Guyutes

[Mr. Cotter]

He wanted them to close at 11:00 Sunday-Thursday, and seemed ambivalent about Friday and Saturday.

[BDK]

If the Planning Commission begins recommending denial of reasonable and beneficial proposals such as these, do you think the Council would approve the applications over the Planning Commission's recommendation of denial? Is there such precedent?

[Plutonic Panda]

He wanted them to close at 11:00 Sunday-Thursday, and seemed ambivalent about Friday and Saturday.

I see. It sounded like he said they close 11 on Sat and Sunday and 2am all the other days. Anyways, still kind of unreasonable, in my view at least.

[Pete]

If the Planning Commission begins recommending denial of reasonable and beneficial proposals such as these, do you think the Council would approve the applications over the Planning Commission's recommendation of denial? Is there such precedent?

There is the Board of Appeals specifically for things like this.

[wsucougz]

This is completely arbitrary. Do they hope to determine "reasonable" hours of operation in this manner? Would it mean existing neighborhood bars such as the Blue Note are somehow grandfathered in to a set of "unreasonable" operating hours? Going down this path will lead to more questions than answers and it all seems borderline legal at best. A dangerous precedent, indeed.

Someone should nip this in the bud now.

[Paseofreak]

If the Planning Commission begins recommending denial of reasonable and beneficial proposals such as these, do you think the Council would approve the applications over the Planning Commission's recommendation of denial? Is there such precedent?

I believe that Council would be initially inclined to side with the Commission unless advised by counsel that denial wouldn't survive a legal challenge. If Council denies the applicant can sue. At least that's how I understood the process as explained in the Stage Center thread.

Edit: Oops! As Pete points out above, I forgot about the Board of Appeals.

[Mr. Cotter]

This is completely arbitrary. Do they hope to determine "reasonable" hours of operation in this manner? Would it mean existing neighborhood bars such as the Blue Note are somehow grandfathered in to a set of "unreasonable" operating hours? Going down this path will lead to more questions than answers and it all seems borderline legal at best. A dangerous precedent, indeed.

Someone should nip this in the bud now.

I'm not agreeing with the planning commission, but if there were no outdoor component, I think it would have been approved today.

[Paseofreak]

I believe they already had that. This was just about the patio. See BoulderSooner's Post #198.

[Pete]

I believe they already had that. This was just about the patio. See BoulderSooner's Post #198.

No, yesterday's Urban Design meeting only involved the patio.

Today was about their liquor license, which they do not currently have at all.

[Paseofreak]

No, yesterday's Urban Design meeting only involved the patio.

Today was about their liquor license, which they do not currently have at all.

Gotcha. Thanks for clearing that up.

[Urbanized]

If there were no outdoor component, it wouldn't be nearly as cool.

[Pete]

If there were no outdoor component, it wouldn't be nearly as cool.

Or possible to invest any significant amount because there wouldn't be enough square footage to justify the expense.

Really, this is exactly the type of development we should be falling all over ourselves to make happen: An existing ugly, crumbling, long-abandoned building on a highly visible corner with a traffic light, very little residential in the immediate area and a super-cool, creative design.

Good grief, there is that massive plasma center due east and we've got a group who wants to invest hundreds of thousands and the City is dragging this out for months and trying to get them to cut the outdoor elements and hours due to what... 1 or 2 neighbors who chose to live in places that back up to a very busy commercial corridor?


Think about this... Virtually every commercial street in OKC backs up to a residential neighborhood. If they are going to start denying permits based on that alone, we might as well stop trying to build bars and restaurants in almost the entire city.

[BoulderSooner]

If the Planning Commission begins recommending denial of reasonable and beneficial proposals such as these, do you think the Council would approve the applications over the Planning Commission's recommendation of denial? Is there such precedent?

There is the Board of Appeals specifically for things like this.

The city council has overruled the planning commission many many times. But they would likely need to hire an attorney to help them through the process and to help explain the issue to the council

[kevinpate]

The comments about the hours are the most troubling.

They are legally authorized to stay open that late and any noise issues have already been covered and would fall under existing ordinances.


This is very dangerous ground and this is far more than about Guyutes; it's about the precedent.

When officials ignore existing law and try to create little islands of special limited to X rules, it may be time for applicants to involve counsel earlier in the process.


Disclaimer - not my pond to fish in, but there are plenty of folk who would drop a line in such waters if invited.

[Paseofreak]

I find it hard to believe that the City's counsel has not straightened them out prior to this particular instance arising. I'm no attorney, but even I can see where this is way out of line.

[Pete]

The city council has overruled the planning commission many many times. But they would likely need to hire an attorney to help them through the process and to help explain the issue to the council

Yes, sorry I was mistaken regarding my previous comment about the Board of Appeal.

I just got the full story on what happened and what the next steps will be, and I'll post more about that soon. I want to watch the video of the meeting before I go into detail, just so I'm clear on the facts and all the remaining issues.

But...

The way this works is the Planning Commission only makes a recommendation to City Council when it comes to zoning and alcohol licenses. If the PC forwards it to the CC with their approval, it's pretty much a rubber stamp at the council level. If they recommend against approving, it's a simple vote of the council which could go either way.

Also, keep in mind that someone like David Box may be highly effective but he's also highly expensive. An applicant shouldn't have to pay tens of thousands extra just so the PC doesn't try to impose standards well beyond those already in place (which is the case here). Effectively, that is going to separate out the little to medium guys from the big boys, because only those with deep pockets can afford to hire an attorney who will force the committee to be fair.


Anyway, more to come on this. As we all predicted, this one case is becoming a bit of a pivot point for how we go forward with urban development.

[LAJJ]

Pete: Would you be willing to email me at LAJames10855@aol.com. I would like to get some advise and feedback from you. I was at the meeting today and was appalled. The owners clearly stated all the steps they had taken to re-assure the neighborhood about the noise and the parking. Now the main concern seems to have shifted to the hours of operation and rooftop patio noise... How can the OKC Planning Commission have any say on the hours of operation of a local restaurant? What does an ABC2 Layover have to do with parking, noise or hours of operation? The first thing that needs to be done is to hire an excellent attorney. Would your recommend David Box? I wanted to speak today and ask the commission, why did they approve the ABC2 layover requests for several other restaurants on N.W. 23rd Street, and during those requests nothing was mentioned about noise or parking or hours of operation? But I felt that they would reply with.... "the other restaurants applying for the ABC2 Layover didn't have rooftop patio's included in their design and their hours of operation were listed as closing by 10 p.m." - Again, the main concern was the noise, and the hours of operation and having music on the rooftop patio until 2 a.m. The committee members actually said, "we don't care how many supporters you have for your business, and how many people sign a petition, we asked you to get a SPUD last time you were here and you didn't. We will all DENY this is you move forward without SPUD". Again, I am highly recomemnding the owners get an Attorney. If anyone else on this site has other recommendations regarding this situation, please let me know and I will pass it along to the owners. One of the concepts the GUYUTES owners have is that they will serve quality food that will be available late night. Many people in OKC would like to have a nice place to have dinner and a few drinks past 10 p.m. or even 12 a.m. for that matter... Oklahoma City residents that go out for events or activities such as a Thunder Game, or even those that work late night shifts would like to have other options besides fast food or breakfast type food. Late night upscale food is needed in OKC. I think the owners of GUYUTES have a clear and unique vision for their business that will set them apart from other businesses. What is happening at the OKC Planning Commission is wrong......

[Pete]

LAJJ, I'll email you.

I agree the Planning Commission is completely over-stepping their bounds and watching the video from the meeting, Janice Powers in particular seems to be on a power trip.

They are asking the owners to apply for SPUD, which is basically a zoning issue just to get a liquor license. And in that SPUD, they want the owners to outline how they will restrict their own business, without giving them specifics about what they are looking for.


I'm actually glad this is happening, although I'm sorry the Guyutes project is getting caught in the middle. I'm glad because this is pretty messed up and the broader issue needs to be addressed sooner rather than later.


I'll share what I've learned and my thoughts in detail tomorrow.

[Mr. Cotter]

LAJJ, I'll email you.

I agree the Planning Commission is completely over-stepping their bounds and watching the video from the meeting, Janice Powers in particular seems to be on a power trip.

Agreed. Anyone interested in running a campaign for her seat? I could be persuaded to run.

[Urbanized]

It is an appointed rather than an elected position. I would encourage anybody wanting to volunteer their time to such a body to reach out to their councilperson.

[Mr. Cotter]

Ahh. I'm not see Ed doing much for me in the way of favors.

[Urbanized]

Then reach out to the Mayor.

[Pete]

I've had a chance to watch the video from yesterday's Planning Commission (PC) meeting and have talked to the people involved in this project at length. Here is a summary of all the recent events as I understand them.

1. Guyutes is already under construction. They have received all the necessary design approvals and building permits.
2. The Planning Commission is all about obtaining an ABC 2 liquor license.
3. When the owners presented to the PC last month, there were concerns expressed by some neighbors and committee members about parking, late hours and noise. The decision was made to continue the application for another month, which was the meeting yesterday.
4. In the interim, the ownership group procured 30 dedicated parking spaces on the NW corner of 23rd & Shartel. They also agreed to erect signage directing patrons to that lot. (Reminder: The are no specific parking requirements in this district.)
5. The owners met with some of the concerned neighbors and the president of the homeowners group. They conducted noise tests, which included placing speakers on top of the building and turning them up to full volume and then stepping back to 22nd Street. From that distance the sound was completely inaudible.
6. There are very specific and existing noise ordinances that pertain to all businesses and households in the city limits. The owners had agreed to abide by them and of course in the event they were violated, there are existing enforcement procedures and remedies.
7. In the previous PC meeting, some committee members suggested they pursue a Special Planned Unit Development (SPUD) rezoning in order to address some of the concerns. (A SPUD spells out in precise details what will be built and any other limitations on the property; it also carries forward to any future owners).
8. The owners decided not to pursue this due to cost (additional legal fees) and time (would add several months). They felt the better course of action was to address the concerns of the opponents, which is why they had the various meetings, obtained parking, etc.
9. In the PC meeting yesterday, after the presentation was made explaining the progress which included referencing the letters of support and the petition, committee member Janis Powers was the first to speak (and this is a verbatim quote): “I think you have misunderstood. It is not for the neighborhood to decide whether you need a SPUD or not and it was not their suggestion, it was ours.” Watch the video yourself and note her tone and body language.
10. This property does not require rezoning. Therefore this “suggestion” (which is not a suggestion at all but an absolute condition of considering their application) is over and above what is required by law.
11. The ownership group has not obtained an attorney as yet because of the expense. Someone like Dennis Box is likely to charge upwards of $10K due to the time involved. They were assuming that one would not be needed since they have been in compliance of all laws and ordinances. (The large majority of applications that go before the PC are not presented by attorneys.)
12. To my knowledge, no other bars or restaurants in this corridor has been required to seek a SPUD.
13. The committee was not specific on what limitations they expect to see in the SPUD. They advised the group to “work with City staff”. However, the staff has no decision making power and it's not clear what the PC wants to see, other than “reduced hours”.
14. The ownership group feels these limitations are unfair and would be harmful to their profitability.
15. They are now considering several options: 1) Drafting a SPUD and limiting their hours; 2) Hiring an attorney; 3) Taking the matter straight to City Council.
16. As a reminder, the PC only makes a recommendation to the Council. With that recommendation approval is virtually assured. Without it, you run the risk of some members of council not wanting to look like they are bullying neighbors and circumventing the planning process.

There are clearly bigger issues here:

• Is the Planning Commission overstepping it's bounds?
• What type of precedents are being set?
• Is it the stance of the PC to place restrictions on businesses every time a small number of people protest?
• As the City is changing rapidly, is it time to reshape the PC to better grasp urban development concepts?

[soonerguru]

This is an absolute atrocity. And I hate to say it, but it makes me wonder if there are racial overtones involved. They have grounds for a lawsuit, in my opinion.

[Urbanized]

Kickstarter for attorney's fees? $50 puts you on the list for the soft opening with a plus one?