Just a reminder that the meeting regarding the Uptown 23rd Development and specifically regarding GUYUTES with the OKC Planning Committee is this Thursday, April 24th at 1:30 p.m. The location of the meeting is at the Oklahoma City Planning Commission, 200 N. Walker, Municipal Building, 3rd floor. Your presence and support at this meeting would be a huge help to the owners of GUYUTES. Many people have spoken of their positive support of the re-development of N.W. 23rd Street UPTOWN area and specifically their support of GUYUTES, so now is the time to let your voice be heard. If you cannot attend the meeting, please take the time to write an email to guyutes23@gmail.com stating your name and address and the reasons you are in support of this area and GUYUTES. A quick shout out to Plutonic Panda and Catch22 for coming to the meeting. I know the Guyutes owners are very appreciative of your support and thankful that you will be in attendance at the meeting. Please help them spread the word and see if you can get others to join you as well. I am ready for GUYUTES to open.... I know it's going to be awesome!

Best of luck! Hopefully we can get some more people to attend and/or speak.

FYI this goes back to planning commission. Tomorrow. 2 protest letters in the agenda. 98 pages of support. Including tons of personal letter and the online petition.

Hope to see supporters at the meeting tomorrow at 1:30 p.m. at the Oklahoma City Planning Commission, 200 N. Walker, Municipal Building, 3rd floor. Thanks BoulderSooner for your info. Catch22 & Plutonic Panda, I hope to see you at the meeting. Glad to know that pages 98 pages of support and personal letters have made their way to the Planning Commission. That is Good News!

I'll be there. Honestly don't know what I'm going say, but I will support any way I can and have some sort of a speech.

I'll be there. Honestly don't know what I'm going say, but I will support any way I can and have some sort of a speech.

Remind them that parking is not required and that you hope the city would be prodevelopment on a commercial street. Also remind then that public street are PUBLIC. and that if HH/ mesta want to change the parking on the streets that front their houses the parking commission is the proper venue

Remind them that parking is not required and that you hope the city would be prodevelopment on a commercial street. Also remind then that public street are PUBLIC. and that if HH/ mesta want to change the parking on the streets that front their houses the parking commission is the proper venue

BOOM! ::headshot::

Here is an interesting Gazette article complete with names of the people complaining:

Growing pains

Commercial growth in the Uptown district has some residents concerned with parking, noise and historic preservation.

Ben Felder

April 23rd, 2014

Residents of Heritage Hills, south of NW 23rd Street, successfully lobbied the Oklahoma City Council last week to deny a rezoning request for a new medical spa on Broadway.

Some neighbors are also pushing back on two new restaurants planned for 23rd Street that they say could cause traffic issues on the residential streets close to the growing commercial district north of downtown.

“We are all for responsible development, but we cannot live somewhere that [has] constant late-night noise and can’t take the loss in property value to move,” said Uptown resident Kyle Walker in a letter to City Hall last month.

Walker, along with at least five other residents in Heritage Hills and Mesta Park, wrote letters to City Hall expressing their opposition to two planned restaurants along 23rd Street that they believe will increase traffic and noise.

One of the proposed restaurants, Daebak K, will offer Korean barbecue and will feature a rooftop patio facing 23rd Street. Some residents have complained that the rooftop patio will cause noise issues and patrons will park on their residential streets.

Supporters of the restaurant responded with an online petition that was turned into City Hall last week with over 700 signatures of support.

“I like being a part of Uptown 23rd,” said Truong Le, owner of the proposed Daebak K restaurant and the current Guernsey Park restaurant. “I think it’s going to continue to grow, and we are actively going up and down this street to find new spots to possibly open new kinds of businesses.”

Le said he understood the concern some residents might have about traffic but added that the new restaurant will include at least 30 parking spaces. He also said the rooftop patio was not being painted in the best light by opponents.

“I think there is a misconception that because we have a rooftop patio, its going to be a bar,” Le said. “I want to make it clear. We are a restaurant. We want to continue to open restaurants and be good neighbors.”

Guyutes is another restaurant planned for 23rd Street that has drawn some opposition from nearby residents. Both Daebak K and Guyutes plan to open in late 2014 or early 2015.

City staff has said no building permits have been submitted for the proposed restaurants and reviews are yet to be made by the Urban Design Commission.

Recommendations
A recent study by the University of Oklahoma Institute for Quality Communities on the Uptown district made recommendations on ways to improve traffic flow and walkability.

“It’s important to address walkability because of the enormous potential it presents,” the report stated. “Over 4,000 people live within a 10-minute walk of the center of the district, and over 40,000 within a 10-minute bike [ride].”

Promoting walkability might also be a way to cut down on traffic caused by residents who live close to the district. An IQC survey found that 71 percent of residents living within a half mile of Uptown drive to the district instead of biking or walking.

With many neighborhoods surrounding 23rd Street designated as Historical Preservation Districts, some residents have also fought against commercial development that might spill into the neighborhood.

Last week, a group of citizens from the Heritage Hills neighborhood convinced the city council to deny an application for rezoning on a lot near the intersection of NW 22nd Street and Broadway Avenue.

The owners of Mariposa Spa proposed a new building on 22nd Street, which would result in the removal of a few dilapidated homes. However, representatives of the neighborhood said it would create a slippery slope.

“If we start nibbling away at the edges [of the Historical Preservation District], where does it stop?” asked Randy Ice, president of the Heritage Hills East Neighborhood Association.

The council voted 4-3 to deny the rezoning request.

Oklahoma Gazette News: Growing pains (http://okgazette.com/oklahoma/article-21025-growing-pains.html)

Anyone who thinks Daebak K will decrease their property value needs to have their head examined. When does an empty, weedy lot ever help property values more than a well-maintained, well-designed restaurant, especially one that is not a chain? The same goes for Guyutes. I mentioned it here before, but one of the most amusing recent conversations I had was with a friend who lives in Nichols Hills, as do her millenial daughter and her husband. The daughter is moving to Heritage Hills and my friend incredulously said, "One of the reasons is because they want to be close to 23rd St.!" A 23rd St. with nice restaurants and retail will only drive housing prices in Heritage Hills and Mesta Park higher.

Mariposa Spa needs to be looking for an older house to rehab, not tear down existing properties.

I do think it's time for the city to begin to create neighborhood parking districts with parking permits, ala Chicago, as we have discussed. It gives residents of a neighborhood some peace of mind, makes some money for the city, and forces people to rethink driving to places if they can walk. It puts pressure on the city to improve mass transit as well.

"but we cannot live somewhere that [has] constant late-night noise" - This is a false statement. Yes, you can live somewhere that has constant late-night noise. People do this all over the world. Google it.

"and can’t take the loss in property value to move,” - This statement is just stupidity.

I understand the complaint of living on the fringe of a commercial district, but should understand that THEY ARE LIVING ON THE FRINGE OF A COMMERCIAL DISTRICT.

There is something called sensory habituation. The brain stops recognizing sounds that are habitual. For instance, for about 48-72 hours I noticed daytime train noises after moving downtown. I noticed nighttime train noise a bit longer. For a year or two, I enjoyed noticing the Amtrak "toot toot" every morning and evening. Now, I don't even hear that. Constant noise is actually easier to adjust to than intermittent noise. Poor argument.

So insane. Do they not know that a successful 23d ST might drive out the blight. I would much rather live near restaurants and bars than a freaking plasma donation center. To be completely honest I did donate plasma there once.

The Mariposa Spa was a completely different situation where the owners were seeking to demolish a couple of existing homes on Broadway and build a small commercial building. I can understand why that might be denied, even though it fronted on Broadway just south of 23rd.

BTW, Guyutes and Daebak K were both unanimously approved by the Urban Design Committee yesterday.

Today, there is the Planning Commission meeting where they will consider the ABC permit for Guyutes. Daebak K already has their liquor license, so they will be good to go.

Excellent. Is there anything else that could stand in the way of these two developments, or is it a done deal regarding approval from the city?

Daebak K now has clear sailing.

But Guyutes needs to get liquor license approval at today's Planning Commission meeting.

I just watched the video from yesterday's Urban Design Committee...

One really interesting bit: The future proprietors of Guyutes met with the president of the homeowners association and conducted a sound test where they placed a speaker on top of the existing building and turned it up full blast. Then they walked over to 22nd Street and discovered they couldn't hear it at all.

There is so much white noise for 23rd as it is -- traffic, Harleys, etc. -- that any music or talking from the outside spaces at this project will not effect the residents at all.

And even though there are no specific parking requirements, they made arrangements for 30 extra spaces on the NW corner of Shartel & 23rd.


I actually have a lot of trust in the committee members of the UDC and I hope the Planning Commission that meets today to consider the liquor license shows as much common sense and doesn't get sidetracked by a few people who really don't have valid objections.

The Mariposa Spa was a completely different situation where the owners were seeking to demolish a couple of existing homes on Broadway and build a small commercial building. I can understand why that might be denied, even though it fronted on Broadway just south of 23rd.

They also sought rezoning from HP to commercial.

Just a note that this guyutes app was only for the front patio. The rest if of the app was previously approved

Remind them that parking is not required and that you hope the city would be prodevelopment on a commercial street. Also remind then that public street are PUBLIC. and that if HH/ mesta want to change the parking on the streets that front their houses the parking commission is the proper venueI understand. Still plan on being there today even though it might not be needed now. I'll say something if I need to. I'll be the guy in some sandy tan pants and a turquoise t-shirt

Unable to make it. Sounds promising though.

Best of luck.

...I'll be the guy in some sandy tan pants and a turquoise t-shirt

Does this have something to do with the cougar thread?

Does this have something to do with the cougar thread?

:cool:

I'm here

Does this have something to do with the cougar thread?you got me ;)

You can watch the Planning Commission meeting live here:

SIRE Public Access (http://www.okc.gov/AgendaPub/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=2668&doctype=AGENDA)

Guyutes is #21 on the agenda.

Well, that didn't go well. Planning Commission is requiring a SPUD application to control the noise and parking.

How can they enforce parking in an area where there is no such requirement?

Well, that didn't go well. Planning Commission is requiring a SPUD application to control the noise and parking.

Ugh.

There are already noise ordinances in place and they secured additional park even though that isn't required.


I am really starting to worry about the Planning Commission.

How can they enforce parking in an area where there is no such requirement?

They have to have a "parking plan", which can be just street parking but the ambiguous wording can be used against developers as well.

They can't enforce the parking.

There are some legitimate concerns with the noise. Guyutes plans to have 3 walls on their rooftop, and a SPUD could include that as an ongoing requirement. If a blanket ABC-2 were given, a subsequent owner would not be bound by the measures Guyutes is taking.

^

Were you there or did you watch on-line?

Can we get some people from this board appointed to the planning commission? Jeez...

I wish that someone had submitted the sound testing and an explanation of the inverse square law so that commission could see just how cautious they are being based only on their imagination of what might happen. It just wasn't clearly explained.

I'll get a full report and next steps later today, as I know the people directly involved.

It may be a simple matter of having to jump through one more hoop (SPUD application) before getting everything they want.

They can't enforce the parking.

There are some legitimate concerns with the noise. Guyutes plans to have 3 walls on their rooftop, and a SPUD could include that as an ongoing requirement. If a blanket ABC-2 were given, a subsequent owner would not be bound by the measures Guyutes is taking.

The city noise ordnance is in effect for everyone.

^

And they discussed the noise issue extensively in yesterday's Urban Design meeting.

City staff referenced the precise ordinances and how they were enforced; decibel levels, measured from the fence line, etc.

Also, as I had previously mentioned the proprietors met with the president of the homeowners and conducted their own test to his satisfaction.

This seems to have gone terribly wrong in terms of the commission overstepping their authority. I know they are all well intentioned people, but they really are setting a precedent for restricting land use further than current acceptable standards. If more restriction is needed then write and pass a damn ordinance! This willy-nilly because I think so governance is a load of crap.

Although this worries me -- not only for Guyutes but for the future of Urban OKC -- I want to find out more before getting too upset.

As I said, it may just be an additional step to make sure everyone is happy.

^

Were you there or did you watch on-line?

I watched online.

They requested the SPUD contain what they would do to limit the noise (3 walls), detail their parking plan, and state hours of operation (with a strong hint that 2 am daily would get the application rejected).

Although this worries me -- not only for Guyutes but for the future of Urban OKC -- I want to find out more before getting too upset.

As I said, it may just be an additional step to make sure everyone is happy.

They were very upbeat, and almost supportive, in their suggesting a continuance.

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.

Although this worries me -- not only for Guyutes but for the future of Urban OKC -- I want to find out more before getting too upset.

As I said, it may just be an additional step to make sure everyone is happy.They continued it. They were worried if someone else moved in after they did, there would be no limits to walls or sounds barriers, so the planning commission said and I qoute "we want to have a comfortable level of control''.

BTW, OKSea was approved for that and mentioned they will be build a dog park with a bar which is really cool.

They (commission) are regulating something that has been demonstrated and can be scientifically proven not to be an issue. Further, existing regulations already establish a noise performance standard. In doing this they are arbitrarily and unreasonably imposing unfair financial burdens upon Guyutes and denying them a level playing field on which to compete for business if hours of operation restrictions are imposed and additional parking is mandated. Complete BS!

I was going to try and speak up and say something along the lines of "I live in Edmond and this is the kind of development that brings me here and in a year or so, will ultimately dictate if I mover into this area or not. I want to live in an area that feels alive and has the options of restaurants at all times and within walking distance that doesn't require a car. I hope to see the continued boom of Uptown 23rd''

However, immediately when I raised my hand, someone else got up in protest to speak out against it and seemed like a very reasonable guy until he wanted them to close down at 11 on the weekend, which makes no sense.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.