NW 192nd and N May

[corwin1968]

What is the small square in the upper right corner of this image? Is it owned by someone else?

[Hollywood]

What is the small square in the upper right corner of this image? Is it owned by someone else?

Not a fan whatsoever of the complex going in; but would take an OnCue or new style 7-Eleven on that square spot if it’s large enough for that kind of development.

[scottk]

Not a fan whatsoever of the complex going in; but would take an OnCue or new style 7-Eleven on that square spot if it’s large enough for that kind of development.

At one time, there was a grocery type store development that was suppose to occupy the opposite corner at 192nd and May. Not sure what ever came of it...

https://agenda.okc.gov/sirepub/cache...9084506865.PDF

[eventide451]

Nobody can find any approvals anywhere that PUD-1028 (Valencia's PUD) was ever modified or otherwise rezoned to allow apartments. It would also appear to be entirely against the comprehensive plan for the area for these to be allowed, and none of the residents were ever notified that this was going on.

What's the deal?

[WhoRepsTheLurker]

Nobody can find any approvals anywhere that PUD-1028 (Valencia's PUD) was ever modified or otherwise rezoned to allow apartments. It would also appear to be entirely against the comprehensive plan for the area for these to be allowed, and none of the residents were ever notified that this was going on.

What's the deal?

It is zoned R-4. So it would be allowed.

The R-4 District is a higher density residential district which encourages multiple-family and group residential developments, and represents a broad variety of housing types and densities. The regulations are designed to facilitate infill residential development and development close to non-residential uses.

[eventide451]

It is zoned R-4. So it would be allowed.

The R-4 District is a higher density residential district which encourages multiple-family and group residential developments, and represents a broad variety of housing types and densities. The regulations are designed to facilitate infill residential development and development close to non-residential uses.

Yep. You're right. Shortly after I posted I was able to dig up the rest of the documentation I was looking for on this and it wouldn't let me go back and edit for some reason.

It appears that the complex was part of the design from the get-go. In my professional life I deal with a lot of infrastructure planning and analytics and, based on what I can see from the initial information, the apartment complex would actually result in less overall population increase compared to if it was developed to the same lot and home size standards as the rest of the subdivision. While I certainly feel bad for the immediately adjacent property owners, I'm not sure that the arguments about strain on infrastructure, etc. will have much merit if there's anybody in the room that has any planning/development background at all.

[SEMIweather]

Yep. You're right. Shortly after I posted I was able to dig up the rest of the documentation I was looking for on this and it wouldn't let me go back and edit for some reason.

It appears that the complex was part of the design from the get-go. In my professional life I deal with a lot of infrastructure planning and analytics and, based on what I can see from the initial information, the apartment complex would actually result in less overall population increase compared to if it was developed to the same lot and home size standards as the rest of the subdivision. While I certainly feel bad for the immediately adjacent property owners, I'm not sure that the arguments about strain on infrastructure, etc. will have much merit if there's anybody in the room that has any planning/development background at all.

Lol, why feel bad for the immediately adjacent property owners when it's clearly stated in Post #19 that plans for apartments at this intersection have been known since at least 2009? Good grief.