Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Multifamily Cup 290 298 Silon topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission tables conditional use permit for multifamily development at 290 and 298 Silon Street after public concerns about notice and traffic
Summary
Carla HS Holdings LLC sought a conditional use permit for a multifamily development on two residential parcels; a public commenter raised procedural and traffic concerns and the commission ultimately voted to table the item for further review.
The Planning and Zoning Commission tabled action on a conditional use permit request from Carla HS Holdings LLC to allow a multifamily development on properties at 290 and 298 Silon Street.
City staff described the application as a request to permit multi-family residential use while keeping an existing single-family residence on the corner lot; Lot A was described as about 7,150 square feet and Lot B about 4,290 square feet. Staff noted the site plan shown to the commission was a rendering only and that any final development would have to comply with building, electrical, fire, plumbing, streets/sidewalks, landscaping, water/sewer, drainage and off-street parking regulations in the City of Eagle Pass Code of Ordinances.
Resident Steve Fisher, who said he is an attorney and owns a house adjacent to the site, urged the commission not to act, saying notification to neighbors was inadequate. "This is not sufficient notice," Fisher told commissioners, and he said several neighbors he spoke to opposed the project because of traffic and parking concerns. Fisher also said the mailed notice was not understood by many neighbors and that some residents did not receive or could not read the notice.
Staff explained why the applicant had filed for a conditional use permit rather than seeking a rezoning: the CUP process is faster and places the conditions with the property owner rather than changing the zoning map. Commissioners discussed procedurally whether to table or take action; an initial motion to table failed for lack of the required votes. A subsequent motion to reconsider and table the item passed by unanimous voice vote, and the item was tabled to a future meeting so staff can provide additional information and the applicant can supply further details.
The commission did not approve the CUP; the item will return for further review. Staff told the commission that any future approval would need to address lot area, landscaping, parking, drainage and building-code compliance.
