HomeMy WebLinkAbout302_Amend Ch 4 Amending Zoning Code_Townhouses_Amend Ord. 175974531 BOOK 4552 PAGE 1659
ORDINANCE NO. 302
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO PLANNING AND ZONING REQUIREMENTS;
AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 175; AMENDING THE CITY OF OWASSO
REVISED ORDINANCES CHAPTER 4; AMENDING THE PURPOSES OF
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS THEREOF; AMENDING AND ADDING TO
PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS; AMEND-
ING AND ADDING TO THE BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; RE-
PEALING ALL ORDINANCES OR PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT
HEREWITH; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF OWASSO, OKLAHOMA; to wit:
Section 1 That Chapter 16, PLANNING AND ZONING, Owasso City Code, as
amended, CHAPTER 4, RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT PROVISIONS, SECTION 400, PURPOSES OF
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, be and the same is hereby amended by adding thereto the
following to wit:
400.41 Purposes of the RTH Residential Multi- Family Townhouse District.
The RTH District is designed to permit the development of attached
single - family townhouse dwellings, on separate lots, which are designed
expressly for separate ownership, in suitable residential environments
at a higher density than conventional detached single - family dwellings.
Section 2. That Chapter 16, PLANNING AND ZONING, Owasso City Code, as
amended, CHAPTER 4, RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT PROVISIONS, SECTION 410, PRINCIPAL
USES PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, be and hereby is amended to add the
principal uses permitted for an RTH district category to read as follows to
wit:
Section 410 PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS.
The Principal Uses Permitted in the Residential Districts are designat-
ed by use unit. The use units are groupings of individual uses and are
fully described, including their respective off - street parking, loading
and screening requirements and other use conditions in Chapter 10. The
use of RS, or RD District for access to any RM, 0, C, or I District, or
the use of an RM District for access to any 0, C, or I District is pro-
hibited unless permitted through an approved Planned Unit Development,
or as authorized by Section 1480 SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS, CHAPTER 14, BOARD
OF ADJUSTMENT for off - street parking. The use units permitted in
Residential Districts are set forth below in Table 1.
Table 1
Use Units Permitted in Residential Districts* (Chapter 10)
*X Use by Right; E Special Exception.
* *Duplexes permitted in RS -3 only.
** *Multifamily townhouse dwelling only.
Chapter 10
Use Units
Districts
No.
Name
RE
RS
RD
RTH
RM
RMH
1. Area -Wide Uses by Right
X
2. Area -Wide Special Exception Uses
E
4. Public Protection & Utility Facilities
5. Community Services, Cultural, and
Recreational Facilities
6. Single - Family Dwelling
7. Duplex Dwelling
8. Multifamily Dwelling and Similar Uses
9. Mobile Home Dwelling
*X Use by Right; E Special Exception.
* *Duplexes permitted in RS -3 only.
** *Multifamily townhouse dwelling only.
BOOK 4552 PAGE 1660
Section 3. That Chapter 16, PLANNING AND ZONING, Owasso City Code, amend-
ed, CHAPTER 4, RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT PROVISIONS, SECTION 430, BULK AND AREA
REQUIREMENTS IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS be and hereby is amended to add the bulk
and area requirements for an RTH district category to read as follows to wit:
430.1 Bulk and Area Requirements in the RE, RS, RD, RTH, and RM Districts
are shown in Table 3 on the following page.
Table 3
Bulk and Area Requirements in the RE, RS, RD, RTH and RM Districts
Lot Area (min. sq.
ft.)
One Family 24,000 13,500 9,000 7,000 6,900 6,900 7,000 7,000
Two Family 6,900 6,900 7,000 7,000
Multi - Family
(other than
RTH) 10,000 6,000
Land Area Per D.U.
(min. sq. ft.)
One Family 28,375 16,000 10,875 8,500 8,400 8,400 8,500 8,500
Two Family 4,200 4,200 4,250 4,250
Multi- Family
(other than
RTH)
Less than two bedrooms 3,100 2,400
Two or more bedrooms 4,356 3,100
TOWNHOUSE
DEVELOPMENT * **
Development Width
(min. ft.)
DISTRICT
70
70
RE RS -1 RS -2
RS -3 RD
RTH RM -1
RM -2
Lot Width (min. ft.)
1,600
1,600
1,600
One Family 150 ** 100 75
65 60
60 60
60
Two Family
60
60 60
60
Multi- Family (other
3,600
2,200
2,200
than RTH)
100
50
Lot Area (min. sq.
ft.)
One Family 24,000 13,500 9,000 7,000 6,900 6,900 7,000 7,000
Two Family 6,900 6,900 7,000 7,000
Multi - Family
(other than
RTH) 10,000 6,000
Land Area Per D.U.
(min. sq. ft.)
One Family 28,375 16,000 10,875 8,500 8,400 8,400 8,500 8,500
Two Family 4,200 4,200 4,250 4,250
Multi- Family
(other than
RTH)
Less than two bedrooms 3,100 2,400
Two or more bedrooms 4,356 3,100
TOWNHOUSE
DEVELOPMENT * **
Development Width
(min. ft.)
70
70
70
Lot Width (min, ft.)
20
20
20
Lot Area (min. sq. ft.)
1,600
1,600
1,600
Land Area of development
per dwelling unit (min.
sq. ft.)
3,600
2,200
2,200
Structure Height (max.
ft.) 35 26 26 26 26 26 26* NA
Livability Space Per
D.U. (min. sq.
ft.) 12,000 7,000 5,000 4,000 2,000 1,400 1,000 400
Front Yard Abuttin
a Public Street:
Measured from center-
line of abutting
street; add to the
distance designated in
the column to the right
of the right -of -way
designated on the
Major Street and High-
way Plan, or 25 feet if
the street not designat-
ed on Major Street and
Highway Plan (min. ft.)
600K4552PAGE166i
Table 3
continued
Bulk and Area Requirements in the RE, RS, RD, RTH and RM Districts
RE
RS -1
RS -2
DISTRICT
RS -3 RD
RTH
RM -1
RM -2
Arterial & Expressway
Service Road 35
35
Not an Arterial 35
35
30
25
10
All Other Yards Abut -
ing a Public Street:
Measured from center-
line of abutting
street; add to the
distance designated in
the column to the right
'z of right -of -way desig-
nated on Major Street
and Highway Plan or 25
feet if not designated
on Major Street and
Highway Plan (min. ft.)
Arterial & Expressway
Service Road 20
20
15
Not an Arterial 15
Rear Yards (min.
ft.) 25
Side Yards (min.
ft.) * * **
One side yard 15
Other side yard 15
5
aSee Section 450, Additional Requirements in the RM -1 and RM -2 Districts.
*In the RM -1 District, a one -story limitation shall apply to structures
containing more than 3 dwelling units which are within 50' of an adjoin-
ing RE or RS District.
* *The frontage of any lot in the RE District which meets the requirements
of the minimum lot size may be less than the minimum frontages as long
as the front building line on said lot is a minimum of one - hundred twenty -
five (125) linear feet.
* * *A minimum of two (2) townhouse lots.
* ** *Does not apply to interior lot line of townhouse developments.
Section 4. That Chapter 16, PLANNING AND ZONING, Owasso City Code, as amend-
ed, CHAPTER 16, DEFINITIONS, Townhouse be and the same is hereby amended to read
as follows to wit:
Townhouse Development: A row of a minimum of 2 attached dwelling units
separated by a party wall with each dwelling unit on an individual lot
and designed for separate ownerships of the individual dwelling units
with no separate dwelling unit constructed above another dwelling unit.
Section 5. If any section, subsection, paragraph, subparagraph, sentence,
clause, or phrase of this Ordinance shall be declared to be invalid for any
reason whatsoever, such decision shall not affect the remaining portions of
this Ordinance which shall remain in full force and effect, anal, to this end,
the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby declared to be severable.
Section 6. That all Ordinances or parts of Ordinances in conflict here-
with be and the same are hereby expressly repealed.
BOOK 4552 PAGE 1662
Section 7. That an emergency exists for the preseravation of the public
peace, health, and safety, by reason whereof this Ordinance shall take effect
immediately upon its passage, approval, and publication.
PASSED, with the emergency clause ruled upon separately and approved this
day of not approved.
APPROVED, this 16th day of June, 1981.
Mayor
ATTEST: City clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney
STATE OF OKLAHOMA
TULSA COUNTY
FILED OR RECORDED
1981 JUN 23 PM 12:12
ANITA NESBITT
COUNTY CLERK
Affidavit Of Publication
Legal Notice
STATE OF OKLAHOMA, TULSA COUNTY, ss:
Published in the Owasso Reporter, Tulsa County, Owasso, Oklahoma, Thursday, June 18,
1981.
Bill R. Retherford, of lawful age, being duly sworn
ORDINANCE NO. 302
and authorized, says that he is publisher of the
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO PLANNING ANDLONING REQUIREMENTS:
OWASSOREPORTER a weekly
AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 175; AMENDING THE CITY OF OWASSO REVISED
ORDINANCES CHAPTER 4; AMENDING THE PURPOSES OF RESIDENTIAL
newspaper printed in the City of
DISTRICTS THEREOF; AMENDING AND ADDING TO PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED
IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS; AMENDING AND ADDING TO THE BULK AND AREA
Tulsa County, Oklahoma, a newspaper qualified to
REQUIREMENTS IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY;
REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES OR PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT
legal notices, advertisements and publications as
HEREWITH; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
publish
in Section 106 of Title 25, Oklahoma Statutes 1971
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF OWASSO, OKLAHOMA: to
provided
wit:
as amended, and thereafter, and complies with all other
Section 1. That Chapter 16, PLANNING AND ZONING, Owasso City Code, as amended.
requirements of the laws of Oklahoma with reference to
CHAPTER 4, RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT PROVISIONS, SECTION 400. PURPOSES OF
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS; be and the same is hereby amended by adding thereto the
following to wit:
legal publications.
400.41 Purposes of the RTH Residential Multi - Family Townhouse District.
That said notice, a true copy of whjch is attached
The RTH District is designed to permit the development of attached single-
family townhouse dwellings, on separate lots, which are designed expressly
hereto, was published in the regular edition of said
for separate ownership, in suitble residential environments at a higher
density than convention detached single- family dwellings.
newspaper during the period and time of publication and
Section2. That Chapter 16, PLANNING AND ZONING, Owaso City Code, as amended.
CHAPTER 4, RESIDENTIAL. DISTRICT PROVISIONS, SECTION 410. PRINCIPAL.
not in a supplement, on the following dates:
USES
PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, be and hereby is amended to add t he prin-
cipal uses permitted for an RTH district category to read as follows to wit:
Section 410 PRINCIPAL. USES PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS.
The Principal Uses Permitted in the Residential Districts are designated by
use unit. The use units individual
Subscribed andswornto before
are groupings of uses and are full
described, including .their respective off - street parking, loading and
day of
screening requirements and other use conditions in Chapter 10. The use of
RS. or RD District for access to any RM, 0. C, or I District is prohibited
unless permitted through an approved Planned Unit Development,
authorized by Section 1480 SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS• CHAPTER 14.
Notary Public
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT for off-street parking. The use units permitted
in Residential Districts areset forth below in Table 1.
My commission eepires
TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT
PUBLISHER'S FEE $ 25 ..01
Development Width
(min. ft.) 70 70 70
Width (min. ft.) 20 20 20
Continued
Legal
1.600 1,6W 1,600
lopment
Land Area of development
per dwelling unit ( min. sq. ft.) 3,600 2,200 2,200
Table 1
Structure Height (max. ft.) 35 26 26 26 26 26 26 NA
Use Units Permitted in Residential Districts ` (Chapter 10)
Livability Space Per D.U.
( min. sq. ft.) 12,000 7,000 5,000 4,OD0 2,000 1,400 1,11011 400
Chapter 10
Use Units
Districts Front Yard Abutting
a Public Street:
No. Name RE RS RD RTH RM RMI Measured from centerline of
abutting street; add to the
1. Area -Wide Uses by Right X
X distance designated in the -
2. Area -Wide Special Exception Uses E
E column to the right';_ of the ,
4. Public Protection and Utility Facilities E
E right-of-way designated on the
5. Community Services, Cultural, and
Major Street and Highway Plan,
Recreational Facilities E
E or 25 feet if the street not
6. Single - Family Dwelling X
X E designated on Major
Street and
7. Duplex Dwelling
X Highway Plan (min.
ft.)
8. Multifamily Dwelling and Similar Uses
9. Mobile Home Dwelling
Arterial and Expressway
* X Use by Right; E Special Exception.
Service Road 35 :35 :3.5 35 :35 :35 :35 35
35 .34) 25 25 25 25 IU
Duplexes permitted in RS -3 only.
Not an Arterial 35
•* Multifamily townhouse dwelling only.
All Other Yards Abutting a
Public Street:
Section 3. That Chapter 16, PLANNING AND ZONING, Owasso City Code, amended, Measured from centerline of
CHAPTER 4, RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT PROVISIONS, SECTION 430, BULK AND AREA abutting street; add to the
REQUIREMENTS IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS be and hereby is amended to add the distance designated in the
bulk area requirements for an RTH district category to read as follows
to wit: column to the right ' -, of
430.1 Bulk and Area Requirements in the RE, RS, RD, RTH, and
RM Districts are shown right-of-way designated
in Table 3 on the following page.
on Major Street and
Highway Plan or 25 feet
Table 3
if not designated on Major
Bulk and Area Requirements in the RE, RS, RD, RTH and RM Districts Street and Highway Plan
(min. ft.)
DISTRICT
Arterial x Expressway
RE RS-I R S-Y
RS-3 R Service Road 20 15
Not an Arterial
Lot Width (min. ft.)
One Family 150 100 75
65 60 60 60 W Rear Yards
Two Family
60 60 60 60 (min. ft.) 25 2.5 25 20 10
Multi - Family (other
than RTH)
100 50 Side Yards (min.
Lot Area (min. s -
One side yard
Other side yard 15 5 5 5 5 a , 113
One Family 24,000 13,500 9,000 7,000
6,900 8,900 7,000 7.000
Two Family
6,9W 6,900 7,001 TOW See Section 450, Additional Requirements in the RM -1 and RM -2 Districts.
Multi- Family
= In the RM-1 District, aone -story limitation shall apply to structures con -
(other than
taining more than 3 dwelling units which are within 50' of an adjoining RE or
RTH)
10.000 6,000 RS District.
•+ The frontage of any lot in the RE District which meets the requirements of
Land Area Per D.U.
the minimum lot size may be less than the minimum frontages as long as the
(min. sq, ft.)
front building line on said Lot is a minimum of one- hundred twenty -five ( 125 )
One Family
Y 28,375 16,000 10,875 8,500 8,400 8,406 8,500 8,5W linear feet.
Two Family
4,200 4,200 4,250 4,250 ,: :4 A minimum of two (2) townhouse lots.
Multi- Family
Does not apply to interior lot line of townhouse developments.
( other than RTH)
Less than two bedrooms
3,100 2,400 amended,
4. That Chapter 16, PLANNING AND Owasso City Code,
Two or more bedrooms
Section ed
4.356 3,1W
CHAPTER, 16, DEFINITIONS, Townhouse he and nd the the same is hereby amended In read as
follows to wit:
Townhouse Development: A row of a minimum of 2 attached dwelling units
separated by a party wall with each dwelling unit on an individual lot and
designed for separate ownership of the individual dwelling units with no
separate dwelling unit conttructed above another dwelling unit.
Section 5. If any section, subsection, paragraph, subparagraph, sentence, clause, or
phrase of this Ordinance shall be declared to be invalid for any reason whatsoever, such
decision shall not affect the remaining portions of this Ordinance which shall remain in full
force and effect, and, to this end, the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby declared to be
severable.
Section 6. That all Ordinances or parts of Ordinances in conflict herewith be and the same
are hereby expressly repealed.
Section 7. That an emergency exists for the preservation of the public peace, health, and
safety, by reason whereof this Ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its passage.
approval, and publication.
APROVED, this 16 day of June, 1981.
ATTEST:
Wauhilleau Webb
Citv Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Harold Charney
City Attorney
Boyd M. Spencer
Mayor
5uper5avings
Action Carpenters
Work Apron
TO: Mayor Spencer and City Council
FROM: Kenneth Thompson
DATE: June 12, 1984
SUBJECT: Townhouse Zoning District
This item was tabled at the June 2 meeting and is back on
the agenda for consideration by the Council. The Planning
Commission and City Planner have recommended the creation of
townhouse zoning district, which is a higher density single
family district. It should be given serious consideration.
Owasso Planning Commission Minutes
May 28, 1981
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING
5. Townhouse: An Alternative Zoning Category for Attached Single Family
Housing and RTH Ordinance
Staff presented the proposed RTH Townhouse zoning district ordinance and
the explanatory study. Staff and commissioners discussed the need for
this type of zone and various types of applications in rezoning land.
Several citizens made comments stating their concerns about keeping single
family homes in their neighborhood and the negative effects of intruding
apartments or duplexes. The commission discussed with the audience the
possible uses of townhouses in newly developing areas as well as in older
neighborhoods. Members of the audience equated attached single - family
townhouses with apartments and again expressed their fears over high
density residential development in the neighborhood.
Staff pointed out that townhouse zoning would allow approximately 12 units
to the acre, less than the 14 to 18 units per acre allowed in multi - family
(apartment) zoning. Staff and commissioners also re- explained that passage
of this ordinance would not rezone anyone's land, but would only allow
landowners to apply for RTH rezoning, as any other category. Extensive
discussion followed.
L. George moved to approve the RTH zoning district as an additional
district to the zoning code. M. Hinkle seconded the motion. Discussion
followed. L. George stated that he was not in favor of RTH zoning in any
particular areas, but thought-that it was a viable alternative, and that
the city should allow it to be considered. G. Phillips stated that he
had not decided if an RTH zone was needed. Additional discussion followed.
The question was called.
Aye: Hinkle and George.
Nay: Phillips and Cooke.
The vote was 2-2-0 and the proposed ordinance passed to the council without
a recommendation.
TOWNHOUSE
AN ALTERNATIVE ZONING CATEGORY
FOR ATTACHED SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING
Prepared for
TULSA COUNTY COMMUNITIES
By the
COMMUNITY PLANNING DIVISION
INDIAN NATIONS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
March, 1981
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this report is three -fold. First it presents a summary of
housing and development trends in the Tulsa metropolitan area. Secondly, it
describes the existing zoning options under which attached single - family hous-
ing can be developed in area communities. And finally, it proposes a new and
separate zoning category which will facilitate the development of attached
single - family housing, specifically townhouse development.
RECENT DEVELOPMENT TRENDS
For the past several years housing costs have skyrocketed and the oppor-
tunity of owning affordable housing has declined. The increases in construction,
land and energy costs together with record high interest rates have dramatically
slowed the housing industry across the nation.
Even in the Tulsa metropolitan area, housing development and construction
activity has declined significantly. Platting activity in area cities and Tulsa
County declined a total of 40% from 1979 to 1980. Excluding Tulsa and Tulsa
County, platting activity in surrounding communities declined 46% for that same
period.1 The outlook for conventional single - family development in the near
future is not promising. In the past six to eight months not one conventional
plat for single - family detached housing has been processed in Tulsa.2 Actual
housing construction activity has declined as well, with the brunt of the de-
cline in the single- family housing market. In Tulsa alone, single - family
permits authorized for 1980 declined nearly 30% from 1979.3
However, in this same period, multi - family housing construction has remain-
ed strong. Total authorized multi - family housing units increased 15.5% from
1979 to 1980.4 Continued strength in the multi - family housing market is expect-
ed as indicated by the high city wide occupancy rates. Occupancy rates for
multi - family rental units has remained at 96% for three years. This high
occupancy is even more impressive considering the nearly constant net growth
in units, which has averaged nearly 1,700 units per year since 1972.5
Further strength in the multi- family or attached housing unit market is
indicated by housing developers. As expressed by Tulsa planners, recent con-
versations about housing with prospective developers and builders has been
"exclusively about garden apartments, condominiums and townhouses ".6 Units
suitable for separate ownership have become increasing important as evidenced
by townhouse development and the currently high rate of apartments converting
to condominiums.7
Interest and activity in attached single - family housing units under sepa-
rate ownership has been exceptional, so much so that in 1980 the City of Tulsa
and Tulsa County modified their zoning codes to include a zoning category
"...designed to permit attached single- family townhouse dwelling, on separate
lots which are designed expressly for separate ownership..." This zoning
district is designated the RMT Residential Multi- family Townhouse District.8
TOWNHOUSE ZONING OPTIONS
Townhouse development has also been allowed in area communities for some
timeunder current zoning regulations. However, since townhouses or rowhouses
are by definition multi - family units, these uses were allowed only in multi-
family zoning districts. The problems often encountered in obtaining
multi- family zoning many times precluded development of townhouses in areas
appropriate for such use since the multi- family zoning category would allow
other higher density multi - family uses as well. Thus, standard multi-
family zoning allowing townhouses was rarely approved since other multi - family
uses conflicting with surrounding land use could develop.
One alternative zoning category has been developed as an alternative to
conventional zoning and development. The PUD or Planned Unit Development
category was developed as a supplemental zoning to existing zoning for an area.
This category is intended to permit innovative land development, permit develop-
ment flexibility, provide and preserve meaningful open space, and to achieve
functions and design continuity within the development, while maintaining the
base or overall development density allowed.9 In exchange for the design and
development advantages, further detailed planning and project review is requir-
ed by the cities. This supplemental zoning category is allowed in most cities
and towns in Tulsa County and has been used increasingly, particularly by the
larger and more experience developers, to develop attached single - family housing
units. Yet, there have been some who have not opted for the PUD development
strategy due to a lack of understanding, concern over the added community re-
view, the greater up front planning and analysis costs often associated with
PUD's, or the common misperception of cities that PUD's are just "another way
of getting dinkey apartments built in our town."
Recently, there has been a growing awareness and understanding of the de-
mand for alternative housing styles such as townhouse development and the need
to allow such development in appropriate areas under an appropriate conventional
zoning category. Such a zoning category would allow townhouse development (as a
low to moderate intensity use (depending on local community values and percep-
tions) to be developed in conformance to community plans in compatible land use
areas. Such development would provide an excellent buffer between low and high
intensity residential uses. Further, such a conventional zoning category would
preclude the need for PUD designations or inappropriate higher density multi-
family zoning designations. Finally, it would be a clear response to a clear
market demand for an affordable housing alternative to the traditional single -
family house.
RECOMMENDATION
With these considerations, a conventional zoning category is recommended
which can be modified to local city codes and community values. The proposal
borrows heavily from the research efforts of Tulsa County and City of Tulsa
planners and from the present guidelines for townhouse development found in
the existing codes of area cities and towns. The recommended modifications
are for a zoning code which utilizes the Use Unit Concept. This zoning code
format is commonly used by area communities.
The proposals are set forth in a model ordinance — (see Appendix I)
developed in a format to amend existing zoning regulations. The amendments
proposed would require the least number of changes to existing zoning code
texts and tables. Also attached as Appendix II are schematic site plans that
might be expected under a conventional townhouse zoning code category.
APPENDIX I
MODEL ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO PLANNING AND ZONING REQUIREMENTS;
AMENDING ORDINANCE (number of ordinance adopting zoning
code); AMENDING THE (city or town) REVISED ORDINANCES
CHAPTER (number of residential district provisions); AMEND-
ING THE PURPOSES OF RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS THEREOF; AMENDING
AND ADDING TO PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL DIS-
TRICTS; AMENDING AND ADDING TO THE BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS
IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; REPEAL-
ING ALL ORDINANCES OR PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH;
AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY (or town) OF (name), Oklahoma; to
wit:
Section 1. That Chapter (number), PLANNING AND ZONING, (include the
specific statutory reference in the code ), CHAPTER (number), RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT PROVISIONS, SECTION (number), PURPOSES OF RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, be
and the same is hereby amended by adding thereto the following to wit:
(subsection numbers after duplexes and before multifamily) Purposes of
the HIM Residential Multi - family Townhouse District.
The RTH District is designed to permit the development of attached
single - family townhouse dwellings, on separate lots, which are designed
expressly for separate ownership, in suitable residential environments
at a higher density than conventional detached single - family dwellings.
Section 2. That Chapter (number), PLANNING AND ZONING, (include the
specific statutory reference in the code), CHAPTER (number), RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT PROVISIONS, SECTION (number), PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS, be and hereby is amended to add the principal uses permitted for an
RTH district category to read as follows to wit:
Section (number) PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS.
The Principal Uses Permitted in the Residential Districts are designat-
ed by use unit. The use units are groupings of individual uses and are
fully described, including their respective off - street parking, loading
and screening requirements and other use conditions in Chapter (number).
The use of RS, or RD District for access to any RM, 0, C, or I District,
or the use of an RM District for access to any 0, C, or I District is
prohibited unless permitted through an approved Planned Unit Development,
or as authorized by Section (section and subsection nu,aber in Chapter on
Board of Adjustment Special Exception for off- street parking). The use
units permitted in Residential Districts are set forth below in Table (k).
Table (number)
Use Units Permitted in Residential Districts*
Use Units Districts
No. Name RE RS RD RTH RM RMR
1. Area -Wide Uses by Right X X X X X X
2. Area -Wide Special Exception Uses E E E E E E
4. Public Protection 6 Utility Facilities E E E E E E
5. Community Services, Cultural, and Recreational Facilities E E E E E E
6. Single - Family Dwelling X X X X X E
7. Duplex Dwelling E ** X X X
8. Multifamily Dwelling and Similar Uses Xf X
9. Mobile Home Dwelling E * ** X
*X Use by Right; E Special Exception.
* *Duplexes permitted itt RS -3 only.
** *Mobile home dwelling in RS -3 only.
fMultifamily townhouse dwelling only.
Section 3. That Chapter (number), PLANNING AND ZONING, (include the speci-
fic statutory reference in the code ), CHAPTER (number), RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
PROVISIONS, SECTION (number), BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN RESIDENTTAL DIS-
TRICTS be and hereby is amended to add the bulk and area requirements for an
RTH district category to read as follows to wit:
(subsection number) Bulk and area requirements in the RE, RS, RD, RIM,
and RM Districts are shown in Table (number".
Table (number)
Bulk and Area Requirements in the RE, RS, RD, RIM and RM Districts
DISTRICT
RE RS -1 RS -2 RS -3 RD RIM RM -1 RM -2
Lot Width (min. ft.)
One Family 150 ** 100 75 65 60 60 60 60
Two Family 60 60 60 60
Multi - family (other
than RTH) 100 50
Lot Area (min. sq. ft.)
One Family 24,000 13,500 9,000 6,900 6,900 6,900 6,000 6,000
Two Family 6,900 6,900 6,900 6,900
Multi - family (other
than RTH) 10,000 6,000
Land Area Per D.U.
(min. sq. ft.)
One Family 28,375 16,000 10,875 8,400 8,400 8,400 7,500 7,500
Two Family 4,200 4,200 4,200 4,200
Multi - family (other
than RTH)
Less than two bedrooms 3,100 2,400
Two or more bedrooms 4,356 3,100
TOWNHOUSE
DEVELOPMENT * **
Development Width
(min. ft.) 70 70 70
Lot Width (min. ft.) 20 20 20
Lot Area (min. sq. ft.) 1,600 1,600 1,600
Land Area of develop-
ment per dwelling
unit (min. sq. ft.) 3,600 2,200 2,200
Structure Height (max.
ft.) 26 26 26 26 26 26 26*
NA
Livability Space Per
D.U. (min. sq. ft.) 12,000
7,000 5,000 4,000 2,000 1,400
1,000
400
Front Yard Abutting a
Public Street:
Measured from centerline
of abutting street; add
to the distance designat-
ed in the column to the
right 11 of the right -of-
way designated on the
Major Street and Highway
Plan, or 25 feet if the
street not designated on
major Street and Highway
Plan (min, ft.)
Arterial d Expressway
Service Road 35
Not an Arterial 35
35 35 35 35 35 35 35
35 30 25 25 25 25 10
Table (number)
continued
Bulk and Area Requirements in the RE, RS, RD, RTH, and RM Districts
Rear Yards (min. ft.) 25 25 25 20 20 20 20 10
Side Yards (min. ft.) * * **
One side yard 15 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Other side yard 15 5 5 5 5 5 5 10
*In the RM -1 District, a one -story limitation shall apply to structures
containing more than 3 dwelling units which are within 50' of an adjoin-
ing RE or RS District.
* *The frontage of any lot in the RE District which meets the requirements
of the minimum lot size may be less than the minimum frontages as long
as the front building line on said lot is a minimum of one - hundred twenty -
five (125) linear feet.
* * *A minimum of two (2) townhouse lots (or the appropriate number according to
local zoning code definition of townhouse, if townhouse definition not
changed. The minimum frontage width will be 90' if minimum town-
house lots are 4, or 110' if minimum townhouse lots are 5, etc.. Other
minimum bulk requirements would change accordingly as well).
* ** *Does not apply to interior lot line of townhouse developments.
Section 4. That Chapter (number), PLANNING AND ZONING (include the speci-
fic statutory reference in the code), CHAPTER (definition chapter number)
DEFINITIONS, Townhouse be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows to
wit:
Townhouse Development: A row of attached dwelling units separated by
a party wall with each dwelling unit on an individual lot and designed
for separate ownerships of the individual dwelling units with no
separate dwelling unit constructed above another dwelling unit.
Section 5. If any section, subsection, paragraph, subparagraph, sentence,
clause, or phrase of this Ordinance shall be declared to be invalid for any
reason whatsoever, such decision shall not affect the remaining portions of
this Ordinance which shall remain in full force and effect, and, to this end,
the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby declared to be severable.
Section 6. That all Ordinances or parts of Ordinances in conflict here-
with be and the same are hereby expressly repealed.
DISTRICT
RE RS -1 RS -2 RS -3 RD RTH RM -1 RM -2
All Other Yards Abutting a
Public Street: Measured
from centerline of abutting
street; add to the distance
designated to the column to
the right � of right -of -way
designated on Major Street
and Highway Plan or 25 feet
if not designated on Major
Street and Highway Plan '
(min. ft.)
Arterial 6 Expressway
Service Road
20 20 20 20 20 15 15 15
Not an Arterial
15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15
Rear Yards (min. ft.) 25 25 25 20 20 20 20 10
Side Yards (min. ft.) * * **
One side yard 15 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Other side yard 15 5 5 5 5 5 5 10
*In the RM -1 District, a one -story limitation shall apply to structures
containing more than 3 dwelling units which are within 50' of an adjoin-
ing RE or RS District.
* *The frontage of any lot in the RE District which meets the requirements
of the minimum lot size may be less than the minimum frontages as long
as the front building line on said lot is a minimum of one - hundred twenty -
five (125) linear feet.
* * *A minimum of two (2) townhouse lots (or the appropriate number according to
local zoning code definition of townhouse, if townhouse definition not
changed. The minimum frontage width will be 90' if minimum town-
house lots are 4, or 110' if minimum townhouse lots are 5, etc.. Other
minimum bulk requirements would change accordingly as well).
* ** *Does not apply to interior lot line of townhouse developments.
Section 4. That Chapter (number), PLANNING AND ZONING (include the speci-
fic statutory reference in the code), CHAPTER (definition chapter number)
DEFINITIONS, Townhouse be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows to
wit:
Townhouse Development: A row of attached dwelling units separated by
a party wall with each dwelling unit on an individual lot and designed
for separate ownerships of the individual dwelling units with no
separate dwelling unit constructed above another dwelling unit.
Section 5. If any section, subsection, paragraph, subparagraph, sentence,
clause, or phrase of this Ordinance shall be declared to be invalid for any
reason whatsoever, such decision shall not affect the remaining portions of
this Ordinance which shall remain in full force and effect, and, to this end,
the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby declared to be severable.
Section 6. That all Ordinances or parts of Ordinances in conflict here-
with be and the same are hereby expressly repealed.
Section 7. That an emergency exists for the preservation of the public
peace, health, and safety, by reason whereof this Ordinance shall take effect
immediately upon its passage, approval, and publication.
PASSED, with the emergency clause ruled upon separately and approved this
day of , 19
APPROVED, this day of , 19
ATTEST:
Mayor
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM
City Attorney
appendix 2
schematic
townhouse
site plans
Notes
1. Murrel Wilmoth and Mike Taylor, "Summary of Subdivision Activity ", Depart-
ment of Regional Services, INCOG, (Tulsa, January, 1981, unpublished).
2. Wayne Alberty, Development Coordinator, Department of Regional Services,
INCOG, (Tulsa, March 13).
3. "Tulsa Business Highlights ", Fourth Quarter 1980, Research and Planning
Division, Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce (Tulsa, February 26, 1981)
P. 1.
4. Ibid, p. 1.
5. City of Tulsa Apartment Survey: 1980, INCOG (Tulsa, March 1981) pp. 9 -12.
6. Wayne Alberty, INCOG.
7. Preliminary findings of the Research and Data Management, Division Depart-
ment of Regional Planning, INCOG indicate a very high rate of conversion
to condominium units (owner- occupied) from existing multi - family rental
housing stock (Tulsa, March, 1981 forthcoming report).
8. Chapter 4, Section 400.4, Zoning Code, City of Tulsa (Tulsa, October 13,
1980).
9. Seven out of ten cities and towns in Tulsa County have adopted a PUD zoning
category as a part of their zoning codes. PUD developments have been pro-
cessed in each of the seven communities, Community Planning Division, INCOG
(Tulsa, March, 1981).
Owasso City Council Page Five June 2, 1981
Planning Commission, leave the northeast five acres as AG Agriculture as recom-
mended by the Planning Commission, but rezone balance of area to RS3 Residential
Single Family High Density as requested by the church, and by reference made a
part hereof.
Ayes - Messrs. Spencer, Lambert, Burke, Clark and Mrs. Gross
Nays - None
Motion carried.
ITEM 9 - APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 302 CREATING A TOWNHOUSE ZONING DISTRICT.
ITEM 10 - APPROVE EMERGENCY CLAUSE TO ORDINANCE NO. 302.
Motion was made by Boyd Spencer, seconded by Phyllis Gross, to table Items 9 and
10 to the June 16, 1981 meeting.
Ayes - Messrs. Spencer, Lambert, Burke, Clark and Mrs. Gross
Nays - None
Motion carried.
ITEM 11 - STATUS OF CITY COUNCIL AND GENERAL PUBLIC.
Mrs. Gross requested this item be placed on the agenda. She commented "every -
one is aware of everything that is going on around town and one of the latest
things is that last Friday the Chamber of Commerce endorsed" and Mr. Charney
interrupted and said "I don't think that is in order ".
Mrs. Gross then said "twice in a row I have been approached by the City Attor-
ney very adamantly to have the recall petition stopped and the very first time
I explained that I am not the one that put up the recall petition" and again
Mr. Charney interrupted and said "this has nothing to do with Status of City
Council and General Public, if you want to castigate me and want to take me on
at City Council meeting you put it on the agenda and I will be ready for you but
if it's not there and put on properly as an agenda item, and if you want to put
me on notice I'll be glad to have a public debate with you anytime before any
group telling what I think of your actions and where we're going, I'll pull no
punches, and I challenge you to that debate if you want it, but right now it's
not on the agenda and not the proper time for it and I'm not avoiding you I'm
just telling you it's not the proper time for it ".
Mrs. Gross then commented "as you know the status of the Council at present, and
has been predicted before the election, is three to two and that is the status
of the Council and I will try to stay in accordance with what Mr. Charney has
asked. It was rumored it would be three to two and would make it very difficult
for Dr. Clark and I to work." Mr. Charney asked "are you speaking for Dr. Clark
or is he going to speak for himself?" Mrs. Gross said "We'll, I'll speak for
myself, but it has been three to two and I would say the status of the Council
and the public, I went to the people and told you I was going to represent you
May 29, 1981
TO: Mayor Spencer and City Council
FROM: Kenneth Tho
SUBJECT: Townhouse Zoning Ordinance
The City Planner has requested this itembe placed on the
Council agenda. I was informed that the Planning Commission
voted two and two on this ordinance, which in effect, would
be a "failure to recommend." I believe, under the circumstances,
the City Council can take whatever action it deems
necessary on this ordinance.
TOWNHOUSE
AN ALTERNATIVE ZONING CATEGORY
FOR ATTACHED SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING
Prepared for
TULSA COUNTY COMMUNITIES
By the
COMMUNITY PLANNING DIVISION
INDIAN NATIONS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
March, 1981
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this report is three -fold. First it presents a summary of
housing and development trends in the Tulsa metropolitan area. Secondly, it
describes the existing zoning options under which attached single - family hous-
ing can be developed in area communities. And finally, it proposes a new and
separate zoning category which will facilitate the development of attached
single - family housing, specifically townhouse development.
RECENT DEVELOPMENT TRENDS
For the past several years housing costs have skyrocketed and the oppor-
tunity of owning affordable housing has declined. The increases in construction,
land and energy costs together with record high interest rates have dramatically
slowed the housing industry across the nation.
Even in the Tulsa metropolitan area, housing development and construction
activity has declined significantly. Platting activity in area cities and Tulsa
County declined a total of 40% from 1979 to 1980. Excluding Tulsa and Tulsa
County, platting activity in surrounding communities declined 46% for that same
period.1 The outlook for conventional single - family development in the near
future is not promising. In the past six to eight months not one conventional
plat for single - family detached housing has been processed in Tulsa.2 Actual
housing construction activity has declined as well, with the brunt of the de-
cline in the single - family housing market. In Tulsa alone, single - family
permits authorized for 1980-declined nearly 30% from 1979.3
However, in this same period, multi- family housing construction has remain-
ed strong. Total authorized multi - family housing units increased 15.5% from
1979 to 1980.4 Continued strength in the multi - family housing market is expect-
ed as indicated by the high city wide occupancy rates. Occupancy rates for
multi - family rental units has remained at 96% for three years. This high
occupancy is even more impressive considering the nearly constant net growth
in units, which has averaged nearly 1,700 units per year since 1972.5
Further strength in the multi - family or attached housing unit market is
indicated by'housing developers. As expressed by Tulsa planners, recent con-
versations about housing with prospective developers and builders has been
"exclusively about garden apartments, condominiums and townhouses ".6 Units
suitable for separate ownership have become increasing important as evidenced
by townhouse development and the currently high rate of apartments converting
to condominiums.7
Interest and activity in attached single - family housing units under sepa-
rate ownership has been exceptional, so much so that in 1980 the City of Tulsa
and Tulsa County modified their zoning codes to include a zoning category
"...designed to permit attached single - family townhouse dwelling, on separate
lots which are designed expressly for separate ownership..." This zoning
district is designated the RMT Residential Multi- family Townhouse District.8
TOWNHOUSE ZONING OPTIONS
Townhouse development has also been allowed in area communities for some
time under current zoning regulations. However, since townhouses or rowhouses
are by definition multi - family units, these uses were allowed only in multi-
family zoning districts. The problems often encountered in obtaining
multi - family zoning many times precluded development of townhouses in areas
appropriate for such use since the multi - family zoning category would allow
other higher density multi - family uses as well. Thus, standard multi-
family zoning allowing townhouses was rarely approved since other multi - family
uses conflicting with surrounding land use could develop.
One alternative zoning category has been developed as an alternative to
conventional zoning and development. The PUD or Planned Unit Development
category was developed as a supplemental zoning to existing zoning for an area.
This category is intended to permit innovative land development, permit develop-
ment flexibility, provide and preserve meaningful open space, and to achieve
functions and design continuity within the development, while maintaining the
base or overall development density allowed.9 In exchange for the design and
development advantages, further detailed planning and project review is requir-
ed by the cities. This supplemental zoning category is allowed in most cities
and towns in Tulsa County and has been used increasingly, particularly by the
larger and more experience developers, to develop attached single - family housing
units. Yet, there have been some who have not opted for the PUD development
strategy due to a lack of understanding, concern over the added community re-
view, the greater up front planning and analysis costs often associated with
PUD's, or the common misperception of cities that PUD's are just "another way
of getting dinkey apartments built in our town."
Recently, there has been a growing awareness and understanding of the de-
mand for alternative housing styles such as townhouse development and the need
to allow such development in appropriate areas under an appropriate conventional
zoning category. Such a zoning category would allow townhouse development (as a
low to moderate intensity use (depending on local community values and percep-
tions) to be developed in conformance to community plans in compatible land use
areas. Such development would provide an excellent buffer between low and high
intensity residential uses. Further, such a conventional zoning category would
preclude the need for PUD designations or inappropriate higher density multi-
family zoning designations. Finally, it would be a clear response to a clear
market demand for an affordable housing alternative to the traditional single -
family house.
RECOMMENDATION
With these considerations, a conventional zoning category is recommended
which can be modified to local city codes and community values. The proposal
borrows heavily from the research efforts of Tulsa County and City of Tulsa
planners and from the present guidelines for townhouse development found in
the existing codes of area cities and towns. The recommended modifications
are for a zoning code which utilizes the Use Unit Concept. This zoning code
format is commonly used by area communities.
The proposals are set forth in a model ordinance — (see Appendix I)
developed in a format to amend existing zoning regulations. The amendments
proposed would require the least number of changes to existing zoning code
texts and tables. Also attached as Appendix II are schematic site plans that
might be expected under a conventional townhouse zoning code category.
APPENDIX I
MODEL ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO PLANNING AND ZONING REQUIREMENTS;
AMENDING ORDINANCE (number of ordinance adopting zoning
code); AMENDING THE (city or town) REVISED ORDINANCES
CHAPTER (number of residential district provisions); AMEND-
ING THE PURPOSES OF RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS THEREOF; AMENDING
AND ADDING TO PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL DIS-
TRICTS; AMENDING AND ADDING TO THE BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS
IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; REPEAL-
ING ALL ORDINANCES OR PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH;
AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY (or town) OF (name), Oklahoma; to
wit:
Section 1. That Chapter (number), PLANNING AND ZONING, (include the
specific statutory reference in the code ), CHAPTER (number), RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT PROVISIONS, SECTION (number), PURPOSES OF RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, be
and the same is hereby amended by adding thereto the following to wit:
(subsection number, after duplexes and before multifamily) Purposes of
the RIM Residential Multi- family Townhouse District.
The RTH District is designed to permit the development of attached
single - family townhouse dwellings, on separate lots, which are designed
expressly for separate ownership, in suitable residential environments
at a higher density than conventional detached single - family dwellings.
Section 2. That Chapter (number), PLANNING AND ZONING, (include the
specific statutory reference in the code), CHAPTER (number), RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT PROVISIONS, SECTION (number), PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS, be and hereby is amended to add the principal uses permitted for an
RIM district category to read as follows to wit:
Section (number) PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS.
The Principal Vass Permitted in the Residential Districts are designat-
ed by use unit. The use units are groupings of individual uses and are
fully described, including their respective off - street parking, loading
and screening requirements and other use conditions in Chapter (number).
The use of RS, or RD District for access to any RM, 0, C, or I District,
or the use of an RM District for access to any 0. C. or I District is
prohibited unless permitted through an approved Planned Unit Development,
or as authorized by Section. (section and subsection nu.aber in Chapter on
Board of Adjustment Special Exception for off - street parking). The use
units permitted in Residential Districts are set forth below in Table W.
Table (number)
Use Units Permitted in Residential Districts*
Use Units Districts
No. Name RE RS RD RIM RM RMH
1. Area -Wide Uses by Right
2. Area -Wide Special Exception Uses
4. Public Protection 6 Utility Facilities
S. Community Services, Cultural, and
Recreational Facilities
6. Single - Family Dwelling
7. Duplex Welling
S. Multifamily Welling and Similar Uses
9. Mobile Home Welling
*X Use by Right; E Special Exception.
* *Duplexes permitted In RS -3 only.
** *Mobile home dwelling in RS -3 only.
Aiultifamily townhouse dwelling only.
X X X
X
X X
E E E
E
E E
E E E
E
E E
E E E
E
E E
X X X
X
X E
E ** X
X
X
Xf
X
E * ** X
Section 3. That Chapter (number), PLANNING AND ZONING, (include the speci-
fic statutory reference in the code ), CHAPTER (number), RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
PROVISIONS, SECTION (number), SULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN RESIDENITAL DIS-
TRICTS be and hereby is amended to add the bulk and area requirements for an
RTH district category to read as follows to wit:
(subsection number) Bulk and area requirements in the RE, RS, RD, RTH.
and RM Districts are shown in Table (number).
Table (number)
Bulk and Area Requirements in the RE, RS, RD, RTH and RM Districts
DISTRICT
RE RS -1 RS -2 RS -3 RD RTH RM -1 RM -2
Lot Width (min. ft.)
One Family 150 ** 100 75 65 60 60 60 60
Two Family 60 60 60 60
Multi - family (other
than RTH) 100 50
Lot Area (min. sq. ft.)
One Family 24,000 13,500 9,000 6,900 6,900 6,900 6,000 6,000
Two Family 6,900 6,900 6,900 6,900
Multi - family (other
than RTH) 10,000 6,000
Land Area Per D.U.
(min, sq. ft.)
One Family 28,375 16,000 10,875 8,400 8,400 8,400 7,500 7,500
Two Family 4,200 4,200 4,200 4,200
Multi - family (other
than RTH)
Less than two bedrooms 3,100 2,400
Two or more bedrooms 4,356 3,100
TOWNHOUSE
DEVELOPMENT * **
Development Width
(min. ft.)
70
70
70
Lot Width (min. ft.)
20
20
20
Lot Area (min. sq. ft.)
1,600
1,600
1,600
Land Area of develop-
ment per dwelling ,
unit (min. sq. ft.)
3,600
2,200
2,200
Structure Height (max.
ft.) 26 26 26 26 26 26 26* NA
Livability Space Per
D.U. (min. sq. ft.) 12,000 7,000 5,000 4,000 2,000 1,400 1,000 400
Front Yard Abutting a
Public Street:
Measured from centerline
of abutting street; add
to the distance designat-
ed in the column to the
right h of the right -of-
way designated on the
Major Street and Highway
Plan, or 25 feet if the
street not designated on
Major Street and Highway
Plan (min, ft.)
Arterial 6 Expressway
Service Road 35
Not an Arterial 35
35 35 35 35 35 35 35
35 30 25 25 25 25 10
Table (number)
continued
Sulk and Area Requirements in the RE, RS, RD, RTH, and RM Districts
from centerline of abutting
street; add to the distance
designated to the column to
the right k of right -of -way
designated on Major Street
and Highway Plan or 25 feet
if not designated on Major
Street and Highway Plan
(min. ft.)
Arterial 6 Expressway
Service Road 20 20 20 20 20 15 15 15
Not an Arterial 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15
Rear Yards (min. ft.) 25 25 25 20 20 20 20 10
Side Yards (min. ft.) * * **
One side yard 15 10 30 10 10 10 10 10
Other side yard 15 5 5 5 5 5 5 10
*In the RN -1 District, a one -story limitation shall apply to structures
containing more than 3 dwelling units which are within 50' of an adjoin-
ing RE or RS District.
* *The frontage of any lot in the RE District which meets the requirements
of the minimum lot size may be less than the minimum frontages as long
as the front building line on said lot is a minimum of one - hundred twenty -
five (125) linear feet.
* * *A minimum of two (2) townhouse lots (or the appropriate number according to
local zoning code definition of townhouse, if townhouse definition not
changed, The minimum frontage width will be 90' if minimum town-
house lots are 0, or 310' if minimum townhouse lots are 5, etc.. Other
minimum bulk requirements would change accordingly as well).
* ** *Does not apply to interior lot line of townhouse developments.
Section 4. That Chapter (number), PW7NING AND ZONING (include the speci-
fic statutory reference in the code), CHAPTER (definition chapter number)
DEFINITIONS, Townhouse be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows to
wit:
Townhouse Development: A row of attached dwelling units separated by
a party wall with each dwelling unit on an individual lot and designed
for separate ownerships of the individual dwelling units with no
separate dwelling unit constructed above another dwelling unit.
Section S. If any section, subsection, paragraph, subparagraph, sentence,
clause, or phrase of this Ordinance shall be declared to be invalid for any
reason whatsoever, such decision shall not affect the remaining portions of
this Ordinance which shall remain in full force and effect, and, to this end,
the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby declared to be severable.
Section 6. That all Ordinances or parts of Ordinances in conflict here-
with be and the same are hereby expressly repealed.
Section 7, That an emergency exists for the preservation of the public
peace, health, and safety, by reason whereof this Ordinance shall take effect
immediately upon its passage, approval, and publication.
PASSED, with the emergency clause ruled upon separately and approved this
day of , 19_
APPROVED, this _ day of , 19
4t
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM
City Attorney
Mayor
TOWNHOUSE
Notes
1. Murrel Wilmoth and Mike Taylor, "Summary of Subdivision Activity ", Depart-
ment of Regional Services, INCOG, (Tulsa, January, 1981, unpublished).
2. Wayne Alberty, Development Coordinator, Department of Regional Services,
INCOG, (Tulsa, March 13).
3. "Tulsa Business Highlights ", Fourth Quarter 1980, Research and Planning
Division, Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce (Tulsa, February 26, 1981)
P. 1.
4. Ibid, p. 1.
5. City of Tulsa Apartment Survey: 1980, INCOG (Tulsa, March 1981) pp. 9 -12.
6. Wayne Alberty, INCOG.
7. Preliminary findings of the Research and Data Management, Division Depart-
ment of Regional Planning, INCOG indicate a very high rate of conversion
to condominium units (owner- occupied) from existing multi - family rental
housing stock (Tulsa, March, 1981 forthcoming report).
8. Chapter 4, Section 400.4, Zoning Code, City of Tulsa (Tulsa, October 13,
1980).
9. Seven out of ten cities and towns in Tulsa County have adopted a PUD zoning
category as a part of their zoning codes. PUD developments have been pro-
cessed in each of the seven communities, Community Planning Division, INCOG
(Tulsa, March, 1981).
On Tuesday, April 21, 1981, the Owasso City Council met in regular session in the
Council Chambers at City Hall, per the Notice of Public Meeting and Agenda posted
on City Hall bulletin board at 12:30 PM on April 16, 1981, and by reference made
a part hereof.
ITEM 1 - CALL TO ORDER.
The meeting was called to order at 7:02 PM with Mayor Spencer presiding.
ITEM 2 - FLAG SALUTE.
Flag Salute was led by Mayor Spencer.
ITEM 3 - ROLL CALL.
Present: Boyd Spencer, Mayor
Robbie Fickle, Vice Mayor
Al Lambert, Councilman
Dennis Burke, Councilman
Steven Clark, Councilman
Harold Charney, City Attorney
Kenneth Thompson, City Manager
Wauhilleau Webb, City Clerk
Absent. None
ITEM 4 - APPROVE MINUTES OF APRIL 7, 1981 REGULAR MEETING.
Motion was made by Al Lambert, seconded by Robbie Fickle, to correct the last par-
agraph of Item 8 Hearing on Junk Vehicles to read "Mr. Charney (not Mr. Lambert)
commented that since some people will not answer their door or sign for a regis-
tered letter, posting on property could be used as a last resort ".
Ayes - Messrs. Spencer, Lambert, Burke, Clark and Mrs. Fickle
Nays - None
Motion carried.
Motion was made by Al Lambert, seconded by Dennis Burke, to approve minutes of
April 7, 1981 regular meeting, as above corrected, and by reference made a part
hereof.
Ayes - Messrs. Spencer, Lambert, Burke, Clark and Mrs. Fickle
Nays - None
Motion carried.
ITEM 5 - gPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 302 CREATING A TOWNHOUSE ZONING DISTRICT.
ITEM 6 - APPROVE EMERGENCY CLAUSE TO ORDINANCE NO. 302.
Ms. Dickey advised Council that the Planning Commission continued this item on
their agenda and she requested the Council to table this proposed Ordinance to
the June 2nd meeting.
Owasso City Council
April 21, 1981
Page Two
Motion was made by Robbie Fickle, seconded by Al Lambert, to table Item 5 and 6
regarding the proposed Townhouse Zoning District Ordinance No. 302 to the June 2,
1981 meeting.
Ayes - Messrs. Spencer, Lambert, Burke, Clark and Mrs. Fickle
Nays - None
Motion carried.
ITEM 7 - ESTABLISH CHARGES FOR SWIMMING POOL USE FOR 1981 SEASON.
Mr. Thompson's recommendation was 75¢ for children and $1.00 for adults; parties
of 1 to 20 people $30.00, 20 to 30 $40.00, 30 to 50 $50.00 and no parties over
50 people; family night stay at $3.00 per family from 7:00 to 9:30 PM on Tuesdays
and Thursdays.
Mr. Burke questioned if we will continue the punch passes and Mr. Thompson said
it might help sales.
Dr. Clark asked how our charges compare to the pools in surrounding areas and Mr.
Thompson said as he recalls the surrounding area pools were higher than Owasso.
Dr. Clark asked how many employees we have at the pool and Mr. Williams responded
we have the manager and seven life guards. Dr. Clark then asked if we anticipate
any major repairs and Mr. Williams said only to the chlorine dispenser which is
an expensive item and we paint the pool every other year and it was painted just
last year. Dr. Clark also asked if we have any other revenue from the pool other
than admission and Mr. Williams responded the only revenue is from admissions,
parties, and 10% from swimming lessons. Dr. Clark asked about concessions which
most pools have and Mr. Williams said we have tried concessions and it creates
quite a mess and also we have been broken into and the concessions stolen.
Dr. Clark said he was just trying to come up with some way to make the pool pro-
fitable and Mrs. Fickle mentioned that municipal pools never make revenue as they
are a public service. He then questioned the City making the pool a membership
type pool, but was advised we could not do that as the pool was constructed with
grant money. Mr. Williams said we have some membership cards printed without a
price and and might push for membership sales.
Motion was made by Dennis Burke, seconded by Robbie Fickle, to increase pool fees
to 75G for children, $1.00 for adults, increase pool party fees to 1 to 20 peo-
ple $30.00,,20 to 30 people $40.00, 30 to 50 people $50.00, and no parties to be
allowed over fifty people to a group, and sell 20 punch passes for $12.00 per
child and $16.00 per adult, which is a 20% discount, and $3.00 for family charge
on family night.
Ayes - Messrs. Lambert, Burke, Clark and Mrs. Fickle
Nays - Mr. Spencer
City of Owasso
TO: Mayor Spencer and City Council
FROM: Kenneth Thompson eir
DATE: April 16, 1981
SUBJECT: Proposed Townhouse Zoning District
Miss Carol Dickey is recommending to the Owasso Planning
Commission at its meeting Thursday, April 16, the creation
of a townhouse zoning district for the city of owasso.
She indicates there is a serious need for such a zoning
category.
I am enclosing a draft of the ordinance that she is pro-
posing to the Planning Commission. We will also have
the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting for the
Tuesday Council meeting for your review.
City of Owasso
Memo
TO: Owasso City Council & Planning Commission Members
From: Carol dickey
Subject: Proposed Townhouse Zoning District
Date: March 31, 1981
Attached are information explaining a proposed Townhouse
(RTH) zoning category and ordinance which will be considered
for adoption by the Owasso Planning Commission at the April
16, 1981 meeting. This proposal is recommended by staff as a
response to a growning need for more innovative ways of progiding
housing units to Owasso citizens at more affordable costs.
Please call me at 584-7526 if you have any questions regarding
this material or the use of RTH zoning.
CC: Ken Thompson
Bill Williams
Raymond May
John Edelman
Harold Charney
Attachment