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.

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......

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.

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.

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.

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

Then reach out to the Mayor.

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.


Guyutes is already under construction. They have received all the necessary design approvals and building permits.
The Planning Commission is all about obtaining an ABC 2 liquor license.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.)
To my knowledge, no other bars or restaurants in this corridor has been required to seek a SPUD.
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”.
The ownership group feels these limitations are unfair and would be harmful to their profitability.
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.
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?

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.

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

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

Good idea. I would throw down. I'm sure they could find support from some of the 850 people that have signed that petition.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm in.

Pete's already made the case... maybe someone would take this pro bono for the betterment of OKC?

Pete's already made the case... maybe someone would take this pro bono for the betterment of OKC?

The thing about asking other people to work for free is that it always sounds awesome unless you are the person working for free.

The thing about asking other people to work for free is that it always sounds awesome unless you are the person working for free.

One day the chicken and the pig were discussing just how good the farmer was to them. The chicken decided it would be a good idea to give him a bacon and egg breakfast. The pig declared that to be a bad idea. "See here, chicken. For you, that's just a day's work. For me, it's a lifetime commitment."

If they decide to do the Kickstarter for legal fees, I'm in for $50, maybe more. I'd like to see this place happen. I'm sure some portion of the 800+ who signed the petition would be willing to put their money where their mouths are.

I've circled back with the Guyutes group and have offered this (the help with legal fees) as an option.

I've also passed on information about an attorney that is willing to help.

Honestly, I'm flabbergasted, astonished and down right pissed that this has happened. I would have thought that surely these appointees would receive a pretty exhaustive training course on what their job is and the limits of their authority before being handed complete legislative authority over land use in the city.

Having watched pretty much every planning commission meeting in the last 5ish years I can assure you they have a very very. High opinion of themselves

Pete, thanks for your summary... My concern, is even if the owners secure an attorney (David Box or some highly qualified attorney), would an attorney be able to do anything that would sway the PC members toward a approval of the ABC2? I am concerned that no matter what they do from this point, that the PC members already have their minds made up. If the owners spent $10K on an attorney and nothing is accomplished, that would be terrible. I realize that nothing is certain even with an attorney, but I wonder what the likelyhood of approval would be after hiring an excellent attorney. Is David Box the best attorney for this type of case? I think that hiring one of the best attorney's that understands this type of case is the best solution for the owners if they want to get this situation resolved. Pete, can you email me - I would like to run an idea by you and get your opinion... Thanks!

Pete, thanks for your summary... My concern, is even if the owners secure an attorney (David Box or some highly qualified attorney), would an attorney be able to do anything that would sway the PC members toward a approval of the ABC2? I am concerned that no matter what they do from this point, that the PC members already have their minds made up. If the owners spent $10K on an attorney and nothing is accomplished, that would be terrible. I realize that nothing is certain even with an attorney, but I wonder what the likelyhood of approval would be after hiring an excellent attorney. Is David Box the best attorney for this type of case? I think that hiring one of the best attorney's that understands this type of case is the best solution for the owners if they want to get this situation resolved. Pete, can you email me - I would like to run an idea by you and get your opinion... Thanks!

I just sent you an email.


It's a good point... It seems the PC has dug in their heels and I seriously doubt given the tone of Janis Powers that she is suddenly going to admit they've been somehow unreasonable.

But at least with an attorney you could draft a SPUD, give some very minor concessions to hours, and let him or her argue the points.

In that way, you will have jumped through their hoop and if they just take the position of "we won't accept late hours", then at least they are pinned downed on that particular point which is easily argued against at City Council.

I just sent you an email.


It's a good point... It seems the PC has dug in their heels and I seriously doubt given the tone of Janis Powers that she is suddenly going to admit they've been somehow unreasonable.

But at least with an attorney you could draft a SPUD, give some very minor concessions to hours, and let him or her argue the points.

In that way, you will have jumped through their hoop and if they just take the position of "we won't accept late hours", then at least they are pinned downed on that particular point which is easily argued against at City Council.

Why don't they just shut down the roof top at a certain hour during the week nites. I don't think they would get a reversal on the hours at city council.

Why don't they just shut down the roof top at a certain hour during the week nites. I don't think they would get a reversal on the hours at city council.

Why should the Planning Commission be able to make them spend the extra money to prepare a SPUD when there are already noise ordinances in place that apply to all their neighbors, competitors and anyone else in the city. Why should the Planning Commission deny them full use of their entire property that their competitors enjoy? Why should the planning commission be able to ignore testing and sound science that shows that the problem is imaginary?

Why should the Planning Commission be able to make them spend the extra money to prepare a SPUD when there are already noise ordinances in place that apply to all their neighbors, competitors and anyone else in the city. Why should the Planning Commission deny them full use of their entire property that their competitors enjoy? Why should the planning commission be able to ignore testing and sound science that shows that the problem is imaginary?

I guess we will agree to disagree. I do not think this area should be defined by ordinances in place for the rest of the city. It is too special. I think the ordinances in this area are too loose and need to be further defined.

if you have ever been involved in re-development in an area you might understand these growth pains.

I guess we will agree to disagree. I do not think this area should be defined by ordinances in place for the rest of the city. It is too special. I think the ordinances in this area are too loose and need to be further defined.

if you have ever been involved in re-development in an area you might understand these growth pains.

Fantastic idea.

In the meantime, quit unlawfully demanding, people/businesses to abide by ordinances that are not in effect right now. Especially in an emerging business corridor. It is quite literally a legal liability the city is taking on.

I guess we will agree to disagree. I do not think this area should be defined by ordinances in place for the rest of the city. It is too special. I think the ordinances in this area are too loose and need to be further defined.

if you have ever been involved in re-development in an area you might understand these growth pains.

There is nothing extra special about this area. And let's be honest parking is your biggest issue. Guess what. Mesta and HH are not gated neighborhoods. And the streets are public. If those neighborhoods want to change the parking. They can apply to get it changed

I just watched the Planning Commission hearing. This is beyond ridiculous. The Planning Commission wouldn't even tell the Guyutes guys what they needed to include in the SPUD when the Guyutes guys asked multiple times. How can the Planning Commission demand that Guyutes apply for a SPUD and only tell the guys that they need to "work with city staff"? Does the Planning Commission not want to go on record with their demands or are they just on a power trip?

Even more stupid, the city staff unanimously recommended approval as-is prior to the hearing. This "Because we said so, and we don't care what existing regulations are in place or are not in place." attitude seems extremely vulnerable to legal challenge in my opinion. That may not be worth a tinker's damn, but at the very least it's quite unfair. Funny thing, Janis Powers, the pushiest of the bunch, is a retired attorney. I'd think she'd have respect for the rule of law. Maybe I've got this all wrong in my head, though. Any legal types care to weigh in? Please.

Why don't they just shut down the roof top at a certain hour during the week nites. I don't think they would get a reversal on the hours at city council.

They very likely would

They very likely would

To clarify, they very likely would get a reversal?

What does it take to get an appointed commissioner removed? Council vote?

I think appointment by the mayor, with the approval of city council. I'm getting that from the intro on Planning Commission's page on OKC.gov.

Oops! I read that as "what does it take to get appointed?" I have no idea what it takes to get booted, but a few have a good start on it IMHO!

To clarify, they very likely would get a reversal?

Well not a reversal. The planning commission makes recommendations. The city council then decides what to do. And many times they approve what is recommended for denial

And in this case the planning commison is asking for a full rezoning for a simple abc2 restaurant overlay.

Which is not reasonable. And I'm sure given the right argument the council would see that

I would sure hope so. In watching the presentation by the Guyutes, guys, they looked pretty nervous and came off less than assertive. Not throwing stones; I would have been too at that age. Also, a few visual aids illustrating the decrease in sound energy with distance and the results of their specific testing might have gone a long way toward making their point. As to parking, i don't see a choice but to assertively call them out for even considering it when it's not required.

Bottom line, I hope they prevail with a simple ABC2' unfettered by additional requirements. That said, it's going to be a tough choice to gamble on that outcome.

What does it take to get an appointed commissioner removed? Council vote?


§ 59-3150. Planning Commission.


* * *

3150.3. Membership, Terms and Organization.


* * *

E. Removal of Members. Members of the Planning Commission may be removed by the Mayor for cause upon the filing of written charges and after a public hearing before the City Council for insufficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance.

Municode (http://library.municode.com/index.aspx?clientId=17000)

Just on a gut-check level, I doubt Mayor Cornett would take the steps necessary to remove a Planning Commission member at this point. It seems like an acrimonious process.

I know Janis Powers has been on that PC for at least 7 years.

It may be time for some new blood.

I know Janis Powers has been on that PC for at least 7 years.

It may be time for some new blood.

Petition for removal?

Kickstarter

This is set to go back before the Planning Commission this Thursday (May 22nd).

Where we last left this was the PC insisting the owners come back with a PUD application that would limit their hours (and also require significant additional expense just to go through this process).

I've learned the Guyutes group has decided against filing a PUD, and expect the PC will not grant their endorsement for a liquor license.

So almost certainly, this will head to the City Council without that endorsement and the proprietors will ask the Council to approve anyway. The Planning Commission only makes a recommendation; the City Council has final vote.


This is a bold move but I think it's a good one for future urban development in OKC.

As has been discussed, the PC is requiring them to limit their operating hours, even though there are already laws that limit times of operation and noise levels. In the agenda for this coming meeting, there are only two letters of protest.

The Planning Commission started down a dangerous path with the live music venue, effectively stopping them in their tracks even though they had met all municipal requirements. Here again, they seek to place arbitrary restrictions on a business and I hope the Council not only passes grants the license, but also takes a harder look at how the PC is choosing to operate.

Can/should people show up at the planning commission to voice their opinion?

They can but I think it's a foregone conclusion of the way this is going to go down.

When it gets on the City Council agenda, I think that will be the time for people to mobilize and contact their councilperson, and possibly attend the meeting.

It is a bold move Pete, and a dang appropriate one. My only potential disagreement is even if it is a foregone conclusion, as much support as this place had earlier, I think it does carry a statement forward if there are folks present to support the establishment being allowed to go forward under the existing laws. Just one person's opinion to add to the mix.

Not sure why, by the Guyutes people asked for a continuance to June 12th, so their case wasn't heard at today's Planning Commission.

I was mistaken about the last Planning Commission meeting... The Guyutes group presented and was turned down a 3rd time in their attempt to get the endorsement for an ABC-2 permit.

So, this goes to City Council on July 1st.

They've already spoken to Meg Salyer and she is supportive. However, there are two things people can do if they wish to help:

1. Speak to your councilperson. The Council holds all the authority to approve or disapprove the license, so all they need is a simple majority. Hard to say how this will go, but it would be helpful to call or write your representative and let them know that this is a group of young guys with hundreds of thousands invested and they merely want to redevelop a long-vacant and blighted building to a first-class restaurant and bar... And are more than willing to abide by all the existing laws and ordinances. The Planning Council wanted them to voluntarily restrict their hours but that is directly contrary to their business model with is to offer good food even late at night. Also, they have procured dedicated parking even though that is not required by code in the Uptown district.

2. Attend the meeting on July 1st. It would be very powerful for a couple of people to speak in support who are not affiliated with the owners in any way. Basically, speak for all the citizens who want cool places that stay open late in our urban districts.


If you do speak with your concilperson, please let me know the feedback so I can in turn pass that on to the proprietors. It would be most helpful to them to know what the concerns may be in advance so they can be prepared.

I don't have a Council person since I live in Edmond. Is there anything I can do? I guess I could say I live in along 23rd or perhaps write to the council person in that district and tell them I plan on moving there in a year specifically because I want to be close to establishments like this one.

1. so do you need 4 or 5 votes for this to pass?
2. since this is in Salyer's Ward, does she get an extra pull with the other councilpeople? does her vote count more?
3. this really pisses me off what the planning commission is trying to pull. what is their beef?

You need the majority of votes of members present. And to have a quorum, they have to have at least half the members at the meeting.

So, the majority of those in attendance is needed but you don't know the exact number until the meeting.

Meg Salyer just gets the one vote and while she is supportive, she might not be super outspoken given that some of her constituents object.

1. so do you need 4 or 5 votes for this to pass?
2. since this is in Salyer's Ward, does she get an extra pull with the other councilpeople? does her vote count more?
3. this really pisses me off what the planning commission is trying to pull. what is their beef?

Generally the council will follow the vote of the ward councilor in this type of case (even more so when the request is not controversial)

FYI, this item is actually on the agenda for the June 10th City Council meeting.

Tuesday, 8:30AM City Council Chambers, City Hall.


The Guyutes guys didn't even know until I called them. :)

FYI, this item is actually on the agenda for the June 10th City Council meeting.

Tuesday, 8:30AM City Council Chambers, City Hall.


The Guyutes guys didn't even know until I called them. :)

Won't be able to attend, but will write a letter to my council person.

It now looks like the meeting tomorrow will just be a preliminary review.

I'm not understanding the process here.

Random guess here, but maybe the council understands that the issue at hand is larger than just a yay or nay on this specific proposal and are taking their time to look into the Planning Commission's overreach?

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

I meant to watch the council meeting stream yesterday but ended up unable fit it into my schedule, did anything significant come up in the preliminary review?

City Council will hold a public hearing on establishing an ABC-2 Alcoholic Beverage Permit on July 1 @ 8:30 A.M. Third Floor, Municipal Building, 200 N. Walker Ave.

I meant to watch the council meeting stream yesterday but ended up unable fit it into my schedule, did anything significant come up in the preliminary review?

No -- just preliminary stuff.

as wsucougz just posted they will present and they will be a vote at the June 1st council meeting.

No -- just preliminary stuff.

as wsucougz just posted they will present and they will be a vote at the June 1st council meeting.

June 1st is just the public hearing The final vote will be the following meeting

No -- just preliminary stuff.

as wsucougz just posted they will present and they will be a vote at the June 1st council meeting.

June 1st is just the public hearing The final vote will be the following meeting

July 1st -- just to avoid confusion and miscommunication.

July 1st -- just to avoid confusion and miscommunication.

Yes, thanks.

This goes before the City Council tomorrow July 1st at 8:30AM.

The proprietors have reached out to all the council members and will be making a full presentation at the meeting.

Ben Felder (OKC Gazette) is reporting on Twitter that the Guyutes permit was unanimously approved by the City Council.

Ben Felder (OKC Gazette) is reporting on Twitter that the Guyutes permit was unanimously approved by the City Council.


HOORAY!!!


BUT, it shouldn't take four or five months of wrangling with the Planning Commission especially when they were seeking to impose needless restrictions.

That piece still needs to be fixed; they should not be serving as a barrier to those looking to responsibly invest in the central core.