HeightsPeep
-
Posts
26 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Recent Profile Visitors
1,662 profile views
HeightsPeep's Achievements
(5/32)
1
Reputation
-
Not sure what will come, but I know the food establishments will NOT have alcohol since it is in the dry part of the Heights and in a residential area. No one wants their family to live right near a late night drinking crowd. Any TABC attempt will be cost prohibitive expensive and likely fizzle like Gelazzi.
-
The Heights Restaurant And Bar Scene - More Coming
HeightsPeep replied to Freelander's topic in The Heights
Unfortunately, the urinating in yards really did happen when Gelazzi tried to become a bar. For the TABC protest, neighbors had to take time out of their lives because the noise, urinating, parties.. was so incredibly awful. Gelazzi would not negotiate with their neighbors to limit the negative behavior. And as a result Gelazzi was denied a TABC license. You can read the TABC docs. I did just for fun because my neighbors had a copy. Many people showed up to testify about the poor behavior they witnessed from patrons and the owners. . Let's hope the people at Connie's Pizza are able to exercise enough control to make sure adequate restrooms are provided. Right now they do not have enough restrooms or parking per City code to operate a restaurant. I hope they will do the right thing and install restrooms the public can actually access. Also, Gelazzi/Connie's Pizza is not functioning as a take out place. Pinks is a takeout place; no tables, no eat in. However, people were eating pizza at Gelazzi, this weekend, both indoors and outdoors. This reminds me of the crawfish place the City shut down because they had tables. Remember that? -
I am not surprised by the lack of progress. There are better priced and more easily TABC licensed areas in other parts of the Heights. Why bother with the hassle? . It is interesting that the new rendition on the website does not reflect the new intersection island planned at 7th and Yale to allow a safer pedestrian crossing. The new configuration removes several parking spaces that are depicted. . Curious that the developer did not opt to orient the parking to the rear. I guess keeping the historic buildings which then allows him to utilize decreased and grandfathered parking minimums was a bigger priority. . Also, that looks like a nice dumpster placement right behind residences with no trees or extra high wall to block it. In my opinion, the developer is insensitive to the neighborhood at best. . Finally, it is interesting that the developer refers to a "White Oak district" of restaurants when it clearly apparent that planning a restaurant west of Oxford and east of Yale is doomed due to TABC licensing restrictions in that area (no dinner service at Revival, Gelazzi cannot serve pizza, and Happy Fatz is on the verge of closing their meal service because a home is being built on what was their parking lot).
-
Are they still planning to have restaurants? I think that will be a big problem. This development would have been really great north of 2200 on Yale! Not so great near residences in the dry area. Neighbors will vociferously object to turning Heights Blvd to turn into Montrose. Any restaurant that leases from theme will be really upset when 1) they realize they need a private club license and 2) when the neighbors show up to protest that license and 3) the developers are then asked about the sentiments of the neighbors and it turns out they knew all along the project was unwelcome! These are just my thoughts, but I see that Revival location became a restaurant and it speaks volumes. I have heard awful reviews from people who actually live in the neighborhood. It is not family friendly. And a number of people are protesting the liquor license and they have not even filed for it yet, just posted a sign. Still, this would have been a great location for the yoga/juice bar place already planned on White Oak near Oxford. Not a fan of "Little Austin" but still...
-
Heights Central: Retail At 927 Studewood St.
HeightsPeep replied to bedmondson's topic in The Heights
I love that it is mixed use, however, I am concerned that Studewood is going to end up having a lot of tall buildings that will crowd out the smaller structures. Yale St. already has so many ridiculous tall buildings (I am referring to the multiple townhomes with 5 different types of siding because why would a developer pick just one!) and the older structures on Heights and next door to the lot-line monstrosities have no light. Does the Planning Department limit the height? -
Can't wait to see this! I think this is outside the "dry area"? It will be a profitable venture for the owner of the property as well as those who lease.
-
The Heights Restaurant And Bar Scene - More Coming
HeightsPeep replied to Freelander's topic in The Heights
11th and Yale concept by Revival Market/Coltivare owners: http://blog.chron.com/foodchronicles/2015/02/heights-ice-house-in-the-works-from-revival-market-and-coltivare-partners/#30758101=0 -
Thank you Real Estate for your "help," but I own a dozen properties in the Heights, some commercial and some residential. Do you? I have have never requested a variance and I provide adequate on site parking. I suggest this developer scale back and meet the requirements. Being greedy will backfire. Since you chose to live in a historic district, perhaps you should be ashamed for supporting the scale, design and public burden proposed by this project.
-
Concrete was already in the plan for the entire lot at Heights and 7th. The developer plan shows their intent to turn that whole lot into parking. The neighbors' architect suggested the developer could be creative by structuring parking behind. This would allow a nice front for walkers. I think he is right.
-
Neighbors needed to hire an architect because PD staff was 1) so absurdly unsympathetic to the concerns of over 450 neighbors to follow its obligations of enforcing city code and 2) impotent and incompetent in comprehending and enforcing the city code. PD staff met with the developer repeatedly, and knows them well enough to sit with them throughout the presentation making comments about the neighbors. That doe snot look very impartial to me. The developer hired its expert to present the various request. Why shouldn't the neighbors that that seriously? A bunch of neighbors who saw a problem needed help to understand the mechanics of the code that PD could not understand themselves. If you watch the video, PD was so inept that they did not know their own street and bike plans for lights at that intersection! Total comedy. This morning my realtor friend confirmed the binder company property is quietly on the market. PD should do its job and expect the same level of scrutiny from now in for all parking issues in that area.
-
Yes. Parking Variance - developer must provide all the required parking. Planning Commission UNANIMOUSLY denied the variance despite Planning Department staff support. Hopefully Planning Department staff will do a better job representing the city and not just developers now.
-
Planning Commission UNANIMOUSLY denied the variance despite Planning Department staff support. Hopefully Planning Department staff will do a better job representing the city and not just developers now.
-
Was this the same sight where the street was sold to Grocers? If I remember correctly, at that time I believe they argued they needed it for their business operation. It seems they probably needed that land connection to make the place more marketable to developers! The Heights Mercantile proposal could actually work very nicely in this location, as opposed to 7th/Heights.
-
I think I am hearing you say that the hundreds of people who have voiced their oppositions to the variance should move to Katy! The 30 people who live on that block should move too! And the thousands of people who currently use the parking at that location to access public amenities should move! Of course I should move because I do not want to live in Montrose or Midtown (that's why I invested in the Heights!). And in your mind all those people moving sounds better than denying the variance for which there is no public purpose to support subsidizing the developers' parking? I sure hope you don't work for the Planning Department because you would be abusing your discretion!
-
Why is a parking variance warranted? Why should the public carry the burden for this developer? I drove by 5 times this weekend and all the parking spaces were occupied except one or two each time. And why are they so focused on preserving clearly nonhistoric noncontributing and unappealing buildings? Are they getting grandfathered on some requirements?