[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6311601,"mediaKeyId","2395193-643d3d14216fcbed2f22ce0e4e6310bd","parentId",2395193,"title","Commissioners review townhouse‑style PDD request on Sawyer Road; staff recommends R‑3 base zoning and condo documentation","audioSeconds",2227,"startMs",3855405,"endMs",6083105,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2395193-643d3d14216fcbed2f22ce0e4e6310bd&start=3855&end=6083","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2395193-643d3d14216fcbed2f22ce0e4e6310bd/thumbnail_3855405.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6311601/Leon-Valley/Bexar-County/Texas/Commissioners-review-townhousestyle-PDD-request-on-Sawyer-Road-staff-recommends-R3-base-zoning-and-condo-documentation","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6311601-9598b9bfbc6bea9d3d47afab915f6c71/orig.mp4?Expires=1776235954&Signature=PzXH3XlQoCxFkDwZDsautMS603vLE6abebmfBcvlb4FNkNXP-bfX3clm8VR99e5U-nsiPs~LrXHKyKbfV1-qI7AZFmUHWlfyuZBCo4TcXzeidQc-t8a~zteffDr9plzFQeHTXgWsu~lJX4K4gemsA6PBr-niitdaCCnv5d9cg47hmW67l-AMtu1-0~VS~aQTn~mpcGmKPemDQFXwbWiHD6Uf3G-9gG3jxwf6h3r1KLz3trCtzwpFonkV06NstHXctrs5peSbMhnhO-qg5uqWYhkl6NPVr2SZST9BhmEzoE1-WbbFtfAJ8Ikqoa~yOr840WOMsipnzEhQMy-mxeTLsg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Leon Valley, TX","date","2025-02-26T07:09:35Z","article","The Leon Valley Planning and Zoning Commission heard a preliminary presentation and public feedback on a zone‑change and Planned Development District request affecting about seven acres at 6612 and 6618 Sawyer Road, where the applicant proposes a townhouse‑style development and variances to multiple zoning and subdivision standards.

Why it matters: the application asks for higher density than the current R‑1 zoning, including a requested increase in maximum allowable density from 20 to 30 units per acre and several reductions to lot depth, front setbacks and parking requirements. Planning staff said the proposed design functions more like a condominium development on a single lot and recommended the applicant change the base zoning request to R‑3 and provide condominium legal documentation.

Staff presentation and requested variances: planning staff described requested variances from Section 15.02.31 (R‑4 townhouse district) and Section 10.02.251 (subdivision specifications). The variances listed in the packet include increasing maximum density from 20 to 30 units per acre, reducing minimum lot depth from 120 feet to 35 feet, reducing minimum floor space from 1,400 to 1,200 square feet, increasing maximum height from three stories to three and a half, shrinking the minimum front yard from 30 feet to 5 feet and reducing required off‑street parking from two spaces per unit to one. Subdivision‑related variances included reducing the minor/collector right‑of‑way from 50 to 40 feet and pavement width from 30 to 26 feet; staff again said those street‑width variances are not applicable if the proposal uses internal drives on a single lot.

Staff recommendation and legal/regulatory points: Missus Huerta, planning staff, told the commission the project is “more suited for the R‑3 multiple family zoning district” because the applicant proposes one lot with shared common areas rather than individual townhouse lots; staff advised the applicant to submit condominium legal documents establishing the shared regime if the commission supports the concept. Huerta also reminded commissioners that the parcel must be replatted prior to development and that Sawyer Road may require right‑of‑way dedication to meet minimum standards.

Applicant presentation and neighborhood concerns: applicant representative Lehi Shahadi said the parcels are in poor physical condition and described the current lot improvements as derelict; he argued townhouse‑style development would stabilize the site. Shahadi said current construction costs and market demand require smaller, lower‑priced units (he cited 1,200 square feet as a target for sale units priced in the $250,000–$300,000 range). He described a design using alleys and rear garages so front facades could provide walkable, car‑free streetscape and said the plan would include common green space, detention, sprinklers and other amenities. Shahadi told commissioners the team can rework parking counts and street/drive widths to address fire department concerns and offered that double garages and back‑loaded parking would be used to meet practical parking needs.

Commission questions and public comment: commissioners and residents raised traffic and safety concerns because Sawyer Road is a dead‑end and has a sharp curve at the site; staff said a traffic impact worksheet showed projected peak‑hour trips would be below thresholds that require a full traffic study, and staff noted on‑street parking would not count toward required parking. Public commenters and commissioners asked the applicant to increase green space and to consider larger internal drive widths to avoid curbside parking and ensure emergency access. The applicant agreed to revise plans and to include more green space and parking accommodations in the next submission.

Next steps: the item was informational only; no vote occurred. Staff recommended the applicant revise the application to an R‑3 base zoning (or supply condominium documentation), resolve right‑of‑way and replatting requirements, and return with updated plans for public hearing and final action.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting","oneSentenceSummary","The Leon Valley Planning and Zoning Commission heard a preliminary presentation and public feedback on a zone‑change and Planned Development District request affecting about seven acres at 6612 and 6618 Sawyer Road, where the applicant proposes a townhouse‑style development and variances to multiple zoning and subdivision standards.","taxTitle","Leon Valley, Bexar County, Texas","taxId",69409,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6311606,"Planning commissioners review PDD amendment for 6758 Pass Road; staff flags parking and easement issues",3395,421580,3816615,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2395193-643d3d14216fcbed2f22ce0e4e6310bd&start=421&end=3816","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2395193-643d3d14216fcbed2f22ce0e4e6310bd/thumbnail_421580.jpg","/articles/6311606/Leon-Valley/Bexar-County/Texas/Planning-commissioners-review-PDD-amendment-for-6758-Pass-Road-staff-flags-parking-and-easement-issues","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6311606-c93ff45433cb77856ff07d32e83d66d6/orig.mp4?Expires=1776235954&Signature=WnL-m-FUD5AolM7YEPViAJxDmjmNgd4F1DtsOY-vEHXljoONXMI6BSNnyB9Pffil0rWtQsc6Kq7mf3H5GFWo4TuYZ3cC54Ut2FuFFLuClhhvvvNcI5fkrycxIYFSw7~1erWxsqsaw-4A5o~69fw5oIaNHW8ARw5haF93uZuWNq~py9gvlzJVsbDtc0zqo8J-JNX8SxoqdU931SFbuzDGbxr6LKgumGdynRQGvwJOs2QDm-YPzzxSfZUond0d3uqxWe4fr-3dpn2NvFHkkooNtu~cVYv5kYwNEMGqTgQRKqdYFBNkJRhw6t5DuOfJiWSDboTyCmB8PgAJfOLC7kt4Dw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Leon Valley Planning and Zoning Commission on a preliminary presentation reviewed a requested amendment to Ordinance 20 21 54 to change zoning on roughly 2.86 acres at 6758 Pass Road from a PDD previously allowing townhouses and B‑3 commercial uses to a PDD with an R‑3 (multi‑family dwelling) base zoning that would allow an apartment-style development of up to 175 units, and heard two concept layouts from the applicant.

Why it matters: the proposal would change an approved townhouse plan to higher-density multifamily housing in an area with commercial uses nearby; staff says the property’s odd shape, existing utility easements and low commercial visibility limit retail options and make multi‑family a reasonable alternative — but several code variances and infrastructure conditions remain unresolved.

City planning staff presented the application and listed the requested variances, including substantial reductions in minimum lot area and lot depth, a decrease in minimum floor space (from 600 to 400 square feet as proposed for some units), an increase in allowable height from three stories to four, and a proposal to reduce required parking for two‑bedroom units from two spaces to one. Staff noted the applicant initially listed subdivision‑code variances for private‑street widths but clarified those do not apply because the site would use internal drives rather than public or private streets. Missus Huerta, city planning staff, summarized the procedural status: “this is, for discussion and to gain preliminary feedback. So you will not be making a recommendation today.”

Commissioners and members of the public focused on three recurring concerns: parking and likely spillover onto internal drives and Pass Road; whether reduced parking is acceptable only if the development is limited to “independent living” (senior/adult living) rather than general‑occupancy apartments; and how existing easements (a CPS utility easement crossing the site) would affect buildable area. Commissioner March said she had “an issue with that parking thing,” adding that independent‑living assumptions do not guarantee that visitors, home‑health workers or deliveries would not add parking demand.

Applicant remarks and staff position: applicant representative Lehi Shahadi said the site is already entitled for four‑story elements under the sustainability overlay and that the team presented two concepts — one that would require vacating the easement to allow a larger single building and a second that keeps the easement and uses multiple smaller buildings. Shahadi said the developer views the project as “an apartment complex, period” for review purposes but has proposed the independent‑living option primarily to justify smaller unit sizes; he told commissioners he would revise plans to respond to parking and access concerns and noted prior vacatur of a related CPS easement nearby. Planning staff recommended approval of either concept as consistent with the master plan but said staff had “no objection to the proposed variances for lot requirements with the exception of parking requirements if the development is for general occupancy apartments.”

Infrastructure, fire access and process questions: staff and the applicant said the fire department has the site plan and will review updated plans to ensure internal drives meet fire‑access requirements. Staff reiterated the internal drives are not public streets and that the property will require replatting if easements are vacated. The application packet lists a public hearing and final recommendation to come back to the commission on March 25; staff said all application fees have been paid and that a multifamily development would increase ad valorem and sales tax revenue.

What was decided and next steps: the commission provided preliminary feedback only; no vote or recommendation was taken. Staff and the applicant will return with revised plans addressing parking, the fire department’s technical comments, and any required replat or easement‑vacatur documentation. The case will return for public hearings and formal action.

Ending: Commissioners repeatedly told the applicant to address parking and fire‑access questions before the next packet; staff and the applicant said the next submission would incorporate changes and fire‑department comments.","The Leon Valley Planning and Zoning Commission on a preliminary presentation reviewed a requested amendment to Ordinance 20 21 54 to change zoning on roughly 2.86 acres at 6758 Pass Road from a PDD previously allowing townhouses and B‑3 commercial uses to a PDD with an R‑3 (multi‑family dwelling) base zoning that would allow an apartment-style development of up to 175 units, and heard two concept layouts from the applicant.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Commissioners review townhouse‑style PDD request on Sawyer Road; staff recommends R‑3 base zoning and condo documentation

Planning commissioners review PDD amendment for 6758 Pass Road; staff flags parking and easement issues