Item 7A PresentationStony Brook
Zoning Change and Development Plan - ZA17-064
Item 7A
Owners: Margaret J. Haney and Estate of E.I. & Glenda Wiesman
Applicant: Dolce Investments, LLC
Request: Approval of a Zoning Change and Development Plan to
develop 59 residential lots and 10 open space lots on
approximately 34.73 acres
Location: Generally located south of W. Southlake Blvd. and
south and west of Brock Dr.
ZA17-064
Aerial View
Development Plan
Site Data Summary for “R-PUD” Zoning
Existing Zoning “AG” and “SF-1A”
Proposed Zoning “R-PUD”
Land Use Designation
Medium Density Residential
Low Density Residential
Floodplain
Gross/Net Acreage 34.73
Residential Lots 59
Gross/Net Density 1.70 du/ac.
Open Space % 26.0%
Lot Area Range 8,300 s.f. to 32,000 s.f.
Average Lot Area 15,058 s.f.
Side lot lines revised from 5’ on
each side to 1’ on zero lot line
side and 9’ on opposite side
Proposed R-PUD Regulations Comparison Chart
Regulation “SF-20A” “SF-1A” “R-PUD” Regulations
Max. Height 35’ and 2½ stories 35’ and 2½ stories 35’ and 2½ stories
Front Yard 35’ 40’ 20’ and 25’
Side Yard 15’ 20’ 1’ and 9’ (villa lots)
7’
Rear Yard 40’
(35’ on cul-de-sac)
40’
(35’ on cul-de-sac)
15’ or 30’
10’ adj. to alley
Max. Lot Coverage 30% 20% 40% and 50%
Min. Lot Area 20,000 s.f. 43,560 s.f. 8,300
Min. Lot Width 100’ 100’ 52.9’
Min. Lot Depth 125’ 125’ 100’
Min. Floor Area 1,800 s.f. 2,000 s.f. 2,600 s.f.
Max. Gross Density 2.18 du/ac. 1.0 du/ac. 1.70 du/ac.
Exhibit of Lot Layout without Alley
P&Z Conditions of Approval
P&Z conditions in the motion for approval at
their 10/19 meeting Applicant’s Response
Specifically not granting variance No. 3 related to
gated emergency access only on the southern
side of the site.
The applicant is proposing a gated emergency
access only on the southern side of the site.
Include an alternative that does not include
alleyways.
The applicant is presenting the Development
Plan options with and without alleyways that
were previously presented, but prefers the
option with the alleyways.
Provide alternative Development Plans relative to
access to the site for Council’s consideration.
The applicant submitted a revised easement
plan across the property to the east to provide
access to Davis Blvd. after meeting with the
owner of that property.
Easement Exhibit
Tree Conservation Analysis
Entry Exhibit
Entry Exhibit
Fencing Plan
Pedestrian Access Plan
Mail Kiosk Plan
Preliminary Drainage Plan
Post-Development Drainage Plan
Utility Plan
Preliminary Grading Plan
Mailbox Kiosk Exhibit
Requested Modifications to Subdivision Ord.
1)Subdivision Ordinance No. 483, as amended, Section 5.04 does
not permit private streets in new subdivisions in which less than
75% of the lots contain homeowner occupied structures. The
applicant is requesting a gated community with private streets
with the initial development.
2) Subdivision Ordinance No. 483, as amended, Section 5.03.I -
Generally, a maximum number of twenty (20) dwelling units
should be permitted on a cul-de-sac street permanently designed
as such. Additionally, the length of the Cul-de-Sac should not
exceed 1,000 feet or be less than 150 feet in length. However,
density of development, topography, lot sizes and other
significant factors will be weighed in determining the length of a
cul-de-sac street.
3) Subdivision Ordinance No. 483, as amended, Section 5.03.K states
that dead end streets shall be permitted only where a future
extension or connection is to be made. The applicant is
requesting a gated emergency only access instead of a full
connection to the street stub from the Siena subdivision to the
south.
October 5, 2017; Case Nos. ZA17-064 and ZA17-066 were tabled to the October 19,
2017 meeting (6-0).
October 19, 2017; Approved (4-2) subject to the Staff Report dated October 19, 2017;
further subject to the Development Plan Review Summary No. 4 dated October 19,
2017;
•Granting the variance No. 1 related to a gated community on the northern end and
variance No. 2 on the length of the cul-de-sac street; specifically not granting
variance No. 3 related to gated emergency access only on the southern side of
the site.
•Noting the applicant’s willingness to also include in their application with respect
to alleyways an alternative that does not include alleyways in the Site Plan.
•Noting the applicant’s willingness to provide alternative Site Plans relative to
access to the site for Council’s consideration.
P & Z Commission
Questions?