At one time I think 3.2 beer was not calculated in alcohol sales but classified under food sales since it is under a different license and tax structure and it being classified as a "non-intoxicating beverage". Not sure if that is still the case.

That could be true and it makes perfect sense as to why certain establishments continue to operate as ABC-2 even though they are much more bar than restaurant. There are a lot of people who always order Bud/Coors/Miller no matter where they are at.

And what if a church wanted to sell alcohol? I'm assuming that's illegal?

And what if a church wanted to sell alcohol? I'm assuming that's illegal?

Yeah, that might conflict with the tax exempt/non profit status. Probably would not be allowed to sell cars on Sunday either.

Yeah, that might conflict with the tax exempt/non profit status. Probably would not be allowed to sell cars on Sunday either.

I didn't say sell alcohol for profit, I said just sell it.

They would probably have to give away free beer and sell cups for $1 or something.

This is more Asian District and not 23rd street but......

The old "Milk Bottle" building along Classen is looking nice and shiny with new windows and paint. Looks almost completely renovated.
Also the building along Classen that has the iron fence around it with the Jeep on top of the sign is now a gyro and hookah lounge / restaurant.

Agree about the milk bottle building. Brickwork, windows, doors are looking sharp.

You guys do realize that the folks who run The Parish are the ones who renovated the space next door into District House? They are all personal friends of mine. The pastor is a beer fan and you can walk through the door from the church or walk outside next door and go through the front and buy beer and coffee? Did life on the Plaza District come to a screeching halt? Oak and Ore craft beer directly across the street now?

This is more Asian District and not 23rd street but......

The old "Milk Bottle" building along Classen is looking nice and shiny with new windows and paint. Looks almost completely renovated.
Also the building along Classen that has the iron fence around it with the Jeep on top of the sign is now a gyro and hookah lounge / restaurant.

Gyros by Ali…OH. MY. GOD.

Seriously, this is the closest thing to European kebab that I've found. Y'all need to get over there and try it.

You guys do realize that the folks who run The Parish are the ones who renovated the space next door into District House? They are all personal friends of mine. The pastor is a beer fan and you can walk through the door from the church or walk outside next door and go through the front and buy beer and coffee? Did life on the Plaza District come to a screeching halt? Oak and Ore craft beer directly across the street now?

No, those are my thoughts exactly; that a church doesn't necessarily mean something bad for the district, and if it is one like The Parish or Frontline - one that immerses itself as a positive force in the district and doesn't position itself AGAINST the secular entertainment nature of its neighbors - it can/will be a win. Two things concern me:


That it might only be active a few hours a week. This can be detrimental to life on the sidewalk. Not healthy for retail frontage, and the neighbors pay a penalty. The same problem exists on the other end of the morals scale, with nightclubs only open a few hours a week. It is detrimental in an urban area. The Parish is pretty active during non-traditional hours, AND District House is ALWAYS active. It's an excellent example of a GOOD neighbor.
That the 300' setback doesn't negatively impact the Tower or any other potential ABC-3 operators in that block. Grandad's, for instance, might not have been able to open with a church in that space (I think it is close to being in the 300'). And from the outside looking in, ABC-3 seems to make the most sense for the Tower. If it is precluded by this church, BIG FAIL for the district.

Honestly, based on the harsh words this building's owners had for Uptown 23 and their neighbors, the tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist in me wonders if they didn't purposefully seek out a church just to screw with the district. This is something that was even openly worried about out loud BEFORE the fact, in the Tower thread. And if they got the idea here, I am seriously kicking myself for having participated in that discussion.

Finally, for the poster who was trying to connect urbanism and Godlessness, get grip. One of the most ridiculous, fallacious ad hominem attacks I have ever seen on this board.

^^^ Urbanized did a great job summing it up. From what we know about this church, it doesn't appear that they are coming into the neighborhood with the intention of opposing secular development so from that perspective there isn't much to worry about. However, there is the issue with the 300 ft setback forcing major changes in the direction of Uptown and due to the fact that right-wing fundamentalism for the most part dominates the state legislature, the chances of that being revisited in the near future are virtually nil.

The Plaza district can't have ABC-3 to begin with so the setback law doesn't really affect it. The Tower Theater on the other hand will likely need to be ABC-3 in order to realize its potential.

My next door neighbor works for this church, and they are not coming to the neighborhood (that they, by the way, have been active in for years) for the purpose of "opposing secular development." They are a very, very community minded organization who cares greatly about the people in this part of town.

That said, I agree with Urbanized's points above. I do think it's unfortunate this will preclude ABC 3 at Tower, but this impacts me very little personally, as I very rarely go somewhere for a drink that doesn't also have good food.

Also, comparison to Parish doesn't really line up because the Plaza's overlay already precludes ABC-3.

It will only interfere with ABC 3 at the Tower if the church opens before the liquor license is obtained, and I'm told the Tower owners and the people involved with the church as working together on this thus far.

Remember the church has not even closed on the sale yet and are planning a big renovation. Also, the Tower is pretty far along in it's negotiations so hopefully the necessary liquor license can be filed soon.

I'm hopeful this will all work out and the church will be an asset to the district.

I'm hopeful this will all work out and the church will be an asset to the district.

I don't see the church as an asset to the vitality and re birth of the 23rd Street district.
What a store front waste.
And I guess they plan on poaching on everyone else for parking too, especially the Tower,
What a bummer.

Does this also count for when a church is renting a property? What triggers the zoning law? There is already a church renting a storefront on 23rd (Paseo church??). How would the Tower Theater, who I'm sure would be open to renting to a church get out of this?

Just thinking out loud, but if it's not triggered by a church renting then couldn't they just keep the property in a different entity or something?

I don't think it matters if they rent or buy... As soon as they start operating as a church, that's when the restrictions kick in.

Paseo Church is more than 300 feet from the Tower Theater.

And as long as the Tower gets a ABC-3 license before they rent to a church or the church next door opens, they are in good shape.

I don't think it matters if they rent or buy... As soon as they start operating as a church, that's when the restrictions kick in.

Paseo Church is more than 300 feet from the Tower Theater.

And as long as the Tower gets a ABC-3 license before they rent to a church or the church next door opens, they are in good shape.

Such a weird law. You would think that the church would be able to waive their right in these cases.

The law reads something to the effect of "a church conducting regular services," so whether the church rents or owns is irrelevant.

And Pete, obtaining an MXB license from ABLE is tricky and involves multiple local building inspections and receipt of a certificate of occupancy from the City before issuance. Considering the fact that renovations have not even begun at Tower makes me doubt whether they will have a license anytime soon. When is the church due to begin holding services?

The law reads something to the effect of "a church conducting regular services," so whether the church rents or owns is irrelevant.

And Pete, obtaining an MXB license from ABLE is tricky and involves multiple local building inspections and receipt of a certificate of occupancy from the City before issuance. Considering the fact that renovations have not even begun at Tower makes me doubt whether they will have a license anytime soon. When is the church due to begin holding services?

The MXB License and the ABC3 Overlay are completely separate from one another. As long as the building is Re-Zoned as ABC3 then the MXB License can be attained even if the church is already functional. ABC3 is the key here, I would hate to see the Tower not get an ABC3 this late in the planning stages. If they haven't applied for an ABC3 already, they likely couldn't get Re-Zoned until May or June, depending how big of a fight HH or surrounding neighborhoods put up.

The MXB License and the ABC3 Overlay are completely separate from one another. As long as the building is Re-Zoned as ABC3 then the MXB License can be attained even if the church is already functional. ABC3 is the key here, I would hate to see the Tower not get an ABC3 this late in the planning stages. If they haven't applied for an ABC3 already, they likely couldn't get Re-Zoned until May or June, depending how big of a fight HH or surrounding neighborhoods put up.

With that said, even if they don't get an ABC3 permit, I believe the building is already zoned for ABC2. So they could still serve alcohol as long as it does not exceed 49% of their total revenue. But it's so much easier to just have an ABC3 overlay if you are wanting to have a bar/entertainment area. Even though everyone in the Plaza operates under an ABC2, I'm willing to bet a majority would rather have an ABC3 and not do food.

The Plaza doesn't allow ABC-3 by choice.

I understand the differences between ABC-3 zoning overlay (a City construct) and an MXB license (State of Oklahoma), having had one for years. The point is that - regardless of ABC-3 overlay - ABLE will not issue an MXB (bar) license to an establishment within 300' of a church holding regular services. You're wrong about this one; sorry. STATE law is the problem here.

BTW, I was told by one of the new owners of the Tower Theater that obtaining an ABC-3 license is critical for their future plans.

It seems they are pretty far along with some potential tenants.

The Plaza doesn't allow ABC-3 by choice.

I understand the differences between ABC-3 zoning overlay (a City construct) and an MXB license (State of Oklahoma), having had one for years. The point is that - regardless of ABC-3 overlay - ABLE will not issue an MXB (bar) license to an establishment within 300' of a church holding regular services. You're wrong about this one; sorry. STATE law is the problem here.

Actually as of 2 weeks ago when I spoke with city officials, I am right. Unless of course the people we submitted our application with lied. ABC3 Zoning over rules anything else or "Grandfathers" a location regardless of church opening within 300 ft weeks or years later. So it doesn't matter what the MXB license says about a church being 300 ft away as soon as the building is zoned correctly. That's why the ABLE commission requires that the business submit a "Certification of Compliance" that verifies the zoning for that specific business.

However, I was wrong in the the fact that the Tower is not currently Zoned as ABC2, its zoned as PUB.

What would it take to change the law? Probably an Act of God.

Maybe someone can reach out to freshman Rep. Jason Dunnignton to draft a bill that allows a church to exempt an ABC-3 bar from the 300ft rule. After all, thaat's giving more freedom to the people. We are supposed to be about freedom in Okla right?

While I'm no fan of this church going in on 23rd, it probably isn't too big of deal...unless another one goes in 600ft down the street, thus elimating any chance for another Grandads bar for 1200ft of 23rd St. That would definitely not be cool.

Actually as of 2 weeks ago when I spoke with city officials, I am right. Unless of course the people we submitted our application with lied. ABC3 Zoning over rules anything else or "Grandfathers" a location regardless of church opening within 300 ft weeks or years later. So it doesn't matter what the MXB license says about a church being 300 ft away as soon as the building is zoned correctly. That's why the ABLE commission requires that the business submit a "Certification of Compliance" that verifies the zoning for that specific business.
Speaking from experience, City/County/State officials are often (rarely) on the same page on this issue, and relying on City officials to tell you what state officials will allow is foolhardy.

What it can tell you is that Bricktown is "ABC-3 by right" (the only district in OKC that has such zoning). And yet when ACM@UCO landed, the unintended consequence was that no MXB license could be issued proximate to the school (university-owned property) OR to its (rented) Performance Lab on Sheridan. That created a giant no-zone in the district, and UCO, City officials, OKC-based state legislators and ABLE engaged in a mad scramble to change the law to allow a school (but not a church) to exempt itself from the proximity restriction on a license-by license basis. Trust me, I was very close to this situation. I'm pretty sure the law has not had other changes since.

By the way, when have you ever known a municipal ordinance to supercede state law? I'm not telling you that the people you were talking to at the City were lying; only that they very likely gave you incorrect or incomplete information, probably unintentionally.

The 23rd and Walker convenience store is completely vacated. Is this the location of a rumored Starbucks, or is something bigger planned for this corner?

To clear some things up from my experience.
1: you can have something zoned through the city for abc-3 regardless of your neighbors. Depending on the ruling committees over your (s)pud or variance.

2: at several times during ABLE and OKHD licensing we had to swear before STATE officials that we were less than 300ft from a church or school. That kinda sounds like a state thing...that trumps city ord.

3: the time I spoke to studio 421's owner she was pissed because she couldn't sell to the music venue (as some of you might seen the posts here) because of opposition. She's pissed at uptown, previous (and probably current) tower owners, and everyone else that tried to block the sale of her property for lack of parking.

4: perfect revenge. she walks away with a lease or sale that threatens everyone else's business. There's no parking for a church either but no one will dare stand to block it. Meanwhile 300ft effects the 10,000 ft of buildings to the east. All the lots across 23rd(should they be anything other than surface parking). And the tower block.

5: genius exit strategy.

6: with all respects to the church. you're just looking for a place to do your thing. there's an element of pawns in chess here.

This can be quickly researched through the county assessor. It's still in the family that has owned it for decades.

What's interesting is that it shut and was cleaned (not improved). Almost a year to the day from its family trust to a living trust in 1 man's name.

^

The woman that owns 421 also owns the two buildings directly east, so she'll have to find someone to do something with those properties eventually.

And just to clarify, she is selling the one property out-right to the church.

I wonder if there is a classification that the church could use to exempt it from being a negative to the district. Rather than being a church, what if they promoted themselves as a Neighborhood Advocate (highlighting their outreach to the community) rather than any one religious aspect? They could still have church services but the business as a whole would be more than JUST a church - hence using a more global/encapsulating name/business model.

My thought here is something like Catholic Charities (or whatever they're called). They are not a church nor affiliated with the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Oklahoma City although they do work very closely with the church and likely receive significant funding and volunteering from the membership. ...

Anyway, just throwing this out there assuming the church/business does want to be an asset to the district. It could be a way to co-exhist and even enhance the neighborhood while still letting them do their thing. :) ?

I wonder if there is a classification that the church could use to exempt it from being a negative to the district. ?

LMFAO and sigh

Maybe they could bill themselves as a mature adult social club and market it as Ol' Bluehairs ?

^
lol I'm with you. I Doubt a church would want to give up their non-transparent tax exempt "we don't even file" status. It all feels like a big FU to the current and future development of the block.

Who is the landlord and why are they even entertaining this idea? We have enough churches in OKC. Do they have to jump in to every tiny slice of urban landscape we revive?

Who is the landlord and why are they even entertaining this idea? We have enough churches in OKC. Do they have to jump in to every tiny slice of urban landscape we revive?

Churches are part of community and I'm glad their goal is to be an active participant in this area. I'm sure they wouldn't complicate the zoning issues if they had a choice, but it's more than a little extreme to act like this will impair the area just because it is a church.

The reactionary hatred aimed towards a religious organization is unacceptable in this society. Judge the church by their actions in the district, not by what you suppose their actions will be in the district.

The reactionary hatred aimed towards a religious organization is unacceptable in this society. Judge the church by their actions in the district, not by what you suppose their actions will be in the district.

I'm sorry, but I haven't seen any hatred at all. Some aren't happy but there has been absolutely no hatred towards a religious organization.

Churches are part of community and I'm glad their goal is to be an active participant in this area. I'm sure they wouldn't complicate the zoning issues if they had a choice, but it's more than a little extreme to act like this will impair the area just because it is a church.
According to Steve it will impair the area as far as new development goes and he has an update coming soon.

Soonerguru is right, there are way too many churches in this state. Yes, churches are a part of urban communities, they are like a freaking McDonald's along an interstate in the city here. They're everywhere. They don't need to be in every single part of the city.

The reactionary hatred aimed towards a religious organization is unacceptable in this society. Judge the church by their actions in the district, not by what you suppose their actions will be in the district.Well, you should be happy that in this state, this board represents probably 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000004 of the views that many have, so you're in luck.

According to Steve it will impair the area as far as new development goes and he has an update coming soon.

Soonerguru is right, there are way too many churches in this state. Yes, churches are a part of urban communities, they are like a freaking McDonald's along an interstate in the city here. They're everywhere. They don't need to be in every single part of the city.
Plupan, the number of churches in the state has nothing to do with this. If there are too many churches some will fail because of a lack of members.

Plupan, the number of churches in the state has nothing to do with this. If there are too many churches some will fail because of a lack of members.
It most certainly does have something to do with this, at least in my view. If we didn't have a church at every corner, than I wouldn't be as opposed to it as I am now. There isn't a damn church at every corner in North Dallas, I know that much.

Your last comment is just what I was referring to, this state is too religious, which is what I was explaining to HHE.

It most certainly does have something to do with this, at least in my view. If we didn't have a church at every corner, than I wouldn't be as opposed to it as I am now. There isn't a damn church at every corner in North Dallas, I know that much.

Your last comment is just what I was referring to, this state is too religious, which is what I was explaining to HHE.
Well, you can be anti-religion if you want. I'm not an overly religious person but I have absolutely no problem with any number of churches being in OKC. If the public wants churches who are you to deny that? That doesn't mean I'm in favor of one on every block but there will be as many as the public will support. Limiting the number or locations of churches will have zero affect on your assertion that the state is too religious.

It most certainly does have something to do with this, at least in my view. If we didn't have a church at every corner, than I wouldn't be as opposed to it as I am now. There isn't a damn church at every corner in North Dallas, I know that much.

Your last comment is just what I was referring to, this state is too religious, which is what I was explaining to HHE.

Maybe the state should establish zoning plan to limit the number of churches in an area or maybe where churches can and can not locate.

O wait...

First Amendment | Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment)

Maybe the state should establish zoning plan to limit the number of churches in an area or maybe where churches can and can not locate.

O wait...

First Amendment | Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment)First off wise-guy, I'm saying the church should be blocked or stopped. I think that if the church meets the zoning requirements and such, and abides by the laws, they have every right to build. I am speaking in opposition as all the dumbass nimbys do in Edmond about locating on the fringe of a major metro area and being mad whenever something new is built... but in this case, I'm just frustrated that something better could have been built here yet we're stuck with something that there is 3 or more of within a mile. You have the right to your opinion.

If the church meets all requirements, than they have every right to build. My other points remain valid as an expressed opinion.

Well, you can be anti-religion if you want. I'm not an overly religious person but I have absolutely no problem with any number of churches being in OKC. If the public wants churches who are you to deny that? That doesn't mean I'm in favor of one on every block but there will be as many as the public will support. Limiting the number or locations of churches will have zero affect on your assertion that the state is too religious.
I'm not anti-religion and with that I'm not even going to bother reading the rest of your post. Goodnight.

PS, I will add that I am strictly wanting something better for the area in my eyes. Not opposing the church in a way that it shouldn't be built or denied because someone like me doesn't like it, I just think something much better could go here and am disappointed with what we're getting.

I'm not anti-religion and with that I'm not even going to bother reading the rest of your post. Goodnight.

PS, I will add that I am strictly wanting something better for the area in my eyes. Not opposing the church in a way that it shouldn't be built or denied because someone like me doesn't like it, I just think something much better could go here and am disappointed with what we're getting.
You can read what you want but if you don't want to be perceived as being anti-religion you need to rephrase your comments.


this state is too religious

I wouldn't argue if you were just talking about certain churches or individuals but talking about the entire state is out of line.

Your objectives don't jibe with all of your comments.

I was looking around at the new UCO space in the Carnegie Center and ran into Judy Hatfield. She is a member of the church moving in next to the Tower Theatre and she assured me that the church is working with the Theatre to ensure they don't hamper their business plans. Also, she's ridiculously kind and incredibly excited about urbanism in OKC. ;)

I was looking around at the new UCO space in the Carnegie Center and ran into Judy Hatfield. She is a member of the church moving in next to the Tower Theatre and she assured me that the church is working with the Theatre to ensure they don't hamper their business plans. Also, she's ridiculously kind and incredibly excited about urbanism in OKC. ;)

Yes, Judy is one of the nicest people around.

I had spoken to both her and the church's pastor about all this, as well as the guys that own the Tower.

They are all working together.

Just an fyi should it be needed, my giggle on Ol' Bluehairs was merely that, my giiggle. Some of my favorite adults when I was a young man were the blue haired ladies if FBC in my hometown.
Kind, refined and gracious to a fault. They earned their dye and wore it well. I wish some of them were still around, but alas, even some of their children are no longer with us at this point in my life.

Churches are part of community and I'm glad their goal is to be an active participant in this area. I'm sure they wouldn't complicate the zoning issues if they had a choice, but it's more than a little extreme to act like this will impair the area just because it is a church.

I completely agree. It adds another slice of life to the area, other than commercial. But, it also brings people to the area several times a week who will THEN need somewhere to eat/shop/etc...

Soonerguru is right, there are way too many churches in this state. Yes, churches are a part of urban communities, they are like a freaking McDonald's along an interstate in the city here. They're everywhere. They don't need to be in every single part of the city.

That would be relevant if churches were chains that delivered the same thing at every location. Each church is different... this one seems to be very active in the neighboring area. You wouldn't want a church that has an average age of 75 in this area, but that's not what you are getting.

I thought the urban agenda is for diversity. Why would a church catering to 75 yr olds be a problem?

^
lol I'm with you. I Doubt a church would want to give up their non-transparent tax exempt "we don't even file" status. It all feels like a big FU to the current and future development of the block.


That's exactly what this is... I can't remember which business owner wrote the letter to the city about how there's not enough parking, blah, blah, blah. Please don't support this live music venue, blah, blah, blah. Well the owner just showed them and stuck it to the entire district. Hopefully the Tower can get the permits they need before the church opens up, but any plans for the lots across the street that might have included bars are likely done.

I thought the urban agenda is for diversity. Why would a church catering to 75 yr olds be a problem?

Depends on if they wanted to be an active part of the neighborhood or (stereotyping here) if they wanted to make everyone conform to their particular doctrine. If a hundred 75 year olds show up to this church and then make the area a better place by becoming an active part of it, fantastic. If an extremely conservative set of 75 year olds want to end drinking in the area, not so much. No need to pick a fight Rover. You don't have to be contrary on everything.

The direction toward which opposition is being aimed needs to be moved from the church to the law.

We need to find ways in this city to change the laws in urban areas to benefit urban areas. The problem is not that a church is coming to the district, the problem is that the law says that with a church in this district, other venues are prohibited within 300 ft…300 feet is way too much for an urban area. And it makes sense, as the original law looks to have been written in 1959 when we had all but forgotten urban development.

The direction toward which opposition is being aimed needs to be moved from the church to the law.

We need to find ways in this city to change the laws in urban areas to benefit urban areas. The problem is not that a church is coming to the district, the problem is that the law says that with a church in this district, other venues are prohibited within 300 ft…300 feet is way too much for an urban area. And it makes sense, as the original law looks to have been written in 1959 when we had all but forgotten urban development.

Completely agree with this.

Given the pandering among state legislators to the Sally Kern type fundamentalists, I doubt any would have the guts to touch the issue. Maybe everybody needs to start writing Mary Fallin and legislators about it. I think it would be a lot easier to change that law to allow churches to give permission for ABC-3 rather than repeal it altogether. That way, the extremist churches wouldn't have to worry about it affecting them.

What is even the logic around the law?

That unless food is also sold with the alcohol somehow any bar within 300 feet is going to storm into a church and take it by force??


So incredibly silly and I can't imagine in this day and age any church would care about such things.

But this is just one more example of where urbanists need to get down and dirty with the law and start advocating for new standards that protect and advance urban environments.

If somehow you could find a way to qualify an area as urban based on a specific density, then that would go a long way toward trying to create laws that are specific to urban areas.

Good luck with that in a state where illegal hoodies could become a thing.