Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council tables Sawyer Road development amendment after debate over setbacks, driveway safety and easements
Summary
A proposed amendment to rezone parcels on Sawyer Road and multiple variance requests (smaller lots, reduced setbacks, narrower internal streets) drew concern about driveways on a collector road and a requested city easement; after a public hearing and consultation with the city attorney, the council tabled the item to June 2 for further review.
The Leon Valley City Council on May 19 took up a contested proposal to amend a previous PD (plan development district) approval for parcels at 6612 and 6618 Sawyer Road. The developer sought to change zoning to a PD with an R‑6 garden‑house base zone and to obtain numerous variances — reducing minimum lot area, lot depth, setbacks and internal street widths — to support a smaller‑lot residential development.
Planning staff and the city engineer raised safety concerns about allowing driveway access to a collector street (Sawyer Road) and questioned who would own and maintain any buffer or right‑of‑way dedications the developer sought. The developer asked the city to dedicate five feet of right‑of‑way (proposed as a 5‑foot city + 5‑foot developer buffer) and requested that the city assist in acquiring an easement on an adjacent private parcel (the “crisscross” connection) so the development could access an alternative route rather than fronting driveways on Sawyer.
Developer Samir Shahadi said he had reworked plans to reduce density dramatically — from an earlier entitlement of about 165 townhomes to roughly 72 units in the amended scheme — and added visitor parking and small amenity spaces. “We reduced our density by 50% from 165 down to 76 originally, now we are foregoing another two to four lots,” the developer said, noting he planned to replant substantial numbers of trees and that the change would materially affect project economics.
Council members expressed concern about dedicating city right‑of‑way, the cost and feasibility of acquiring a private easement (which could require eminent‑domain authority if the owner declined), unresolved engineering details on intersection geometry, ownership and maintenance of any dedications, and the effect of additional curb cuts onto Sawyer Road. The city attorney was consulted in executive session on legal options, including eminent domain and development‑agreement mechanisms.
After executive session the council voted to table the item to the June 2 meeting to allow staff and the applicant to address engineers’ comments, clarify easement and maintenance arrangements, and return with refined language and options for the council’s consideration.
