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

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.