Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves Sawyer Road PDD to allow garden‑house lots after lengthy debate; conditionally caps tree mitigation
Summary
After several hours of public discussion, Leon Valley council approved an amendment to Ordinance 2025‑8 allowing an R6 'garden‑house' planned development on Sawyer Road, subject to conditions including compliance with fire and engineering comments and a negotiated tree‑mitigation cap.
The City Council voted unanimously Tuesday to amend Ordinance 2025‑8 and approve a Planned Development District (PDD) that allows a new R6 “garden‑house” lot pattern on roughly 6.88 acres along Sawyer Road, with conditions set by staff and council.
Planning Director Michael Gallardo summarized staff recommendations and called out requested variances from lot‑size and setback standards, private‑street widths, and heritage‑tree removal. Gallardo recommended following established tree‑preservation and mitigation rules and urged caution on driveway access to a collector street unless a continuous buffer is accepted.
Developer Samir Shahadi (presentation name: Mr. Shahadi) urged council to allow the city to approve a PD that would give the developer the option of pursuing lower‑density single‑family garden houses rather than previously‑approved higher‑density townhouses or apartments. Shahadi told council, “All I’m asking for is your blessings to be able to proceed with evaluating and executing this plan if it works,” and he said the change is necessary to secure financing for the lower‑density alternative.
Council members pushed back on aspects of the request — notably the retention of the earlier R3 entitlement as a fallback and the scale of requested variances including lot‑widths and reduced setbacks. Several council members said they preferred a clear R6 base zoning rather than an R3 entitlement that remains on the books. Staff and the developer negotiated language and conditions during the hearing, including: adherence to fire‑code requirements; clarification of internal roadway widths and parking; a 10‑foot buffer along the collector (Sawyer) where required; and a raised cap on tree‑mitigation fees. The council’s motion approved the PDD amendment while requiring that the applicant address outstanding engineering and fire‑safety comments and agreed a negotiated mitigation amount (as reflected in the council motion and recorded minutes).
The vote came after a public hearing and a sustained back‑and‑forth between the developer and several councilmembers; the motion carried unanimously. Staff recorded the planning commission recommendation to council as 5‑2 in favor.
Next steps: the developer must provide updated engineering and site plans that address the city‑engineer and fire‑marshals’ comments; tree‑preservation and mitigation actions must follow the city’s code or be subject to explicit variances; platting and permitting follow after those conditions are satisfied.
