Guyutes

[Urbanized]

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

[Pete]

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

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

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

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


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

[Paseofreak]

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

[LAJJ]

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

[Pete]

LAJJ, I'll email you.

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

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


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


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

[Mr. Cotter]

LAJJ, I'll email you.

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

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

[Urbanized]

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

[Mr. Cotter]

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

[Urbanized]

Then reach out to the Mayor.

[Pete]

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

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

There are clearly bigger issues here:

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

[soonerguru]

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

[Urbanized]

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

[PhiAlpha]

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

[BDK]

I'm in.

[dankrutka]

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

[DoctorTaco]

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.

[Dubya61]

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."

[Urbanized]

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.

[Pete]

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.

[Paseofreak]

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.

[BoulderSooner]

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

[LAJJ]

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]

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.

[MIKELS129]

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.

[Paseofreak]

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?