Leon Valley approves Sawyer Road planned development after heated public comment and multiple variances

Leon Valley City Council on April 15 approved a request to rezone about 6.8 acres along Sawyer Road from R-1 single-family to a Planned Development (PDD) with an R-3 multifamily base zoning, after extended public comment and multiple separate votes on requested variances.

The rezoning, which the Planning & Zoning Commission had recommended denying, drew a large turnout of nearby residents who raised traffic, drainage, tree preservation and safety concerns during the council’s public hearing. Council members approved the rezoning motion on a 4-1 roll call vote (Yes: Councilmembers Bradshaw, Roscoe, Martinez, Heil; No: Councilmember Campos). The developer, represented in the meeting by Mohammad (last name spelled variably in the record as Shahai/Shahidi) presented revisions to the project on the dais the afternoon of the meeting; staff said the late revisions had not been fully reviewed by engineering and fire.

Why it mattered: The application would allow a townhouse/condominium-style development with optional four-story elements and higher unit counts than allowed under current R-1 rules. Neighbors said Sawyer Road’s narrow, curving alignment and limited sight lines make higher density and reduced setbacks risky for pedestrians and school buses. The city’s planning staff and city engineer flagged multiple technical concerns—including drainage coordination with the proposed underground detention, fire-department ladder access for four-story elements and the absence of a submitted tree survey—while noting the project concept aligns with the city’s master plan for the Grissom/Sawyer area.

What the council approved and why: Council approved the rezoning and then voted separately on the project’s requested variances so the record would clearly reflect council decisions on each standard. Council members who voted for approval said they were balancing the city’s master plan, the economic realities that favor vertical development and the developer’s commitments to provide additional on-site parking and revised site layout changes introduced the afternoon of April 15. Council members who voted no or raised concerns pointed to unresolved engineering, fire and tree-preservation questions and urged more outreach and time to review the revised exhibits.

Votes at a glance (council action taken April 15) - 10.1 — Rezone approximately 6.8 acres (6612 & 6618 Sawyer Road) from R-1 to Planned Development (R-3 base). Motion by Councilmember Bradshaw; second by Councilmember Roscoe. Vote: 4–1 (approved). Recorded yes votes: Bradshaw, Roscoe, Martinez, Heil; recorded no vote: Campos. - Subsequent variances considered individually (council voted on each variance after approving the rezoning): the council approved a majority of the variances needed for the developer’s site plan concept after some amendments and clarifications. One variance was withdrawn by the applicant during council consideration. (Council record: variances approved with majority votes; applicant agreed to amend language removing any clause that would purport to override unstated code requirements.)

Council direction and next steps: Council and staff emphasized that engineering, fire and building compliance will be required during the platting and permitting phases; several council members asked that the developer work with staff and nearby residents to resolve outstanding issues on drainage, sidewalks, tree mitigation and sight lines. The developer accepted a council direction that any increase in unit counts beyond the approved site plan should return to council for approval.

Speakers quoted or paraphrased in this story were those who addressed the council at the public hearing or who presented the application; all quoted language and attributions come from the official meeting record: Susanna Huerta (Planning & Zoning Director), the applicant’s representative Mohammad Shahadi (developer), and residents who spoke in public comment including Vanessa Eckles and Carlos Alonso. The Planning & Zoning Commission previously recommended denial (vote 5–2). Council documents and staff comments noted multiple outstanding engineering and fire concerns.

Local context: The subject property abuts a mix of commercial and residential zoning and sits near existing multi-family development. Planning staff said the site’s shape, existing utility and drainage easements, and right-of-way geometry contributed to the complexity of the project and the number of variances requested.

What council required: Council approved the rezoning and a package of amendments and conditions to be applied during planning and permitting (including a replat and a requirement that any increase in total units beyond a fixed cap return to council). Staff will require the developer to submit formal condominium documentation at the time of platting and to meet any fire, engineering and tree-protection code obligations during the construction-permit review.