Plans revised for proposed downtown parking structure (http://www.okctalk.com/content.php?r=432-Plans-revised-for-proposed-downtown-parking-structure)


After having its initial proposal rejected by the Downtown Design Review Committee, the owners of a surface parking lot near the Civic Center have submitted revised plans.


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/601wmain101917a.jpg


The new application shows the height of the structure reduced from 73 feet to 56 feet 8 inches. Height became a point of contention during the review process as a neighboring property owner and other local urban design advocates had argued the original proposal was out of proportion with its surroundings.


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/601a.jpg

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/601b.jpg


In addition, the revised plans show completely new facades facing both Main Street and Colcord, the latter of which would face the recently re-worked Centennial Park next to the Civic Center. The new brick and metal elevations are in contrast to the previously proposed aluminum fins.


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/601wmain101917g.jpg


Opponents of the project have argued that a large parking garage is not an appropriate use for fronting a city park, although the City itself built a much taller and larger structure just to the east on Main, which faces the newly renovated park to the east of City Hall.

The ADG design also shows parking being scaled back from from 262 spaces to 207 and total square footage down from the original 102,800 to 83,200. Office and retail space is still shown at ground level on both the north and south sides, with 4 levels of parking above.

TBL Parking LLC – which is associated with the Oklahoma City Police Association -- had appealed the decision of the design review committee to the Board of Adjustment which is still set to be reviewed on November 2nd.


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/601wmain101917b.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/601wmain101917c.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/601wmain101917d.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/601wmain101917e.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/601wmain101917f.jpg

The first concept was unique with aluminum fins. This is just flat out ugly. I try and find the positive in all projects around my city; eager to show support for growth and business. But dude.....this new concept is just butt ugly. It looks like a maze surrounded by puke orange brick. Why are they so determined to put a garage here. West Village is already adding plenty of parking for the residential coming online to this area. I've seen other folks post in this thread (and other threads) that some of OUr garages nearby aren't even 100% capacity. Wth are we doing here?

I could honestly ignore how ugly it is if we needed a garage. The retail and office space there would make me happy. But main street arcade still isn't even filled up yet. I just don't get it dude....

I quite like it, the brick and cast stone especially.

I'm sure the idea was to better blend in with the surrounding buildings with a touch of Art Deco due to the Civic Center.

Looks better to me but still... WHYYYYYY?? The issue wasn't so much the design as it was the function. It's just not a good place for another huge parking garage...

I greatly prefer this design, it is much better looking to my eyes.

Looks better, blends in better. Higher use than a surface lot. Yes I would like to see something better along main street, but it's hard to argue against this considering the city garage.

Also, on that small lot I'm not sure what else they could do, especially since everyone is on their case about being less than 5 stories tall.

I like it better for sure.. the fins may have been more unique but they certainly wont blend in at all. I'd rather a Parking garage just sort of blend than stand out.

I see what’s gojng on here. For some reason, it completely went over me that this will front the park. I don’t want a huge police presence towering over the park nor is a parking garage appropriate anyways. This should be mixed use here with housing and office.

The only thing I disagree with from some currently opposing this is the out of character issue. I think as long as the street level design works, it shouldn’t matter how tall a building is as long as it meets engineering standards.

Though, I do support another garage in this area so there can be enough parking to make a case for car free housing and office developments. If enough parking is around, that can make it attractive for developers to build new housing and office or hotels with no dedicated parking because there will be some nearby. That can ultimately also pave way for certain residents to not own a car at all. That will pave the way for it to become more common in OKC.

Here is an article from NewsOk that the people who are fighting this are offering to trade their lot for no money just to save the park from a money hungry police force: http://m.newsok.com/article/5571738

For once I agree, Plupan.

Police Association plans to proceed with downtown garage plans (http://www.okctalk.com/content.php?r=437-Police-Association-plans-to-proceed-with-downtown-garage-plans)

After several years of negotiating with the city and neighbors and after reducing the size of a proposed downtown parking garage, the Oklahoma City Police Association is proceeding with plans as submitted.


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/policeparking3.jpg


In an exclusive interview with OKCTalk, Ed Hill – president of the association – said his organization is moving forward with its plans and hopes revisions will be approved on November 16th by the Downtown Design Review Committee.

The association's previous application was rejected when a group led by attorneys David and Dennis Box claimed both the height and use were inconsistent with development guidelines.

In response to the concerns, the garage was reduced in height to the minimum mandated by downtown guidelines and resubmitted. Additionally, the previous decision of the committee has been appealed to the Board of Adjustment and will be heard in January.

Earlier this week, David Box was quoted by the Oklahoman as having submitted an offer to swap a large lot to the south for the property the association plans to develop, stating the desire to save Centennial Park from being bordered by a parking garage.


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/policeparking.jpg


However, Hill told OKCTalk this is not a new idea as it has been discussed by the parties over the last several years and it has never interested the the police association as it's larger than their current needs and they have no desire to become developers or landlords. The police association is not planning to respond to the offer by Box.

Just 3 years ago, the City of Oklahoma City itself constructed a massive 9-story, 830 space parking garage directly south of the recently renovated park to the east of City Hall. Not long thereafter, the Downtown Design Review Committee approved 2 huge parking garages as part of the BOK Park Plaza project directly south of the city garage and to the east of another municipally owned garage at Sheridan and Walker.

The Oklahoma City Police Association is a nonprofit organization funded by police employees. It provides insurance and other benefits to more than 1,200 of its members, which amounts to more than 95% of all police employees in OKC.

The city has never provided parking for police employees and thus over the last several decades the association has purchased five surface parking lots, including 601 W. Main, the site of the controversial development proposal. Most police employees drive their own cars to work then use city-owned vehicles for official police matters.

In addition to using the lots for police employees during business days, they are also used by various arts agencies for activities at the Civic Center, often in exchange for performance tickets which are then shared with police employees.

The association-owned lot directly south of the the newly renovated Main Street Arcade is currently leased to the owners of that property for the use of their tenants.

As the City prepares to demolish the old police and municipal courts building, the parking situation near the new Police Headquarters and separate Municipal Courts Building the parking in the area has already become more strained as both were recently constructed on former surface lots.


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/policeparking2.jpg


Hill said the association approached the city about developing structured parking on its lot south of the new police building but was met with resistance from city planners who emphasized the desire to develop the Main Street Corridor – the stretch of Main Street connecting the Central Business District to the 21c Museum Hotel and massive West Village project – into a mix of housing and commercial space.

The association then discussed the idea of developing multi-level parking on the surface lot to be created by the demolition of the old police building but that was also rejected, according to Hill.

The last three years of meetings and proposals have taken place outside formal city meetings and thus there has not been public record of the many efforts of all parties involved to find a mutually-agreeable solution.

Now, the police association believes the proposed garage is the best alternative as it would free up their Main Street lots for future development in the manner desired by the city, as well as provide commercial space along both Main and Colcord. The association has experienced ample interest by developers over the last several years and that interest has only accelerated due to the 21c Hotel and other significant developments at the west end of downtown.

The association believes its plans meet all the downtown development framework and guidelines and is committed to securing a long-term parking solution for police employees.



http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/601a.jpg



http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/601b.jpg

The height shouldn’t be an issue. Doesn’t matter if it’s 100 storeys. It should be street interaction at ground level but we don’t need a parking garage fronting a park. A bigger plot of land has been refused. Very frustrating!

The height shouldn’t be an issue. Doesn’t matter if it’s 100 storeys. It should be street interaction at ground level but we don’t need a parking garage fronting a park. A bigger plot of land has been refused. Very frustrating!

This property doesn't technically front the park... It faces the drive in front of the Civic Center.

Like it or not, there does not seem to be any real basis for denying this project and if it happens again on Thursday, I wouldn't be surprised to see a successful appeal.

Why don't they take half of the lot south of them? There is so much parking right by the Civic Center even for a sold out event, an office building with a nice restaurant on the bottom would be such a better use.

Why don't they take half of the lot south of them? There is so much parking right by the Civic Center even for a sold out event, an office building with a nice restaurant on the bottom would be such a better use.

Because it's the same issue with the City not wanting a parking garage on Main Street either.

If you read my story you'll see that the association first started with the idea of putting it on one of their lots on the south side of Main and were basically told by city planners that was a no-go in informal meetings.

And they've already paid for all the architectural and engineering on this site.

Remember, this project will have commercial space on the ground floor facing both the park and Main.

Because it's the same issue with the City not wanting a parking garage on Main Street either.

If you read my story you'll see that the association first started with the idea of putting it on one of their lots on the south side of Main and were basically told by city planners that was a no-go in informal meetings.

And they've already paid for all the architectural and engineering on this site.

Remember, this project will have commercial space on the ground floor facing both the park and Main.

I read your story, but I guess I focused on the Box lot. This is a park facing lot but nothing like mbg or the new park. not a terrible option. Commercial space will be good and the renderings will be different than actual but larger windows with more emphasis on 1st floor space would be my only change

Disappointing to say the least. I wish they could build it on the site of the soon to be demolished courts building.

Has anyone actually stood in that park and looked in all directions?

To the north and south you have nothing but surface lots (including one owned by Box) and some small, generally ugly, lifeless 1- and 2-story buildings... And it's not like any of that is going away any time soon. Zero commercial space or really anything that interacts with the park. Also, there is parking on both sides of Colcord and Couch with a road running down the middle. All these properties are fairly removed from the park anyway.

Ask yourself why we have people lining up against this project while there was barely a peep when Devon sought approval for two ridiculously huge and monolithic garages that each border large existing city parking structures.

Has anyone actually stood in that park and looked in all directions?

To the north and south you have nothing but surface lots (including one owned by Box) and some small, generally ugly, lifeless 1- and 2-story buildings... And it's not like any of that is going away any time soon. Zero commercial space or really anything that interacts with the park. Also, there is parking on both sides of Colcord and Couch with a road running down the middle. All these properties are fairly removed from the park anyway.

Ask yourself why we have people lining up against this project while there was barely a peep when Devon sought approval for two ridiculously huge and monolithic garages that each border large existing city parking structures.

Agree completely. And I don't understand why the coverage in other local media has been so obviously biased against this project. I mean, in general I dislike parking garages but this is a lot less objectionable than a bunch of others that have been approved recently.

On the other hand, telling the association not to build across the street from the new police HQ doesn't make much sense, either. If the garage is partly/mostly for Police Dept. employees, that would be a more convenient location. I don't understand why 601 W. Main is "better" for the Main Street Corridor than across the street from police HQ.

As for the argument, reported elsewhere, that this is a money grab for Civic Center traffic, well...maybe it's true, maybe not. But what I do know is that a new garage at 601 W. Main is going to make Civic Center parking at 618 W. Main (across the street) a lot less valuable.

After re-reading this entire thread, it is clear that the best option is for the Association to build on this lot and free up their other lots for development.

Agree completely. And I don't understand why the coverage in other local media has been so obviously biased against this project.

Because you have very skilled real estate attorneys orchestrating all this. The Boxes own the property directly east and Dennis lives in a condo on this block as well.

The whole land swap thing was nothing but a publicity stunt and the Oklahoman has complained about the police association and their attorneys not responding. That's because they feel they have not been treated fairly in this matter.

Box sent a letter to the association's attorney and almost instantly the association started receiving calls from the Oklahoman. How did this happen when the letter/offer was not a public document? The only logical conclusion is that Box fed this to the Oklahoman who went on to write a story in which Box accused the association of a "cash grab".

Keep in mind the two parties had already discussed this swap in the past and it had been rejected. So why the formal letter and Oklahoman interview with inflammatory language? Is that any way to find compromise or strike a real esate deal? Of course not and that was never the intention.

And since when is collecting parking revenues some sort of evil "money grab" scheme?? Box owns two lots immediately adjacent and charges for parking... Just a bunch of rhetoric especially when the money being grabbed by the association goes into a nonprofit that funds all types of community service endeavors, like providing the color guard at Thunder games, etc.

The irony is that as the Boxes were screaming bloody murder about preserving the park they were representing Braum's in their bid to demolish the Classen Circle buildings.

AND the city itself just built a 9-story parking structure directly south of the park in front of City Hall. This property doesn't even front the park -- it sits further back and faces the drive in front of the Civic Center.


I am no advocate for parking garages but the way this has been portrayed is absurd and completely unfair. And I don't see anything within the guidelines that prohibit a small garage with commercial space being built across the street from a park. In fact, this would be nicest private development in that area and would directly serve the much larger public good of ultimately freeing up those Main Street surface lots for the desired mixed-use projects.

Has anyone actually stood in that park and looked in all directions?

To the north and south you have nothing but surface lots (including one owned by Box) and some small, generally ugly, lifeless 1- and 2-story buildings... And it's not like any of that is going away any time soon. Zero commercial space or really anything that interacts with the park. Also, there is parking on both sides of Colcord and Couch with a road running down the middle. All these properties are fairly removed from the park anyway.

Yes, I'm in the park every day.. Just because there isn't a whole lot of building interaction at the moment means we need another building that discourages activity? People do use this park on a day to day basis, especially people who live nearby in Avana arts and Park Harvey. More people would use it if more people were nearby.


Ask yourself why we have people lining up against this project while there was barely a peep when Devon sought approval for two ridiculously huge and monolithic garages that each border large existing city parking structures.

I would have had I been around.. Those things are massive and unfortunate as well esp. because they cut off Main St. I agree that the folks who have spoken up against this garage likely have ulterior motives. That doesn't validate that this garage should be built. Part of the reason this project is so unfortunate is because of it's proximity to the parking garage district.

Granted, this garage will actually have ground floor retail, looks ok, and might encourage other development so it's certainly better than a surface lot. I just think it's sad that another monolith is goin in this area when there is so much space already dedicated to parking in the area already. What's even the point of ground floor retail if the only other use of the area is for parking? It's a wasted opportunity to create more people oriented stuff in our civic center. Hopefully if this gets built it really will unlock development potential for the other lots.

Edit: I agree with you Pete that the portrayal of this project in the Oklahoman article was biased and unfair. I still don't like this being built here.

Has anyone actually stood in that park and looked in all directions?

To the north and south you have nothing but surface lots (including one owned by Box) and some small, generally ugly, lifeless 1- and 2-story buildings... And it's not like any of that is going away any time soon. Zero commercial space or really anything that interacts with the park. Also, there is parking on both sides of Colcord and Couch with a road running down the middle. All these properties are fairly removed from the park anyway.

Ask yourself why we have people lining up against this project while there was barely a peep when Devon sought approval for two ridiculously huge and monolithic garages that each border large existing city parking structures.

What do you think the answer is? Are they worried a large portion of their revenue will be lost for events, compounded by the fact that occupancy is already low?

We have way too many garages in downtown. Building more, in my opinion, is short-sighted, and on only extends the shortcomings we have when it comes to walkability. Nevertheless, if the city is going to let others build disgusting--in size and design-- garages, this one should be allowed to move forward as well.

What do you think the answer is? Are they worried a large portion of their revenue will be lost for events, compounded by the fact that occupancy is already low?

See my post above yours.

Also, because no one dares speak against big business in this state. And in addition, Larry Nichols is the chair of both OCURA and The Alliance; the Chamber was also openly solicited support for that BOK project at the mayor's breakfast no less.


The simple truth is that developing those Main Street surface lots is a high priority in order to bridge the CBD with the huge investment being made in west downtown.

One little parking garage set way back from a little-used park seems like a very small price to pay in order to expedite the bigger picture... But somehow this has been portrayed as the worst thing that could ever happen downtown. Where was all this passion and conviction when 3 huge parking garages were recently approved and built a block away?

Edit: I agree with you Pete that the portrayal of this project in the Oklahoman article was biased and unfair. I still don't like this being built here.

I understand that and why others share this view.

At issue, though, is whether this falls within existing planning and design guidelines and it's hard to see how it doesn't.

In fact, it puts pressure back on the police association to facilitate the development of those Main Street lots, which would be a huge, huge deal. Imagine those lots with projects similar to West Village with this tiny little building across the street. Just not a big deal at all, even if it takes a while to get those lots under construction.

.

In fact, it puts pressure back on the police association to facilitate the development of those Main Street lots, which would be a huge, huge deal. Imagine those lots with projects similar to West Village with this tiny little building across the street. Just not a big deal at all, even if it takes a while to get those lots under construction.

I'm guessing the answer is 'no', but I have to ask: Is there an "if-then" mechanism in the DDRC process to force the Association to open their other West Main lots for development? (They were quoted in the Oklahoman as saying they didn't want to be landlords, so I'm assuming if this garage is built and solves their parking needs they'll be open to selling/leasing/developing their other property.)

There is no way to tie this approval to the future development of those lots, but they have stated that is their intention and why wouldn't they do it?

They would no longer need the surface parking and can make much more money by doing a ground lease (they don't want to sell) to a developer.

I know for a fact there are active deals being discussed.

Interesting to note that Hall Capital did not sell their property to 21c or the developers of West Village.

DDRC votes 3-1 to deny revised application.

The police association is almost certain to pursue their appeal.

DDRC votes 3-1 to deny revised application.

The police association is almost certain to pursue their appeal.

Wow. On what basis? Did they give an explanation? This seems bordering on corruption.

Wow. On what basis? Did they give an explanation? This seems bordering on corruption.

Definitely not corruption, just a line of people swearing this is an incompatible use for this site and the committee agree.

The use is permitted, but there is also language in the guidelines that talk about compatible use and that's where this got hung up.

The end result of all the people that lined up and fought this like it was the Nazis trying to take Stalingrad is that they pretty much guaranteed the lots along Main Street will stay surface parking for a long, long time.

The end result of all the people that lined up and fought this like it was the Nazis trying to take Stalingrad is that they pretty much guaranteed the lots along Main Street will stay surface parking for a long, long time.

Not as long of a time as the parking garage staying next to Bicentennial Park..

^^+1 and it’s sad that a component of any development in DTOKC has to have parking. If the police association could find a way to add 1-2 levels of subterranean parking with one or two levels above ground with ground level retail and 2-3 stories of housing on top, that’d be a good plan. I’d only hope that there were housing units fronting the park instead of parking so the parking would be in the back half in the above ground floors.

Police parking garage stalls again

By: Molly M. Fleming The Journal Record November 16, 2017

OKLAHOMA CITY – For the second time, a proposed parking garage at 601 W. Main St. was rejected by the Downtown Design Review Committee.

The first design was turned down in September by the same committee.

The parking lot is owned by the Oklahoma City Police Association. Hall Estill attorney Kent Gilliland, who represents the association, said the group will protest the decision to the Oklahoma City Board of Adjustment. Gilliland said the association needs the parking spaces. He said the group didn’t want to build a multifamily property on the site.

“We’re not commercial developers,” he said. “We need it for our employees.”

The DDRC’s decision rested on the proposed use for the land. The committee said little about the garage’s design, which was done by ADG Inc. architect Scott Dedmon.

The garage presented at Thursday’s meeting was five stories, with 13,000 square feet of ground-floor commercial retail space. It would have 207 parking spaces, including some available for monthly use by non-association members. The structure presented earlier this year was one story taller.

The garage’s north and south sides would face different areas, and Dedmon had accounted for that in his design. The side that faced Bicentennial Park and the other city operations’ buildings would be blonde brick, matching the surrounding area. The south exterior would have red brick since it faced Main Street. Dedmon’s design pulled from the other city and county buildings, using a decorative aluminum design on both sides above the retail space.
Gilliland said the parking garage fits within the allowed land use in the downtown design regulations.

Attorneys for nearby business operators said the use shouldn’t be allowed because a park is nearby and the site should be residential. Developer Richard McKown spoke against the proposed garage.

“I don’t want another fabulous residential project that I have to compete with, but it’s the right thing to do for downtown,” he said.

He said the city spent $5 million on renovating Bicentennial Park, and that the update should spur residential living. He said a garage is a self-storage unit for cars.

Attorney John Michael Williams, who has a law office next to the site, said he had a letter from developer Gary Brooks, who also was against the parking garage because the site should be for residential development. Williams said in the letter from Brooks that Brooks called the spot the best place for residential development in downtown because of the park frontage.

Besides a parking garage, other uses for the site allowed by downtown design regulations include a convenience store and a bingo hall.

“A bingo parlor would be far better than this parking garage,” McKown said, adding that at least it would bring people to the area for activities.

When the committee considered the decision, committee member Nathaniel Harding said he was voting against it because of use, not design. Architect Tony Blatt said he had nothing against the design, but it wasn’t compatible with the park. Julie Kriegel said she agreed with Blatt, that the garage wasn’t compatible.

Chairman Cory Baitz was the only vote in favor of the garage, arguing that is was compatible. He said it’s a mixed-use project since it has ground-floor retail space.

“If done well, a convenience store would be a good use being next to the park,” he said.

During the vote, the meeting became heated. While the committee voted, Dedmon approached the lectern, saying he had a question. Attorney Eric Groves quickly stood up and approached the microphone as well. He represented Williams.

Dedmon started speaking over the committee while the members were voting.

When Dedmon reached the lectern, Groves pulled the microphone away from him, tearing off the foam covering.

Groves said if Dedmon was able to make a final comment, then his client should get to give one as well.

The committee continued voting and turned down the project.

Definitely not corruption, just a line of people swearing this is an incompatible use for this site and the committee agree.

The use is permitted, but there is also language in the guidelines that talk about compatible use and that's where this got hung up.

The incompatibility could be a good, valid argument. Not sure I see it given the other buildings that are in that area. On my previous reply I did something I can't stand when other people do: I immediately jumped to the worst possible conclusion of corruption. I think my head was back in the Rand Elliot debate on the Broadway building. I'll be sure to avoid that in the future.

Imagine a bingo hall going in out of spite...

Imagine a bingo hall going in out of spite...

LOL. I had this exact thought as well. That would be something.

This project goes before the Board of Adjustment on Thursday for appeal.

Appeal was denied yesterday by the Board of Adjustment.

There is still the chance the Police Assn will take this to district court.

Police association shot down in bid for garage

By: Molly M. Fleming The Journal Record January 4, 2018

OKLAHOMA CITY – After its third city meeting, the Oklahoma City Police Association will still not be able to construct its parking garage at 601 W. Main St.

At its Thursday meeting, Oklahoma City’s Board of Adjustment upheld two decisions made by the Downtown Design Review Committee. The DDRC denied two renderings of the garage. Those decisions were made in August and in September.

The plan presented in August was six stories. It was discussed first at Thursday’s meeting. It would have had 13,000 square feet of ground-floor commercial retail space and more than 200 parking spaces. Some of the spaces would have been available for monthly use by non-association members.

The garage presented in September was five stories.

There was some question as to whether the DDRC acted within its legal limit. The decision in September was criticized for being about design, rather than use of the property.

A parking garage is allowed as a use for the property.

The police association’s attorney, Kent Gilliland, read a letter from the city’s municipal counselors, who said the DDRC has no authority to change the allowed uses in downtown.

“It’s undeniable that we’re a permitted use,” Gilliland said.

ADG architect Scott Dedmon designed both concepts for the garage. He went over the guidelines and framework for the area. At the September DDRC meeting, he tried to ask a question about the vote because it appeared the committee was going to make a decision about the property’s use and not the design itself.

“This should not be a use issue,” Dedmon said at Thursday’s meeting. “That is not in the purview of the DDRC.”

Attorney David Box, his father and law partner Dennis Box, and their partner John Michael Williams have been protesting the parking garage. They own property on the east side. They were also concerned about how the garage would affect activity at Bicentennial Park.

Attorneys Brian Griffin and his brother and law partner, John Griffin, own property to the east. They also spoke against the garage.

“This is not a commercial garage,” Brian Griffin said.

He added that the Arts District garage is not fully leased, and there are two more parking garages being built with the BOK Park Plaza building, about a block to the east.

“I wonder about the commercial viability of this,” Griffin said. “I think this is a bad use for this precious parkland.”

Developer Richard McKown spoke against the garage, arguing the land should be preserved for a residential project.

“This is an exquisite site for residential use,” McKown said.

Former Councilman Pete White said putting a garage on the site would close off the last opportunity to make Bicentennial Park an active park. He said the only time the park is active is during the Festival of the Arts.

Board of Adjustment member Jeff Austin said just because the use is allowed doesn’t mean the project is appropriate.

“That’s why there is a Downtown Design Review Committee,” he said.

Gilliland said after the meeting that the police association has 10 days to decide if it will take the decision to district court. The association has not made a decision yet, he said.

So, this has essentially given authority to the Design Review Committees to arbitrarily rezone the use of property? I did think they were allowed to change permitted uses. Some projects were approved in SoSA even though most of the neighbors disagreed with the uses. The Municipal Counselor's office said they couldn't deny a project based on use? Guess it depends on who the neighbor is.......

They will win in a heartbeat at district court. Definition of use is GALAXIES outside of committee powers.

On to district court.

http://newsok.com/police-association-takes-parking-garage-flap-to-district-court/article/5579866
http://www.oscn.net/dockets/GetCaseInformation.aspx?db=oklahoma&cmid=3617389

Also, I included this excerpt from the Notice of Appeal because I found it to be rather interesting.

14371

They filed on Friday and the City was just notified / served yesterday.

They make a good point: Why does this get denied with the city itself built a huge parking structure that actually fronts all of the park to the east of City Hall?

Pete, thanks for your helpful aerials on Page 3 of this thread. I would oppose this parking structure on the park's boundary because it will eliminate any pedestrian interaction from offices, residences, retail or surface lots. Further, I suspect that a multi-story fascia would cause an acoustical problem when concerts are held in front of Civic Center. I favor keeping Bicentennial Park's boundary uncluttered.

This differs from the small park east of City Hall that is flanked on three sides by City Hall, the Arts District parking garage and OKCMOA. To me this works, and affords a great view to the east, especially at dusk.

Each is a different and unique space.

Of course, the problem here isn't the rejection of the parking garage (there are good reasons to reject it), but the city's inconsistency and lack of transparency in how they apply standards.

I don't want a garage here but I am on the side of the police association here. I hope they win.

They filed on Friday and the City was just notified / served yesterday.

They make a good point: Why does this get denied with the city itself built a huge parking structure that actually fronts all of the park to the east of City Hall?
So, because one mistake was made we should be barred from preventing it happening again?

I also find it interesting that public employees don’t seem to really care what the public wants. Then they want support for their concerns.

I also find it interesting that public employees don’t seem to really care what the public wants. Then they want support for their concerns.

How are you determining “what the public wants” on this issue?

Okay, I’ll bite....you think they want a parking garage at this park? Is that what you want?

Okay, I’ll bite....you think they want a parking garage at this park? Is that what you want?

Bite at what? You claimed that public servants were going against the public will. That was an interesting claim and I was just asking how you know the pubic will on this issue. So again, how are you determining “what the public wants”?

nm. Not getting baited into an argument. You ar welcome to your opinion.

I for one am glad that there is an effort to get the highest and best use for a property made more valuable by our public’s money. Most whom I’ve visited with agree. We may well be the outliers though.

nm. Not getting baited into an argument. You ar welcome to your opinion.

I for one am glad that there is an effort to get the highest and best use for a property made more valuable by our public’s money. Most whom I’ve visited with agree. We may well be the outliers though.

Hmmm, you're acting pretty odd recently, Rover. Not sure why that is. Dan simply asked a straightforward question: How are you determining "what the public wants"? Really, that's it-- it's not a trap. He's not arguing with or baiting you; he's asking you to explain how you made the conclusion in your post.

Hmmm, you're acting pretty odd recently, Rover. Not sure why that is. Dan simply asked a straightforward question: How are you determining "what the public wants"? Really, that's it-- it's not a trap. He's not arguing with or baiting you; he's asking you to explain how you made the conclusion in your post.

I responded that way because that is a typical way to try to discredit any observation that is without a broad polling, vote of the people, etc. Outside of taking a poll, of course I cannot say for sure and there is no use to try to defend the opinion or observation. I am not interested in going back and forth, which these discussions seem to get sidetracked with. I merely stated my observation, which I concede may be different than others.

I am in touch with a large number of professionals in the real estate business, as well as accountants, lawyers, etc. ... persons generally knowledgeable of what is happening in the city and downtown. This issue isn't a huge issue with them, but most understand and agree that something other than a garage is best use. And, most don't understand why the officers insist to have it there when there are other options. I would dare say that a huge number of avg. citizens are totally unaware and non-opinionated on this project. So, I haven't polled to see, but most whom I've discussed this project with don't understand the police position on it. So, can I say for sure that they are working against the public's interest?...no.