Limited Time Offer. Become a Founder Member Now!

Planning and Zoning Commission approves off-site parking variance for Coconuts building, contingent on final plans and recorded agreement

October 16, 2025 | South Padre , Cameron County, Texas


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

Planning and Zoning Commission approves off-site parking variance for Coconuts building, contingent on final plans and recorded agreement
On July 24, 2025, the South Padre Island Planning and Zoning Commission approved a variance request from BGSPI LLC that would allow off-site parking to serve a proposed commercial building on Lot 2, Block 30, Padre Beach Section 3 (the Coconuts building), contingent on final construction plans being approved by the city and an off-site parking agreement being recorded with Cameron County.

The variance was the subject of extended public comment and debate because it would permit a parking area that opponents say lies far beyond the off-site distance set in the city's Chapter 20 off-site parking rules. Commissioners voted to approve the variance while adopting the commission's discussion of hardship as part of the record; the motion carried with one opposed and one abstention, and the approval remains conditional on the items the commission listed.

The request came to the commission after several months of preliminary work and an ordinance change that commissioners said caused confusion over whether shared-parking rules in the form-based code or off-site parking rules in Chapter 20 apply. Alex Sanchez, a city planning/staff speaker, told the commission the item had been on the agenda previously and that staff had prepared a revised off-site parking agreement. Sanchez read two written objections into the record that had been emailed to staff: one from Jean Bagley and one from Bob Freitman.

Jean Bagley's email said, "I would like to voice my opposition to the requested variance. As a former chairman of the planning and zoning board, I believe that the request of 694 feet will set an unreasonable precedent for future requests." Bob Freitman's email read in part: "A business that cannot provide adequate on-site parking should not be permitted to operate on the assumption that customers will park blocks away. In reality, customers will choose the most convenient parking available, often occupying spaces intended for other businesses or residences that are already complying with the existing regulations."

Patrick McNulty, speaking as a former planning and zoning chair and not in his capacity as mayor, told the commission the difference between "shared parking" and "off-site parking" was central to the discussion. He said the form-based code had established a 1,200-foot shared-parking distance in earlier drafts but that the city later changed the shared-parking distance to 200 feet; however, McNulty emphasized that Chapter 20's off-site parking rules remained separate and still contain a 90-foot off-site distance and a rule that "no more than 50% of the required parking for the use may be located off-site." He said the commission needed to be clear which standard applied.

Annie Holland Miller, representing South Padre Redevelopment Company, urged the commission to deny the variance and to fix ambiguities in the Padre Boulevard and Entertainment District code. She said code language left unclear terms such as whether required parking is calculated from gross square feet and warned that vague hardship standards invite legal challenge. "When applicants bully staff, mislead commissioners, or deliver revised plans in the middle of the night expecting them to be reviewed and distributed, that isn't participation. It's manipulation," she said.

Applicant representatives told the commission they had executed a shared/off-site parking agreement providing 24 spaces on Pompano (Lot 6 and 7 on Pompano) in addition to eight on-site spaces under the building. Filiberto Alba, building official, confirmed plans previously submitted to the city contained tandem parking configurations but told the commission that staff had not yet received revised, final plans that reflected the applicants' statements about eliminating tandem parking and resizing the building to meet required on-site counts.

Commissioners debated whether the conditions the commission had placed on a prior recommendation had been met. Several commissioners said they were frustrated that the item had been before the commission for multiple meetings, that revised plans were shown informally on phones during the meeting but had not been formally filed with the city, and that procedural questions remained about whether variances of this type should be handled by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals rather than the Planning and Zoning Commission.

After discussion, a commissioner moved to approve the variance contingent upon: (1) final building plans being approved by the city (plans must document the number and configuration of on-site parking spaces and show no tandem parking), (2) recording the off-site parking agreement with the county, and (3) compliance with all other applicable ordinances. The motion also adopted the commission's discussion of hardship into the record. The motion passed; minutes record one opposed vote and one abstention and state the motion "carries." The commission recorded that appeals of a decision could proceed to the city council and potentially to court.

The commission also received written objections from property owners and a four-page letter from Atlas Hall in Rodriguez LLP, representing the South Padre Redevelopment Company, arguing procedural defects: the firm said notices to potentially affected property owners were not timely, that no replat or subdivision application was pending, and that Chapter 20's variance procedures and the Board of Adjustments and Appeals process may be the appropriate forum. The letter asked the commission to defer action so affected owners could participate.

The variance approval does not become effective until the final plans are filed and approved by city staff and the parking agreement is recorded. If the city council or an aggrieved party appeals the commission's decision, the matter could be reviewed by the council or, ultimately, by a court.

Commissioners and several speakers said the island needs a comprehensive, island-wide parking study to resolve recurring disputes over distances, walkability, event parking and the interplay between the form-based Padre Boulevard and Entertainment District code and the older Chapter 20 off-site parking rules. Staff confirmed the city had issued a request for proposals for a comprehensive parking study and had three respondents under consideration.

The commission did not set a new hearing date in the meeting minutes for further consideration of related code changes, but staff and several commissioners said the item will return to administrative review if required by the contingency language in the motion.

View full meeting

This article is based on a recent meeting—watch the full video and explore the complete transcript for deeper insights into the discussion.

View full meeting

Sponsors

Proudly supported by sponsors who keep Texas articles free in 2025

Scribe from Workplace AI
Scribe from Workplace AI