Guyutes

[David]

That's some well deserved mud in the eye of the Planning Commission.

[soonerguru]

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.

The planning commission was not even following its own codes. Despicable.

[Pete]

One of the proprietors just texted me and is ecstatic and relieved, thanking OKCTalk for all the support.

They are hoping to be open by October.

Might be a great spot for our next OKCT gathering!

[PhiAlpha]

One of the proprietors just texted me and is ecstatic and relieved, thanking OKCTalk for all the support.

They are hoping to be open by October.

Might be a great spot for our next OKCT gathering!

This is great! Very glad that the city council is more sensible than the planning commission. Hopefully this sets a good precedent for the rest of uptown.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[John Knight]

One of the proprietors just texted me and is ecstatic and relieved, thanking OKCTalk for all the support.

They are hoping to be open by October.

Might be a great spot for our next OKCT gathering!

Great news! Thanks for all your support Pete!

[Pete]

I was very happy to learn that Pete White pretty much called out the Planning Commission for the way they handled this application and recommended that their role and approach be reevaluated.

I would start by bringing in a bunch of new members; most have been on the PC for quite a while and represent an old way, suspicious way of looking at development, where in fact they should be serving as facilitators for responsible projects.

And although Guyutes had to be the unfortunate test case, at least now a better precedent has been set where the next time PC wants to arbitrarily impose restrictions, applicants are likely to find approval from the Council (although it absolutely shouldn't have to work this way).

[BoulderSooner]

I was very happy to learn that Pete White pretty much called out the Planning Commission for the way they handled this application and recommended that their role and approach be reevaluated.

I would start by bringing in a bunch of new members; most have been on the PC for quite a while and represent an old way, suspicious way of looking at development, where in fact they should be serving as facilitators for responsible projects.

And although Guyutes had to be the unfortunate test case, at least now a better precedent has been set where the next time PC wants to arbitrarily impose restrictions, applicants are likely to find approval from the Council (although it absolutely shouldn't have to work this way).

So what he said was that he has noticed a pattern from watching planning meetings (happy that he does this) several members of the PC are now always wanting what he called "contract zoning".

He said this case was an example. He said there are pros and cons to that approach. And he wants it to be a discussion on one of the summer council workshops. Because if we are going to decide to use more and more contract zoning that should be a policy decision of the council. Given down to the PC. And not the other way around

[Urbanized]

That is the critical issue here. Some members of this and other similar boards often misunderstand their roles. They are tasked with the enforcement of policy, not the creation of it.

OKC has reams of heavily-contemplated codes and ordinances, and typically very qualified city staff who evaluate each proposed project and make assessments of the respective plan's adherence to code/guidelines and then recommend for approval/denial. 95+% of the time, these boards should simply be agreeing with and formalizing the staff recommendations. There are VERY rare occasions when gray areas appear, and at that point it is appropriate for board members to help interpret/form the City's position.

But sometimes these appointees seem to believe themselves to be policy makers, and impose their own tastes/values. It is relevant to point out that often (usually?) the folks doing this have no formal training in planning/architecture or the field in question. That's not to say the are unqualified for the role; they are usually educated/successful in other fields (the law, for example), and are typically very sharp people. They just don't have any business overruling the recommendations of highly-trained and highly-qualified City Planning staff.

If they want to take an activist role they certainly can/should, but it should be by working City city staff to enact ordinance changes, NOT by making up policy on the fly at meetings.

[soonerguru]

I was very happy to learn that Pete White pretty much called out the Planning Commission for the way they handled this application and recommended that their role and approach be reevaluated.

I would start by bringing in a bunch of new members; most have been on the PC for quite a while and represent an old way, suspicious way of looking at development, where in fact they should be serving as facilitators for responsible projects.

And although Guyutes had to be the unfortunate test case, at least now a better precedent has been set where the next time PC wants to arbitrarily impose restrictions, applicants are likely to find approval from the Council (although it absolutely shouldn't have to work this way).

As someone who has considered starting a small business, the actions of the planning commission in this case are harrowing to me. Imagine being delayed for up to six months for purely political posturing and arbitrary rules! That could sink many undercapitalized businesses. This behavior needs to stop.

[Urbanized]

^^^^^^^

Yep. There should never be mystery regarding what is and what is not allowed when entrepreneurs/developers start their journey. As it is, a project can be brought to its knees by the random whim of a board member, a whim that has NOTHING AT ALL to do with what is in black and white in City ordinance.

[Pete]

That is the critical issue here. Some members of this and other similar boards often misunderstand their roles. They are tasked with the enforcement of policy, not the creation of it.

OKC has reams of heavily-contemplated codes and ordinances, and typically very qualified city staff who evaluate each proposed project and make assessments of the respective plan's adherence to code/guidelines and recommendations for approval/denial. 95+% of the time, these boards should simply be agreeing with and formalizing the staff recommendations. There are VERY rare occasions when gray areas appear, and at that point it is appropriate for board members to help interpret/form the City's position.

But sometimes these appointees seem to believe themselves to be policy makers, and impose their own tastes/values. It is relevant to point out that often (usually?) the folks doing this have no formal training in planning/architecture or the field in question. That's not to say the are unqualified for the role; they are usually educated/successful in other fields (the law, for example), and are typically very sharp people. They just don't have any business overruling the recommendations of highly-trained and highly-qualified City Planning staff.

If they want to take an activist role they certainly can/should, but it should be by working City city staff to enact ordinance changes, NOT by making up policy on the fly at meetings.

Exactly.

It also seems they are very reactionary when it comes to complaints and protests and take the approach if one person is concerned, then they must be completely appeased even if the application falls within existing codes and laws. Talk about the tail wagging the dog. The whole process has to revolve around one or two people who often aren't even justified or rational?

In this particular case, the proprietors went to tremendous trouble and expense (all types of meetings, sound tests, actually obtaining dedicated parking where it was not mandated) and the PC STILL withheld their approval and kept asking for more, like a SPUD which would have added thousands (if not tens of thousands) and months of time and greatly restricted operating hours to which they were completely entitled.

And here we have this long abandoned property on a prime COMMERCIAL corner in a rapidly improving urban district and thoroughfare, and the PC treats the people that want to invest almost a million dollars with great suspicion and obstructionism?? Absolutely absurd.

Beyond all that, just watching their tone and body language towards applicants demonstrates a generally negative and cynical approach and that tells me most the current commissioners need to go.


It's nice this particular case was ultimately resolved in a good way but this is a much, much bigger issue that needs to be addressed and soon.

[ljbab728]

A little bit of strange logic used in parts of this report.

New restaurant and bar to open in damaged building following fatal car crash | KFOR.com

[dankrutka]

It's disappointing to keep hearing local business owners on 23rd street of places like Cuppies and Joes and Big Truck voicing resistance to other local developments because of parking and noise issues. It seems both shortsighted and shows an ignorance about how cities/urban districts prosper. 23rd street still has a ways to go and these new developments, whether perfect or not, are usually cleaning up buildings that have been totally neglected and have a negative effect on other businesses on 23rd. By all accounts, the Guyutes business owners know what they're doing and will be an absolute boon to that section of 23rd. I just don't get it.

[soonerguru]

A little bit of strange logic used in parts of this report.

New restaurant and bar to open in damaged building following fatal car crash | KFOR.com

Aside from Emily Sutton, KFOR seems to suck balls.

[Jeepnokc]

That is the critical issue here. Some members of this and other similar boards often misunderstand their roles. They are tasked with the enforcement of policy, not the creation of it.

OKC has reams of heavily-contemplated codes and ordinances, and typically very qualified city staff who evaluate each proposed project and make assessments of the respective plan's adherence to code/guidelines and then recommend for approval/denial. 95+% of the time, these boards should simply be agreeing with and formalizing the staff recommendations. There are VERY rare occasions when gray areas appear, and at that point it is appropriate for board members to help interpret/form the City's position.

But sometimes these appointees seem to believe themselves to be policy makers, and impose their own tastes/values. It is relevant to point out that often (usually?) the folks doing this have no formal training in planning/architecture or the field in question. That's not to say the are unqualified for the role; they are usually educated/successful in other fields (the law, for example), and are typically very sharp people. They just don't have any business overruling the recommendations of highly-trained and highly-qualified City Planning staff.

If they want to take an activist role they certainly can/should, but it should be by working City city staff to enact ordinance changes, NOT by making up policy on the fly at meetings.

Never a "like" button when you need one. Well said.

[catch22]

Aside from Emily Sutton, KFOR seems to suck balls.

I don't think that excludes Emily, but not in a bad way at all.

[Pete]

Progress!

[Pete]

[JosephYost]

Looking forward to my first visit after this opens!

[Pete]

Beams going up:

[IanMcDermid]

I drive by this place several times a day during my grind and it is FLYING!

[Pete]

[John Knight]

Just stopped by and took these:

[okclee]

What's the latest on the approval that they were requesting?

[Pete]

What's the latest on the approval that they were requesting?

They circumvented the Planning Commission which was asking them to restrict their operating hours among other things, and went straight to the City Council who gave them their approval.