Classen Circle

[Pete]

What happens next at Classen Circle?

As we were first to report on Wednesday, plans have been filed with the city to rezone part of the triangle of properties containing the HiLo Club, Drunken Fry and the Classen Grill.

The application seeks to reclassify three residential lots directly east of HiLo (shaded in yellow below) as a Planned Unit Development (PUD), a common approach which creates special zoning that permits a specific variety of uses and building types.

The parcels outlined in red are owned by Red Oak LLC which is seeking to sell to Braum's Ice Cream and Dairy Stores; the blue indicates a property already owned by Braum's.

The rezoning application filed with the city's Planning Department was made by Braum's and authorized by the owner of all but the one Braum's property, Red Oak. This usually indicates a pending sale, a fact we confirmed with the Braum's real estate department on Wednesday.

Also included in the Braum's application was a conceptual site plan (see bottom of this story) that show all existing buildings, including the unique and historic Donnay Building, removed in favor of a new Braum's location with a drive-thru.

The backlash in social media has been overwhelming, with thousands expressing outrage, including a protest yesterday at the site:

There is also an on-line petition to save the buildings which garnered over 10,000 signatures in 24 hours:

https://www.change.org/p/okie-mod-sq...-oklahoma-city


Understanding the Process

For those concerned about possible demolition, it is important to note that this area does not fall within any of Oklahoma City's design or historic preservation districts, which means a property owner can demolish any structure at any time.

OKCTalk confirmed with the city's Planning Department that the only requirement is filling out a form and paying a small fee; there is no review or approval required. The process is no more arduous than obtaining a garage sale permit.

In other words, the current owner Red Oak LLC could demolish that entire block tomorrow without public notice.

In fact, this is true of every single property in OKC outside these handful of special districts near the city's center. In those districts, approval must be sought through special committee before advancing with any demolition or changes to the exterior, but the Classen Circle area has no such protection.

Follow this link for more about OKC's special zoning districts.


Planning Commission

The matter to be decided for Classen Circle is only that of rezoning the three residential lots, as the balance of the subject property already has the necessary commercial overlay.

In the graphic below, R-1 is residential, O-1 and O-2 are office and C-3 and C-4 are commercial:

The Braum's application is scheduled to come before the Planning Commission on August 24th at 1:30 at 200 N. Walker. A Facebook group has been established to encourage concerned parties to attend that meeting.

OKCTalk spoke at length to the Chair of the Planning Commission, Janis Powers.

Powers said that the commission always encourages an applicant to meet with nearby homeowners in advance of a formal vote. Applicants are also required to provide legal notice to residents within a certain distance of any rezoning application but are not required to hold meetings, although it is strongly encouraged.

The goal of encouraging such interaction is to facilitate communication and identify possible compromises before the application is formally considered by the Planning Commission. Powers emphasized the important role the public plays in this process.

The applicant also has the option of asking for a continuance in order to work with concerned parties. It is not uncommon for the commission itself to recommend a continuance where areas of conflict have not been resolved.

When the formal meeting agenda is posted a few days before the meeting, city staff from the Planning Department will provide an analysis and recommendation on each application, based on congruence with PlanOKC – the over-arching long-term planning document recently completed – and through applying their expertise in planning principles. All recommendations of city staff are non-binding.

In the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant, often represented by an attorney, typically addresses the group and describes their intentions and takes questions from the commission members. Members of the public is also allowed to speak for up to 3 minutes each.

Once discussion has concluded the commission may ask the applicant for further information and/or meetings with the public, which often results in a continuance to a future Planning Commission meeting.

The commission may also call for a formal vote on the application, which would result in their recommendation to City Council that the matter be either approved on not approved. At this point, the application would be added to a future City Council meeting agenda approximately two weeks later.


City Council

Recommendations of the Planning Commission are non-binding and there have been situations where the council has voted against a recommendation, just as the Planning Commission itself may ultimately agree or disagree with the recommendation of the city's Planning Department.

City Council will ultimately vote on the application in one of their regularly scheduled meetings, with the applicant and public again allowed to speak.

It is important to note that while the Braum's request for is only to rezone the 3 residential lots, both the Planning Commission and City Council may take into account their larger plan for the property, which seems to be clearly indicated in the site plan below showing demolitions and new construction.

If Braum's was to receive approval to rezone the residential lots, from that point they could implement their conceptual plan unimpeded, unless a private party chose to challenge the rezoning decision in district court.

[LakeEffect]

Obviously this as well as my properties are in Shadid's ward, and he will obviously be in opposition to this.

I know that a zoning request will have to pass city council, but is there a preliminary committee that this will pass through before it hits city council?

It has to go to Planning Commission first.

[BLJR]

Man, I have been thinking this thing over. I have lived here all my life and yes, that building has been there for a long time, has history, but it does looks like something from a 3rd world country landed there. I am stuck on the fence between yeah, it may be time for that building to go, but don't want to see a Braum's fresh market go in there. The perfect scenario for me would be to have a major modern renovation of that building, but keep the same general shaping (like the new challengers, camaro's, and mustangs have a hint of the old school look, but modern). Just my input, and I fully realize that some will and won't agree with me.

[BLJR]

And Pete..... you are rocking it with that drone buddy!!! Ever want to get dual drone pics, let me know, my son is really getting into it!!!

[emtefury]

The problem with saving the building is who is going to pay to save the building. Maintaining the building costs money, then there is taxes, and overhead, etc. If the owners are selling then they don't want to keep up with the building expenses and get their money out of it. Who that signed the petition is going to pony up the money.

[Pete]

The problem with saving the building is who is going to pay to save the building. Maintaining the building costs money, then there is taxes, and overhead, etc. If the owners are selling then they don't want to keep up with the building expenses and get their money out of it. Who that signed the petition is going to pony up the money.

The building is currently occupied with paying tenants.

I also suspect the current owner is not carrying a mortgage.

[hoya]

The problem with saving the building is who is going to pay to save the building. Maintaining the building costs money, then there is taxes, and overhead, etc. If the owners are selling then they don't want to keep up with the building expenses and get their money out of it. Who that signed the petition is going to pony up the money.

Sorry, this is a very condescending (and at the same time poorly-informed) opinion. You're taking a position of moral authority over the people who have signed the petition, acting like they are somehow in the wrong for wanting to save a historic block. But you know so little about the situation, you didn't even realize that these buildings have had tenants in them for decades. These places do great business.

It's this kind of reactionary thinking that costs this city historic gems. These buildings aren't in the best shape, but they're not abandoned and they still manage to maintain occupancy permits. They're in no danger of falling down, they're just kind of grungy. Even if the current owners aren't interested in renovating them, that doesn't mean we should tear them down and replace them with a damn cookie-cutter fast food drive-thru.

[bchris02]

Man, I have been thinking this thing over. I have lived here all my life and yes, that building has been there for a long time, has history, but it does looks like something from a 3rd world country landed there. I am stuck on the fence between yeah, it may be time for that building to go, but don't want to see a Braum's fresh market go in there. The perfect scenario for me would be to have a major modern renovation of that building, but keep the same general shaping (like the new challengers, camaro's, and mustangs have a hint of the old school look, but modern). Just my input, and I fully realize that some will and won't agree with me.

It's unique though. I went to the HiLo club for the first time last night and that is a really cool, unique bar with a lot of charm. Places like that don't exist much anymore. Charlie's Record Store is also a gem and I would hate to see it go. There are drive-through fast food restaurants on almost every corner in OKC. Why destroy something that is unique and charming for something so boring like a Braum's, especially since there are two locations less than two miles away from this proposed one?

Would you think tearing down the Spaghetti Warehouse building to put in an OnCue would be acceptable?

[Pete]

One of the huge emotional attachments comes from the role the HiLo Club has played in OKC's gay and lesbian community.

The HiLo has been around since 1956 and I'm sure in the 50's and 60's there were precious few places where gay people felt comfortable in OKC.

In fact, the whole reason the gay district evolved at 39th & Penn was because it was an out-of-the-way mainly industrial area where the gay community could gather without drawing attention.

I remember that even in the late 80's, almost all those places on 39th never had a sign. All because the judgmental nature of many locals caused that community to stay largely underground.

So imagine how things were in the 50's and 60's and how the HiLo was a life raft in many ways. I know there are many stories of people who met there and then supported each other in many ways, including coming out to family and friends.

And the fact it still operates today and has a pretty good following even though no one really needs to sneak around anymore and there are dozens of more options... Well, that says a lot.

[emtefury]

Not my intent to be condescending or a moral authority. I am looking at reality. The owners want to sell and Braums is willing to buy. The anger should be placed with the owners who are selling not Braums. It is in Braums best interest to expand their business and this is a good opportunity for them. It is a good opportunity for the sellers to make money off of selling because they don't want to own anymore. If they wanted to keep the building with the tenants, then they would not be selling.

The point I am making is stuff costs money and it is easy to say keep the building there, but the reality is to keep the building there costs money. Even with tenants, the owners have a better deal than keeping the building and the tenants. Is there someone willing to provide a better offer than Braums? I don't know, but if there was Braums, would not be buying it. The point is that who signed the petition is willing to provide a better deal to the owner other than Braums? Would you sell your house or car for less to other the highest and best offeror?

Along the lines of moral authority and condescending, it is a little bit condescending to say that Braums is not good enough to be there. It is a quality local Oklahoma company that employs many. Think of all of the people you are insulting that like to go to Bruams and like the company. It is a two way street.

[shawnw]

"Higher and Better Use" is a well known concept for construction in an urban core.

[bchris02]

"Higher and Better Use" is a well known concept for construction in an urban core.

I agree.

Demolishing that block that currently has a handful of successful businesses to be replaced with a large surface parking lot and a single fast food restaurant is a bad deal for the city. Never mind the fact that the city will be losing yet another unique block filled with character (something there isn't much of in this town anymore).

It's also not that Braum's isn't good enough to be there. It's that the location isn't good for their standard cookie-cutter business model (large parking lot, drive through, etc). If they wanted to attempt to fit it into the existing neighborhood fabric, that would be a completely different story.

[TheTravellers]

.... Would you sell your house or car for less to other the highest and best offeror?

...

Would you sell/adopt out a dog/cat to the person that paid the most money or sell/adopt out to the person that will take care of the pet the best ("higher and better use", as has been said)? Not *everything* in this society is all about the $$$$$, even though that's the way it's trending (sadly).

[Urbanized]

"Higher and Better Use" is a well known concept for construction in an urban core.

Thanks for posting that Shawn. Even though I personally love historic preservation, mid-century architecture and that building in particular, I am also a pragmatic preservationist and recognize the concept of higher and better use.

For instance, the Finley Building at the top of the Walnut Street bridge was an interesting property that was actually more historically significant than architecturally significant, owing to Dr. Finley's longstanding service to the Deep Deuce and African American community. However, the Aloft Hotel was CLEARLY higher and better use, which is why you mostly heard nary a peep from preservationists. Even the BOK Park Plaza building arguably offered higher and better use than the buildings taken down to enable its construction.

But a Braum's? And not to pick on Braum's, but really ANY fast food restaurant? No way is it higher and better. Even without the character-robbing aspects (which are real), the economics of it probably don't make sense from a community standpoint. It is possible (perhaps likely) that this ramshackle cluster of businesses provides more sales tax revenue to the city and more employees than a Braum's would, based on density alone. Also, there is property tax (which has been brought up in this thread). The expanse of parking around a Braum's would likely mitigate the uptick in property value provided by the Braum's building itself.

Joe Minicozzi spoke this year at Downtown OKC's developers' luncheon and gave some really powerful examples of how this value-per-acre idea works. Here is a TED talk he gave in 2012 in Asheville (YouTube). I have linked it to the point in the video where he talks about the economics of density. It's not an exact parallel, as he is talking downtowns and also Asheville's taxation surely works differently than ours (cities all have different structures); but you get the idea related to the economics of density.

Finally I would say that one bullet I'm not hearing being discussed much is neighborhood impact. I'm sure there are people there who aren't crazy about the bar scene in this building, but in fairness it has been this use since the 1950s. Placing a fast food with associated drive-thru here will fundamentally impact the dynamic of the surrounding neighborhood. I promise traffic will be even MORE of a concern, and pretty sure the location of a fast food place will devalue its immediate surroundings. The main thing that could sway the City here regarding the rezoning would be noisy NIMBYs, and this is a case where they could actually be quite useful.

Anyway, I agree that the owner has the right to sell, and can sell to whoever they want. Also agree that beyond a PR campaign there is not much that can be done to stop this from happening. That said, it never appeared on the open market as far as I'm concerned. I wouldn't be surprised if a local developer or two had strong interest if this happened, and possibly might pay more than Braum's for this iconic piece of OKC history and architectural record. As such, it's a shame that they didn't try to go this route. Maybe it's not too late if anyone involved in the deal has an open mind. There is no way that there is not a different parcel nearby that Braum's could develop for similar money and with far less controversy and damage to the community and their reputation.

[Pete]

Keep in mind that not but for the request to rezone those 3 residential lots, there would have been zero notice or process to prevent the destruction of those buildings. In fact, there will be serious legal questions about denying the zoning change in order to prevent demolition, if indeed that comes to pass.

Anything outside the small areas covered by the special zoning can be demolished without approval.

For example, everything on the west side of Classen -- apart from the heart of the Plaza District -- requires nothing more than walking up to the 8th floor on Main Street, filling a out a form and writing a small check. Anybody could do this today and have bulldozers moving in the morning.

THAT is the bigger issue here. And in fact, Braum's (or anyone else who owns or buys) could easily move forward on this project and just forget those residential lots.

Braum's is not the problem. The present owner or anyone he chooses to sell to could demolish those properties any time they want, and that is true for 99% of Oklahoma City.

[Urbanized]

^^^^^^^^
Agree that the present owner is the problem. That said, Braum's could re-think the deal. The present owner then would be best served marketing the building if they want out, rather than kicking out rent paying tenants and leveling on spec.

[Pete]

I'm very sure this is a binary situation.

Either Braum's is going to continue to press for the rezoning (which will likely be hard to deny based on the purview of the Planning Commission and City Council) and scrape everything if they get that approval, or they will back out of the deal due to public pressure.

If the latter, then someone else will come along to buy and we'll be right back in the same place.

I just don't see any way this building is saved. Once an owner decides they don't care about saving something, it's always easier, cheaper and more expedient to bulldoze and there is absolutely nothing that can be done about that outside the very limited special zoning districts.

And even then, the point needs to be made that there is not a single instance of the downtown design review committee denying a demo permit (that I am aware of).

It also should be said that if City Council ultimately decides to deny the rezoning due to the concern over buildings being demolished outside the area that is to be rezoned, they would face a stiff legal challenge if Braum's chose to file in district court.

[dankrutka]

I just don't see any way this building is saved. Once an owner decides they don't care about saving something, it's always easier, cheaper and more expedient to bulldoze and there is absolutely nothing that can be done about that outside the very limited special zoning districts.

Do you think there's a chance this public attention could lead to finding an alternative buyer with an interest in saving the building?

[Pete]

Do you think there's a chance this public attention could lead to finding an alternative buyer with an interest in saving the building?

Maybe.

But the present owner would have to be willing to sell to them and the buyer would have to be willing to pay the freight.

And I've been told the current owner has been approached many times by other buyers. There have been hints about a personal relationship with a member of the Braum's family, but who knows. That owner can do whatever the hell he wants and as a community we really have no say given the current laws and guidelines.


BTW, I understand the outrage over this but there is a ton of irony when you compare to what just happened at Charcoal Oven.

In that case, there was nothing that needed to be rezoned and the property was already under firm contract before word got out (again, by our reporting).

The difference is that for some strange reason there was no public outcry. The Charcoal Oven owners were portrayed as great people who kept the place going as long as they could... But in the end they didn't even try to find someone to preserve some or all of the setting. I spoke to every great restaurant owner I know in this town and none had heard about this, nor had any of our great developers.

IMO the Charcoal Oven thing was every bit as tragic and I'm reminded of it every time I drive by what is now a Discount Tire location fully under construction. Really, no different than this situation at all.

And the same exact thing could happen at any time virtually anywhere in OKC, apart from the special zoning districts. And even then, there is this big process and we still end up at the exact same place.

[stile99]

Do you think there's a chance this public attention could lead to finding an alternative buyer with an interest in saving the building?

Now I'm just waiting for the Oklahoman to report that TEEMCO is buying it, and all this kerfuffle will blow over any minute now, nothing to see here, everything is peachy keen.

[Joe Kimball]

My best guess over the difference in response over Classen Circle and Charcoal Oven is that there is a much larger cultural divide in play with regard to the former, which is evidenced mostly on the comment section of news websites. The fire is fueled by Braum's recent changes that have mostly been derided, which occur in the wake of their already mildly controversial perception.

[bchris02]

My best guess over the difference in response over Classen Circle and Charcoal Oven is that there is a much larger cultural divide in play with regard to the former, which is evidenced mostly on the comment section of news websites. The fire is fueled by Braum's recent changes that have mostly been derided, which occur in the wake of their already mildly controversial perception.

I think the current density of businesses in that area also plays a part. No matter which way you slice it, demolishing the current building with several bars/restaurants and a record store to replace with a large parking lot and a single fast food restaurant is a downgrade. It's more than just history being lost.

[Joe Kimball]

Also, absolutely good points made, Pete, and thank you for bringing some levity. Much of the focus is indeed on Braum's intentions upon receipt, which is appropriate enough, but we can't forget present handling.

There's also a few yutzes out there on the "keep" side who do nothing to help, and perhaps even hurt, the preservationist case.

[Joe Kimball]

I think the current density of businesses in that area also plays a part. No matter which way you slice it, demolishing the current building with several bars/restaurants and a record store to replace with a large parking lot and a single fast food restaurant is a downgrade. It's more than just history being lost.

Oh absolutely.

[White Peacock]

Most of the pro- side of this debate is about rights. The seller has the right to sell, and Braum's has the right to do what they want with their property. What's missing from people who think like this is the recognition of the difference between rights and right. Just because one has a right to do something doesn't mean it's ethically right. Just because something might be profitable for an interested party doesn't mean it's contributing in any way to the greater good in the long term. I'm far more concerned with holistic views than with a myopic concern for a business' rights to make wrong decisions. Braum's missing an opportunity to put another box and parking lot in this spot is a lesser loss than razing this mid-century curiosity.