P&Z denies rezoning request for Sawyer Road development amid traffic, parking and tree‑preservation concerns

The Leon Valley Planning and Zoning Commission on March 25 denied a request to rezone approximately 6.8 acres at 6612 and 6618 Sawyer Road from single‑family (R‑1) to a Planned Development District with an R‑3 multiple‑family base zoning. The final motion to deny passed 5–2 after an earlier motion to approve failed.

Staff framed the commission's decision as a land‑use determination: the commission should consider whether the proposed use is appropriate and whether requested variances are supportable. The applicant sought a townhouse‑style condominium development and asked for multiple variances including reduced minimum unit area (from 1,200 to 600 sq. ft. after the first three units), an increase in allowed height from three to four stories, reduced parking ratios (1.5 spaces for two‑bedroom units and only two spaces for units with more bedrooms), and exemptions from minimum setbacks.

Developer and applicant representatives said they revised plans after staff comments to preserve several large oak trees and to show revised unit counts and open space. The applicant's presentation included a tree inventory identifying a small number of large native oaks to preserve, removal of invasive and dead trees, and a plan for new native tree plantings and detention (including underground detention in some areas). The representative said the project would likely deliver between about 145 and 165 units and included shared amenities and garages accessed from internal alleys.

Neighbors and other public commenters raised traffic and safety concerns. Resident Carlos Alonzo, who lives on Sawyer Road, told commissioners the roadway is a local dead‑end with limited sight lines and said the proposed driveway falls on a dangerous curve; he also questioned whether the trip‑generation estimate accounted for delivery and guest vehicles. A second resident said the neighborhood contains wildlife and mature trees and expressed concern about congestion and safety for children.

Commissioners discussed parking adequacy, driveway location and sight lines, fire‑code entrance spacing, and whether condominium legal documentation and full tree surveys should be conditions of approval. Staff recommended the commission require condominium documentation at platting, a tree‑preservation survey accompanying any tree‑removal variance, and that increases in unit count beyond the plan require council approval. Several commissioners voiced unresolved concerns about traffic and parking.

After public comment and discussion the commission first voted on a motion to approve (which failed). A subsequently moved motion to deny the rezoning and variances carried 5–2. The commission record shows the denial will be forwarded to City Council as the commission's recommendation.