Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good afternoon. So before we start, I'd like to, or during the public comments or announcements, we have two new members of our commission here that have just started today, Oscar down here and April over here. Oscar, just give us, tell us who you are and what you do.

My name is Oscar Enriquez. I'm a senior tax agent. I'm the guy that goes and helps people lower their property taxes. Been doing that for 21 years. And I'm a real estate broker, and I am a commercial real estate instructor for TREC. I teach continued education classes. In a nutshell, that's what I am. Thank you, Oscar. I retired.

I'm April Poose. I'm a civil engineer, and I've done land development for about 20 years, mostly in the Pacific Northwest. But I've lived here since 2020, and I've got three kids, go to school, live here on the island. And yeah, I'm excited about being on the commission and being able to implement some of what I do professionally here where I live, so.

We're happy to have you both, thank you. Thanks, April. Before I start the 4.1, what I'm gonna have is Abraham just change the date on 4.1, it should be July 16. After that change, I say all of four, 4.1, 4.2, I recommend we approve both of those. I'll make a motion to approve.

I second.

All in favor? Okay, we're gonna move on to discussion in action, 5.1, and it's a replat, lots 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, block 175, Padre Beach, section 11, being a replat of 4A, block 175, Palm Beach, section 11, dividing one lot into four townhome lots. Alex. Alex.

Yes, good afternoon. Alex Sanchez, Public Works Director. So this one is one lot, and they're doing four lots out of that lot. They're going to be townhome lots. It's located on the north side of West Coralie between Laguna and Padre. There's no improvements that are required, so it's a fast track. This is located on Padre Boulevard North.

OK.

It meets all the requirements. You've got three options. It's to approve, approve with conditions, or to deny. Before we, today we just got the signatures, so staff recommends approval.

Okay, so you have all the signatures required.

Yes, we've got all the signatures.

Okay, discussion up here?

Motion to approve.

Second.

All right, first and second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Aye. Okay. All right. Replat lot one, block 19, the shore subdivision marina village phase section two being replat of lots one through four. The shore subdivision marina village phase section two replat of block 19 combining four lots into a single lot.

These are four lots, and they're creating one large lot. It's PDD, so it has to meet with the requirements of the Shores. There is no improvements that are required. Right now, there is structures already there, so it's fast-tracked. It meets all the minimum requirements, and we just got the signatures, so staff recommends approval.

Signatures again? Yes. OK, anybody from the Shores have any comments? OK. None?

Hey, Alex, is there a regulation on how many buildings can be on one lot?

It's a PDD, so it's a multifamily area there. So it doesn't say how many structures are allowed.

So there's no real restriction on that? No.

OK. Other than they, I'm assuming, have HOA that has their own restrictions.

Mm-hmm. OK. OK. I make a motion to approve with the city's notes here.

All in favor? Aye. Aye. Point three, replat of lots eight B and nine B, block 197, Fiesta Isle subdivision, Padre Beach section 12, being replat of lot eight A, block 197, Fiesta Isle subdivision, dividing one lot into two lots.

Yes, so this one is on Yoke Circle and Sunset Drive. So they're splitting the property into two. This is in District A. It meets all the requirements of single family. I know it's kind of a weird shape, but it meets the requirements. On this one, we don't have the censure, so staff recommends approval with the conditions of getting those censures.

Did you say it again, conditions of what?

They need the signatures. So the condition is to approve with the condition of getting the signatures.

And just for the benefit of the new people that probably already know and to refresh me, what about the signatures that are required on replays?

The signatures will be the surveyor, the engineer, the taxes, of course, the recording information, the property owner with notarized. If there's a lien holder, then they'll require the lien holder signature. In this case, there isn't. And then P&Z.

They don't need water or signatures?

Yeah, it's not a requirement per se from the local government code, but it is our requirement.

So you do ask for Laguna Madre signatures? Yes. Okay, just refreshing my memory of what the signatures are.

Okay, we'll have a motion to approve subject to addressing staff comments and obtaining all required signatures.

Okay, I'll second. All in favor? Okay, we're gonna move on to 5.4. Public hearing to discuss request by Ghia and Nguyen. property owners variance of section 15-2.1 rules and procedure governing art public places. The applicant is requesting a variance to place a small, to place a wall mural located at 2301 Padre Boulevard, lot six, block 36, Padre Beach subdivision four.

Yeah, so basically we've got to determine if they have a hardship. Art is defined by that it cannot be attached to a building. It has to be a three by three by eight size limit. And this is a public hearing, so I don't know.

All right, anybody have anything to say about it from the requesters? Any public discussion? Having no public discussion, I guess we'll just move on. Go ahead.

OK. So basically, a hardship is that it's not self-creating. There's that specific situation in the lot and so forth. So this is the, let me get to, well, this is located on the entertainment district zone, this property. And this would be the art that they're trying to put on that, it's in the back of the wall. So they're thinking of some kind of shark with some kind of roller coaster theme on it. They said it's not specifically that, but it's going to be close enough to that. And we kind of recreated that with AI. This is what it would look like from Street View.

Okay. Do we have any recommendations from you all?

Since there basically says it cannot be attached to the building, so our recommendation is that it doesn't meet the definition. Now, the hardship would be that, or I guess the thing, is it visible from the street is really what it comes down to. I know that mural art is kind of a different, I know it's part of the art, but it's not defined in that, or basically it's not allowed to, you can't attach it to the, and it also says that a sign, it's part of the sign ordinance, and something you can be looking at too, is that it cannot be hand painted, so.

Have we got any comments from neighbors and such?

I haven't heard anything, no. Oh, OK. Frankie, come on up.

I'm Dennis Frankie. It appears this is in the entertainment district, right? Yes. OK. A mural in the entertainment district is probably satisfactory. But we don't need any murals up and down the street. So you might think about that. That district was meant for lots of stuff to go on and anything and everything. So it's probably acceptable there, but I would not like to see you up or down the boulevard.

Well, that's why it's a variance. It's not a...

And it also is in the art overlay.

It's still considered the art district, that entertainment area. And that wall is the one that's facing north and in... Facing south. Facing south. Facing the bridge. We can see it north, right? And then on the right-hand side, if we're looking north, is behind... What is it called?

Here's another.

Gravity Park. It's right next door to Gravity Park.

Gravity Park, what I'm saying. Yeah, thank you. What is this place called again? Gravity Park. This is the purple thing. I forget what it's called. Oh, yeah. Cloud 9. Thank you, Cloud 9. It's behind Cloud 9, essentially.

And I believe Cloud 9's art was created grandfathered in, was bit in before we had. I think it was because I know when they built the new Cloud9 off of, At Morningside or somewhere up there? They couldn't put all that on there. It was denied. I do remember that.

So the mural, you're really not going to see it riding up and down because it's in a little area where they're Eid and where they congregate with those. It's in front of the riots. It's strictly in front of the riots. I don't see. My thoughts is I don't see why we can't.

Excuse me. I guess the question is, are we starting our precedent here? Because there's been no real hardship established for this mural. And it's a pretty big mural. The design doesn't bother me that much. But I just wonder about... You know, this is such a blatant change from the standards that it's, whether it's going to be noticeable from all angles or not, it still, you know, does set a precedence here that this type of stuff is okay.

But all variants are case by case. I know.

But they're still, you know that's going to come up.

Again, would you rather see just a blank wall or some art on it? That's just my.

Well, one thing we always had in the past is that is it distracting for drivers and such? There's people walking all through that area and things like that. And if somebody drives by down the street, which they'll have a really good view of, are they gonna be distracted? And is that a safety issue?

I think they describe their hardship as it being not visible from Padre Boulevard, and that's why they need it to be bigger.

How is that a hardship? That it's not visible? That's not a hardship.

I'd like to throw a kink in this. The last item on our agenda today is to completely review the art ordinance.

I know.

And I think it's very premature for us to make any decision on this without knowing what we might do with regards to murals in our art ordinance. And I would personally prefer that we table the whole thing until another meeting when we've done the art ordinance review. And it goes back to city council in something. Or we ask him to withdraw. I don't know how long it can sit if it was tabled.

How long is this applicant, when did he, or the person put it in? How long has it been here?

It's been a while, a couple months, I don't recall it yet.

Well, they dated it June 23rd, 26.

So this is the first time it's come up in the P&Z?

Yeah. Yeah, this is the first time.

Well, it came up at the last meeting.

Well, it came up at the last meeting, but we didn't have a quorum. But I still feel like, Whatever, if we make a decision on this right now, it's gonna impact. It could change.

It can impact where we have to go on the murals. I respect that you disagree. It's case by case. I understand that.

Okay, so why don't we make a motion, and we can decide after the motion. If it passes, then it's fine, and if it doesn't pass, we'll bring it up afterwards.

You guys could hold off from making a motion until you have already done the last item. You don't have to make your motion right now for this item. We would do that.

But we can't even... Yeah, the new art ordinance won't go into effect for probably two, three months because it's got to go to city council and then through all the readings. And I'm kind of... inclined to deny the motion because I'm disappointed that they're not even here to defend it. And that is a bigger red flag to me than anything, is Yuda is usually here to defend everything he puts up there, and he's not here. That's very unusual. Are both of them out of the country? Actually, it wasn't him. It was God that put in the actual request came from him. So I'm inclined to deny the motion. I'll make a motion to either, I don't know. I don't even want to table it to the end of this meeting. I'm inclined to deny the motion because it doesn't meet our mural and there's no one here to defend why they really think that we should approve it.

Do we know, is it a local artist? Yeah, we don't know that. We don't know that. We don't know, here's a concept, but. which is kind of off.

Well, I'll make a motion that we deny this based on the lack of hardship and the safety issues I put in earlier.

I'm not anti-mural. I think it's a good idea to be back there and have fun, and it should be fun and whatever it is. But if that's it, I'm like, eh.

And is it a local artist? I think that's important. We don't know that. And I know when we have denied before on these, we have recommended sometimes like when we've denied sign ordinances in the past, we've recommended that we will recommend the city council to review the sign ordinance, which we did. And it came back. Which is changing it. And then we tell that person you have the right to look in what the new one is and see if you can design a mural that will meet the new ordinance if that in fact is part of it. Part of it. But I actually would second your motion to deny. Okay. We got a motion and a second. Second.

All right. I need a vote. All in favor?

Aye. In favor of denying. Denying.

All in favor of denying.

Deny the motion. Aye.

Okay.

You get that? Yes.

Denied. I mean, I. You opposed.

I opposed. Okay. Two opposed. Okay. That's great. All right. Then we'll move on. So Barbara, Barbara, why don't you, are we doing the public hearing first? We'll do the public hearing.

Yeah, we do the public hearing first.

Okay, all right. So we're going to do this public hearing involving to discuss a review of the zoning district C. in Chapter 20 to determine what changes, if any, are needed regarding the designation of properties currently classified as part of Zoning District C and all regulations contained within Zoning District C, including setbacks, building heights, area, and size regulations. allowable usage, and all other existing requirements to make recommendations, if any, to City Council regarding proposed changes to any of the zoning C, district C requirements. So this is our public hearing.

And I'd like to make a recommendation, because I've already talked to you about this. This is pretty complex, and it's really, there's two parts. One is looking at all 122 or... 189 plus whatever is down at the other properties and determine which of those should remain as zone C and which, it's what it says, regarding the designation of the properties currently classified as part of the zoning district C, comma. So it's the first part of the public hearing to me would be a discussion on should all of these individual lots all remain zone C or are there some that we would recommend moving to a B2 zone because they're all in place? And I think that's a totally different discussion than the building height, the setback. That's why I'd like to split the public hearing into two so that the first part we just hear about zoning designation for all these lots and the second part we take as another discussion on the setbacks and everything.

Well, I agree with you, Barbara. But reviewing what Ed was saying, that this thing we're doing today is a comprehensive review of C, I think that could be a new agenda item.

Yeah.

From a legal point of view. Well, it's divided into two sections on this. What changes, if any, are needed regarding the designation of the properties currently classified as part of zoning district C, comma, and then all regulations contained within that district? Those to me are two different,

Well, what I'm saying is if you're talking about moving properties to a new zone, that's... That's what they're asking us, I believe. No, that's not included in here. This is to... I looked at, reviewed when Ed, on the last video, when Ed was talking about this, and he was specifically clear that this is about the regulations in Zone C only. That we could not pick an individual property out of it or do anything.

It's about the comprehensive total requirements for the Zone Cs.

If you're in a Zone C today, then you would be impacted by this. No, I agree. That's what I read.

I read the whole thing differently in the city council meeting. There was a huge argument about it. That's why I wish I was here. As to which one, were we looking at everything or were we looking at the sub-acts? And Patrick McNulty said we need to look at everything and include the sub-acts.

Am I wrong in this assumption? No, Gordon.

I'm agreeing with Gordon. That's how I'm reading it exactly the way you're reading it.

What do you remember?

From my understanding, the changing designations of zoning is not what is in question here. It would be the actual regulations, requirements, which would include all of the chapters, the uses, setbacks, height restrictions, everything that is specific.

So we would recommend a change to a setback, for example? that would affect all these properties.

Correct. All the properties.

We've already taken a vote to do that.

So we have a public hearing here.

All right, so then we can just go ahead and do the public hearing for everything.

But you should put that on the agenda for next time.

I thought it was on the agenda for this time. I apologize.

Can we just ask for those audience members that are going to come and speak? That's what I'm doing right now. Can you clarify which one?

That's what I want to talk about. That's why I'm asking for the public to... Okay, yeah, yeah, sure, sure. Okay.

Hello, I'm Ronald Weisfeld, 200 West Corral, South Padre Island. I'd like to welcome the two new members to the board, because last month we were here for a meeting. There was four members out of the five, so I was prepared for the meeting. A couple engineers were here to present some factual information also, and we weren't able to have a hearing last month. So I'm glad to see we have all eight of you guys here today. And I welcome the two new members. which sounds like you guys have a lot of experience in these type of issues with constructing in buildings. This whole, since you guys are new, I was just, little bit of background. I guess today the hearing started because I was trying, I'm trying to develop a property where the former Scampi's Restaurant used to be. It's at 206 West Aries. It's a bayfront piece of property. And I went to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals in March of 2025, and I was denied the request for the variance. And so the only ability I have is to actually change the ordinance. So that's what we're kind of talking about here is changing the ordinance. The ordinance affects all the properties in Zone C. And so, and I think it's... Looking back at a little bit of history, why are these remaining 120 lots that are sporadically located, one on this street, one on that street, still zone C, commercial, which is the original zoning that it was for many years back? They did form-based code. So the city did form-based code, and they established the entertainment district, the Bayfront district, Padre Boulevard North, Padre Boulevard South, Padre Boulevard Central. They also established a neighborhood zone. So it seems like these lots kind of got left out of that, so they're highly restrictive from a development perspective. So some of the ordinance changes that I would recommend, and once again, that's for all of C zoning, would be to... I think I... To reduce the front yard setback right now on C zoning is 25 feet. And I would recommend a front yard setback of 10 feet rather than 25 feet. The second thing is the elimination. This is a big one. The elimination of an additional four foot setback above three stories. So what that means is once the property goes up three stories on each side yard, you have to go in four feet. So instead of a 10 foot side yard setback, On the fourth floor, you would have basically a 14-foot side yard setback from the two sides. And on the fifth floor, you'd have an 18-foot setback from each side on the sixth floor. So basically, you end up with like a pyramid-type building. Specifically with the building that I'm trying to build, which I know it goes to everybody, but I'm just using this as one example. apply for a building permit from the city and you get a lot of comments. I don't know how many of you guys have actually applied to the city of South Padre Island for a building permit and understand that they do a thorough review of your request. So after that thorough review, I get these comments back. And basically, you can't build what you want to build. So you have an option to go get a variance, Board of Adjustments and Appeals. And at the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, they did give me off-site parking for this. So that was one of the, experiences they gave me, which is directly across the street. If you, let's see. So the first thing is a 10 foot front yard setback. The second one is a remove the requirement of an additional four foot side yard setback above the third floor and eliminating any setback above six stories. Right now they have six stories. You have to go additional one foot setback for every two foot of height. So it's once again a little bit of a step back. When you look at the building codes, so once you go over six stories on a building, it becomes another, if you will, category of construction, which makes it much more difficult to build anyways. So the chance of that above six stories setback even come into effect might not even be that great. The fourth item I kind of recommend, see a change would be for a traffic impact analysis. I don't know if anybody even knows what a traffic impact analysis is. But the city of South Padre Island says if you're building more than 20 units, you're required to get a traffic impact analysis, more than 20 units. Most cities, like city of Brownsville, it's 150 units. So basically if you're building a big apartment complex, a hotel, something that have a lot of traffic impact, it requires a traffic impact analysis. So right now it's at 20 units. I would recommend changing that to 75 units or more. So those were kind of some of the hurdles that I was dealing with on my specific development. And I was gonna just show you some pictures real quick of this. I guess I could pass this out. I don't know if I have enough. Yeah, let's see. Hey to you guys. This is kind of a conceptual plan of what I'm trying to do. So once again, why this would not be allowed, because once you go up three floors, you'd have to go in four foot on each side. So that's like your main bayfront condominium. You'd lose the best units facing the bay. And it just doesn't make any sense to have that requirement. Like I said, it's pretty old. And then the front yard setback. If the front yard setback was 10 foot rather than 25 foot, you'd add more in your backyard, if you will. In this case, the backyard is the bay side where the swimming pool is going to be. But in other C-zoned properties, it'd be the same thing. They could move the building forward a little bit closer to the street. so they'd have more room in their backyard for more amenities, swimming pools, maybe they want a pickleball court or whatever else they want in their backyard, rather than requiring.

Excuse me, Ron, this drawing represents your proposed with those changes you mentioned?

No, yes, yes. This would be allowed if the ordinance was changed and you changed the front yard setback.

Okay, I just wanted to clarify this. That's your vision right now?

Correct. Okay, thanks. That's my vision. This kind of on the roof kind of shows a rooftop kind of venue as far as a restaurant bar on the rooftop. And it shows a restaurant kind of on the ground floor also in this conceptual plan. Let's see, where was I at on that? What I'd like to do, so those were my four recommended changes anyways to the ordinance while you're doing a comprehensive review. There's a couple engineers. George Mendoza is here, and he's going to speak to you about the difficulty of that additional four-foot setback above three stories. He's going to address that. And then Rock Miller is here to tell you about kind of how the soil, he's a soil engineer, and he's going to explain to you about, well, specifically, he was working specifically on my property, but it kind of is applicable to all the C-zone properties. And if you have any questions,

Do you happen to have, in your phone or anywhere, a picture of the front yard of this? Oh, yes. Because that would be, I think it's this.

This would be the front yard. I didn't find a lot of, this would be the corner.

I want to see where. That's the corner of Aries and Blue Boulevard. And this car is, this car is on the street?

Commissioner, this is the public hearing portion, so we can't discuss it yet. You can, Mr. White.

Ms. Hayes, actually, I know at the last meeting you were concerned about the street parking, and I wanted to be very clear that there is no driveways accessible from Laguna Boulevard. So that's one of the ordinances that are already in place. You cannot have a driveway from Laguna Boulevard. So the entrance to the property would be off the side street, which would be Aries. Also, when you go to get a building permit from the city, they're not going to allow any cars to be extended into, you might say, their easement or the road. So all the parking is going to be on the subject property. So even if the car was bigger or smaller, they're all going to fit into a parking place. They will not obstruct the sidewalk along Laguna Boulevard, nor the streets, areas, or any other street when it comes to parking. And then any other? Y'all can't make any. Next. All right. I'll be available to answer any questions. I really appreciate everybody's time. This was Mr. Mendoza.

This is Amanda Pat. Okay, good afternoon. Excuse me. I am George Mendoza. I'm the principal structural engineer at Mendoza Engineering. We're located at 4435 South Jackson Road in Edinburgh. Today I wanted to speak about the, I guess, the wind effect on structures, right? Whether it's a straight-sided or an offset structure. Offset structures tend to create I guess more Wind effects on structures that are surrounding it through what we call vortex shedding and basically what that is is creation of many Certainly, they're not as strong as what you see on TV leveling the city, but they can affect the structures around it. So, as the, As the buildings go up, more and more of those vortexes can be created, again, affecting the structures around it. In terms of the shape, I guess, of the straight-sided structure, the same vortexes are created, maybe not to the same extent, as what the offset building would do. So that would be what I would be asking you guys to consider in changing that, excuse me, the ordinance because let's say a new building, if it's designed to be offset, well that design will be built in and that's fine but if that structure is built in an area where you do have existing structures, well those existing structures will inadvertently be affected by any wind vortexes that are created by this new structure. Something for you guys to consider, all right?

May I repeat back what he's saying just for my clarifying, to clarify?

Any questions? Any questions? Okay. Thank you.

Box letter. Here's box letter.

Good evening, council. My name's Rockford Miller. I'm with Delta Geoworks. I'm the principal engineer over there. My main focus with working with Mr. Weisfeld is the geotechnical aspects of the property. He engaged me to kind of conduct a initial surface investigation. Now note, I haven't done any kind of geotechnical exploration out there, but the first thing that caught my attention out there was the condition of the bulkhead that's adjacent to the bay side. in very poor shape, very deteriorating, and what I told Mr. Weisfeld is with respect to construction, construction loads, equipment loads, is that we should probably be staying away from that area. With respect to geotechnical engineering, A general rule of thumb, especially in the marine conditions and the coastal conditions we find in typical super soft and saturated soils is that we want to make sure we stay about three times the height of the wall away from the edge of the wall. So the height of the wall is typically, I want to say on average, about five feet with respect to mud line and tidal influence. So given that with the five feet and the height and the times three gives us about 15 feet and I said, hey, without any kind of evaluation or geotel exploration or global slope stability analysis of this retaining wall, we wanna make sure we stay distance back about 15 or 16 feet just to make sure that there's no sloughing or wall failure. And so that's where I'm coming at it from perspective of geotechnical engineering, right? It's definitely the site's in poor shape, a patchwork of asphalt and concrete pavement from the old existing structure and all that jazz and the construction loads associated with the retaining wall. Now, I think Mr. Weisfeld should be also recognized for his ability to work with the city and to be able to help out where needed. I did a geotechnical exploration for Mr. Weisfeld over there on Sheepshead for a small apartment complex. And part of that investigation is not only looking at the subsurface soils, but also, hey, what's on the surface of the soil? So I asked Mr. Weisfeld, hey, what's on this west side of this property, and he informed me that it's just a bunch of roadway materials, caliche, flux base, concrete debris, stuff like that, stuff that the city asked that he could put in this position, and just for storage, right? Just a stockpile lay down area. And so okay, I noted that for the geotechnical report, part of the investigation. And so I think Mr. Whitesell should be recognized for being able to work with the city in those kind of aspects because I think he has nothing but good intentions for increasing economic development, increasing the city's beauty and prosperity and all that stuff. So I think he's coming at it from the right approach. And he wants to improve the property and leave it better than he found it. So with that, if you guys have any questions, I'd be more than happy to answer those.

Yeah, we can't. Thank you, Mr. Miller.

Thank you very much.

Anyone else?

Dennis Franke again. I'm not here necessarily to argue or support or argue with any of the things that Ronnie wants to do. But I sat on this commission from the day it was formed, maybe 25 or more years ago, for probably 10 or 15 years, until it became a commission rather than a committee. And we have always tried, while I was on it, to be very fair that what we did for one person, we do for everybody. And if we say, no, you can't do it, then the next guy that comes in, we don't say yes. We say, that's what the rule is, and we stick by the rule. It's very, very unfair when people work very hard to adhere to the rules And then you turn around, and the next guy comes in. And you say, oh, it's OK. We like the idea. I think you need to be very careful. Now, if you change what we did from the very beginnings, we set setbacks both front and side and back. that would limit the size of the building proportionate to the piece of land. And so if you wanted to build a taller building, you had to give more airspace. And your building had to be able to fit on the space, whatever your rules are, and you had to be able to park the cars there. And I don't know how lenient you are on car parking, but parking is a huge problem. And it becomes more huge every year that goes by. So it's very important that each project can support the cars, can support the building, and provide green space and air space. So if you change on the Bayfront, the setbacks. I think it's only fair that you change on the beach. We've been using the four-foot setback since the city was formed, above three stories. Now, if you want to change it, change it. Make a good rule. But let it be fair for everybody, not just for some people. So I'm happy with what your decision is going to be. but I want you to know that you're in a position that you really need to be fair with anybody and everybody comes in. I think denying I didn't realize this mural was a handicap, I would have said, there's no handicap. I mean, that's absurd. But you denied it anyway, so that was okay. So that's all I have to say. I'm just sharing with you some of the, Wisdom that I have okay.

Thank you.

Thank you Frankie Rocky It's Ronald Weisfeld again, thank you. Mr. Frankie for speaking. I appreciate you bringing that up about setbacks to be uniform I wanted to bring up this spreadsheet again right here that compares all the zoning see compared to a Padre Boulevard Entertainment District character zones. And I wanted to let you know that the front yard setback on Gulf Boulevard is 10 feet. Did you realize that? The front yard setback on Gulf Boulevard is a 10-foot setback. So that's kind of the same thing I'm asking for here is a 10-foot setback. So it would be uniform on Gulf Boulevard as it would be specifically for these. And then come on. You want to speak?

I wish I had some water for you.

Yeah, you want to bring the microphone. Oh, there we go.

Denise has some water for you. Thank you. In my opinion, and what we do at the Shores, if you change your front yard, if you had a corner lot, typically this was a front yard. But you said, this is going to be the front yard now. then we would take and make this a front yard setback and that a side yard setback, as long as it conformed with the general neighborhood. So you can jockey that around and make the building work better. But it seems to me that you can't give away all your setbacks. Yes, sir. That's not what Ronnie wanted me to say. No, no, that's fine.

I understand. The city doesn't allow you to jockey the front yard or side yard. Alex Sanchez decides what the front yard is and the side yard. Alex doesn't. He reads the rules. And according to him, he decides what the front yard is, which is the shorter property line. And the side yard is the longer property line. It's not changeable. So you're stuck with that. But if you turn on that screen, the overhead right here, I was going to show you this again because the benefit of the new members is I don't know if you can see that. I don't know how to mess with that. But basically, it was a comparison of the height and setback comparisons of District C versus Padre Boulevard and the Entertainment District Character Zone. So if you look at C, that's going across the top right here. So it shows a 25 foot setback. So if you have Bay Character Zone, it has a zero. setback, front yard setback over there. If you look at the entertainment district core, it's got a zero front yard setback. Over here at town center and neighborhood, it has between 10 and 25 front yard setback. The same thing with Padre Boulevard North has a 10 foot front yard setback. Padre Boulevard Central and South have between a 10 foot and 75 foot setback, depending on how the It's laid out. Also, it goes into a little more detail. It could be five-foot setback, depending on the pedestrian priority where it is. Same thing with neighborhood transition. It could be between 5 and 20 feet. The northern resort district, same thing. So asking for a 10-foot front yard setback is not uncommon compared to all these other zonings that are already in place here in the city. I was going to pass this out. Basically, kind of the proposed language of the motion that I would like to see made and approved. And then once again, this will go to the city council for final hearing and approval. So this is only a recommendation. So I really would encourage all of you to make this recommendation so the city council can actually make the final decision on this.

Okay.

We got the map. Are we gonna get to discuss on our?

We're still open to public hearing, yeah.

Yeah, we are. We're still in a public hearing. And we won't have discussion until we make a motion anyhow, okay?

We can have a discussion before the motion.

Well, usually it's about the motion. I've been doing Robert's Rules for 30 years. I know you do. I don't. Okay. Do we have anybody else who wants to speak? Go ahead. Right back here.

Ma'am.

MARLENE BRAILLE. And I'm a single family dwelling next to lots that are designated in Zone C. And I'm only here because I'm listening to some of these changes that want to be made to Zone C. And my perception of this is that it would apply to everything in Zone C. MARLENE BRAILLE.

Yes, ma'am.

I think what Mr. Weisfeld needs is a variance or something because I would not like to have my single family dwelling next to some of the limited setbacks that he is proposing. So I disagree with changing some of the zone C restrictions only because, and like I said, I'm not in zone C, but I'm here because I have property next to a zone C property. So that's all I have to say. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Anybody else? When you finish this discussion, I'd like to tell you one other thing.

But finish your discussion here.

Are we finished?

Huh? Do we have anything? If anybody else needs to talk.

Yeah, I'm just trying to see if anybody else.

We're still in the public.

Yeah.

OK. OK. That's fine.

All right, do you wanna go to the next agenda item? You all set for that?

Are we gonna close the public hearing?

Yeah, well, I'm just waiting. Have you, okay.

Yeah, I'm right there. Okay, we're closing the public hearing, and now we're going to 5.7. which is discussion and possible action regarding conducting comprehensive review zoning district C in chapter 20 to determine what changes, if any, are needed regarding the designation of the properties currently classified as part of zoning district C and all regulations contained within zoning district C, including setbacks, building heights, area, size, and size regulations, allowable usage, and all other existing requirements, and make recommendation, if any, to city council regarding proposed changes to any of the zoning district C requirements.

Okay. Okay.

Now Alex, now you talk.

I had a couple, on that vortex, what the engineer was saying was that the way I look at the, was reading was when you're, the setbacks that we're requiring, it's gonna be like a pyramid. Once it starts going up higher, that's what you're going to create as a vortex with the wind. And on the geotech study, have you done a geotech study on the whole property? Have you done core drilling, Ronnie?

Mr. Miller?

No, Ronnie. I'm asking Ronnie. On your property, the one that you just proposed, you haven't done any? So right now, you haven't done anything other than we're going through to get these variants.

OK.

It's not variants. He's asking for an ordinance, Jay. An ordinance.

Let's go to Alex.

Yeah.

One property.

Right now, there's currently approximately 121 properties that are in Zone C. If you look at the map, they're kind of sporadic throughout the island. So right now, we're looking at the setbacks and the height restrictions and, of course, the uses. And basically, Swansea is a business district, but it's basically all the way from single family all the way to any commercial uses that are listed here. There's some special exceptions there. And then, of course, the height regulations, that's what you're talking about. And this is just kind of a rendering of how you would comply with the current ordinance. You kind of have three stories. And then on the side, you would have to go in four feet. And then the front, the six stories, of course, this is not It meets the requirements or kind of meets the requirements, but it doesn't follow that. It kind of did its own rendering. But this would be if you actually followed the ordinance to the T. So here would be on the top view, each links based on that current property. I mean, that property we're talking about. But of course, if you have a 50 foot by 100 foot lot, you basically restrict it to a smaller height. And of course, parking would be your biggest restriction on something like that on a 50 by 100 foot lot. But in the case here, you can see if you follow the ordinance, you have up to the 12th floor and have a rooftop after that. And that'll be your middle one. And then on the front is the six stories. And you have to go two feet for every height of that building. I don't know if you have any questions on how it would look like if you actually literally followed that guideline.

I have a question. In Zone C, aren't we restricted to six stores?

No.

I thought I read that.

Six stories until you do the site.

Until you do the one foot in for every two feet of more building height. Okay, that's, okay.

That would be your example of like a pyramid style. That's right.

Which would increase the.

All the stories, but basically, if you look at the first drawing, it gives you the square footage of

Keep going. See what Alex has to say.

So there were no recommendations on the Ad Hoc Committee to do any changes in February 24th, 2021. There was a final reading of chapter 20 on March 26th, 2025. And then March 26th, 2025, the Putter-Billard Entertainment District Zone had the final reading. So, that's it for that. Okay.

I was told, again, this is my first meeting, I'm asking a question. Sure. I was told that this had already passed, or that it had already gone.

We made a recommendation to have a public hearing to discuss the issues that are in this agenda. We just made recommendations to city council, and city council sent it back to us to have the public hearing and then go through this one more time. So that's how it came back to us.

Okay, to the public hearing, but we did forward it to... We did, and they sent it back to us, yes. ...doing exactly what we were told to do.

At the time, Oscar, right? At the time, we had to... At the time, we had to add in some specifications. We couldn't just say, We recommend to city council that you do a public hearing on this. We had to give them numbers. It didn't mean we approved the numbers. We had to give them numbers. There is now new, the new ordinance, has it been approved? Not yet. It's got one more reading? The one on public hearings?

Correct. Public hearings. Correct.

We don't have to designate. We can do them ourselves and we don't have to designate changes to do that public hearing. So we're kind of addressing this one more, I think, on that route.

I would say that we did the public hearing and move it back up to the city commission.

We have to give a recommendation.

I recommend that we.

I'd like to just, before you make a recommendation, I think we need more discussion.

And also, just a footnote, the recommendation we make needs to include some sort of numbers, which is why we're kind of like 25, 10, 4, 6, whatever. It would have to be illegitimate.

Okay, so hang on, Victoria. All right, so let's discuss what we want to... Are you done?

Okay.

The second slide, you can see the recommendation or the motion you guys passed the last time you guys talked about this.

Right, and that was Victoria's motion that we made because we had to make one in order to have public hearing by city council who didn't have a public hearing on city council.

Okay. You know, okay. Thanks, Jim. You know, we're here to discuss all these changes to all of Zone C, and it seems like we spent most of this discussion talking about one particular property. Now, while I think it's a great development, and I think I see nothing wrong with it. I do know that they went to the Board of Adjustment Appeals and they did not display a good enough hardship to get approval. What they got was, it was financial. They wanted to put more things on the property. And they were turned down. Now we're coming back and we're told to look at all of Zone C and all the regulations, not just these four, All of them, and all we're doing is spending time on these setbacks things. These setbacks were established way back when through a lot of people, Mr. Franke and others were involved in this, and they came up with these reasons to provide room for air and sunlight to get through, we wouldn't have this big canyon effect on the island that some places like Florida and those places have been burdened with. And so seeing all this, I understand this. And maybe there is a way to take care of Mr. Weiskopf's problem here. through a different channel, but I don't think just arbitrarily change in zone C because we don't know for sure what kind of things we could be causing. And I'm going from a 25 foot to a 10 foot people that are building these town homes and stuff need that to get the parking requirements. They need two cars. You go to 10 feet, you're not going to get two cars. So, you know, I'm just gonna flat out make a motion that we recommend to the city council that they don't change Zone C's regulations. And I'll let it go at that.

And in order to have discussion, I'll second it. We can have discussion.

Now that opens discussion, anybody?

I do believe you would have to retract your previous recommendation because you did recommend changes to the setbacks in your last motion. So if the motion would be now to not make any changes, you would need to retract that.

Zero changes to Zone C's regulation.

And to retract the motion from the previous motion.

Victoria's motion.

It was, was it the June meeting? Yeah. Yeah, from the June, yeah. Add that to, are you okay with adding that to the motion? Sure, I approve it. And retract the recommendations made at the June. I'm going to sustain because my property is affected.

I'm part of, I live on Atoll, right on the corner of, I mean, I'm affected.

And I appreciate it.

I should be denying it, but. Again, I'm right on the corner, so it affects me every day. I got a monster building right next to me that's been being built for the last three years and how they keep continuing without finishing. So I don't even want to get started with that. But that's fine. I'm going to sustain from.

Yeah, you can abstain from the vote.

I appreciate that. Thank you, Oscar.

We have a motion and a second.

She's going to ask a question.

I'm going to ask. I'm opening to discussion. Okay, relax. Okay. Now we're in the discussion phase.

Okay. I'm just curious if you guys have workshopped any of this, looking at Zone C and the regulations and changes to... I'm kind of coming in the middle of the conversation here, but I definitely have some ideas on ways that the code could be looked at comprehensively to allow flexibility, but not specifically with the front setbacks. So I've done things in places where... Parking is a concern, and the setbacks are a concern. And so they have, for example, a front setback can be 5 feet or 20 feet, but nothing in between, so that you don't end up with a situation where someone's like, well, I just need 12 to get the building I want. We're not going to park here, but then someone's going to try to park there, because 12 feet is enough to try to park a car in there. Five is not. So something like that could allow projects that do need the on-site parking in the front setback would have to be 25. If you don't, it's 10. Something along those lines.

I think the issue here is not only the setback, but the steps. No, there's more. So I guess I'm wondering. It isn't just the setback.

There hasn't been a workshop to just look at the code in general. The city council has.

You've done those separately, right? The city has. Yeah.

There's not been a workshop.

No, the city hasn't workshopped. We, I don't know your definition of workshop. We looked at all of them. But we had to workshop individually for two months.

Yeah. Scott did the- Zone C or just in general for the code?

To answer your question, yes, we have individually workshopped.

We've had discussions. I don't know, and my concern was, I mean, I have been reading all kinds of things. I've read the comprehensive plan. We did a training session September 3rd, and it was not run by the city. I want everyone to understand, this was not a city's training session. There were at least two of us on this committee that, when this came to us, said, okay, we can do art variances and we can do sign variances, but when we're starting to look at zoning and building restrictions and building setbacks, you've kind of gone beyond my knowledge and we want additional training. And there was a webinar On September 3rd, a live webinar run by a municipal law attorney with 30 years experience. You probably know him, Ronald, out of Austin. But he's a city attorney. He's a city lawyer for lots and lots of towns. And it was a tremendous program that we learned so much about our roles in planning and zoning and all the things we need to consider, one of which is the comprehensive plan. And so we got the comprehensive plan. And I bet I've read 100 pages of information through the state 211, the municipal code, The Texas statutes that govern planning and zoning in municipalities, the city ordinance, the traffic variance, that's not in here. That's in the public works ordinance. We aren't dealing with the public works ordinance. We don't have any control over the traffic information. We have zero control over that. That is Alex's department and it's called the, I wrote it down and I looked at it. It's called the Standards and Specifications for Public Works. They do the traffic impact study. The traffic impact study there says, Ronald, 100 trips per day in a car around your facility will instigate a traffic study. That's what it says. When you're building this lot and you've got 54 plus, how many are underground? How many underground parking? That's 90 cars. Two cars, three cars come out more than once a day. You've triggered a traffic study, and we can't change that. We can't change that. So we can't vote on the traffic study. But had I not gone to that meeting, I wouldn't have known that. And then we learned in this meeting the things that you look at. use of setbacks to protect neighbors. It's a thing they said, you've got to consider the use of setbacks to protect your existing neighbors. You've got to provide adequate air and light to protect the streets and your neighbors. This is just so much bigger than Public meeting where we're just gonna make a motion and vote on it now. I'm like that's why I'm concerned That's what I was gonna raise there's and then we learned you can't change if the comprehensive plan has a very specific use You can't change your zoning and ordinances before you change the comprehensive plan that will allow you to make those changes and our comprehensive plan And I only looked at 34 pages of it, and it must be three, is it 300 pages?

Yeah, at least.

At least. For the land use, land use should concentrate similar uses, similar densities. Should harmonize so as not to detract from the enjoyment of the surrounding. has to be comparable to what's already in the neighborhood. And all of C, all these lots that it looks like somebody just took a bunch of marbles and dropped them on a piece of paper and wherever the marble landed they turned it into a C lot, but I'm sure that wasn't what it was. These lots, some of these lots are two empty lots in between, two town homes here and two towns home here that are 25 feet back and suddenly you're gonna have two town homes at 25 feet and now we're looking at moving it to 10 feet for the two lots next to them on a side street on the east side of Padre and then back to 25 feet. What's that gonna do to safety? By the time I see that kid running from the 25 foot porch past that 10 foot and I'm driving, I don't know that I can hit the brakes fast enough to not intersect that child in the street. Those are things we haven't even considered. And that's what I think a workshop, and I don't know that a workshop needs to be a public recorded event, does it?

I don't think so.

Then you bring the findings of the workshop.

Alex, when was the ad hoc committee did that review on Zone C?

What year was that?

21 or 25? 21 was one of the last dates, but I think it started before that. I know it started before COVID.

So they had no recommended changes to Zone C back then?

They didn't have any recommended changes back then.

The other thing to consider, I think, Barbara, some of us were at the meeting about the second bridge that's going to kick off in 2030. So if that's 2030, which is just down the road from us, from a timeline.

The bridge won't be completed until 2037 to 2039.

But if I'm thinking, we have the entertainment district. We have something else in the middle. Let's just say the Scampis thing were to happen. We have Cove on the other end. We have other things happening at the shores. We have to consider traffic coming from both directions and entertainment and restaurants or whatever it is we want to do for the future. That's the part that makes me nervous, is if we know recommendations, know nothing, without considering we know this is going to happen in 2030.

Well, I believe the development's also going to happen north of what's already considered. Sure. It's going to happen north of the convention center. the land use plan goal. So that's my concern, too. I'm just looking at the land use plan goal that only encompasses White Sands to, well past CVS. In the comprehensive plan, it has specific land use plan goals for that area, just for that area.

I just worry. If we tunnel people to a certain place for the next 25 years, We're missing out.

And we're trying not to. I mean, I'm afraid changing these plans.

Yeah, I get it. I also, the other thing I wanted to point out, I was just jotting down, the letters of support that Mr. Weisfeld, there's letters of support in our agenda meetings. There's letters of support from the last meeting that we weren't able to have. I tallied it up. There's 12 different folks who live in Zone C who are for the changes, and thank you so much for coming today, won against it. So I think that's also something to consider. How did you get 12?

Yeah, there's only three.

There's duplicates.

They're all duplicates.

No. No, I have Bill Donahue. I have Mr. Button. I have Shane Backus.

We didn't, I don't have those.

It's from last time. OK. Thank you. From last meeting?

I only had three from last meeting.

And then the different names from today, I added them in. I added the two experts, and I added Mr. Ronnie.

OK. So the point you're making. Go ahead.

The point I'm making is that there are people who are- And these are referring to one particular property. One piece of property.

We're looking at 189 properties, but I don't want us to lose sight that there are people on this island who live here that are okay with the change. There is support. There is support.

Therefore, that one particular property.

No, that's not true. That's not what that says. It's not what it says.

It says changes to ordinance in C. Well, I can guarantee you if you weren't there, we wouldn't have got any letters. Well.

The letter he sent out specifically mentioned the four things, the setbacks, the lack of a traffic study, the height, the four things. And there are letters of support. But there's like 27 vacant C properties that would definitely be impacted by this.

Yes, we made bacon.

I think it's still accurate, I'm assuming. I think there's only, north of McDonald's, there's 11 bacon, only 11.

And some are super close to residential, I just.

And yes.

It's hard for me to change an entire zoning district this great. Yeah, you go ahead.

You're not gonna be able to build a high rise in between two residential properties. I mean, so whether they're vacant or not, they're not relevant.

There are two sets of lots in Zone C across from each other on Kingfish, on West Kingfish and Laguna, both sides, three lots, vacant commercial. You could, if they decided to combine all three lots, you could build a high-rise on both sides of the street, 10 feet away from the street, and now you've got shadows and wind tunnel right there. Right there. And then there's tear-down areas also.

Quick question. Is there any other option you guys could recommend for him to proceed without changing... see completely. I know that he's already kind of gone through one that didn't happen. Can you recommend anything else?

Well, I think that's why I said we need a secondary agenda item to look at that.

Well, we can't spot zone.

Yes. But if there's any options.

Let Catherine say. From the research that I've done, we could make a recommendation to city council to allow Mr. Weisfeld to approach the Board of Adjustment and Appeals again. I don't know.

Well, I think you've got to go with legal on that, because I don't think they can do that.

Yeah, I don't think so. But I think we could make an agenda item to possibly discuss something like that. Like, what kind of relief could we provide? Well, we'd have to get the legal involved, but yeah.

Yeah, and then we could have Mr. Saganowicz here. Catherine, I'm afraid if we make that suggestion, we are supporting spot zoning, and we are supporting spot zoning by recommending.

I would just like to hear from legal counsel if that's an option. And we don't have legal counsel. So maybe if we could put that on an agenda item, I don't know.

I think that's great. Why don't we have Ed, Ed'll get a copy of this. And we can have him here next time. And we'll have him get back to us. Yeah. Okay, that sounds right.

Because if it's a possibility, I think we should consider it.

Okay, well that sounds fair.

Thank you, Catherine, for that. Yes, I was at the Board of Adjustments and Appeals in March 2025, and I was denied the request for These same were trying to change the ordinance. Mr. Garlock was on that committee that voted against it also. Just to be clear, because I know you have two new members on the planning and zoning. So Mr. Garlock was opposed to it at the time last year. So he's still consistent opposed to it this year. So I don't want you to go with his motion, because he's going to be opposed to it the whole time. I'd really like to ask Mr. Enriquez, to reconsider, to at least vote on that, not recuse yourself just because your property lies in the C district.

I would love to vote on it. I just wish legal was here to make sure I could. It's your choice. It's your call. It is my calling.

And when you went to Board of Adjustment and Appeals, the neighboring properties were opposed to it, Ronald. No, ma'am. The people that owned.

At El Castillo, they had one person at a time. I was just going to be clear. The El Castillo? Mr. Tom from right next door was really just concerned about his utility easement. He didn't realize. He thought the property was going to be built on the property line. There's an eight-foot utility easement on each side of the property. So there's a 16-foot utility easement. There's a 16-foot easement between the two properties. There's a 10-foot side yard setback already. So actually, the properties will be 20 feet apart, the two buildings.

And there's two letters from the other side, two letters from individual owners from the other side that were opposed to it.

But how about all those who supported it?

We had all the- No letters of support at the Board of Adjustment and Appeals.

President of the Sunset Condominium- The verdict of Adjustment and Appeals is not relevant here.

That's history.

But my point is, I don't know why you guys- We're not in public discussion anymore, Ron.

We're back and forth. We should just be discussing the motion.

Why don't you send it to city council, let them make a decision? This is not a public discussion at the moment. That's enough, Ronald, please. Once again, I would really encourage you to send it to city council.

Again, I live on the corner. Right. I'm not opposed.

You can vote any way you want.

I'm not opposed to Ronnie's development, but I do agree with you doing spots. I'm all for that. But this is consistent, but there are some stuff on there.

I understand that, and I don't have a problem with that. But right now, the thing we're talking about.

Let me finish. Why don't you let me finish, and then I'll let you say what is. I said, I'm not opposed to it. I'm for it because there are certain things a developer is going to pay in a substantial amount of money when he's developing it. to make sure that everything fits per the code, regulations. And the set foot, I'm in agreement with you. I think it should be left alone. But once you get to a certain height, what difference does that make if it keeps going in? Can't it be consistent? There are certain things, traffic study for 20 cars. I mean, right now we have a traffic problem. I mean, I sit on my porch every day and there's constant backup, especially on the summers and Fridays, Saturdays. So again, there's some stuff I agree with Mr. Weisfeld and I'm not opposed to it. And again, I live, I live there, I'm on, I got the letter. So I'm gonna say I'm for it with certain items.

Well, then we'd have to have another motion, but let's, we have a motion on the floor, right?

Yes, in a second.

In a second. So who wrote down the motion? Victoria, did you write down? I didn't.

No, I didn't write it down. You wrote it down, didn't you, Abraham? Abraham wrote it down.

Go ahead, Abraham.

The motion was retracting the previous one and recommending no changes to city council, seconded by Ms. Hayes.

So that's the motion.

Before we continue with that, do we need to also add the agenda item for next meeting?

Well, we're just voting on this motion, and then we can have the agenda item at the end of this.

Retract and revisit it, or just retract and call it? Retract and call it.

to retract and make no recommendation to the City Council to make any changes, is that correct?

No changes to Zone C regulations.

That's the motion. That's the motion.

Okay.

That has nothing to do with his ability to go back to Board of Adjustment and Appeals if that's his choice. This motion has no impact on that whatsoever.

If we want to put that on as another agenda item, I'm fine with that because I agree, Oscar, that I like the thing. I just understand that the only hardship we were shown was a financial one. And that doesn't mean it's not a good project to go ahead with anyway. But we were instructed that there had to be a hardship. So that's why this went down like that. But I agree. We can revisit that. I'm all for that.

On that Board of Adjustment and Appeals, weren't there only like four people or five people at the time, and maybe if there's others on it?

Well, there was a quorum.

Oh, okay.

Just like we've had quorums. We couldn't hold a meeting if there wasn't a quorum.

Okay, so I'm going to ask for a vote on the motion.

That motion won't work.

No, he's got it. Abraham's got it.

Okay, let's vote.

Okay, Commissioner Garlock made a motion. First, you're retracting your previous recommendation to City Council, and you're recommending no changes to District C regulations, and that was seconded by Commissioner Hayes.

Okay, so we have a motion and a second. So all in favor of the motion, raise your hand. All opposed. Okay.

Okay. What's the count?

Was the motion passed or not?

Yeah, it did pass.

I didn't see all the hands. I didn't either.

Okay, boy. Now we get to go to some.

Moving on.

So we're at 5.8. Discussion in action to clarify and finalize the recommendations to the City Council on revisions to the signed regulations in Chapter 15 and the PBED code.

The vote was to... Could you close it? What was to combine both the PB, Potter Boulevard Entertainment District Code and Chapter 15. Right. So I can't remember what. Hold on, sorry. We've done a lot of research on this. Constant, I'm not sure if you've got that, the...

Draft? Draft. Not yet. But previous meeting that you discussed this, that was the motion to combine the requirements to make them the same in both Chapter 15 and the Padre Boulevard Code with potentially getting rid of that Section 8 and just making them reference back to the actual ordinance. Right. I know that you were considering the sandwich signs, the banners, and the monument signs, but you were gonna come back to all of the other signs.

Right, so do we have anything on that?

Is Victor coming? Because he had some comments.

We let him know. He's probably looking at the meeting right now. So I'm not sure if he's coming.

OK. Yeah, when we first did it, one was the monument sign. And you probably have no idea, April, what we're even talking about.

The monument sign basically is restricted.

We were going to make them all 16, right? Yeah.

OK. We have the form-based code.

Sometimes standard on those because they're all over the place.

Yeah.

What we have, I'm just trying to let April know since she's new. is we have the form-based code, which is separate from the city sign ordinance. And the form-based code has in it sign standards for the different, what do you call these districts? Entertainment, the Padre? Padre Boulevard Entertainment District Code. Code, which is, it goes from the Bayfront, which was talked about earlier, which really encompasses like from Viva down to... The whole code basically... Those areas and...

The whole code typically... We were just trying to put all the codes under one code and refer so that we didn't have two separate codes. The entertainment district codes and then the rest of the city codes.

It's more restrictive right now. The... The entertainment district code was actually, one was more, one was less. The entertainment district code said monument signs can only be six feet tall. The ordinance said 16. The entertainment district code says you can have sandwich signs. The city ordinance says you can't. So which is more restrictive depends upon which sign you're looking at. Which one you're looking at.

So this hasn't been completed by Ed? Or Alex?

The draft of the new Chapter 15 ordinance, not yet.

We don't have it yet. Okay. So I guess we'll move on.

Well, no. We're just trying to clarify it, first of all, and then if you needed to change anything else. But basically, like you were saying, the height of a monument sign in Chapter 15 is 16 feet, and then the Potter Boulevard Entertainment District zone is six, maximum was six feet. So that was the main thing that we wanted to change to the- Right. We need to table this until they get their graph done?

Your concern is sandwich signs.

Well, when we gave him the changes, it was at the very end of a very busy meeting like today. And at the end of the motion, Catherine said, but we want, and I agreed with her, we want to see the draft before it goes to city council because it was kind of crazy there at the end. And we don't have the draft, but it's back on here. And so I got the impression we were re-looking at it, and I know Victor had made a comment about, he said banners were legal, but banner signs.

Oh, he's Victor right now, Victor's here. Yeah, I'm gonna let him talk. Good afternoon, Victor Baldovinos, Pride Environmental Health Director. I am in charge of code enforcement. So I was asked the question, if you could change something with the ordinance, what would it be? And I said banners. Banners we have found on the street. We have found on other people's yard. The placement of banners is not in there. And then it says that banners are allowed in form-based code on the chart, but it doesn't say where or how. So it contradicts itself. Then you go to chapter 15, and it says they're prohibited. So either you're going to allow them and define where and how they're going to be placed, or you're going to take them off and not allow banners altogether.

And the same with sandwich signs.

Sandwich signs, I didn't bring up. It was just banners.

Well, sandwich signs is under that same section in 15 as not allowed, but allowed in the form-based code. Right, yes.

So that was the issue with banners. So banners is something that you guys are going to have to decide whether you want them, don't want them, or decide to put them in or take them out. And that should be clear direction on what route you want to take.

And when a banner is put up, how often is it taken down and how often do you pick it up in the streets?

They're good for 15 days, and sometimes what happens is we get strong winds overnight, and a banner sometimes is just with a bungee cord, and it ends up on the street. And it can become a real hazard, especially when it's... Street hazard. Yes, exactly.

Agreed.

And you get a motorcycle that's just... Motorcycles? You get a motorcycle through there? Yeah. Yeah.

I'd say Banner. Banner's out. He should put some restrictions on them and to where they're, you are correct in the wind, I mean, forget it, it's always blowing. And I've had a few of them in my yard. So yes, he is absolutely correct.

Or are they even needed? Yes. That's the question. Are they even needed?

It's really going to be hard to do that because there's so many different variances when it comes to banners. I mean, so many different types. Sizes and lengths.

Actually, that would be very easy because they have to get a permit each and every time for 15 days.

It's easier for you to control it then. Absolutely.

So if you don't want them, you don't have to approve them. And guess what? They just don't get another permit and it goes away. It trickles out.

Because there's so many different types of banners. I mean, how can you control how they hang them and by what they're hung by? That's the issue.

I agree.

Are they good quality? Are they bad quality? I mean, are they going to rip down the first high wind and end up in somebody's yard or in their pool?

Are they really needed? That's the question.

I was going to ask you, can you give me some examples? Like, when they come up for permit, what are the banners you're being requested? Like, for what?

Think of an example.

Different times of the year, people, so let me give you some history. How this started was there was a city manager that said, hey, let's identify spring break, July 4th, et cetera, as city sponsored events or city recognized events.

Yes.

And so they were allowed to put a banner as long as it stated that event on the banner. But they got smart about it. they decided, okay, well, we'll just put a little bag on, a plastic bag, and we'll change it out as the events are coming up. And then that plastic bag ended up on the street, so it didn't have it, so there we go again, knocking on the door, and it just became a bigger and bigger problem. It just kind of snowballed. And this is where we're at now.

Anybody have any opinions on banners?

I'm a fan of banners, but I like the time frame. I like the time frame of no more than 15 days.

Yeah, but that doesn't answer the question. I think Scott brought up the question. We'd have to determine what a banner is and how big a banner is. We have to basically identify the dimensions. It can go no larger than... And they are good only for 15 days.

Already, is that what you said?

That's how they're permitting them, yes.

They're permitted through 15 days, but...

Remember, you have banners, you have feathered flags, you have sail flags, you have the A-frame signs, you have sandwich signs, you have, so there's a lot of signage out there. Signage out there, right.

But the sail signs are.

Qualifications for all those other signs of how they're hung and how they're put out and when they go out, when they come in?

There are some, yes, that have to come in at the end of business, but not everything is defined in the ordinance. Okay, okay. That is correct.

So right now,

Banners and sandwich boards are pretty much the same. Yeah, those are the only two that we're worried about. They're not supposed to be on the right-of-way, but they usually are. Some of them are.

Can you put that up? The sandwich sign thing, too?

I see them all the time.

The sandwich sign pictures, we do have them.

He's got sandwich sign pictures we can look at. He's going to flash them up for us to look at the sandwich, but banners...

regarding what Mr. Balovino's meant about the banner signs. So if you go to chapter 15, which is the ordinance, Prohibited banners are prohibited if you go to the form based code banners they are permitted in every district in the Padre boulevard code, however, it says. hundred is same as city of South Padre island sign regulations so they're permitted, but they it says to follow the regulations of the ordinance.

Is this a blade sign? Are those part of banners, or that's a separate sign?

That would be feather signs, correct? Yes.

Banner is really something that's hung, or it could be on two... Poles, too.

People have gotten very creative about how they put them up. I've seen them around a tree, and then they string a bungee cord onto the car, and while it's up, while they're there in their park, the banner's up, and then when they leave, they take the banner down, and it just flies in the wind. So, again, it's up to you all and what you all want to do.

And we had an open house banner sign in our subdivision, but that was not, that's, That was fine. It wasn't regulated by the city. And it was, boy, it was the most secure banner, tied up banner sign. Yeah.

But it wasn't on popular global.

Are you a fan of the banners?

I don't get paid to have an opinion. But I know that now you can buy banners online very cheap, and they don't last. I mean, they're probably buying them on Timu or something.

They're inexpensive advertising. I mean.

Temporary advertising well, they should be temporary, but they'll get them 15 days in a row. So that's two months So in your opinion, do we need banners?

Troy can you come to me? But that's not on Padre Boulevard, which is the way we could restrict them, is not on Padre Boulevard.

You can have an open house on a Padre Boulevard.

On a building, you're right.

My name's Troy Giles, and I've been in the real estate business longer than maybe some of you guys are old.

That's me.

I think this thing is totally out of control. I think you need to look at It's selling like I mean I've been just talking about this thing with Of course, I'm concerned about all kinds of signs early in open house signs welcome signs New Welcome a new business to town. I I started looking real estate signs. What is it? I think you need to look at real estate signs. There's only one real estate sign that's free.

That is something like a two by three or something.

No. A two by three is six square feet, and that takes a $50 permit. And it's a little yard sign. And if you put a name writer on top of it, which is usually about six inches, it starts growing. And you end up with this. You can end up with a two foot by three foot sign just by adding, you know, it's waterfront. What's the state agent's name? You know, commercial zoning. You can have residential and commercial zone area. I mean, there's a there. I'm sorry that I'm bringing it up, really. I just didn't even know that we were talking about I came here for Ron's situation. And there's parts of that that I like, parts of it I don't like. But I just, I tell you, I just, I think the signed ordinance is, it's 14 years old, I think. Is it not, Dennis? Is it not?

There's portions of it that has been up.

Yeah, piecemeal. Yeah, somebody gets a banner. We need to talk about banners. We need to talk about feathers. We got feathers going up there. You know, you have to get a permit to put up a feather. I think you can put up two feathers.

Two feathers per location.

For 50 bucks. And it can be up for six months. And it's another... 50 bucks, just for a feather. I think some of them are good and some of them are needed. You got stuff up there, you can't even, they're faded. You can't even see what it's all about. The maintenance and... I don't know. I'm just a little bit upset about this sign ordinance because I think it needs a major overhaul. And if you give it just to an attorney to review that stuff.

Well, what would you like to see, Troy?

I'd like for you to take maybe the definitions and talk about a definition of a banner, of a feather sign. Take the definitions of what you got. But you do it.

OK. OK. Thank you.

I don't know how long it would take to do it. But you get into, and there's a section as far as real estate is concerned. And that involves every person in here, every person in this room, because they're either leasing something or they own it. A lot of realtors do a lot of selling of that stuff. We're trying to represent these buyers and sellers. And I just, I'm just... I didn't come prepared to do this, to talk about it, other than I could.

That's okay.

You know, Troy, you know.

Make a good point. We don't even we don't even have it in our mind pictures of what a lot of these signs are in path perhaps where we need to be going is We go through this step by step and we between Victor and Abraham for each one of these sign categories We see examples of what's out there and then we're able to formulate what's gonna work best. That's kind of the Well, it's hard for me to And maybe how many? Narrow down banner signs and the big real estate signs and the small ones.

Well, like we did for the monument signs, you guys provided that slideshow for us of all the different banner signs that are on the island. It gave us a better outlook of what's out there and the different sizes. And we knew how many different sizes they were, and we kind of determined, well, you know, the 8-foot and the 10-foot and the 12-foot signs are pretty much gone, that the 16-foot signs are gone. Better options now.

Overabundance of permanent.

Sign. Put monument sign, like at Ben's Liquor, the new one at Ben's Liquor. Yeah, the height. That was previous.

So it sounds like we're not right here. You get them so low, a car will block a sign.

Yeah. There's some older ones, and there's ones that progressed along.

Can we make a motion to table this and then get some more information?

Well, I think we were supposed to get some more information for this hearing anyhow. And it's my fault. Oscar, it's my fault. I just wanted to standardize it. And it sounds like that we may be standardizing this for quite a while.

Yeah.

And maybe, you know, I'm going through it, and maybe it's just more definition, because it is very loose. I mean, sail flag signs and feather flag signs, and then that's it.

Well, I just wanted to be, I wanted both the entertainment district code and our code to all be the same code. That was the only reason I brought it up. All right, Randy.

Hello, Randy Smith, city manager. I also wanted to bring it to your attention that while y'all have already approved some other signage, as just mentioned a minute ago, like the Ben sign, the monument signs or whatever, that's kind of, that suggestion's already pending to head up to council. But until this whole sign ordinance is figured out, those pre-decided factors are in pending state. Yet, I guess some other folks maybe misread it that we're about to come and ask for variances. So I think people already spent a lot of money in monument signs, and they're sitting around waiting for all this other stuff to be decided. And then I've had to explain to them, no, no, we're not even there yet. It's still got to go to Congress. council then it's got to have a second reading for an ordinance so just letting y'all know that this caveat that you're in is holding up a whole lot of other process that people keep asking us every day about including i just forgot i need to call a couple people from yesterday and tell them Anyways, at some point I need to let them know what's up or I think they want to come back and at least start the variance process or something because they're just impending state with in that area.

We want to get it right.

If I didn't make that clear, I'll repeat it again. Are you clear what I'm saying? Those monument signs, there were some other people wanting to come ask for variances. But as they were about to, y'all straightened up that. And it seemed like it worked itself out. Right. but now they're at pending state because the city can't, the council can't move further until this component's decided. Well, thank you, Randy.

Thank you.

The issue was we were trying to have all of it under 15 and not have 8 and 15, and one has no banners and one has banners.

It almost sounds like we need to, combine the two using almost the less restrictive sign standard.

I don't know what you're saying there. Because that means we have no restrictions.

No, we have section eight that says six foot monument.

No, no, we already, that's over.

We haven't, it hasn't gone to city council to be approved. Yes, it has. No, no, it hasn't. But he just said. He just said, we're now doing the whole thing before it goes to city council.

Was that, had it, but they can't rule on it.

We're, yeah, they're not, it's not. It's all going to come as one package, this stuff that you're talking about today. So as long as this stays pending, that stays pending. It has the recommendation component on it, but it's just a sticky note waiting to go to council.

Okay. And we hadn't gotten the deal. We're really looking at the banner and the sandwich signs, and we had expected to get language back. already.

Which is probably why the draft hasn't been finalized, because your last meeting, the motion you made was combining the two sections, increasing the monument height to 16, and then removing the section that prohibits banners and sandwich signs.

In the ordinance, yeah.

In the ordinance, and that's it. So regarding specifics, the only specific that has been given was for the monument signs, as Mr. Smith pointed out.

So we have to be completely... Well, the bottom line is we're going to have to be arbitrary on deciding what size is, and then I'm not quite sure how you go about that because everybody's going to have their own idea of what a banner sign should be, and this can go on indefinitely. So my issue is why don't we just... go with either 15 or eight, and haven't put it together since we've already voted on the monument signs, and you said no banners are in the... No banners in 15, no signs in 15, but in the form-based code they allow

banners and sandwich signs.

Well, where's Victor? He must have left. But what Victor said is there aren't that many banner signs. So what I would say, we should go with 15 and then let somebody come for a variance if there's a big demand for banner signs. Yep, that's good. We'll sit here and argue about the dimensions until we did that with the signages on the house and the parking. Yes. We'll never get to vote on the other one.

Also, if nothing else, yeah, put something in ground. I mean, any of these ordinances are a working document that can always come back and be reviewed, redefined, and re-voted on. But if you could come to some general consensus, even if later it's decided not to be the best, we could rehash it and then...

If we said no sandwich signs, because that's what 15 says, and it goes to City Council, City Council has the right to say, we disagree with that and we're going to put it back in.

Why don't we just go with what we have up to now, the monument signs, and go with 15 with no banners and no sandwich signs.

Make a motion. I make that a motion. 15 is 16 feet. I second the motion. Yeah, 15 is 16 feet in.

So I make that a motion. I second.

motion was not to remove banners and sandwich signs. You removed the section that says they're prohibited in Chapter 15. So your previous motion established the monument sign height, and you're allowing banners and sandwich signs In Chapter 15.

No, we have to remove that motion again. We'll be here all day. We're going the other way.

Yeah, we're going the other way.

Okay, so we're going to remove the motion. I guess I have to make that motion again for me. I'll say I rescind that motion. I'll get a second. We'll rescind it, and then we'll just go with monuments, no banners, no sandwich, and then let it go and move.

So the only change is gonna be the monument sign height in section eight then?

Yeah, in the form-based code, right. And the sandwich signs in the form-based code and the banners in the form-based code.

Are we getting rid of sandwich boards, though? No, if we do 15.

Because they're not in 15. They're only in the 8.

They're only in the form-based code. Yeah. They're not in the city ordinance.

So what I'm saying is we stay with 15 on everything, combine it, and then on a case-by-case basis get a variance for it.

Yeah, if you want a banner, you can...

To clarify.

Because Victor said that they can then control the permit situation, and then they can say.

To clarify, you're looking to not.

Before the Board of Variants, you get a sandwich sign or a banner every time.

The sign variances will come to you guys, as they already have been.

Let's see where we go with this first.

Open house signs are legal in 15.

I'm just trying to get this thing moving along here. Let's just go with rescinding the original and then keep it with the monuments at 16, right? Okay, and then using the 15 where there's no banners or sandwich signs, okay?

Okay, so for now, are you guys looking to just making this height change in the Padre Boulevard code without merging them right now and doing all of that other stuff?

Sounds like you're getting rid of everything in the form by this code and just going with 15.

That was the original motion. But right now, as Randy mentioned, if for now the change is just going to be to change the height, you can just do that in section 8, and that'll be the whole motion.

Okay, that works. And then the city council can move forward?

And they can tell us if we need to review some of our signs and banners.

So basically they take no action on the other stuff, right? Is that what you're saying?

No action.

And then keep your original motion that you suggested from last time. And then we could at least get it through to get the ordinance passed to get some of it moving.

So Abraham, tell me, do I have to do another motion, or are we staying with the motion?

The original motion was to combine both sections. If that's still happening, the draft would have to come back to this meeting, right? So if they only change it in section eight and don't combine the two sign sections yet, that can be the finalization. Just changing the monument sign height. Okay. And that's it.

All right. I make that motion. Should I make it or do you want to say what it is?

That's your current motion, yeah.

Okay. I'll second. Hoska's seconding it. We're not sure what I just said. But, okay. And then, our discussion. Talk amongst yourselves.

Okay, we're just doing form-based code section eight, change in the monument sign I to 16P. Okay.

All right, do we have a second?

Yeah, I second.

Oh, Bob's second.

All in favor? We have all kinds of seconds.

All right, all right, good. Okay, now I'm down to 5.9. I'm sorry to say this is almost over. Discussion in action on recommending changes, if any, to City Council regarding the provisions of art in public spaces and public art in the Padre Boulevard and Entertainment District Code and Chapter 15 of the City Code.

Real quick. So someone else seconded, but Oscar had already seconded, so.

Okay, that's fine. That's good as a second, okay? We'll let Oscar do this. You all can raise your hands again to do that. Okay.

In favor?

Yeah.

Okay, thanks.

Okay, do you want me to read this again? I'm sure we all know what this says now. Yes.

Okay, want me to read it? Yes.

All right. Discussion in action on recommending changes, if any, to the City Council regarding the provisions of art in public spaces and public art in the Padre Boulevard and Entertainment District Code and Chapter 15 of the City Code. Okay, that's the discussion.

Mr. Frank is up, Alex is up first.

Alex, I want to hear from Alex. So there's a criteria that exists right now. There's 11 criteria. The main thing is that the height right now is eight by three by three. It cannot be attached to the building. It has to be by an artist and, you know, viewed by the public, sort of the highlights of what the 11 things are.

They already voted on something like that, right?

So we're just here to see if that's still an adequate criteria or you want to change it or, you know.

We're supposed to look at the whole public art. Okay. Art in public places. Because there are, I'm gonna go right on a limb and recommend that we table this to another meeting, and I'll tell you why. Because number one, we've got to address murals. There's nothing, this doesn't allow you to paint anything on a building. So we have to address murals. We also have to, it doesn't allow the birding trail.

Well, this is art in public spaces.

That's right.