The Heights Restaurant And Bar Scene - More Coming

[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.

[JJxvi]

I can make a very long list of restaurants that I would rather see go in than Pluckers

 

You shut your trap!

[JJxvi]

Wonder how they'll handle beer sales?

[nclux]

I was at the forum at which Pluckers was discussed and the whole idea that Pluckers is going in Harold's is a great example of a game of Telephone. The guy said that he drove his friends who own Pluckers around Houston and that they "got the Heights". He did not say that they had definitively leased a space - the closest reference was that they might be interested in 19th and Shepard. 

[RedScare]

I was at the forum at which Pluckers was discussed and the whole idea that Pluckers is going in Harold's is a great example of a game of Telephone. The guy said that he drove his friends who own Pluckers around Houston and that they "got the Heights". He did not say that they had definitively leased a space - the closest reference was that they might be interested in 19th and Shepard. 

 

nclux, I don't think you realize who you are dealing with. s3mh is never wrong. If he says Pluckers is going in, it is going in. Just like that Walmart that everyone thought was going in on Yale...oh, wait.

[s3mh]

nclux, I don't think you realize who you are dealing with. s3mh is never wrong. If he says Pluckers is going in, it is going in. Just like that Walmart that everyone thought was going in on Yale...oh, wait.

 

I just do not know why you get all flustered when your posts get taken down by the admins.  I am fine if you want to throw insults in every post in response to anything I say.  Just don't whine and pretend that you are not dong what you are doing.

[RedScare]

I just do not know why you get all flustered when your posts get taken down by the admins.  I am fine if you want to throw insults in every post in response to anything I say.  Just don't whine and pretend that you are not dong what you are doing.

 

Would you like to respond to the poster who completely eviscerated your post?