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

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.