[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6563017,"mediaKeyId","3236358-e44805af7685e0a6e59d0ab02c594480","parentId",3236358,"title","Plan Commission roundup: approvals for plats and rezonings, plus conditions and exceptions","audioSeconds",5573,"startMs",730000,"endMs",6303000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3236358-e44805af7685e0a6e59d0ab02c594480&start=730&end=6303","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3236358-e44805af7685e0a6e59d0ab02c594480/thumbnail_730000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6563017/El-Paso-City/El-Paso-County/Texas/Plan-Commission-roundup-approvals-for-plats-and-rezonings-plus-conditions-and-exceptions","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6563017-a2432db1c64adb3b4ee99e556e91ddf0/orig.mp4?Expires=1771156408&Signature=e7ja7Vsm75GlLcDNNUcsR4GSguQGfe~edUWRaQIDqTC7wYju4YPBHY58pzhKpYGknMMjXzSXhL2aQeC~98OEgxthybTFo6S8xxuPW06TO~g2aIIyIzdbMBm7idVMYmEKhqWHDUuHhSoLD7jSsi-17l1-TYV~pB5nD0srx7iowButCUvvvW7wAIE1-J7ZQFUn~SBViqBjHOleEVErRMR7NNEskNO8wEHzr~2lXF1D03qW4eJ21oZSjlPIJrH7hi9LrwiUH2Bshs9XMFjAfmCeQGbP6E6J-YSfLqc-gjf9FUaKMj8rrVDCIPMHJqHN~G4Aj4O8vNbnaorrLug9Q6VKzQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of El Paso TX","date","2025-05-08T19:25:04Z","article","The El Paso City Plan Commission approved a series of routine and contested items at its May 8 meeting, including subdivision plats, major combination applications and several rezoning requests. Several approvals were subject to conditions or required later detailed site‑development plans; a handful of contested rezonings were denied after public comment and debate.

Votes at a glance (items forwarded to City Council or advanced to plat/site review)
- Item 18 — Major thoroughfare plan amendments (three amendments including downgrading one arterial to collector and two deletions to reflect built conditions): Commission recommended approval; item will be forwarded to council for final action.
- Item 8 — Anzures major combination subdivision (2.62 acres split into two lots; exceptions requested for Montclair Drive half‑roadway and sidewalk): Approved with staff findings; exceptions granted to match existing conditions.
- Item 9 — Artcraft Addition (major combination, 9.98 acres into 1 lot): Approved with conditions that rezoning be approved by council prior to plat recordation and coordinate access with TxDOT.
- Item 10 — Tierra Del Este Unit 95 (major combination; 106.89 acres; 298 lots and one park): Approved with exceptions for block length and connectivity index; conditions include landscaping for double‑frontage lots and recording Tierra Del Este Unit 93 prior to or concurrent with Unit 95.
- Item 11 — Montecio Unit 8 replat A (resubdivision combination): Approved; applicant not present at hearing — commission expressed disappointment but proceeded. (Roll call recorded 6 yeas, 1 nay.)
- Item 12 — North Palombrosa replat A (resubdivision, two lots, two planter‑strip exceptions): Approved; notices mailed and two inquiries recorded.
- Item 14 — Rezoning at 3113 N. Lee Trevino (request to change from C‑1 to C‑3 to allow motor vehicle sales/service): Approved by commission with staff discussion; staff had recommended denial but commission voted in favor (final roll call 5–2 per meeting record).
- Item 15 — Rezoning at 525 Lafayette Drive from R‑3 to A‑2 (two‑story apartment proposal, 30 units proposed; conceptual plan not binding): Approved with conditions including a 10‑foot landscape buffer and a required detailed site‑development plan prior to certificates of occupancy.
- Item 16 — Rezoning at 341 Thorne Avenue (split to C‑1/C‑3 for retail, hotel and auto‑sales uses): Approved with conditions that include a single Thorn Avenue driveway, TxDOT approval for Desert Boulevard access, no outdoor amplified sound, a 500‑foot separation for on‑premise alcohol sales and required detailed site plan review prior to occupancy.

Items not advanced
- Item 13 — Rezoning at 9050 Escobar to C‑4 for a motor‑carrier terminal: Denied after public hearing (see separate article).
- Item 17 — Rezoning north of Montoya Lane to P R‑2 and C‑1: Denied after residents raised unresolved traffic and drainage concerns (see separate article).

Why many approvals included conditions
Staff routinely asked for conditions — e.g., detailed site‑development plans, landscaping buffers, driveway and access coordination with TxDOT, and limits on amplified outdoor sound or alcohol proximity — so that subsequent engineering and permitting reviews could address traffic, drainage, and neighborhood compatibility before certificates of occupancy or plat recordation.

Next steps for approved items
Approved plats and major combinations proceed to final plat recordation, City Council (where required for rezoning), or detailed site review. Where staff recommended conditions, applicants must meet those conditions in subsequent submittals (detailed site plan, engineering and traffic studies) before building permits or occupancy certificates can be issued.

Action summary (selected formal actions captured in the meeting record)
- Multiple major combination and resubdivision applications approved; exceptions for required street/sidewalk improvements were granted in limited cases to match existing conditions.
- Several rezoning approvals were conditioned on detailed plans and buffers; two rezonings (9050 Escobar and the Montoya Lane site) were denied after public comment.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","City Plan Commission 5/8/2025","oneSentenceSummary","At its May 8 meeting the City Plan Commission approved several subdivision plats, rezoning requests and exceptions, and set conditions on approvals; this roundup lists each action and next steps.","taxTitle","El Paso City, El Paso County, Texas","taxId",2792,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6563022,"Plan commission denies rezoning for 76‑unit plan near Montoya Lane after residents raise traffic and drainage concerns",1635,4535000,6170000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3236358-e44805af7685e0a6e59d0ab02c594480&start=4535&end=6170","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3236358-e44805af7685e0a6e59d0ab02c594480/thumbnail_4535000.jpg","/articles/6563022/El-Paso-City/El-Paso-County/Texas/Plan-commission-denies-rezoning-for-76unit-plan-near-Montoya-Lane-after-residents-raise-traffic-and-drainage-concerns","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6563022-3fe89932fd107d1a45d272a26bebbcb4/orig.mp4?Expires=1771156408&Signature=X-ZQu8yiafLLsWhWGPpae2t3yb9U6qxRSKRq0nNK-eFzYF74KAVHI8NYUVRZZXhahGvtXOVNd2ppGC8CuqovK9cwneDdm-dVseLYUK-I5grwxqg5QLzKOz~kwgYppMv1eit00U4Ctyuw68IEl49pcRiruNIADuedeUBa6-rkAkGwJhbz5MKs2RhT4w4nlYwunCU0GtFesMKdvLNAWX0scea8nOlFscst1Z-D~xDrFJFhygAM6PjfBxJiCeObvapsE~VfEuheYdlSebgCfIsVOaY9-O1rTVZg0ScyEKX5JyXtJGd12b3WXk1XrHZI6tUE392n~h1iXPt8ne94gA9Yzg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The El Paso City Plan Commission on May 8 denied a rezoning request that would have rezoned a 9.62‑acre vacant site north of Montoya Lane to a mix of planned residential (P R‑2) and C‑1 commercial. The conceptual plan submitted with the application showed up to 76 single‑family units on the residential parcel and two retail buildings on the commercial parcel.

Why it matters: Neighbors and commissioners said Montoya Lane and surrounding streets already face congestion and safety issues. Speakers also raised concerns about arroyo/drainage paths across the site; commissioners concluded the public impact and unresolved traffic concerns outweighed the rezoning’s benefits and voted to deny the request.

What staff presented
Saul Pina of Planning and Inspections summarized the request and noted the parcel’s Plan El Paso designation as G‑3 (post‑war), a category staff considers suitable for supplemental housing and limited commercial. Pina described the proposed plan as conceptual and not binding, explained staff’s recommended conditions if rezoning were approved (landscape buffers, a site‑development plan, limits on outdoor amplified sound and a 500‑foot separation for on‑premise alcohol sales), and noted the planning division received one phone call in opposition citing traffic.

Public comment and neighborhood issues
Several residents and neighborhood representatives spoke in opposition. Speakers described Montoya as a narrow, often congested route used to access the freeway and other subdivisions; they flagged existing heavy commercial vehicle traffic, safety risks for emergency vehicles, and an arroyo/drainage alignment that had been recently modified with culverts and that residents said could channel storm flows toward neighboring yards. Residents asked for more detail on ingress/egress improvements and a traffic impact analysis (TIA) prior to a zoning decision.

Applicant reply and design intent
The applicant’s representative said the project team intends to widen Montoya to the city collector standard in front of the project and to provide shared‑maintenance open space, internal circulation and design features similar to recent planned residential developments elsewhere in the city. The representative said the P R‑2 district allows higher density and design flexibility including consolidated open space and shared alleys; he said the proposed single‑family homes would be comparable in footprint to nearby homes.

Commission discussion and outcome
Commissioners focused on traffic and emergency‑access risks, the arroyo and how future platting would address drainage. Some commissioners expressed support for infill housing but said a higher‑density P R‑2 designation without a completed traffic analysis and detailed design left too many unresolved impacts for the neighborhood. A motion to deny the rezoning carried on the record; the denial preserves the site’s existing R‑3 residential zoning.

What happens next
With the rezoning denied, the applicant may revise the proposal, address traffic/drainage concerns and resubmit. If the applicant refiles, Streets and Maintenance and Planning will likely require a traffic impact analysis and engineering solutions for drainage and access as part of any later platting and permit reviews.

Action recorded
Motion: deny rezoning to P R‑2 and C‑1 for the site north of Montoya Lane.
Outcome: denial recorded and item closed.","Commissioners voted to deny a rezoning request that would have split a 9.62‑acre site north of Montoya Lane into planned residential and C‑1 commercial parcels; neighbors cited traffic, drainage and emergency access concerns.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6563027,"City Plan Commission denies rezoning for proposed motor‑carrier site at 9050 Escobar",3416,2624000,6040000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3236358-e44805af7685e0a6e59d0ab02c594480&start=2624&end=6040","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3236358-e44805af7685e0a6e59d0ab02c594480/thumbnail_2624000.jpg","/articles/6563027/El-Paso-City/El-Paso-County/Texas/City-Plan-Commission-denies-rezoning-for-proposed-motorcarrier-site-at-9050-Escobar","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6563027-59cf168a8a11e7038388f7294fb67f33/orig.mp4?Expires=1771156408&Signature=a3p0CPb~IEqbzBJO35KV-ODxda-29FP3H7ByGzIpnOhJaECStIZft7JyVjQe90OyFDxocjbe94qcicH4NcMV1UAn4P3lzH34Hwz3N4uCCd~-NqDtn1vcIx3lALK2znBsxfl5vDt7cEi2wOMPFIWpmjk8t0FHwRIcR8i~V9srue-PaMBC7dtdhElHg4showDL6VPLb2jw~kEBltyYOwroQKwK5F3Gt0RNHSQ~0aTaxGn1kQIxaCvDNd5OxAnTM4-BmokIzuw1hraOl3v~RedKtGUrUxH2KnlBRJDq7lWK~ElRSWaoEeldCc~HPLYfS2d6JtvNBnvNLPeFLFR4c-NjNw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The El Paso City Plan Commission voted to deny a rezoning request to change a vacant property at 9050 Escobar from R‑3 residential to C‑4 commercial — a zoning category that would allow motor‑carrier and general warehousing uses.

Planning staff told the commission the site’s future‑land‑use designation is G‑3 (post‑war), which calls for limited, neighborhood‑serving commercial and housing, and that the proposed C‑4 zoning is not compatible with nearby single‑family homes, El Valle Elementary School and Black Hills Cheshire Park. Staff recommended denial; the commission’s motion to deny passed on the record and the rezoning was denied.

Why it matters: Commissioners and residents warned that allowing a motor‑carrier terminal or similar heavy‑truck use on the parcel would increase truck traffic near a large neighborhood park and an elementary school, creating safety and access concerns on streets that staff said already have restricted truck access. The decision preserves the existing G‑3 policy guidance and keeps the parcel’s current residential zoning in place while the owner may pursue other options.

What planners said
Luis Zamora, senior planner with Planning and Inspections, briefed the commission on the request and the surrounding context, noting the parcel is adjacent to commercial and industrial uses to the west but faces single‑family and mobile‑home neighborhoods, a school and an extensive city park to the south and east. Zamora reported the planning division received four phone calls opposing the request and two written contacts: one email described as “no objection” and several inquiries from residents. He said staff’s analysis found the rezoning would not further the future‑land‑use goals for the site and recommended denial.

Applicant presentation and TIA/traffic notes
Conrad Conde of Conde Incorporated, representing the applicant, said the owner is proposing a smaller, local distribution facility rather than a large regional distribution center. Conde said the developer had secured a TIA (traffic impact analysis) waiver on the basis that projected daily truck trips would be lower than earlier school‑related peaks and that the applicant planned truck routing to use an existing industrial access corridor to the west rather than routing vehicles through the park or adjacent neighborhood streets. The applicant’s presentation estimated roughly 10–15 truck trips per day; staff noted that the streets and maintenance division had made recommendations about routing and access that would need to be addressed during later permitting.

Public comment and neighborhood concerns
Several neighborhood representatives and residents spoke at the hearing. Sylvia Carrion, president of the Mission Valley Civic Association, and other neighbors urged denial, citing existing 18‑wheeler activity in the area, the proximity of El Valle Elementary School and the park, and photographs showing constrained turning radii and existing signs restricting heavy trucks on Escobar. Multiple residents told the commission they feared semi‑trailer traffic would block intersections, increase noise and diesel emissions near children and park users, and degrade safety on already constrained streets.

Commission discussion and outcome
Commissioners debated the balance between an infill property that has been difficult to develop and the long‑term impacts of adding truck‑oriented uses next to a park and school. Commissioners noted the site’s past zoning history and the applicant’s argument that a limited local distribution use would be smaller than the regional facilities typical of C‑4 zoning. Ultimately the commission sided with staff and neighborhood concerns and voted to deny the rezoning request. The denial preserves the current R‑3 zoning and the site’s consistency with the G‑3 future‑land‑use designation.

What happens next
Because the commission denied the rezoning request, the applicant may withdraw, amend and resubmit a different rezoning application, seek another use permitted under the current R‑3 zoning, or pursue other planning options. Any future proposal that would increase truck traffic or change access patterns will likely be evaluated with a traffic impact analysis and will be subject to street and TxDOT access approvals where applicable.

Votes and formal action
Motion: deny rezoning request (applicant: rezoning to C‑4 at 9050 Escobar).
Outcome: denied (motion to deny passed on the record).","The commission denied a request to rezone a vacant parcel at 9050 Escobar to C‑4 (allowing motor‑carrier uses), citing traffic, compatibility with nearby school and park, and the site’s future‑land‑use designation. Staff had recommended denial.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Plan Commission roundup: approvals for plats and rezonings, plus conditions and exceptions

Plan commission denies rezoning for 76‑unit plan near Montoya Lane after residents raise traffic and drainage concerns

City Plan Commission denies rezoning for proposed motor‑carrier site at 9050 Escobar