7.A. 22P-007 (Adjacent To 828 Postoffice / Avenue E) Request For A Permanent License To Place Landscape Planter Walls, ADA Ramp/Egress Stair, Light Fixtures, And Parking Garage Foundation In The City Street Right-Of-Way. Adjacent Properties Are Legally Described As Lots 9 – 13, And Part Of Lot 9 And South Half Of Adjacent Alley, Block 488; And The North 95 Feet Of Lot 1 (1-1), South 25 Feet Of Lot 1 (1-2), And Lots 2 Through 7, Block 428, In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas. Adjacent Property Owner: Shriners Hospital For Children Applicant: Kirksey Architecture, C/O Rick De La Cruz Easement Holder: City Of Galveston

[7.A. 22P-007 (Adjacent To 828 Postoffice / Avenue E) Request For A Permanent License To Place Landscape Planter Walls, ADA Ramp/Egress Stair, Light Fixtures, And Parking Garage Foundation In The City Street Right-Of-Way. Adjacent Properties Are Legally Described As Lots 9 – 13, And Part Of Lot 9 And South Half Of Adjacent Alley, Block 488; And The North 95 Feet Of Lot 1 (1-1), South 25 Feet Of Lot 1 (1-2), And Lots 2 Through 7, Block 428, In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas. Adjacent Property Owner: Shriners Hospital For Children Applicant: Kirksey Architecture, C/O Rick De La Cruz Easement Holder: City Of Galveston]

22P-007 STAFF IS REQUESTING, WELL, THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A PERMANENT LICENSE TO USE TO PLACE LANDSCAPE PLANTER WALLS AIDING A RAMP AND EGRESS STAIRS.

LIGHT FIXTURES AND PARKING GARAGE FOUNDATION IN THE CITY STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY.

STAFF IS REQUESTING THAT THE ABOVE REFERENCE REQUEST BE DEFERRED UNTIL THE MARCH 22ND, 2022 MEETING IN ORDER FOR THE APPLICANT TO REVISE THEIR LICENSE TO USE NARRATIVE AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS.

AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE, I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 22P-007 AT 3:38 P.M.

IS THE APPLICANT HERE? OK, NO. DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? SEEING NONE, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 3:38 P.M.

I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR DEFERRAL.

SO MOVED.

COMMISSIONER PENA, SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER EDWARDS.

ALL IN FAVOR RAISE YOUR HAND.

UNANIMOUS. MOVING ON 21P-074,

[7.B. 21P-074 (1128 Seawall) Request For A Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay District To Establish A Mixed-Use Development Consisting Of Multi-Family Dwellings, Retail-Commercial, And Accessory Parking Structure Land Uses. Properties Are Legally Described As: M. B. Menard Survey, North Part Of Lot 8, Southeast Block 23, Galveston Outlots; M. B. Menard Survey, Lots 11 Through 14 And Part Of Lots 9 And 10, Southeast Block 23, Galveston Outlots, And North ½ Of Adjacent Avenue N; M. B. Menard Survey, Lot 7, Southeast Block 23, Galveston Outlots; M. B. Menard Survey, Lot 6 And East 1/2 Of Lot 5, Southeast Block 23, Galveston Outlots; M. B. Menard Survey, West 1/2 Of Lot 5 (3005-1), Southeast Block 23, Galveston Outlots; M. B. Menard Survey, East 1/2 Of Lot 4 (3004-2), Southeast Block 23, Galve]

21P-074.

[00:05:06]

THERE WE GO. SORRY, DANIEL, YOU JUST SOAKS INTO CONCESSIONS STILL, RIGHT TECHNOLOGY.

SO 21P-074 THIS, OF COURSE, IS REQUEST FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT TO ESTABLISH A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT STAFF IS REQUESTING THE ABOVE REFERENCED REQUESTS BE DEFERRED UNTIL THE MARCH 22ND, 22 MEETING.

THERE IS A MINOR ERROR IN THE MEMO.

IT'S IN ORDER FOR STAFF TO FURTHER REVIEW THE SUBMITTAL.

SO AT THIS POINT, THE APPLICANT'S NOT RESPOND TO STAFF'S COMMENTS.

STAFF JUST NEEDS MORE TIME TO REVIEW THE SUBMITTAL FOR COMPLETENESS.

THIS IS A SECOND REQUEST FOR DEFERRAL, AND THERE ARE NO COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE REQUEST. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE. OH, SORRY.

DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING? YEAH.

SEEING NONE. WELL, OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 3:41 P.M.

ANYONE HAVE ANYTHING, ANY QUESTIONS COMMENTS ON THIS CASE? SEEING NONE, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 3:41 P.M..

I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR DEFERRAL ON 21P-074.

YES, COMMISSIONER FINKLEA? I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT IT.

I WILL SECOND THAT MOTION EVERYONE IN FAVOR OF DEFERRAL.

RAISE YOUR HAND. UNANIMOUS IN CASE 21P-074 IS DEFERRED TILL MARCH 22ND MEETING.

NEXT UP, WE HAVE CASE 22P-012.

[8.A.1. 22P-012 (17130 FM 3005 And Adjacent Vacant Parcel) Request For A Change Of Zoning From Residential, Single-Family (R-1) And Residential, Townhouse (R-2) To Resort-Recreation (RES/REC). Properties Are Legally Described As Abstract 121, Page 30 & 31, Hall And Jones Survey, Tract 71, 72.960 Acres And Abstract 121, Page 30 & 31, Hall And Jones Survey, Tract 73, 80.000 Acres, In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas. Applicant: Ronald Gustafson Property Owners: Gustafson, Inc. And Ronald And Dora Gustafson]

ALL RIGHTY. 21P-012 IS A REQUEST FOR A REZONING AT 17130 FM 3005, AN ADJACENT PARCEL.

THERE WERE 10 PUBLIC NOS, THE SENTIMENT OF THOSE RETURNED.

THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CHANGE OF ZONING FROM RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY OR R-1, A RESIDENTIAL TOWNHOUSE R-2 TO RESORT RECREATION.

THE APPLICANT'S INTENT IS TO EXPAND THE AMENITIES AND ATTRACTIONS OF EXISTING RV PARK OWNED AND OPERATED BY THE APPLICANT.

THESE AMENITIES WILL BE OPEN TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC, AS WELL AS RV PARK GUESTS AS SOON AS THE APPLICANTS SUBMIT AND EXHIBIT A OF THE STAFF REPORT.

THIS INCLUDES A RESORT STYLE SWIMMING POOL, CABANAS, PARKING, LANDSCAPING, RESTROOMS, OUTDOOR THEATER AND OTHER ASSOCIATED AMENITIES.

INFRASTRUCTURE IS PROPOSED TO CONSIST OF A PRIVATE ACCESS DRIVING EXISTING RV PARK AND WILL UTILIZE EXISTING WATER AND ELECTRICAL INFRASTRUCTURE.

NEW ONSITE SANITARY SERVICES WILL BE INSTALLED BY THE OWNER.

THE EXISTING RV PARK WAS CONSTRUCTED IN PHASES BEGINNING IN 2006.

THE 2015 ZONING MAP SHOWS BOTH PARCELS OWNED AS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AT THAT TIME.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES REPRESENT TWO EXISTING LAND USES AND TWO ZONING DISTRICTS ARE SUMMARIZED ABOVE.

THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE WESTERNMOST PARCEL, WE'LL THROW SOME MAPS UP FOR REFERENCE HERE IN JUST A MOMENT, IS CURRENTLY ZONED RESORT RECREATION.

THAT WOULD BE WHERE THE EXISTING RV PARK IS, BUT THE NORTHERNMOST UNDEVELOPED PORTION IS RESIDENTIAL TOWNHOME IN THE EASTERNMOST PARCEL IS ZONED RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY ZONING MAP IS PROVIDED IN ATTACHMENT B.

THE MAJORITY OF THE LAND TO THE EAST, WEST AND SOUTH OF SUBJECT PARCELS CONSISTS OF LARGE UNDEVELOPED TRACTS THAT BUFFER BETWEEN THE RESIDENTIAL LAND USES TO THE NORTH THE PARCELS ARE BOUNDED BY GALVESTON BAY, FOR LARGE PART TO THE SOUTH, THERE IS EXISTING RV PARK, OF COURSE. BEYOND THAT LIES THE FM 3005 AND MORE UNDEVELOPED LAND AND SEE ALSO THE ADJACENT LAND USE TABLE IN THE STAFF REPORT THAT KIND OF SUMMARIZES THAT.

IN REGARDS TO STATE DEPARTMENT REVIEW BUILDING DEPARTMENT REVIEW THE PROPOSAL NOTED THE ALL NEW CONSTRUCTION MUST MEAN APPLICABLE BUILDING CODES, OF COURSE.

PUBLIC WORKS NOTED THE NEW WATER LINE MAY BE REQUIRED FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, AS THE EXISTING FOUR INCH LINE IS LIKELY INSUFFICIENT TO ACCOMMODATE THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. OF COURSE, SHOULD THE REQUEST BE APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL, CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS WILL BE REVIEWED APPROPRIATELY BY THE CITY AT THAT TIME.

PLEASE NOTE INTERPRETATION OF USE CLASSIFICATION AND CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL IN THE STAFF REPORT. STAFF'S REQUEST IS GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE CHANGE OF ZONING APPROVAL CRITERIA AS PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 13.601(C) OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION AND RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.

THE PROPOSED REZONING IS GENERALLY COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING ZONING AND LAND USES DUE TO THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE SUBJECT PARCELS AND POTENTIALLY CONFLICTING LAND USES.

IT'S PRETTY WIDE OPEN UNDEVELOPED OUT THERE, SUCH AS, FOR EXAMPLE, EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT IS FAIRLY REMOTE DUE TO THEIR IMMEDIATE PROXIMITY OF THE EXISTING RV PARK AND AMENITIES TO THE SOUTH.

REZONING, AS PROPOSES LIKEWISE UNLIKELY TO HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES OR DEVELOPMENT. WE HAVE SOME PHOTOS.

HERE WE GO. SO HERE'S JUST A PHOTO OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY THERE ON THE LOWER RIGHT.

HERE'S OUR ZONING MAP SHOWING THE PARCELS OF INVOLVED IN THE REZONING.

[00:10:04]

SEE, THERE'S TWO, AND THE ONE ON THE TO THE WEST IS A PARTIALLY ALREADY RESORT RECREATION. THE ZONING DISTRICT KIND OF CUTS IT.

WE ALSO CAN SEE THE NOTIFICATION AREA JUST TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA.

REMEMBER, THAT'S A 200 FOOT BUFFER, SO YOU GET AN IDEA OF HOW BIG THESE PROPERTIES REALLY ARE. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

SO HERE IS A KIND OF A CLOSE UP OF THE AERIAL MAP WITH THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL OVERLAY, SO YOU CAN KIND OF SEE HOW THAT WOULD CONNECT TO THE EXISTING PARCELS THERE IN THE REZONING. SEE, IT KIND OF CUTS ACROSS BOTH OF THEM.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY TO THE EAST, TO THE SOUTH AND TO THE WEST. AND WE ALSO HAVE IN THE BOTTOM RIGHT THE COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT, OUTDOOR LIMITED USE STANDARDS BASED ON WHAT STAFF KNOWS THE PROPOSAL AT THIS TIME.

WE BELIEVE THAT THIS IS PROBABLY THE MOST, THE MOST APPROPRIATE LAND USE FOR FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT. BUT LIKE I SAID, THAT'S, YOU KNOW, BASED ON THE PROPOSAL AT THIS TIME, AND THAT INCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.

THANK YOU, DANIEL.

I APPRECIATE IT.

I'M GOING TO START WITH A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR STAFF, AND I KNOW THAT A LOT OF THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS TO OUR QUICK MOVING AGENDA, PROBABLY JUST SLOW DOWN A LITTLE BIT. SO FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT THIS IS A CHANGE OF ZONING, RIGHT, DANIEL, AND THAT IN A CHANGE OF OF ZONING, WE DON'T NECESSARILY REQUIRE THAT AN APPLICANT SUBMIT ALL OF THE THINGS THAT WERE SUBMITTED WITH THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION ON THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, RIGHT? WELL, WITH A CHANGE OF ZONING, WE DON'T NECESSARILY, YOU KNOW, IT'S MAY NOT BE A STRICT REQUIREMENT, BUT YOU KNOW, IT USUALLY COMES UP THAT THE QUESTIONS WILL BE ASKED IS, YOU KNOW, WHAT IS THE APPLICANT REALLY PROPOSING? AND SO WE DO OUR BEST TO, YOU KNOW, CAPTURE THAT WHEN WE BRING IT FORWARD.

OK? AND THAT WHEN A CHANGE OF ZONING OCCURS, THAT THAT ANYTHING THAT IS ALLOWABLE WITHIN THE NEW ZONING CATEGORY WOULD BE ALLOWABLE GOING FORWARD ON THAT PROPERTY, RIGHT? IN OTHER WORDS, ANY ALLOWABLE, ANYTHING ALLOWABLE IN RES REC COULD POTENTIALLY HAPPEN ON THAT PROPERTY GOING FORWARD, RIGHT? YEAH, CORRECT. AS THE STAFF REPORT NOTES, THIS CHANGES THE ZONING OF A PERMANENT NATURE REGARDLESS OF THE PRESENT PROPOSED LAND USE OF THE PROPERTIES PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL MUST CONSIDER ALL POTENTIAL FUTURE LAND USES THAT WILL BE PERMITTED LAND USE SHOULD THE REQUEST BE APPROVED.

SO THAT'S CORRECT.

SO ANYTHING THAT YOU HAVE LISTED HERE ON THIS PERMITTED LAND USE TABLE THAT IS A P UNDER RES REC ON HERE COULD COULD APPLY? SO THE PROVERBIAL BIKER BAR IS A POSSIBILITY.

SO THIS WHOLE THING COULD BECOME JUST MORE, MORE RV PARK OR ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE, RIGHT? IT WOULD BE THEN CONFORMING TO THE THE NEW ZONING OF LAND USE IS CORRECT.

RIGHT? DO YOU? DID YOU DISCUSS AT ANY POINT WITH THE APPLICANT THE USE OF A PUD FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT? I BELIEVE THERE WAS A PRE-DEVELOPMENT MEETING.

I DO NOT KNOW WHAT WAS DISCUSSED AT THAT TIME.

IT WASN'T IN ON THAT.

HOWEVER, YOU KNOW, IN THESE CASES, YOU KNOW, THE APPLICANT DOES HAVE THE OPTION TO GO ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. OK.

AND DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA? I'M SEEING A LOT OF WHAT LOOKED LIKE, AND I KNOW THAT THIS IS PROBABLY A QUESTION THAT'S BETTER ASK OF THE THE APPLICANT.

SO WE JUST AND I CAN WAIT CAN AS THE APPLICANT TO A LOT OF WHAT LOOKS LIKE WETLANDS IN HERE. DO YOU KNOW? DID THEY MENTION TO YOU IF THEY'VE HAD ANY DISCUSSION WITH THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS ABOUT ANY RECLAMATION OR MITIGATION OR ANYTHING OF ANY OF THIS? THAT WOULD BE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT, YES.

OK, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

WHO HAS QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF? YES, BOB. YEAH, DANIEL, I THINK HE REFERRED TO IT AS A BUFFER, BUT I DON'T SEE IT CHARACTERIZED ON THE REPORT OR ON THE MAP, WHAT DOES THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT LONG,

[00:15:01]

NARROW STRIP BETWEEN BOB SMITH AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY HERE? WELL, JUST TO CLARIFY THE IN THE STAFF REPORT MAP, THE KIND OF THE RED LINE IS JUST SHOWING THE NOTIFICATION AREA, THE NOTIFICATION, THE PARCEL BETWEEN, YOU KNOW, THE ONE SUBJECT PROPERTY IN JAMAICA BEACH IS A PIECE OF PRIVATE PROPERTY THAT'S NOT IN THIS REZONING. IT'S JUST A BIG PIECE OF PRIVATE PROPERTY.

THOUGH, IS IT? HOW IS IT ZONED? I MEAN. IT'S R-1.

R-1? MM HMM. SO IT COULD HAVE HOUSES ON IT, I GUESS, JUST LIKE JAMAICA BEACH? IT COULD, AMONG A FEW OTHER LAND USE IS CORRECT.

OK. THANKS.

COMMISSIONERS? COMMISSIONER WALLA? I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.

SO WE HAVE I KNOW THAT AT SOME POINT IN TIME, THIS BECAUSE OF THE AGE OF THAT DEVELOPMENT, THESE GUYS WERE A PD ZONING AND THEN DID THEY HAVE A GLUP FOR THEIR THAT DEVELOPMENT? AND DID IT INCLUDE ANY PART OF THIS? AND WHERE I'M TRYING TO GET TO IS, IS THIS ONE OF THESE CASES WHERE THESE GUYS HAD THIS AND IT WAS PD AND THEN IT GOT THROWN INTO THE R-1 MIX? SO AND I SAY R-1 MIX.

SO AND I'M REFERRING TO THERE WAS A POINT IN TIME WHEN WE HAD THE 91 STANDARDS CHANGE TO THE 2015 ZONING LDRS AND PRETTY MUCH EVERYBODY WEST OF THE SEAWALL, YOU'RE ZONING GOT CHANGED TO R-1, NO MATTER WHAT THE USE OF THE PROPERTY WAS, THERE WERE BUSINESS OWNERS.

I MEAN, I'M FAMILIAR WITH THAT.

SO I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE HOW THIS PROPERTY WENT FROM WHAT ONCE PALM WAS PD TO ITS RES REC R-2, R-1 STATUS, SOMETHING HAD TO HAVE CHANGED THERE OVER A PERIOD OF TIME.

AM I? MY, YOU UNDERSTANDING WHAT MY QUESTION IS? I BELIEVE SO, AND THIS QUESTION COMES UP PERIODICALLY.

AND YOU KNOW, A LOT OF THE REZONING THAT WENT ON AT THAT TIME PREDATES, YOU KNOW, MYSELF.

SO I'M NOT REALLY SURE AT ALL WHAT THE PROCESS WAS BACK THEN FOR DETERMINING WHAT YOU KNOW WAS ZONED TO WHAT IN THE 2015 REGULATIONS.

AND I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANY PARTICULAR SPECIAL, YOU KNOW, YOU SAID GLEP OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT THAT WAS IN PLAY.

I DO RECALL THAT THE PD ZONING WAS PRETTY BROAD.

IT DID ALLOW A GOOD NUMBER OF OF THINGS.

I DON'T HAVE THAT HANDY, BUT IT WAS A PRETTY BROAD CATEGORY CATEGORY.

PERHAPS THE APPLICANT MAY BE ABLE TO SHED SOME LIGHT ON THAT AS FAR AS ANY PREVIOUS APPROVALS THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN REQUIRED FOR REZONING.

THAT'S KIND OF WHAT MY QUESTION IS.

OK, THANK YOU, DANIEL.

COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? ALL RIGHT, SEEING, I'M SORRY, YES.

JUST ONE QUESTION CONCERNING THE AS THEY PLAN TO ADD ADDITIONAL SEPTIC.

SO THEY'RE NOT PART OF THE CITY WASTEWATER.

NO, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE CITY SANITARY EXTENDS TO THAT AREA AT THIS TIME.

OF COURSE, THERE MAY BE PLANS AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE TO TO DO THAT.

BUT YEAH, THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING, IS THAT THE APPLICANT WILL BE PUTTING IN OSSF, ON SITE SEWER FACILITY.

OK, THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? DANIEL, DID I MISS THE NOTICES SENT AND RETURNED? OH, I'M SORRY. YEAH, THERE WERE 10 PUBLIC NOTICES.

NONE OF THOSE WERE RETURNED.

OK, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ALL RIGHT. WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 3:53 P.M.

AND IS THE APPLICANT WITH US TODAY? PLEASE COME FORWARD, SIR, AND STATE YOUR NAME AND SIGN IN.

AND MY NAME IS RON GUSTAFSON.

WELCOME. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.

YOU'RE A LEFTY LIKE MY HUSBAND.

AND TELL US WHAT YOU'D LIKE TO TELL US ABOUT YOUR PROJECT, PLEASE, SIR.

ALL RIGHT. YEAH, I'M RON GUSTAFSON WITH THE JAMAICA BEACH RV RESORT, AND I'VE BEEN BRINGING YOU GUYS BEFORE THE EXPANSIONS AND DIFFERENT THINGS LIKE THAT.

[00:20:04]

WE ARE [INAUDIBLE] JAMAICAN BEACH RV RESORT, 180 SPOTS AND WE WERE 10, 10, 10 RATED GOOD SAM PARK, WHICH IS THE HIGHEST RATING YOU CAN GET.

SO WE TRY TO RUN A VERY PROFESSIONAL PARK.

PART OF THIS EXPANSION IS THAT WE GET A LOT OF DEMAND, WHICH WE DON'T DO BECAUSE OF DIFFERENT FOR THE USE OF THE LAZY RIVER AND THE DIFFERENT FACILITIES WE HAVE.

BUT THIS IS GOING TO WOULD BE A TOTAL DIFFERENT.

IT WOULD BE FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC TO USE AND OUR CUSTOMERS COULD USE IT ALSO.

SO PEOPLE THAT HAVE MAYBE LIKE A BEACH HOUSE OR SHORT TERM RENTAL, IT WOULD GIVE THEM SOMETHING TO DO BESIDES GO TO THE BEACH BECAUSE THAT'S ABOUT THE LIMIT OF WHAT THERE IS TO DO ON THE WEST END WITHOUT GOING ALL THE WAY INTO TOWN.

SO I THINK IT WORKED VERY WELL FOR THE PEOPLE IN THAT END OF TOWN.

AND SO THEY'D BE ABLE TO COME OUT THERE OR IF THEY'RE HOMEOWNERS, THEY GIVE THEM SOMETHING ELSE TO DO TOO, BESIDES JUST THE BEACH AND DIFFERENT THINGS BECAUSE THEY'LL HAVE A RESORT TYPE POOL A COUPLE OF HUNDRED FEET LONG.

IT'S A REALLY NEAT PIECE OF PROPERTY, I THINK IT STEMS BEST FOR RECREATIONAL USE BECAUSE OF THE FACT OF WHERE IT'S LOCATED, BUT THERE'S WATER ON ALL SIDES OR IN TWO SIDES, SO IT'S ALMOST LIKE AN ISLAND.

WHEN YOU WHEN YOU GO ON TO IT, IT LOOKS MORE LIKE AN ISLAND THAN A PENINSULA, BUT IT ACTUALLY TRULY IS A PENINSULA.

AND TO ADDRESS A FEW THINGS AND ALSO TOO IS, I THINK AS WE SEE HOUSTON MOVING SOUTH VERY RAPIDLY. I'VE LIVED HERE ABOUT LITTLE LESS THAN 20 YEARS AND IT'S ALMOST TO GALVESTON.

DAY USE LIKE THIS WILL BE MORE AND MORE WHAT PEOPLE ARE LOOKING FOR.

I THINK BECAUSE THEY CAN COME DOWN HERE WITH A TANK OF GAS.

HAVE A GOOD DAY, SPEND TIME IN GALVESTON AND SPEND MONEY IN GALVESTON AND GO HOME.

THAT'S WHAT A LOT OF THEM WILL DO.

AND SO I THINK THAT'LL WORK VERY WELL FOR THE PLANS OF GALVESTON TO HAVE MORE TOURISM.

AND BILL IS GOING TO TAKE A TALK A LITTLE MORE ABOUT R-1 TO PD TO R-1, BUT IT WAS KIND OF A BLANKET THING THAT EVERYTHING THAT WASN'T, IN FACT, WE HAD TO GET THE R AND THE RV PARK BACK INTO R1 BECAUSE IT WAS JUST EVERYTHING.

AND WHEN THE GAL THAT WAS ON MY END AND BILL CAN SAY MORE ABOUT IT THAN I WAS BECAUSE HE'S MORE INSIDE.

BUT THERE ARE COUNCILPERSON THAT SAID JAMAICA BEACH RV PARK GOT TO BE PART OF JAMAICA BEACH, SO IT'S NOT PART OF THIS ZONING PART.

AND WHICH IS WRONG WHEN BOB SMITH ON WE'RE BACK IN GALVESTON AGAIN.

SO THAT WAS KIND OF A LITTLE BIT OF AN OVER THERE THAT WAS ADDRESSED WITH THE RES REC AND IT WILL BE JUST A DAY USE FACILITY THAT IT WON'T BE, YOU KNOW, AT NIGHT WE'LL CLOSE DOWN.

SO THERE WON'T BE LIKE NOISE GOING ON FOR THE RESIDENTS IN THAT AREA.

I HAVE NOT TALKED TO THE ONE PERSON IN THE NARROW STRIP THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

I HAVE TALKED ON THE ONE WITH YELLOW MR. MORRIS THERE. IN FACT, WE'RE POSSIBLY GOING TO PURCHASE OUT THAT.

I'D SURE LIKE US TO. WE'RE STILL IN NEGOTIATION THERE.

BUT AND THEN AND WE'RE CIRCLED AROUND THERE.

IT ON ALL OF THAT IS NOT ALL BUILDABLE LAND LIKE YOU'VE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT.

THERE'S A LOT OF THOSE 80 ACRES AND 70 SOME ACRES OR WHATEVER.

THAT'S THERE'S JUST A STRIP THERE OF PROBABLY ABOUT 20 ACRES THAT WILL BE REALLY ACTUALLY DEVELOPING. AND, YOU KNOW, BEING, LIKE YOU SAY, WORKING WITH THE CORPS AND EVERYTHING TO GET WHAT IS WETLANDS AND THAT TYPE OF THING.

AND I DON'T THINK I'VE GOT ANYTHING ELSE UNLESS YOU HAVE SOME QUESTIONS.

HOPEFULLY, THOUGH, YOU'VE TAKEN HAD A CHANCE TO SEE THE VIDEO PORTION OF IT THERE.

I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY GOT TO SEE THAT THIS DISREGARD THE FIREWORKS.

HE WAS TRYING TO SHOW WHAT THE SOFTWARE COULD DO.

HE WAS BRAGGING ON WHAT HIS ABILITIES WERE.

THAT WAS NOT ME DOING IT.

SO BECAUSE I WAS KIND OF THINKING, OH, FIREWORKS, YOU AS IF TO GOTTEN RID OF FIREWORKS ON THE SEAWALL, HOW HE PUTS IT ON THE VIDEO.

BUT YEAH, NO FIREWORKS.

AND IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS FROM YOU, I'D BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM.

I THINK WE PROBABLY ALL HAVE SOME QUESTIONS.

DID YOU HAVE SOMEONE ELSE WHO WANTED TO SPEAK BEFORE WE MAYBE ASK SOME QUESTIONS? IS THAT? YES.

OK. GOOD AFTERNOON, I'M BILL CLEMENT.

I LIVE AT 7515 BUTLER CIRCLE, AND I VOLUNTEERED TO COME SPEAK TO YOU TO ASK THAT YOU PERMIT THIS REQUEST.

MY WIFE AND I SOLD OUR HOME IN GALVESTON SOME YEARS AGO AND FOR SIX YEARS TRAVELED IN AN RV AND WE SPENT OUR WINTERS AT THE PARK AND WE BECAME FRIENDS WITH THE THREE OVER 300

[00:25:01]

FAMILIES WHO ROUTINELY COME IN AS WINTER TEXANS.

AND WE GOT TO KNOW A LOT OF WOMEN DOWN THERE THE OTHER DAY.

ONE OF THEM MENTIONED THAT THIS WAS COMING UP.

TO ANSWER COMMISSIONER WALLA'S QUESTION.

I BELIEVE THIS IS IN FACT PART OF THAT PROBLEM OF ZONING THAT WE'VE SEEN ON THE ZONING BOARD. AND I KNOW YOU'VE SEEN SEVERAL TIMES WHERE THE ZONING JUST WASN'T NAILED TO THE RIGHT SPOT. AND SO FOR THAT REASON, I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU, JAMAICA BEACH RV AS A MODERATELY PRICED, HIGHLY RATED PARK.

IT HAS BEEN AVAILABLE, AS RON MENTIONED, HE GETS NUMEROUS REQUESTS TO USE THE FACILITIES ON A DAY USE PURPOSE AND BECAUSE OF CAPACITY.

HE CAN'T DO THAT TO ADDRESS THE OTHER CONCERN.

AND I WOULD HAVE THE SAME ONE ABOUT WHAT YOU COULD PUT IN THERE.

THIS RV PARK AND THESE OWNERS ARE HERE FOR THE LONG TERM.

THEY'RE A FAMILY. THEY'VE GOT TWO CHILDREN HELPING RUN THE PARK AND THEY'RE ACTIVELY INVOLVED. AND THEIR INTENT IS TO BE A LONG TERM CITIZENS OF GALVESTON.

AND THEY'VE BEEN GOOD CITIZENS SO FAR.

THE WINTER TEXAN RESIDENTS COME IN.

I KNOW OF ONE FAMILY THAT DONATED OVER 200 HOURS THIS WINTER TO SERVING MEALS DOWN AT OUR DAILY BREAD. SEVERAL OTHERS ACTIVELY PARTICIPATE IN THE CENTRAL CHURCH IS MISSION TO FEED. SO IT'S A COMMUNITY THAT WANTS TO BE PART OF GALVESTON FOR THE THREE TO FIVE MONTHS THAT THEY COME DOWN AND ARE WINTER RESIDENTS OF GALVESTON.

I'VE USED THEIR FACILITIES I'VE WATCH HOW THEY MONITOR THEM, AND IN THE LAST RESPONSE TO THE BIKER BAR, I CAN ASSURE YOU THAT THIS WILL BE BETTER MANAGED AND BETTER RUN FROM MY SIX YEARS OF OBSERVATION THAN WHAT YOU'VE GOT ON THE BEACH.

WHAT YOU'VE GOT DOWN AT THE STATE PARK BECAUSE ALL THREE FAMILIES LIVE ON SITE.

THEY'RE THERE. THEY'RE ACTIVE IN THE MANAGEMENT AND THEY'RE COMMITTED TO GROWING IT.

AND FINALLY, WITH REGARD TO THE CONCERN ABOUT WETLANDS, I'VE WALKED MOST OF THAT AREA I'VE SEEN, AND FROM THE PICTURE, I COULD SEE WHERE HE'S GOING TO PUT IT, AND HE'S STUDIOUSLY AVOIDED BUILDING ON THOSE WETLANDS.

SO I THINK AS SOMEONE WHO HAS NOT A VESTED INTEREST BUT A PERSONAL INTEREST IN SEEING GALVESTON OFFER OPPORTUNITIES TO FOLKS WHO COME IN TO VISIT GALVESTON.

INCREASE THE TAX BASE AND PROVIDE SOME GOOD CITIZENS WHO'VE DONE AN EXCELLENT JOB AN OPPORTUNITY. I WOULD STRONGLY HOPE AND RECOMMEND THAT YOU APPROVE THIS.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

ARE YOU HERE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE? THANK YOU. THEN, MR. GUSTAFSON, IF YOU WOULD COME BACK UP, I'M SURE THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR YOU.

COMMISSIONERS? BOB, YOU HAVE QUESTIONS. I'M SURE.

YOU WANT TO START AND THEN I'LL GO NEXT? THANK YOU.

BOB? MR. GUSTAFSON.

SO ARE YOU GOING TO BE REQUIRED TO DO A DELINEATION ON THIS PROJECT? YEAH. SO COULD YOU SHOW ME WHERE WHERE YOU THINK THOSE WETLANDS ARE RELATIVE TO WHERE YOUR DEVELOPMENT IS? OK? TO GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL YEAH, AND STAN, IF YOU WOULD, WHILE HE'S THERE, IF YOU'LL TURN YOUR MIC AROUND AND TURN YOUR MIC ON, PLEASE.

THERE THAT WENT THROUGH. I CAN GO UNDERWATER THERE, SO IT'S RELATIVELY HIGH THAT SANDBAR IS RIGHT HERE AND THIS HERE IS ALL WETLANDS.

THERE ARE BIRDS WATCHING THAT TYPE STUFF, YOU KNOW, AND THIS IS ON THIS SIDE IS MORE WHICH WE'LL NEVER BE DEVELOPING BECAUSE IT'S ALL KIND OF A WETLANDS AREA.

YOUR DEVELOPMENT IS ALONG THAT? YEAH. OK. SO THAT AREA TO THE NORTH OF YOUR DEVELOPMENT THERE, IT'S JUST MARSHLAND? THE, AND RIGHT AFTER HURRICANE IKE, THEY BUILT SOME OF THESE LITTLE ISLANDS, LIKE FOR BIRD HABITATS AND STUFF FOR DIFFERENT THINGS LIKE THAT.

BUT THERE'S NO. I, YOU KNOW, USE OF ANY OF IT EXCEPT FOR BIRDWATCHING.

WAS IT A MARSHLAND RECLAMATION PROJECT? IS THAT WHAT THAT? IT WAS RIGHT AFTER HURRICANE IKE, THEY'D COME IN.

IF YOU WOULD GO BACK TO THE MIC, AND THE ONLY REASON I ASK IS THIS IS BEING RECORDED SO THAT WE CAN HAVE IT. YEAH, THANK YOU.

THAT'S PERFECT. ALL THOSE BROWN DOTS THERE ARE RIGHT AFTER HURRICANE IKE.

WE HAD THE WORKER STAND HERE AT OUR RV PARK

[00:30:29]

OK, GREAT, THANK YOU. SO NONE OF THAT HAS BEEN DONE YET, YOU HAVEN'T WORKED WITH THE CORPS OR ANY OF THAT? OK, AND IN YOUR PRE-DEVELOPMENT MEETING, DID YOU ALL DISCUSS THE POSSIBILITY OF UTILIZING A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, A PUD? AND I JUST WANT TO REMIND THE COMMISSIONERS OF WHAT THE REQUEST IS TODAY, AND IT'S NOT NECESSARILY BASED ON SOME OTHER OPTIONS THAT EITHER ARE AVAILABLE FOR THE APPLICANT.

AND I NEED TO ASK THE QUESTIONS THAT I NEED TO ASK TO MAKE MY DECISION ON WHAT'S BEFORE ME TODAY, BUT I DO APPRECIATE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING AND THANK YOU.

I DO UNDERSTAND, BUT I'M JUST ASKING WHAT I NEED TO ASK TO MAKE MY DECISION.

BUT THANK YOU. AND THEN I HAD A QUESTION.

YOU DID SAY IT IS ALL OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AND I APPRECIATE THAT.

AND I AND I AM A WEST ENDER.

AND SO I APPRECIATE A BIG DEVELOPMENT IDEA ON THE WEST END.

SO THANK YOU FOR THAT.

THE HOLIDAY INN OR WHATEVER, WHERE I BELIEVE A SEA POOL, WHICH IS NOT A PUBLIC POOL SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO HAVE THE LIFEGUARDS AND ALL THAT STANDING THERE ALL DAY LONG.

THIS ONE WILL BE A PUBLIC POOL WITH LIFEGUARDS AND ACTUALLY WAVE MACHINE AND DIFFERENT THINGS LIKE THAT. SO.

AND YOU SAID YOU MADE A COMMENT, YOU SAID THERE WOULDN'T BE ANYTHING AFTER DARK.

YEAH. AND SO I DID HAVE A QUESTION BECAUSE THERE WAS ONE THING AS WE WERE FLYING OVERHEAD AND BEFORE THE FIREWORKS STARTED THAT LOOKED LIKE A MOVIE THEATER THAT'S GOING TO BE JUST FOR DAY USE MUSIC TYPE THING.

WE'LL HAVE THAT.

WE'LL HAVE SOME MUSIC THERE AND ENTERTAINMENT LIKE THAT, BUT NOT LIKE THE OR THE GUY THAT DEVELOPED IT KIND OF DIDN'T MAKE IT LOOK LIKE A MOVIE SCREEN, BUT WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE OUTDOOR MOVIES AND STUFF LIKE THAT.

OK, BECAUSE I WAS WORRIED ABOUT LIGHTS.

YEAH, OK. USE OF LIGHTS AFTER DARK TOO MANY LIGHTS THAT MIGHT UPSET BIRD PATHS, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE WE DO HAVE A LOT OF MIGRATORY BIRDS OUT THERE, A LOT OF BIRDS AFTER DARK. WHAT THOUGHTS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, ADDITION OF LIGHTS.

AND WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE TOO MANY LIGHTS AFTER DARK.

YEAH, THEY'LL BE DOWN, POINTED DOWN.

SO THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE, YOU KNOW, THEY'LL GO RIGHT TO THE GROUND.

THE SHADES AREN'T TO MAKE IT GO TO THE GROUND VERSUS POINTING UP.

BUT YEAH, WE DEFINITELY WANT TO DUSK RIGHT ABOUT DUSK, END UP FOR THE DAY AND MOVE EVERYBODY OUT, IS WHAT OUR PLAN IS OK.

AND ALL RIGHT, LET ME LOOK BACK AT OUR I'LL HAVE TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT WHAT THE TIME STANDARDS ARE ON LIMITED USE.

WE CAN DEFINITELY ENABLE.

ANY FISHING? THERE'S NO FISHING OUT THERE IS THERE? LOTS OF FISHING OUT THERE.

OK. AND ALL TYPES OF FISHING.

I'M NOT A FISHERMAN, NEVER GO FISHING.

BUT A LOT OF OUR, THE PEOPLE AT THE RV PARK GO BACK THERE EVERY DAY AND IN THAT AREA AND GO FISHING. OK, SO SO DID I SEE ADDITION OF FISHING? OH, I'M SORRY. I HAVE TO STRESS THAT WE NEED TO GO WITH WHAT.

OH, SORRY, YOU'RE RIGHT.

YOU'RE RIGHT. YOU'RE RIGHT.

[00:35:02]

SORRY, YOU'RE RIGHT.

YOU'RE RIGHT. WAS THAT HOW MANY TIMES DO I SAY? YOU'RE RIGHT, YOU'RE RIGHT. YOU'RE RIGHT.

THAT WAS FIVE? FIVE? FIVE. FIVE, FIVE.

YES. OK, SORRY.

I'M WILLING TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS BECAUSE I WANT THIS TO BE AS GOOD A PROJECT AS ALL POSSIBLE WORKING WITH THE COMMUNITY.

SO IT'S NOT A SO IT IS A COMMUNITY THAT THE COMMUNITY IS BETTER FOR IT.

NOT, NOT WORSE. THAT'S DEFINITELY WHAT I'M HEADING FOR.

OTHER QUESTIONS.

YES, COMMISSIONER WALLA.

SO HOW LONG HAVE YOU OWNED THIS PROPERTY? TOTAL ALL OF IT.

AND HOW MANY ACRES ARE THERE? OK, WELL, THERE'S USABLE AND IT'S NOT ALL USABLE BY IT, BUT IT'S ABOUT 200 ACRES.

TWO HUNDRED ACRES.

HOW LONG WE'VE USED IT IS A LITTLE BIT HARDER QUESTION, BECAUSE IF EVERY ONE TWO THREE FOUR FIVE SIX SEVEN DIFFERENT TIMES PURCHASES, IT WASN'T ALL ABOUT THE SAME DAY.

YOU STARTED, YOU BUILT YOUR FIRST PART OF THE RV PARK THERE WHEN IN 2000 WHAT? ABOUT 2004.

I THINK WE PURCHASED THE FIRST PIECE OF PROPERTY.

OK. AND YOU'RE NOT, AND SO YOU HAVE YOUR RV STUFF THERE? WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING NOW IS NOT FOR ANY MORE ADDITIONAL RV SITES.

ABSOLUTELY. YEAH. EXACTLY RIGHT.

IN FACT, IF THAT WANTS, YOU WOULD BE MORE COMFORTABLE WORKING THAT INTO THE THE AGREEMENT AND NO BIKER BARS IS JUST FINE WITH ME.

SO THAT WAS GOING TO BE MY NEXT QUESTION.

CAN YOU GUYS GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE THAT SHOWS WHERE HIS DEVELOPMENT IS? WHAT ARE YOU PROPOSING? SO RON, WHERE'S YOUR HOUSE? WHERE DO YOU LIVE? I LIVE.

POINT ON THE MAP, WHERE YOU LIVE.

I'M NOT QUITE SURE THAT'S PART OF.

I'M JUST KIND OF CURIOUS WHERE, I'M TRYING TO GET.

I'M TRYING TO ORIENT WHERE THAT IS BECAUSE THAT IS DOES GO WAY KIND OF BACK THERE.

SO IT IS SITUATED THE BACK.

YES, IT'S WAY BACK THERE.

YEAH. AND MY HOUSE IS NOT ON THE ON THE THAT MAP.

OK, SO MY NEXT QUESTION WOULD BE SINCE YOU'VE, I KNOW YOU'VE DONE THIS IN SEVERAL PHASES.

YES, SIR. AND I THINK WHEN YOU DID THE LAST PHASE, DID YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE PROPERTY REZONED TO GET YOUR LAST PHASE DONE? YES, BECAUSE THAT WAS BECAUSE.

I AM SORRY, WE'RE GOING TOO FAR AFIELD OF THIS REQUEST.

I CANNOT STRESS IT ANYMORE.

WE NEED TO FOCUS ON THE REQUEST.

DON'T NEED TO KNOW WHERE THE APPLICANT LIVES.

WE DON'T NEED TO KNOW SOME OF THE, WHETHER OR NOT THE FISHING IS GOOD.

THIS IS NOT A PARK, IT'S A DEVELOPMENT.

DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT.

WELL, I JUST WANT TO ADD THAT THERE IS NO AGREEMENT.

I MEAN, THIS IS NOT A NEGOTIATED SITUATION LIKE WE WOULD HAVE IN IT'S JUST NOT A USE SPECIFIC REQUEST, THIS IS A STRICTLY A CHANGE OF ZONING, WHICH CHANGES THE ENTIRETY WITHIN ALL THE ALLOWABLE USES WITHIN THAT DISTRICT.

SO LOOK, I'LL CUT TO THE CHASE THEN.

HE'S OWNED THIS PROPERTY A LONG TIME.

HE'S DEVELOPED IT OVER A PERIOD OF TIME.

THAT PROPERTY, AS WELL AS OTHERS, GOT ZONED R-1.

THE WATER AT THE PORT IS ZONED R-1.

SO HE'S COMING AND HE'S ASKING TO HAVE HIS ZONING CHANGED.

AND, YOU KNOW, HE GOT THROWN IN THIS POT OF AND WE CAN DISCUSS THIS LATER, PERHAPS, AND IT'S NOT PARTICULARLY A QUESTION FOR HIM.

I WAS GOING TO SAY, IF IT'S A QUESTION FOR HIM, ASK HIM THE QUESTION.

IT'S NOT A QUESTION FOR HIM. IF NOT, LET'S ASK HIM.

OK, SO I'M WITH YOU.

I'M WITH YOU. THAT'S FINE.

I'M GOOD, RON.

THANK YOU. OK. IF I COULD ANSWER ANY QUESTION AGAIN.

MR. LUNSFORD, YOU HAD YOUR HAND UP.

OH YEAH. AND I APOLOGIZE FOR THIS OMISSION IN MY NARRATIVE, BUT YOU KNOW, GENERALLY SPEAKING WITH A REZONING, YOU KNOW, STAFF ALSO, YOU KNOW, MENTIONED IT'S JUST FOR CLARIFICATION THAT THIS IS A RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL AND THEY WILL HAVE THE FINAL DECISION, I OVERLOOKED THAT EARLIER.

I APOLOGIZE. THANK YOU, MR. LUNSFORD. COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? THANK YOU, MR. GUSTAFSON.

YOU'RE WELCOME, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

WE APPRECIATE YOUR TIME.

COMMISSIONERS, WITH THAT, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 4:15, AND I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON CASE 22P-012.

[00:40:03]

I'LL MAKE A MOTION, MADAM CHAIR, I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE 22P-012, AS PRESENTED WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.

SECOND. I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

DO WE HAVE DISCUSSION? I BELIEVE, DO WE HAVE DISCUSSION? WELL, YOU KNOW, I JUST I'VE SEEN THIS BEFORE AND NOW I, MY POINT IN SHOWING YOU GUYS WHERE HE LIVES. I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH WHERE THIS IS BECAUSE I FISH OVER THERE SO.

SO I KNOW WHERE HE LIVES.

SO AND WHAT I DON'T LIKE IS, THIS IS ONE OF THESE PROPERTIES THAT'S OUT WEST THAT GOT THROWN IN THIS R-1 POOL.

AND HE'S OWNED THE PROPERTY A VERY LONG TIME.

HE'S HAD AN EXISTING BUSINESS THERE FOR A VERY LONG TIME.

AND YOU KNOW, IT'S NO SECRET WE JUST WENT THROUGH THE PUD DEAL.

WE HAD SOMETHING VERY, VERY SIMILAR TO THIS AND I'M, MY COMMENT IS, IS THAT WE'RE DENYING HIM THE USE OF HIS PROPERTY WHEN WE THROW HIM IN THIS R-1 POOL.

AND SO I THINK HE'S ASKING FOR A CHANGE OF ZONING TO RESURRECT, WHICH IS SIMILAR TO WHAT IS THERE AND IS ADJACENT.

I THINK WE SHOULD GRANT THAT.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? YES, COMMISSIONER FINKLEA? IT'S REALLY A QUESTION FOR STAFF AS IT RELATES TO THE ZONING REQUEST AND COUPLING THIS OR NOT COUPLING THIS WITH A PUD REQUEST.

CAN YOU OPINE AS TO THE PREFERRED METHOD? OK. THE APPLICANT.

I CAN OPINE AS TO MY PREFERRED METHOD.

MR. FINKLEA? BECAUSE I AM NOT STAFF.

I AM A WEST ENDER, AND I AM EXCITED ABOUT A BIG DEVELOPMENT, BUT I AM GOING TO VOTE AGAINST A BLANKET CHANGE IN ZONING BECAUSE I WOULD PREFER A PUD, SIMPLY BECAUSE I WOULD PREFER TO SEE US BE ABLE.

I WOULD PREFER FOR US TO BE ABLE TO PLACE A FEW PARAMETERS ON THIS PROJECT, A FEW PARAMETERS ON LIGHTING, A FEW PARAMETERS ON THE NATURE OF THE DEVELOPMENT.

SO I'M GOING TO VOTE AGAINST A BLANKET REZONING BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE SOME OF THE THINGS THAT IT COULD BECOME.

AND IT IS NOT ANY KIND OF STATEMENT ABOUT MR. GUSTAFSON AT ALL BECAUSE I KNOW HE IS A LONG TIME RESIDENT OUT THERE.

VICE CHAIR BROWN? OH, MY ONLY PROBLEM WAS THE WITH THE BLANKET CHANGE IN ZONING IS OF ALL OF A DIFFERENT TYPES OF USES THAT IT ALLOWS THAT IT GOES WAY BEYOND THIS USE.

I THINK THIS IS A PERFECT USE FOR THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY.

IT'S VERY LOW INTENSIVE FOOTPRINT AND IT'S IT'S REALLY A GOOD PROJECT, I THINK, BUT I DON'T THINK IT NEEDS TO HAVE ALL OF THESE OTHER USES ASSOCIATED WITH THAT TYPE OF CHANGE IN ZONING. THERE'S I THINK PERSONALLY THERE'S A BETTER WAY TO DO IT, AND IT PROBABLY IT COULD BE A PUD.

I DON'T KNOW, BUT I'M JUST A LITTLE BOTHERED BY THAT.

ALL THE OTHER TYPES OF USES ASSOCIATED WITH IT AND KIND OF ALSO AGREE WITH RUSTY THAT IT'S, THIS ZONING WAS HAPPENING A LONG TIME AGO, I THINK.

IT'S JUST PART OF THE BLANKET ZONING IN THAT PART OF THE AREA, BUT AND SO IT NEEDS SOME TWEAKING OF THE ZONING, I THINK, TO MAKE THIS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATE.

I THINK THE DEVELOPMENT'S A REALLY GOOD ONE.

IT JUST NEEDS A DIFFERENT PATH TO GET THE ZONING TO MATCH THE DEVELOPMENT.

THAT'S MY ONLY COMMENT.

YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING REJONE? YES. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M CLEAR THAT WE'RE TALKING SPECIFIC ABOUT A SPECIFIC AREA THAT'S THAT'S ALREADY BLOCKED OFF, THAT WE CAN SEE IT'S NOTHING MORE THAN WHAT WE SEE CURRENTLY FOR THE CHANGE IN ZONING; CORRECT? ALL RIGHT. THAT, YEAH, THE CHANGE IN ZONING IS WHAT'S INSIDE THIS BLUE LINE, AND ONCE THE CHANGE IN ZONING OCCURS, IT CAN BE USED FOR ANYTHING THAT HAS A P BESIDE IT.

BACK HERE IN ALL OF THESE USES, ANY OF THOSE THINGS.

[00:45:02]

YEAH. I'M SORRY.

NO, GO AHEAD. SO THE PARTS THAT ARE THE VERY SANCTUARY OR THE ESTUARY, THOSE PARTS ARE NOT GOING TO BE, HE'S NOT, YOU'RE NOT DOING ANYTHING WITH THOSE PARTS AND YOU COULDN'T DO ANYTHING WITH THOSE PARTS UNLESS THEY WERE UNLESS HE WENT TO THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEER? WE DON'T KNOW THAT.

SO WE DON'T KNOW THAT? THE QUESTION BECAUSE I WANTED CLARITY TO KNOW IF THE ESTUARY WAS, OR THE MARSHLANDS UNDER CONSIDERATION OR IF THEY WERE TO BE, IF THERE WERE, IF THERE HAD TO BE ANY KIND OF SECONDARY OR THIRD PARTY PERSON TO COME IN TO REVIEW IT? AND IF IT DIDN'T HAVE TO BE ONE THAT WOULD BEAR ON MY DECISION, WHETHER OR NOT THE ZONING WAS OK FOR ME.

THAT'S WHY I ASKED THAT QUESTION.

COMMISSIONER EDWARDS, AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT IS TYPICALLY HANDLED BY STAFF DURING THE PERMITTING PROCESS.

AND WE COORDINATE WITH THEM, YOU KNOW, OUR OTHER DEPARTMENTS HERE IN THE CITY, AS WELL AS OTHER AGENCIES THAT MAY REQUIRE SOME TYPE OF INVOLVEMENT, SUCH AS THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS. THAT IS SOMETHING WE CHECK FOR THE PERMITTING PROCESS.

YES, COMMISSIONER HUMPHREY.

OK, ONE QUESTION I GET FOR STAFF.

SO THE LINE BETWEEN WHAT WE'RE ASKING TO REZONE TO BOB SMITH, THE EASTERNMOST PORTION OF THAT, WHAT IS THE DISTANCE? APPROXIMATELY HOW HOW FAR ARE WE LOOKING AT? SO DO YOU MEAN FROM THE [INAUDIBLE] TO THE END OF THE PROPOSED ZONING? WELL, THAT'S KIND OF DIFFICULT TO SAY.

THIS ISN'T NECESSARY TO SCALE, BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THIS RED LINE HERE, THAT'S THE NOTIFICATION AREA AND THAT'S TWO HUNDRED FOOT.

SO IT'S WELL OVER TWO HUNDRED FOOT.

I CAN SAY THAT FOR SURE.

OK, THANK YOU. SO FROM THE BLUE LINE TO THE RED LINE, IT'S TWO HUNDRED FEET.

CORRECT. MAYBE, MAYBE 660 ROUGHLY.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS? ALL RIGHTY. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? IN THAT CASE, WE WILL CALL THE VOTE.

WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THE TABLE FOR APPROVAL OF 22P-012 AS WRITTEN BY STAFF.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY RAISING YOUR HAND.

WE HAVE FIVE IN FAVOR.

ALL OPPOSED? TWO. THE MOTION PASSES AND FINAL APPROVAL WILL LIE WITH CITY COUNCIL AND IT WILL GO BEFORE CITY COUNCIL WHEN, MR. LUNSFORD? LET ME SEE, CAUGHT ME UNAWARE THERE.

APRIL, PROBABLY? IT'S THE MARCH 24TH MEETING, I BELIEVE.

MARCH 24TH? OK. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU.

GOOD LUCK, MR. GUSTAFSON.

AND PLEASE UNDERSTAND ON THAT COMMENT, THAT IS A RUNNING JOKE WITH THIS COMMISSION.

AND IT HAD NOTHING, THAT IS.

AND YOU KNOW WHAT, AND I NEED TO BE CAREFUL WITH THAT BECAUSE IT IS A RUNNING JOKE AND IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU.

I NEED TO BE CAREFUL IN HOW I USE THAT.

I SHOULDN'T GO WALK AROUND OUT THERE? THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT.

REJONE, THIS IS WHERE, YOU CAN JUST STEP DOWN AND SIT IN THAT FIRST ROW.

PLEASE, MA'AM. ALL RIGHT.

WE'RE GOING TO CALL CASE 22P-0163.

[8.A.2. 22P-013 (1502, 1504, 1505, 1506, 1507, 1510, 1512, 1514, 1515, 1521, 1602, 1606, 1608, 1609, 1611, 1613, 1615, 1616, 1619, 1620, 1621, 1624, 1628, 1701, 6802, 6807, 6808, 6809, 6814, 6815, 6827, 6828, 6901, 6915 Driftwood Ln, 1501, 1504 Bayou Homes Dr, 6500, 6510, 6520 Bayou Front Dr, 6902, 6902, 6912, And 6920 Ave O.) Request For A Change Of Zoning In Order To Designate A Portion Of The Driftwood Neighborhood As A Restricted Residential, Single-Family (R-0) Zoning District. Lots 18 Thru 20, 21 & 22, 25 & 26, Block 1, Pabsts Bayview Addition, East ½ Of Lots 7 And 8 (7-3), West ½ Of Lots 7 & 8 & North-West Part Of Lot 9 (7-2), West ½ Of Lots 24 Thru 26 (24-1), Part Of Lot 96 (96-2), Trimble & Lindsey, Section 1, Lots 3 & Part Of 2 & 4, Sproule Addition, Part Of Lot 96 (96-5), Trimble & Lind]

AND PLEASE NOTE THAT COMMISSIONER EDWARDS HAS LEFT THE DAIS.

22P-013, THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A CHANGE OF ZONING IN ORDER TO DESIGNATE A PORTION OF THE DRIFTWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD AS A RESIDENTIAL AS A RESTRICTED RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY ZONING

[00:50:06]

DISTRICT ARE ZERO.

TODAY, STAFF IS REQUESTING THE THAT THIS REQUEST BE DEFERRED UNTIL THE MARCH 22ND, 2022 MEETING. THIS IS THE FIRST REFERRAL AND THERE ARE NO COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS REQUEST AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE, WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 4:21 P.M.

ANYONE HAVE ANY COMMENTS? WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 4:21 P.M.

I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR DEFERRAL ON 22P-013.

MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER PENA, SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER HUMPHREY.

ALL IN FAVOR OF DEFERRAL SIGNIFY.

THAT'S UNANIMOUS.

MOTION PASSES.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER EDWARDS.

PLEASE REJOIN US.

PLEASE NOTE THAT COMMISSIONER EDWARDS HAS REJOINED US NOW.

THANK YOU, MR. COLLINS. WE'LL MOVE FORWARD TO CASE 22P-009.

[8.B.1. 22P-009 (Adjacent To 1414 19th Street) Request For A License To Use To Place A Covered Porch In The City Of Galveston Right-Of-Way. Adjacent Property Is Legally Described As M.B. Menard Survey, North 40 Feet Of Lot 14 (2014-0), Southwest Block 20, Galveston Outlots, In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas. Applicant: Loree Tillman Adjacent Property Owners: Loree Tillman And Susan Storzum Easement Holder: City Of Galveston ]

THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE HERE FOR.

22P-009, THIS IS ADJACENT TO 1414 NINETEENTH STREET AND THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A LICENSE TO USE THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.

THERE WERE 29 PUBLIC NOTICES SENT.

NONE OF THOSE RETURNED.

NOTE THAT THERE WERE NO OBJECTIONS FROM CITY DEPARTMENTS FOR THE REQUEST.

THE SUBJECT DWELLING WAS LOCATED ON THE SITE SOMETIME BEFORE.

GIVE ME ONE SECOND. I'VE LOST MY NARRATIVE.

ALL RIGHT. SUBJECT STRUCTURE WAS LOCATED ON THE SITE SOMETIME BEFORE 1912, ACCORDING TO HISTORIC SANBORN MAPS.

FRONT PORCH WAS DEMOLISHED BY A PREVIOUS OWNER IN 2018, ACCORDING TO A BUILDING PERMIT THAT STAFF HAS ON FILE.

IT WAS NEVER REBUILT BY THE PREVIOUS OWNER.

THE CURRENT OWNER IS REQUESTING THE LICENSE USED TO BUILD A REPLACEMENT PORCH, PARTIALLY WITHIN THE 19TH STREET RIGHT OF WAY.

THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE IS VERY CLOSE TO THE PROPERTY LINE.

IT'S WITHIN THREE FOOT.

THIS PROPOSED REPLACEMENT PORCH AND STAIRCASE WOULD ENCROACH APPROXIMATELY THREE POINT SEVEN FOOT, ACCORDING TO THE APPLICANT SUBMITTAL FOR A TOTAL WIDTH OF APPROXIMATELY SIX FOOT. THE CONFIGURATION OF THE HOUSE INDICATES THE FRONT DOOR FACES 19TH STREET IN HISTORIC IMAGERY SUGGESTS THAT THE DEMOLISHED PORCH ENCROACHED IN A SIMILAR MANNER AND SIMILAR SCALE.

GALVESTON COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT RECORDS NOTED THAT PORCH ADDED IN 1950 OF APPROXIMATELY 40 SQUARE FOOT.

THE APPLICANT PROVIDED PHOTOS OF MULTIPLE ADJACENT PROPERTIES WITH SIMILAR PORCH DESIGNS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH ARE INCLUDED IN THE STAFF REPORT.

IN SUCH CONFIGURATIONS ARE COMMON THROUGHOUT GALVESTON.

THIS IS IN FACT SUCH A COMMON FEATURE IN THE SAN JACINTO NEIGHBORHOOD.

THAT DESIGN STANDS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION ACTUALLY REQUIRE A PROMINENT FRONT PORCH, AMONG OTHER DESIGN STANDARDS, SO THIS IS A VERY COMMON FEATURE THROUGHOUT THE CITY.

FOR THESE REASONS, STAFF RECOMMEND APPROVAL REQUESTS WITH SPECIFIC CONDITIONS ONE THROUGH THREE AND STANDARD CONDITIONS, FOUR THROUGH SIX.

AND WE HAVE SOME PHOTOS HERE.

WE HAVE A PHOTO OF THE STRUCTURE AS IT STANDS NOW, AND YOU CAN SEE THAT THE APPLICANT IS DEFINITELY WORKING ON REHABILITATING AND REHABBING THE PROPERTY.

HAVE OUR VICINITY MAP IN THE LOWER RIGHT HAND CORNER.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. AND HERE WE HAVE A PROPOSED SITE PLAN SHOWING THE, YOU KNOW, APPROXIMATELY I BELIEVE IT'S 2.3 FEET, WHICH WOULD ACTUALLY BE ON THE PRIVATE PROPERTY AND SEE THAT THE HOUSE IS VERY CLOSE TO THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE.

AND THE PROPOSED ENCROACHMENT IS 3.7 FOOT FOR A TOTAL OF, YOU KNOW, APPROXIMATELY SIX FOOT IN DEPTH.

AND AGAIN, THE APPLICANT HAS GONE ABOVE AND BEYOND TO PROVIDE PHOTOS OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND NEIGHBORHOOD OF PROPERTIES.

SO THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. LUNSFORD. COMMISSIONERS QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? YES. VICE CHAIR BROWN? JUST TO CLARIFY, THE SANDBORN MAPS SHOW THAT THIS HOUSE HAS ALWAYS BEEN IN ITS CURRENT LOCATION? YES, IT APPEARS TO OF MOST LIKELY IT WAS BUILT, YOU KNOW, AFTER THE 1900 STORM, WE HAVE SIMILAR MAPS THAT GO FROM GO AT 1899.

WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING UNTIL 1912, BUT THAT AREA IS, YOU KNOW, PART OF THE CITY THAT DURING THE 1900 STORM WAS SEVERELY DEVASTATED.

SO THERE'S A GOOD CHANCE IT WAS THERE, YOU KNOW, BACK THEN.

THANKS. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF COMMISSIONERS? THAT'S IN THE STAFF REPORT THAT THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED.

AND, YEAH, NORMALLY STAFF WOULD PROVIDE THOSE IN THE SLIDESHOW, BUT YEAH, THE APPLICANT HAS DONE FAR MORE THAN WE COULD, SO IT SHOULD BE VERY ENLIGHTENING.

[00:55:05]

PATRICK CAN HAND YOU A PACKET IF YOU DON'T HAVE A DO YOU HAVE DOWNLOADED? UM, ALL RIGHT, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE, WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 4:30, AND THE APPLICANT IS IN THE AUDIENCE, PLEASE COME FORWARD AND STATE YOUR NAME AND SIGN IN.

HI, MY NAME IS MONICA MARTINEZ.

I'M ACTUALLY A REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE APPLICANT, WHICH IS A LITTLE MS. LORI. I MEAN, THE PRESENTATION WAS PRETTY SELF-EXPLANATORY OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO GET HERE. THE HOUSE IS OVER 50 YEARS OLD AND REALLY WE WANT TO PRESERVE ITS ORIGINAL DESIGN.

AND I MEAN, REALLY JUST KEEP THAT MAIN ENTRANCE ON THAT 19TH STREET.

REALLY, IT'S TO HAVE THE HOUSE BE MORE VISUALLY APPEALING TO THAT MAIN ROAD.

AND JUST FOLLOWING OR PRESERVE, LIKE ALL THE GALVESTON DESIGN THAT WE HAVE THROUGHOUT THE CITY, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU GUYS HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS? YES. COMMISSIONER WALLA, IS THERE A SIDEWALK IN FRONT OF THIS HOUSE? NO. THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS? YES, COMMISSIONER HUMPHREY? SO BASICALLY, THE OVERLAY OF PORCHES DIRECTLY ACROSS THE ALLEY? I GUESS THAT'S THE ALLEY.

I DON'T KNOW WHICH DIRECTION THAT WOULD BE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE, IT'S EITHER AN ALLEYWAY OR? IT IS AN ALLEY. YEAH.

SO I'M LOOKING AT THOSE HOUSES AND IT LOOKS LIKE THEIR PORCHES ARE OUT THERE PRETTY FAR TOO. SO THIS WOULDN'T THIS WOULD BE BASICALLY IN LINE WITH THE PORCHES THAT ARE ADJACENT TO THE OTHER PARTS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD? OR WOULD IT BE OUT FURTHER? HONESTLY, I WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

I WAS, I'M NOT SURE.

COMMISSIONER, IN THAT 2007 PHOTOGRAPH, WHERE THE STAIRS WHERE THE STAIR IS? IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THAT PHOTO, THERE YOU HAVE THAT PHOTO.

WELL, YOU CAN SEE THE THE SITE PLAN RIGHT HERE.

AND IT JUST GOES ALONG THAT 19TH STREET AND THEN THE STAIRS WOULD JUST GO ALONG THAT WAY.

IT WOULDN'T GO TOWARDS 19TH.

IT WOULD BE PARALLEL TO THE HOUSE.

OK, YEAH. STAIRS JUST GO RIGHT NEXT TO THE HOUSE IF WE'RE LOOKING AT THAT PLAN RIGHT THERE. THEY WOULD JUST GO DOWN.

YES. YES, THAT'S CORRECT.

OK, GREAT. THANKS.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS? DID YOU HAVE ONE, REJONE? DID I SEE YOUR HAND? OK. SEEING NONE.

THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THAT.

WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 4:33 P.M.

AND I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON CASE 22P-009.

VICE CHAIR BROWN? I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THIS CASE 22P-009, AS PRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT.

DO I HAVE A SECOND? FROM COMMISSIONER FINKLEA.

I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? MADAM CHAIR? YES, COMMISSIONER FINKLEA? JUST TO COMMENT ABOUT THIS PROPERTY AS I LIVE IN THE SAN JACQUES AREA, THIS IS A VERY COMMON CONDITION THAT YOU FIND ALL ALONG THE HOMES THAT FACE THE NUMBERED STREETS AND TO BE TO BE ON RECORD.

I WAS THE ONE THAT FILED A CODE VIOLATION YEARS AGO AGAINST THIS PROPERTY PRIOR TO OWNERSHIP BECAUSE IT WAS LITERALLY FALLING APART AND THE STAIRS WERE FALLING APART AND THEY REMOVED THEM. SO I'M EAGER TO SEE IT BE RESTORED TO ITS ORIGINAL INTENT.

THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THAT.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON 22P-009.

A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR APPROVAL.

ALL IN FAVOR OF APPROVAL, PLEASE SIGNIFY BY RAISING YOUR HAND.

IT'S UNANIMOUS, MOTION APPROVED.

THANK YOU AND THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.

DID YOU ALL COME AND CLEAN? HEY, I'VE MET WITH BUSH A COUPLE OF TIMES.

ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU.

THEN LET'S SEE. WE'RE GOING TO HEAR, LET'S SEE, WE'RE GOING TO, SO WE'RE GOING TO HEAR THE WORD TWO HERE.

[01:00:01]

22. ARE WE GOING TO HEAR THE GOLF CART? NO, WE'RE GOING TO HEAR THE WE'RE GOING TO DO THE ZA.

WE'RE GOING TO DO THE TEXT AMENDMENT.

AND THEN HERE THE PLAT AND THE OTHER ZONING AMENDMENT.

IS THAT HOW WE'RE GOING TO DO IT? IF THAT'S THE PREFERENCE OF THE COMMISSION, YES.

THAT DOESN'T DO ANYTHING TO MESS YOU UP? IF WE HEAR THEM OUT OF ORDER, IF WE DO A ZA AND THEN A PLAT AND THEN THE? OK. ALL RIGHT.

WE DON'T WANT RUSTY TO HAVE TO GET UP, AND OH, HE MOVED.

YEAH, HE'S ALREADY GONE. HE ALREADY MOVED.

LOOK AT YOU GETTING UP AND MOVING.

ALL RIGHT. WELL, GUESS WHAT, WE'RE GOING TO DO 22P-011 THEN.

[8.C.1. 22P-011 (23500 FM 3005) Request For A Preliminary Plat. Property Is Legally Described As Lot 2R (2-18), 10.3127 Acres, Galveston Island RV Resort Replat (2021), In The City And County Of Galveston Texas. Applicant: Gerry Weiser, Ellis Surveying Services, Inc. Property Owner: Galveston Island RV Resort, LP ]

AND PLEASE NOTE THAT MR. WALLA HAS REMOVED HIMSELF FROM THE DAIS.

22P-011, THE ADDRESS IS 23500 FM 3005.

THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT.

THERE WERE 30 PUBLIC NOTICES SENT IN THIS CASE.

THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR A PROPOSAL OF THE MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT IN THE PRELIMINARY PLAT.

THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING 25 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS THREE RESERVES ON A PRIVATE ROAD.

PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT IS ASSOCIATED WITH AN APPROVED PUD GRANTED UNDER ORDINANCE ORDINANCE 22-004.

PLEASE NOTE THE RELIEF GRANTED BY THE PUD PLAN, AS WELL AS THE ZONING AND LAND USES AND THE CONFORMANCE WITH LOT SIZES IN THE R-1, AS WELL AS HOW IT COMPARES TO THE PUD THAT WAS APPROVED ALL IN PAGE TWO OF YOUR REPORT.

IN THIS CASE, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST WITH TWO SPECIFIC CONDITIONS AND STANDARD CONDITIONS LISTED AS TWO THROUGH SEVEN.

NOW WE HAVE SOME PHOTOS.

HERE IS THE SUBJECT SITE, AN AERIAL OF THE SUBJECT SITE.

THIS IS A SUBJECT PROPERTY.

THESE ARE THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES TO THE EAST, WEST, NORTH, SOUTH.

AND THE LAST SLIDE YOU WILL SEE THE PROPOSED PRELIMINARY PLOT.

AND THAT CONCLUDES THAT REPORT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, ADRIEL.

COMMISSIONERS, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? NO QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.

WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 22P-011 AT F4:37 P.M.

WOULD THE APPLICANT LIKE TO COME FORWARD? DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY? MR. WALLA, YOU ARE KNOWN TO THIS BODY.

NO, MA'AM. I HAVE NO NOTHING.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'M AVAILABLE.

THANK YOU. OKAY. COMMISSIONERS, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? NO QUESTIONS FOR MR. WALLA. THANK YOU. I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 4:37 P.M.

I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON 22P-011.

COMMISSIONER PENA? I'LL MAKE THE MOTION THAT WE APPROVE 22P-011 AS READ.

SECOND. THANK YOU, WE HAVE A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER PENA, SECOND FROM VICE CHAIR BROWN.

IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONERS, SEEING NO DISCUSSION, WE'LL TAKE A VOTE.

I HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND FOR APPROVAL OF 22P-011.

ALL IN FAVOR, RAISE YOUR HAND.

THANK YOU. WE HAVE A UNANIMOUS.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ALL RIGHT. WE WILL NEXT HEAR 22ZA-002 TEXT AMENDMENT.

[8.D.2. 22ZA-002 Request For A Text Amendment To The Galveston Land Development Regulations, Article 2, Article 3, And Article 14 To Clarify Regulations Regarding Golf Carts. Applicant: City Of Galveston, Development Services Departme]

AND PLEASE NOTE THAT MR. WALLA IS STILL NOT PARTICIPATING IN THE MEETING.

COMMISSIONER WALLA, EXCUSE ME.

22ZA-002.

I'D LIKE TO PREFACE ANY OF THE STATEMENTS I WILL SAY WITH A STATEMENT PERTAINING TO WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT TODAY AND THIS REQUEST FOR A TEXT AMENDMENT IS STRICTLY RELATED TO USE, AND IT'S NOT TO BE MISINTERPRETED WITH OTHER CHANGES THAT HAVE OCCURRED, WHETHER IN CITY CODE RELATED TO OPERATION OF GOLF CARTS IN GENERAL.

THIS IS STRICTLY FROM A USE PERSPECTIVE WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE LDR.

22P-002, THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A TEXT AMENDMENT, STAFF IS PROPOSING SEVERAL TEXT AMENDMENTS RELATED TO GOLF CARTS IN ORDER TO REDUCE CONFUSION AND PROVIDE MORE UNIFORM REGULATIONS OF GOLF CARTS.

[01:05:02]

GOLF CART BUSINESSES.

CURRENTLY, GOLF CART RELATED BUSINESSES HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO BE CLASSIFIED AS ONE OF THREE LAND USES, ALTHOUGH THE BUSINESS MAY APPEAR FUNCTIONAL AND FUNCTION IN A SIMILAR MANNER. THOSE USES ARE AUTO SERVICE, FUELING OR CHARGING STATION, GOLF CART SALES AND SERVICE, AND ALSO PASSENGER MOTOR VEHICLE SALES AND RENTAL.

SO WE'LL SEE IN YOUR ATTACHED STAFF REPORT ON THE ATTACHMENT A, THESE THREE LAND USES ARE NOT NECESSARILY ALIGNED AND THE ALLOWED LOCATIONS OR APPLICABLE LIMITED STANDARDS.

IN ORDER TO SIMPLIFY THE REGULATORY PROCESS, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT THE FOLLOWING CHANGES TAKE PLACE.

ONE, TO MODIFY THE GOLF CART SALES AND SERVICE LAND USE TO INCLUDE RENTALS.

TWO, TO ESTABLISH A NEW LAND USE OF GOLF CARTS SERVICE BY ITSELF.

THREE, TO ELIMINATE THE REQUIREMENT THAT GASOLINE POWERED GOLF CARTS BE CLASSIFIED AS AUTO USES.

FOUR, ALLOWING THE LIMITED USE STANDARDS.

FIVE, ESTABLISH THE NEW LIMITED USE STANDARDS FOR GOLF CART SERVICE LAND USE AND SIX, TO REMOVE GOLF CARTS FROM ARTICLE THREE COMMERCIAL ADDENDUM NOTE 12 Q, WHICH INCLUDES GOLF CARTS AS AN AUTO ORIENTED BUSINESS.

PLEASE NOTE THE CRITERIA FOR TEXT AMENDMENTS ON PAGE TWO OF THE REPORT, AS WELL AS CONSIDERATION FOR TEXT AMENDMENTS ON PAGE THREE.

THIS CASE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THEIR REQUEST AS SUBMITTED.

I CONCLUDE STAFF'S REPORT. THANK YOU, MR. MONTALVAN. I SAID IT NOT LIKE MY PHONE DOES.

WHO HAS QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? HOW DOES THIS IMPACT ONGOING BUSINESSES THAT COULD BE SEEN AS IN CONFLICT WITH THESE CHANGES? WELL, IF CAN YOU BE A LITTLE BIT MORE SPECIFIC? YES. ON ONE OF THESE, LET ME SEE HERE SECTION 2.329(A)5 AND (A)7 . THERE ARE SOME CONCERNS THAT HAVE WOULD BE IN CONFLICT WITH THE ELEVATED DISPLAY RULE AND ALSO SOME THAT WOULD BE IN CONFLICT WITH THE SIDEWALKS SECTION RIGHT NOW THAT I CAN THINK OF. OK, YEAH, I MEAN, IF I MEAN, ALL USES THAT ARE CLASSIFIED, IT JUST DEPENDS ON THE CLASSIFICATION, AND THAT'S WHY THIS IS EXACTLY THE REASON WHY WE'RE MOVING FORWARD WITH THE CHANGE, BECAUSE NOW THERE ARE VARIOUS STANDARDS THAT APPLY TO VARIOUS BUSINESSES IN ACCORDANCE OR DEPENDING UPON THEIR BUSINESS MODEL, RATHER THAN THE USE ITSELF, WHICH AS OF NOW, IF YOU HAVE A GASOLINE POWERED GOLF CART, IT'S TREATED DIFFERENTLY THAN IF YOU HAVE A AN ELECTRIC GOLF COURSE.

SO IT REALLY DEPENDS HOW WE ARE CURRENTLY CLASSIFYING THOSE AND MOVING FORWARD.

ANY NEW BUSINESSES COME INTO TOWN WOULD HAVE TO ADHERE TO WHATEVER PROVISIONS ARE ADOPTED. BUT I GUESS.

BUT SO THE MARSHAL IS GOING TO.

ARE THEY GOING TO GO OUT AND CITE SOME OF THESE BUSINESSES THAT ARE IN CONFLICT WITH THIS EXISTING RIGHT NOW? WELL, THAT'S BEEN PART OF THE ISSUE.

I THINK THE MARSHAL'S OFFICE HAS GONE OUT ALREADY AND ADDRESSED SOME OF THESE BUSINESSES, AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE BRINGING THESE CHANGES FORWARD AS PART OF THE REASON WHY WE BRING THESE CHANGES FORWARD. BUT YOU KNOW, WE ARE ESSENTIALLY TRYING TO SIMPLIFY THE REGULATIONS SO THAT REGARDLESS OF HOW THEY OPERATE, IT FITS A GOLF CART BUSINESS WILL BE TREATED AS A GOLF CART BUSINESS.

I SEE. AND ALSO, IF I MIGHT ADD IN THERE'S GOLF CART SERVICE BUSINESSES, WHICH YOU KNOW YOU CAN TAKE YOUR GOLF CART TO GET REPAIRED OR SWAP TIRES OR WHATEVER, AND THEN THERE'S GOLF SALES AND RENTAL.

AND THOSE ARE REALLY TWO DISTINCT AND VERY DIFFERENT TYPES OF BUSINESSES.

AND SO THE WAY THEY, YOU KNOW, MIGHT CUE THINGS ON THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OR DO THINGS THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE REALLY NOT ALLOWED DEPENDS ON, I GUESS, THE INTENT OF THE BUSINESS OPERATOR AND WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO WITH, YOU KNOW, WITH THEIR MARKETING EFFORT.

AND SO THIS SEGREGATES THOSE TWO DIFFERENT TYPES OF BUSINESSES AND GIVES THEM THEIR OWN SORT OF LIMITED USE STANDARDS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, THAT ARE MORE APPLICABLE.

AND IN RESPONSE TO YOUR QUESTION ABOUT ENFORCEMENT, THERE ARE SOME ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS

[01:10:03]

RIGHT NOW THAT THAT ARE DEALING WITH, FOR EXAMPLE, ELEVATED GOLF CARTS ON TOP OF THE BUSINESS WHICH AREN'T PROPERLY SECURED AND THINGS LIKE THAT WHICH ARE CURRENTLY IN THE MARSHALS ENFORCEMENT EFFORTS.

OK, YEAH, BUT THERE WOULD BE AN IMPACT.

YEAH. OK, THANKS.

THAT MAKES SENSE. IT'S A QUICK QUESTION.

SO, SO UNDER THIS CHANGE, YOU COULD HAVE A GOLF CART, SALE AND RENTAL, AND BUT NOT INCLUDE SERVICE.

AND YOU COULD OR YOU COULD HAVE ALL THREE TOGETHER, BUT IT WOULD BE UNDER A, YOU WOULD HAVE TO MEET THE CRITERIA OF BOTH SALES AND RENTAL AND SERVICE.

SO TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, THE MAIN DISTINCTION WOULD BE THAT WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS IF, WHETHER YOU'RE A GOLF COURSE SELLS A RENTAL FOR ELECTRIC OR GAS POWERED GOLF CARTS, THEN YOU WILL BE TREATED THE SAME BECAUSE AS OF NOW, IF YOU ARE A GAS POWERED GOLF CAR BUSINESS, YOU ARE TREATED AS A PASSENGER MOTOR VEHICLE LAND USE, THAT'S PART OF THE PROBLEM. I HAD TO MAKE A CHART.

AND THAT'S PART AND THAT'S PART OF THE PART OF THE PROBLEM THAT STAFF HAS, YOU KNOW, AND IMPLEMENTING THESE REGULATIONS.

I DON'T KNOW IF WE. I'M SORRY.

NO, NO, PLEASE. I DON'T KNOW IF HE DIRECTLY ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION, BUT IF THERE WERE BOTH COMPONENTS WE WOULD BASICALLY ALLOW FOR ALL THE REGULATORY MECHANISMS IN BOTH THOSE CATEGORIES TO BE APPLIED TO BE ABLE.

YES. YES.

AND A LITTLE BIT FARTHER WITH THE GAS VERSUS ELECTRIC.

ANYONE ELSE HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF? NOW, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.

SO WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF SOMEBODY IS CURRENTLY OPERATING ALL THREE? IT IS ANYBODY CURRENTLY OPERATING ALL THREE WHERE THEY'RE DOING THE SALES SERVICE AND RENTAL? BASED ON WHAT WE KNOW, THE MAJORITY OF THE BUSINESSES IN TOWN ARE EITHER GOLF COURSE SALES AND RENTAL. AND THEN YOU HAVE SERVICES AS MOST FOLKS DO SERVICE AS A STANDALONE OPERATION. OK.

BUT THE MAJORITY OF THE ONES THAT WE HAVE IN TOWN ARE MORE GEARED TOWARDS THE SALES AND RENTAL COMPONENT OR OPERATION SIDE OF THE BUSINESS.

OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT, SO NOW WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 4:47 P.M.

WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK IN THE PUBLIC HEARING? OK, THEN WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 4:47 P.M.

AND I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON ITEM NUMBER 22ZA-002.

VICE CHAIR BROWN? I MOVE WE APPROVE 22ZA-002 AS PRESENTED BY STAFF.

THANK YOU. AND I'LL SECOND THAT.

DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION, COMMISSIONERS? SEEING NO DISCUSSION WE WILL, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR APPROVAL OF 22ZA-002.

ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SIGNIFY BY RAISING YOUR HAND, THAT'S UNANIMOUS.

THANK YOU. I'D LIKE TO SAY FOR THE RECORD THAT CITY COUNCIL HAS A FINAL DECISION ON THIS REQUEST AND THIS REQUEST WOULD BE REVIEWED BY CITY COUNCIL ON MARCH 24TH, 2022.

THANK YOU. AND ADRIEL, I APPRECIATE THAT YOU PREFACED THE HEARING OF THAT WITH THE WORDING THAT YOU DID.

THANK YOU. AND I THINK THAT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL TO COUNCIL TO CERTAINLY THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. AND PLEASE NOTE, PATRICK, MR. COLLINS, THAT MR. WALLA HAS REJOINED US.

[8.D.1. 22ZA-001 Request For A Text Amendment To The Galveston Land Development Regulations, Article 5, Table 5.110, To Modify Signage Allotment For Churches In The Residential, Single-Family (R-1) Zoning District. Applicant: City Of Galveston, Development Services Department ]

WE'LL HEAR 22ZA-001, PLEASE.

22ZA-001, THIS IS ANOTHER TEXT AMENDMENT IN THIS CASE IS FOR ARTICLE FIVE SIGN REGULATIONS. IN THIS CASE, THAT'S REQUESTING A TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE GALVESTON LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. ARTICLE FIVE.

MORE SPECIFICALLY, TABLED 5.110 TO MODIFY THE SIGN INTO ALLOTMENT FOR CHURCHES IN THE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY R-1 ZONING DISTRICT THAT'S CURRENTLY REGULATED.

CHURCHES IN THE R-1 ZONING DISTRICT ARE LIMITED TO A NAMEPLATE SIGN NAMEPLATE SIGNS ARE INTENDED TO IDENTIFY THE OWNER OR OCCUPANT OF A BUILDING, BUT ARE LIMITED TO A MAXIMUM OR

[01:15:02]

ARE LIMITED TO A MAXIMUM SIGN AREA OF TWO SQUARE FEET.

STAFF IS PROPOSING THAT CHURCHES IN THE R-1 ZONING DISTRICT BE SUBJECT TO THE SAME SIGN INTO ALLOTMENT OF PROPERTIES IN THE UN.

ZONING DISTRICT, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE FIVE OF THE LDR TABLE FIVE 5.109, PLEASE REFER TO EXHIBIT A FOR THE PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT AND EXHIBIT B FOR THE PROPOSED SIGNAGE ALLOTMENT. PLEASE KNOW THE CRITERIA FOR TAX AMENDMENTS ON PAGE TWO OF YOUR STAFF REPORT.

AS WELL AS THE CONSIDERATION FOR TAX AMENDMENTS ON PAGE THREE OF YOUR STAFF REPORT, THIS CASE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST AS SUBMITTED.

AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.

THANK YOU, ADRIEL.

QUESTIONS FOR STAFF VICE CHAIR BROWN.