltivare. Do not know whether they will have to compromise and build a few spaces on the lot for the garden or be allowed to keep the entire lot a garden. Either way is wayyyy better than having to pave that entire lot for a parking lot. Can't wait for this restaurant to open.

[kylejack]

They're keeping maximum garden.

[Texasota]

rad. more parking facing white oak would be a mistake.

[s3mh]

Here are the official minutes on the Coltivare variance.  All garden:

 

114 2120 White Oak Drive DPV Approve

Staff recommendation: Grant the requested variance with 5 Off-Street parking spaces and 32 bike

parking spaces.

Commission action: Granted the requested variance with staff’s recommended conditions as listed

below but without the five parking spaces. In addition to staff’s recommendation, Commission

requires the filing of a restrictive covenant to be recorded at the County by the property owner to

restrict the garden to green space/landscaping for as long as the facility is operated as a restaurant.

The City of Houston is the beneficiary of the restrictive covenant and will have the right to enforce it. If

the restrictive covenant is not approved and filed, the variance is granted with the staff’s

recommended conditions including the 5 on-site parking spaces.

Motion:

Subinsky Second: Clark Vote: Unanimous Abstaining: None

 

Also on the restaurant front, Austin wing/sports bar Pluckers is going in the Harold's development.  Torchy's is also a go.  I suspect that the Heights General Store may have given back some lease space as the original reports made it sound like it was completely leased out with just the Heights General Store and Torchy's.  I can make a very long list of restaurants that I would rather see go in than Pluckers, but it is a kid friendly place and will serve the growning number of families with little kids in the Greater Heights area.  Lee's Fried Chicken and Donuts (next to liberty kitchen) is looking for a July opening.  Probably too optomistic given how little work has been done to date on the building, but you never know until you try.