Dec 02, 2025 Planning Commission

[00:00:02]

YEAH. YOU ARE. GOTCHA. SORRY ABOUT THAT. ALL RIGHT, WELL, IT IS 3:33.

[1. Call Meeting to Order]

TODAY IS DECEMBER 2ND, 2025. THE MEETING IS RECORDED AND AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE.

AND IF YOU SPEAK, PLEASE SPEAK CLEARLY INTO THE MICROPHONE AND MAKE SURE TO SIGN IN.

SO WE'LL START OFF WITH SOME ATTENDANCE. WE'VE PASSED AROUND THE SIGN IN SHEET, SO IT LOOKS LIKE WE'RE GOOD THERE.

RUSTY WALLA, COMMISSIONER WALLA IS UP ON THE SCREEN OVER THERE ATTENDING VIRTUALLY.

SO LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE A QUORUM. ARE THERE ANY CONFLICTS OF INTEREST? ALL RIGHTY. NO CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. ARE THERE ANY CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES?

[4. Approval of Minutes]

SO I GUESS WE'LL MOVE ON TO PUBLIC COMMENT. DOES ANYBODY HERE WANT TO MAKE A PUBLIC COMMENT? UNRELATED TO SOMETHING ON THE AGENDA? OH, DO I NEED A MOTION? OKAY. SO. YEAH. SEEING NO PUBLIC COMMENTS WE'LL MOVE ON TO PUBLIC HEARINGS.

[6.A.1 24BF-133 (1923 Boddeker Rd) Notice of mitigation for disturbance of dunes and dune vegetation. Property is legally described as Abstract 628 M Menard Survey Tract 62, 230.840 Acres, in the City and County of Galveston, Texas. Applicant: The Park Board of Trustees of the City of Galveston Property Owner: The City of Galveston]

THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND DUNE VEGETATION MITIGATION.

THE REQUEST IS FOR THE RELOCATION AND CONSOLIDATION OF FOUR SEAWEED BERM DUNES.

THE WORK IS REQUESTED TO ENSURE ACCESS PARKING AT EAST BEACH, WHICH IS OPERATED AND MAINTAINED BY THE GALVESTON PARK BOARD.

THE ADDRESS IS 1923 BODDEKER ROAD. THE PROPERTY IS LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS ABSTRACT 628M MENARD SURVEY TRACT 62 230.840 ACRES IN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF GALVESTON, TEXAS.

THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED IN EAST BEACH APFFEL PARK, A BEACH AND DUNE SYSTEMS AROUND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

ACCORDING TO THE BUREAU OF ECONOMIC GEOLOGY, THE AREA IS ACCRETING AT A RATE OF 5 TO 6FT PER YEAR.

STAFF HAS PREPARED PHOTOS FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR YOUR VIEWING.

FIRST, WE HAVE THE FIRM AND BIG MAP SHOWING THE PROJECT SITE AND THE SURROUNDING AREAS.

ON THE NEXT SLIDE IS THE PROPERTY SURVEY. THE FOLLOWING TWO SLIDES GO AHEAD AND GO DOWN REBECCA.

FOLLOWING TWO SLIDES SHOW THE EXISTING DUNE LOCATIONS AND THE PROPOSED RELOCATED DUNE LOCATION.

GO AHEAD AND SCROLL DOWN. FINALLY, WE HAVE 12 PHOTOS OF THE PROPOSED MEDICATION LOCATION AND JUST SCROLL THROUGH THOSE. REBECCA. THESE ARE JUST THE AREAS ON THE EAST, CENTRAL AND WEST PART OF THE PROJECT WHERE THE DUNE IS GOING TO BE RELOCATED TO THE MITIGATION SITE.

OKAY. AND JUST AS A KIND OF A FOLLOW UP I KNOW IN YOUR PACKET YOU HAD SOME THE GLO LETTER HAD SOME COMMENTS ABOUT THE VEGETATION AND STUFF. WE HAD A CONVERSATION WITH THE GLO THIS AFTERNOON ABOUT THAT.

THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION BACK AND FORTH ABOUT HOW TO IDENTIFY THE DUNE VEGETATION OUT THERE.

THERE'S NOT A LIST OF LIST OF EXACTLY ALL INCLUSIVE OF DUNE VEGETATION.

SO WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO, INSTEAD OF YOU DOING THE 8000FT², WE'RE GOING TO USE A PERCENTAGE COVERAGE OF WHAT THE DUNE IS.

SO IF THE DUNES ARE COVERED NOW AT 80%, THE NEW DUNE MUST BE COVERED WITH DUNE VEGETATION AT 80%.

LIKE I SAID, THERE'S SOME DISCUSSIONS BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN THE CITY AND ZILLOW BECAUSE THE DIFFERENT SPECIES AND SOME OF THE INFORMATION THAT GLOW WAS LOOKING AT IS NOT READILY AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC OR EASILY FOR THE PUBLIC TO KNOW THAT THAT'S WHAT THEY NEED TO BE LOOKING AT.

SO WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO IS CHANGE UP. INSTEAD OF 8000FT², WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A PERCENTAGE COVERAGE OF DUNE VEGETATION REQUIREMENT.

SO THAT CONCLUDES THE REPORT AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

ALRIGHT. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. MARY JANE.

FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT BEFORE THE CITY IS ABLE TO ISSUE THE PERMIT.

SO IT REQUIRES IT MEETS THE REQUIREMENT OF THE TEXAS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE.

SO THE TEXAS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE SAYS 1 TO 1.

LIKE I SAID, WE WERE, YOU KNOW, LOOKING AT CERTAIN SPECIES.

[00:05:02]

SO THAT'S WHY WE SAID WE'RE JUST GOING TO DO A COVERAGE.

SO IF IT'S 80% COVERAGE NOW, THE NEW DUNE MUST BE 80% COVERAGE.

THAT'S 1 TO 1. AND THE VOLUME SAND VOLUME WILL BE THE SAME.

AND SO THAT MEETS THE THAT MEETS THE TAC REQUIREMENT.

BECAUSE IF EVERYBODY IF PEOPLE ARE LOOKING AT DIFFERENT DUNE VEGETATION SPECIES LIST, THEY MAY SAY, WELL, YOU DON'T HAVE THIS ON THE LIST OR YOU DON'T HAVE THAT ON THE LIST. SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE GOING BACK TO JUST THE, THE COVERAGE AND THE LANGUAGE, THE DEFINITION FOR DUNE VEGETATION IN THE TEXAS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE SAYS INDIGENOUS.

SO BUT INDIGENOUS IS NOT REALLY IDENTIFIED. SO TO KIND OF MAKE IT MORE CLEAR, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO.

AND GLO WAS OKAY WITH THAT, THAT WE WERE GOING TO MAKE THAT THAT CHANGE.

AND LIKE I SAID, WE JUST TALKED TO THEM LIKE AT 1:30 ABOUT THAT.

SO I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S NOT ANY ACTION THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION NEEDS TO TAKE ON THIS PARTICULAR REQUEST SO, ARE THESE, WHAT'S THE MAIN REASON THAT THESE ARE BEING MOVED? SO RIGHT NOW SO THOSE WERE BUILT IN 2014 FROM SOME OF THE SARGASSUM THAT CAME UP AND WE GOT INUNDATION.

AND SO WHAT THEY'VE DONE IS THEY'RE BASICALLY RESTRICTING SAND FROM BLOWING INTO ONE OF THE PARKING AREAS.

SO IT'S RETAINING WATER AND PARK BOARD'S HAVING TO GO OUT THERE AND CONTINUOUSLY KIND OF MAINTAIN IT.

SO WHAT THEY'RE DOING IS MOVING THIS BACK PAST THAT PARKING AREA, COMBINING THOSE FOUR INTO ONE.

SO ALLOW SAND TO BUILD UP AND BE ABLE TO USE THAT AREA MORE FOR THE BEACH ACCESS, PARKING AND NOT HAVING TO CONTINUOUSLY SCRAPE AND POND WATER.

SO IT'S JUST THOSE FOUR BERMS THAT ARE, THAT ARE RESTRICTING THE SAND FROM REACHING.

YEAH, IT'S JUST PART OF THE BEACH. IS THAT AREA? YES. BECAUSE I KNOW THE GLO LETTER MENTIONED SOMETHING TO THE THAT THERE WERE OTHER THAT THE CITY DIDN'T LOOK AT OTHER ACTIONS THAT YOU COULD TAKE, THE CITY COULD TAKE. SO, SO UNDER MITIGATION YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT AVOIDANCE.

AND SO THE ONLY WAY THAT YOU CAN DO THIS PROJECT IS TO MOVE THE DUNES.

OKAY. AND SO THAT'S WHAT THEY SAID IS YOU KNOW, ONCE AGAIN THAT'S SOME DISCUSSIONS THAT WE'RE HAVING WITH GLO ABOUT HOW WE LOOK AT THINGS.

YOU KNOW, BEING OUT HERE IN THE IN THE FIELD IS THEY'RE LIKE, WELL THEY DIDN'T DEMONSTRATE HOW YOU COULD AVOID THE IMPACTS.

WELL IF YOU DON'T MOVE THE DUNES YOU CAN'T ACCOMPLISH THE PROJECT PURPOSE.

AND WHERE ARE THEY GOING TO BE. WHERE ARE THEY GOING TO BE MOVED TO? THERE ARE SOME EXISTING DUNES THERE.

THEY'RE GOING TO BE PLACED IN FRONT OF THEM. IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S SOME VEGETATION THERE PLACED IN FRONT. YES, SIR. BUT THERE'S VEGETATION THERE WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO BE MOVED FURTHER NORTH IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE MITIGATED FOR IT'S WAY THAT IT'S CURRENTLY IN THE TEXAS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE.

OKAY. AND THE CITY DID JUMP THROUGH THIS MITIGATION SEQUENCE.

OKAY. WE WENT THROUGH THAT PROCESS. OKAY. AND THEN JUST AS A KID WHO USED TO PLAY IN THE BEACH OUT THERE.

HOW ARE THEY? HOW DO THEY GET MOVED? YOU JUST GO UP AND SCOOP THEM UP AND MOVE THEM, OR, LIKE, HOW DEEP ARE THESE ROOTS ON THIS NATURAL VEGETATION? THERE'S LIKE I SAID, THE INSIDE OF THEM IS SARGASSUM.

SARGASSUM? YEAH. SO SO THERE'S NONE OF THE SAND SOCK THAT I KNOW A&M DID SOMETHING AFTER IKE.

NO SIR. OKAY. IT'S IT'S BUILT OUT OF SORRY. OKAY.

DUDE, IT'S PRETTY EASY TO MOVE. WE'LL SEE. THAT'S ON THE THAT'S ON THE PARK BOARD TO DECIDE [LAUGHS].

AND SO THE, THE SPACE THAT'S GOING TO BE LEFT IS JUST GOING TO JUST BE EMPTY.

YEAH. YEAH. INTERESTING. OKAY. THANK YOU. BOB.

WHAT IS THE FUNDING SOURCE PROPOSED FOR THIS? I DON'T KNOW THAT I THINK PARK BOARD'S HERE. THAT.

BUT I DON'T KNOW. WE DON'T GET INTO THE FUNDING OF OF THE PROJECT.

OKAY. ANYBODY ELSE? ALRIGHTY. WELL WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

THANK YOU FOR THE STAFF REPORT. IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? WOULD YOU LIKE TO COME TO THE PODIUM? BE A FUN PROJECT.

LET ME JUST YOUR NAME AND SIGN IN. FOR THE RECORD, I'M GOING TO NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT RUSTY WALLA HAS LEFT THE MEETING DUE TO TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES, WE WON'T HOLD THAT AGAINST HIM [LAUGHS]. THANK YOU.

GOOD AFTERNOON, ELIZABETH WALLA. AND I'M THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS MANAGER FOR THE GALVESTON PARK BOARD.

HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. ANYBODY HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? I DO. MICHAEL, WHAT'S THE TIMELINE FOR THIS PROCESS? WE'RE HOPING TO HAVE IT DONE WITHIN THE NEXT YEAR, BUT THE PERMIT ALLOWS FOR THREE YEARS.

PERMIT ALLOWS FOR THREE YEARS. AND TO THE COUNCIL MEMBERS QUESTION.

THE FUNDING SOURCE IS FROM THE STATE, FROM HOT TAX, WHERE DOES IT COME FROM? IT IS FROM HOT TAX. OKAY. THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE? ALL RIGHTY. WELL THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I SUPPOSE WE'LL MOVE ON.

ANY PUBLIC WISH TO MAKE A COMMENT? LOOKS LIKE NO.

SO THEN WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND I GUESS WE DON'T NEED ANY FURTHER ACTION, SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

[00:10:04]

[6.B.2 25P-050 (3919 Nueces) Request for a minor plat to increase the number of lots from one to two. The property is legally described as the Abstract 121, Hall & Jones Survey, Lot 1935-A (1934-0), Sea Isle 8th Extension Replat, in the City and County of Galveston, Texas. Applicant: Angel Wall, TLTS Inc Property Owner: Terry and Lynn Day]

OKAY. 25P-050 3919 NUECES, 27 PUBLIC NOTICES SENT ZERO. NO OBJECTIONS FROM CITY DEPARTMENTS.

THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A MINOR PLOT IN ORDER TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF LOTS FROM ONE LOT TO TWO IN A RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY R-1 ZONING DISTRICT.

ALL PROPOSED LOTS EXCEED THE REQUIRED LOT AREA FOR THE R-1 ZONING DISTRICT, AS PRESCRIBED IN THE GALVESTON LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ARTICLE 3 R-1 ADDENDUM. THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, CHAPTER 212015 REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARING FOR PLOTS INCREASING LOT DENSITY IN A SINGLE FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT.

THE SUBJECT SITE CONSISTS OF TWO SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED HOUSES AND AN R-1 SINGLE FAMILY R-1 ZONING DISTRICT.

A WALKWAY WAS PREVIOUSLY ATTACHED TO THE TWO STRUCTURES, BUT HAS SINCE BEEN REMOVED.

THE GENERAL VICINITY IS COMPRISED OF RESIDENTIAL USES.

PLEASE TAKE NOTE OF THE MINIMUM LOT STANDARDS.

THE MINOR PLOT EXCEEDS THE MINIMUM LOT STANDARDS FOR LOTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL OR RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY R-1 ZONING DISTRICT AS DESCRIBED ABOVE.

PLEASE TAKE NOTE OF THE CONDITIONS. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS ONE AND STANDARD CONDITIONS 2 TO 3. AND WE ALSO HAVE THE PROPERTY AS IT CURRENTLY STANDS.

AND HERE'S A SURVEY THAT THE APPLICANT PROVIDED AND A PLAT OF THE AREA.

THEN WE HAVE THE PROPERTIES FROM THE NORTH, SOUTH AND WEST.

AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT. ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU. ANYBODY HAVE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. YEAH I DO.

IT APPEARS THAT THIS WAS ORIGINALLY PLATTED AS JUST ONE LOT.

AND THERE'S TWO RESIDENCES BUILT ONTO ONE LOT.

YES. MAKES TOTAL SENSE. IT'S ALLOWABLE TO HAVE A ONE STRUCTURE, MAIN STRUCTURE AND ONE ACCESSORY DWELLING STRUCTURE. SO IT WAS LEGALLY PERMITTED. SURE. AND SO ANYBODY ELSE HAVE A QUESTION? SO I HAD ONE. SO WE'RE SPLITTING IT INTO THE TWO HOUSES.

SO THE LARGER HOUSE OVER HERE WOULD HAVE THE SWIMMING POOL. THAT'S THE REQUEST.

YES. THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL I GOT. ANYBODY ELSE? ALL RIGHTY. IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? COME UP, STATE YOUR NAME.

SIGN IT. ANGEL WALL, I'M WITH TLTS, AND I REPRESENT THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY.

THE PROPERTY WAS ACTUALLY REPLANTED BEFORE, WHICH IS WHY THE LOT WAS SO LARGE.

IT WAS COMBINED FROM 2 TO 1. THE HOA REQUIRED IT WHEN THEY BUILT THE SECOND DWELLING ON IT, AND THEY PUT A BRIDGE ACROSS IT FOR THE MOTHER IN LAW.

SO NOW THAT THEY'RE SELLING IT, THEY REMOVED THAT BRIDGE AND THEY HAVE TO REPLAT.

SO IT'S A REPLAT OF A REPLAT, WHICH. YEAH, THAT'S THE NUTSHELL VERSION.

ALL RIGHT. ANYBODY HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT. ALRIGHTY.

SEEING NONE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I GUESS WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND THANK YOU.

ANYBODY FROM THE PUBLIC WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? SEEING NOBODY, I GUESS WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND NO FURTHER ACTIONS NEEDED.

SO. ALL RIGHT. MOVING RIGHT ALONG. ALRIGHTY. SO WE'VE GOT SOME

[7.A.3. 25P-046 (11243 Stewart Road) Request for a change of zoning from Residential-Single Family, Height and Density Development Zone, Zone 6 (R-1-HDDZ-6) to a Commercial, Height and Density Development Zone, Zone 6 (C-HDDZ-6) zoning district. The property is legally described as Abstract 121 Page 64, Part of Lots 19 and 22 (19-6) and Part of Right of Way, Trimble & Lindsey Section 2, in the City and County of Galveston Texas. Applicant: Gregory W. Hayes Property Owner: Gregory W. Hayes]

NOW WE'LL GO TO A STAFF REPORT. ALRIGHTY. THANK YOU.

SO THIS IS, AS STATED, A REQUEST FOR A CHANGE OF THE BASE ZONING.

THIS IS AT 11243 243 STEWART ROAD. IT'S CURRENTLY RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND THE REQUEST IS TO CHANGE IT TO COMMERCIAL ZONING.

THERE'S ALSO A HIGH DENSITY DEVELOPMENT ZONE SIX OVERLAY, WHICH IS NOT PROPOSED TO BE CHANGED.

SO WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT CHANGE OF THE BASE ZONING.

THERE ARE 32 PUBLIC NOTICES SENT. NONE OF THOSE ARE RETURNED.

THERE ARE ALSO NO OBJECTIONS NOTED FROM CITY DEPARTMENTS OR OUTSIDE UTILITIES.

[00:15:07]

SO THE ZONING WOULD BE CONSISTENT ON THAT SIDE OF STEWART ROAD.

THE APPLICANT HAS NOT PRESENT ANY SPECIFIC PLANS FOR THE PROPERTY IN THEIR NARRATIVE, OTHER THAN SOME SORT OF COMPATIBLE COMMERCIAL LAND USE.

SO CURRENTLY THE SUBJECT'S PROPERTY ONCE AGAIN IS RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, PREDOMINANTLY RESIDENTIAL IN NATURE.

SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT FROM COMMERCIAL ZONING.

THE MAJORITY OF THE SURROUNDING IS ZONED COMMERCIAL ALREADY PERMITS THOSE EXPANDED USES, AND OF COURSE, THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH IS A RESORT RECREATION, WHICH IS VERY SIMILAR AS FAR AS PERMITTED LAND USES TO COMMERCIAL ZONING.

SO THE PROPOSED ZONING IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTING ZONING TO THE NORTHEAST AND WEST IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE ZONING TO THE SOUTH, WHICH IS THE [INAUDIBLE] DEVELOPMENT. THE [INAUDIBLE] DEVELOPMENT WAS ESTABLISHED IN ITS CURRENT FORM APPROXIMATELY AROUND 1970, ACCORDING TO COUNTY CLERK RECORDS. ALSO, PLEASE NOTE THAT THE ZONING IN GALVESTON IS INCLUSIVE, MEANING THAT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT COULD STILL BE PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL ZONING EVEN WITH THIS CHANGE OF ZONING IF THE APPLICANT SHOULD WISH TO, THEY COULD DO RESIDENTIAL ZONING LAND USES HERE IF THEY WANTED, AMONG MANY OTHER THINGS.

AND ONCE AGAIN, THERE ARE NO CHANGES TO THE HDDZ THAT WOULD REMAIN.

PLEASE NOTE YOUR CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF CHANGES OF ZONING IN YOUR STAFF REPORT.

STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST IS GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH CHANGES OF ZONING AS PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 13.601C OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.

THIS WOULD PROVIDE A CONSISTENT COMMERCIAL ZONING ALONG WITH HIGH DENSITY DEVELOPMENT ZONE SIX ALONG STEWART ROAD, ELIMINATE ANY DISCREPANCIES IN THAT SORT OF ZONING CONTINUANCE.

AND ONCE AGAIN, THE CHANGE OF ZONING DOES NOT ELIMINATE THE ABILITY TO DEVELOP FOR RESIDENTIAL LAND USES, IF THAT SHOULD BE A DECISION. SO STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST AS STATED.

AND PLEASE NOTE THAT COUNCIL HAS A FINAL DECISION REGARDING THIS CHANGE OF ZONING, AND THEY WILL HEAR THIS REQUEST AT THEIR JANUARY 22ND, 2026 MEETING. AND WE HAVE SOME PHOTOS HERE. SO HERE WE HAVE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY THERE.

AND YOU CAN SEE ON EITHER SIDE, IT'S KIND OF BOOKENDED BY COMMERCIAL ZONING WITH THE RESORT RECREATION ZONING TO THE NORTH AND THE SUBDIVISION R-1 ZONING TO THE SOUTH. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. AND HAVE A SUBJECT PROPERTY WHICH IS PRETTY MUCH UNDEVELOPED, SORT OF SEE BEHIND THE TREES, BUT IT'S MOSTLY UNDEVELOPED AND VACANT AND CLEARED AND LOOKING WEST ALONG STEWART ROAD.

THEN WE HAVE THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH, THE EAST, AND THEN AN OBLIQUE AERIAL SHOWING HOW ALL THAT DEVELOPMENT KIND OF FITS AROUND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.

ALRIGHTY. THANK YOU. DANIEL. I GUESS, DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? MAYOR.

JOHN, WHERE IS THE RV PARK ON THAT MAP? SO IT'S JUST TO THE ON THIS ON THIS AERIAL HERE.

IT WOULD BE JUST THERE TO THE RIGHT. AND THAT'S THE STELLA MARE RV RESORT.

THERE WE GO. RIGHT THERE IN THAT AREA. AND YOU SAID THAT'S RECREATIONAL? THAT'S COMMERCIAL. THE RESORT RECREATION ZONING IS TO THE NORTH ACROSS STUART.

OKAY. IT'S MOSTLY UNDEVELOPED IN THAT AREA. OKAY.

THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE? JUST A QUICK QUESTION, MICHAEL.

SO ON THIS TABLE OF PERMITTED USES. SO ALL OF THE RED AND THE GREEN WOULD BE ADDED WITH THE CHANGE OF ZONING WOULD BE NOW BE PERMITTED ON THIS TABLE HERE. RIGHT. SO ON THAT TABLE, YOU CAN LOOK AT YOU KNOW, OF COURSE, ALL OF OUR ZONING LAND USES ARE INCLUDED. BUT YES, YOU COULD LOOK AT RESORT RECREATION AND COMPARE THAT TO COMMERCIAL AND THEN COMPARE THAT TO R1 TO KIND OF SEE THOSE DIFFERENCES IN RESORT.

RECREATION IS FAR CLOSER TO COMMERCIAL THAN THAN R-1 AS FAR AS LAND USES GO.

THERE'S A BIT OF A DIFFERENCE. OKAY. THANK YOU.

ANYBODY ELSE? ALRIGHTY. I GUESS WE'LL MOVE ON TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR 25P-046. DO WE HAVE ANYBODY WHO, I GUESS I'M SORRY.

DO WE HAVE THE APPLICANT HERE? WOULD THEY LIKE TO COME UP AND MAKE A STATEMENT? LOOKS LIKE. NO. ALL RIGHT. I GUESS WE GOT NO QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT EITHER, SO I GUESS WE'LL MOVE BACK, COME BACK TO COMMISSION. OH, YEAH. PLEASE. I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS ON THIS AGENDA ITEM.

[00:20:03]

UNDERSTOOD. SO THE RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF WOULD BE TO APPROVE THE CHANGE OF ZONING AS PRESENTED, WHICH WOULD BE FROM R-1 TO COMMERCIAL WITH THE HDDZ 6 OVERLAY REMAINING UNCHANGED.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALRIGHTY. THEN I GUESS WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT BACK TO COMMISSION FOR ACTION. COMMISSIONER. DID WE CALL FOR THE PUBLIC TO COMMENT ON THIS? OH. I'M SORRY. IS THERE ANY ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A PUBLIC COMMENT? ALRIGHTY THEN.

NOW WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. I GUESS WE'LL BE BACK FOR ACTION. ANYBODY HAVE A MOTION? YEAH, I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE. 25P-046.

WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE. SECOND. GOT A SECOND? ALL RIGHT. ANYBODY WANT TO MAKE SOME COMMENTS OR ANYTHING? ALRIGHTY, THEN.

I GUESS WE'LL HAVE A VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR? ALL RIGHT.

IT'S UNANIMOUS. ALRIGHTY. MOVING ON.

YES. YEAH. 22ND. THANK YOU. DONNA? YEAH. THIS WILL BE HEARD AT THE JANUARY 26TH CITY COUNCIL MEETING.

22ND. 22ND. THANK YOU [LAUGHS]. THANK YOU. OKAY.

YEAH. ONE OF THOSE DAYS. ALL RIGHT WE'LL MOVE ON TO 7.B.

[7.B.4. 25P-048 (3427 Sealy / Avenue I) Request for designation as a Galveston Landmark. The property is legally described as M.B. Menard Survey, Part of Lot 1 (1-1), Block 214, in the City and County of Galveston, Texas. Applicant: James and Pearlie Josey Property Owner: James and Pearlie Josey]

THIS IS 3427. SEALY, IT'S A REQUEST FOR DESIGNATION AS A GALVESTON LANDMARK.

30 NOTICES WERE SENT. ZERO RETURNED. THE ANALYSIS, BUILT IN 1874, THE TWO STORY FRAME BUILDING CONTAINED SIX ROOMS AND WAS UTILIZED AS A CORNER STORE AND DWELLING. THE BUILDING HAS BEEN MODIFIED FROM ITS ORIGINAL APPEARANCE WITH REMODELING ACTIVITY IN 1924, 1950, 1963, AND 1966. DOCTOR ELEGY ALPHONSE ETTER PURCHASED THE BUILDING IN MARCH OF 1920, AND IS LIKELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE 1920 ALTERATIONS TO THE BUILDING.

DOCTOR ETTER WAS A PHYSICIAN WHO WAS PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL NAACP CHAPTER.

SINCE 1999, THE BUILDING HAS HOUSED THE AFRICAN AMERICAN MUSEUM.

IT SHOWCASES LOCAL BLACK HISTORY OF GALVESTON WITH PHOTOGRAPHS, ARTIFACTS, AND STORIES OF COMMUNITY LEADERS.

THE EXTERIOR FEATURES DEPICTIONS OF FAMOUS AND PROMINENT GALVESTONIANS PAINTED BY ARTIST E.

HERRON SUCH AS NORRIS WRIGHT CUNEY, BARRY WHITE, DOUG MATTHEWS, ANNIE MAE CHARLES, AND JACK JOHNSON.

IT IS THIS ASSOCIATION WITH GALVESTON'S AFRICAN-AMERICAN COMMUNITY.

THE MAKES THE BUILDING HISTORICALLY AND CULTURALLY IMPORTANT.

THE PROPERTY IS NOT LOCATED IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT AND IS ELIGIBLE FOR FINANCIAL INCENTIVES FOR HISTORIC PROPERTIES FOR NEW GALVESTON LANDMARKS.

OTHER REVIEWS, THE LANDMARK COMMISSION REVIEWED YESTERDAY AND RECOMMENDED APPROVAL.

CITY COUNCIL'S FINAL DECISION REGARDING THIS REQUEST, AND IT WILL BE HEARD AT THEIR REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 22ND.

STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL AND WE HAVE SOME PHOTOGRAPHS.

THIS IS A PICTURE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ALONG 35TH STREET.

AND THIS IS ALONG SEALY. AND THEN WE HAVE THE PROPERTIES TO THE NORTHEAST, SOUTH AND WEST.

AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT. ALRIGHTY. THANK YOU. AND JUST TO CLARIFY, YOU DID SAY DID YOU SAY LANDMARK APPROVED THIS? YES. THEY RECOMMEND APPROVAL. RECOMMENDED. THANK YOU.

ALRIGHTY. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? ALRIGHTY. WE'LL MOVE TO THE OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

DO WE HAVE THE APPLICANT PRESENT? WOULD THEY LIKE TO COME UP AND MAKE A STATEMENT? TELL US A LITTLE BIT ABOUT IT. GOOD EVENING. HOW YOU DOING [INAUDIBLE] BORN AND RAISED ON GALVESTON ISLAND.

IN FACT, MY FAMILY BEEN ON THIS ISLAND SINCE 1898.

MY WIFE AND I. THAT'S MY WIFE, JOSIE. SHE'S A RETIRED SOCIAL WORKER FROM BALL HIGH SCHOOL.

THE MUSEUM CAME ABOUT IN 1998 REALLY WHEN I PURCHASED THE BUILDING BECAUSE OF WHAT WAS GOING ON IN THE CITY IN 1990 AND 1991, THE KIDS IN NORTH OF BROADWAY WAS ACTUALLY GANG BANGING.

YOU KNOW FIGHTING OVER COLORS AND, AND STREETS, YOU KNOW, DIFFERENT SIDES OF STREETS BY US COMING FROM CALIFORNIA.

WE LIVED IN CALIFORNIA ABOUT 15 YEARS IN COMPTON.

IN FACT, I GOT CAME HOME, GOT IN THE COMMUNITY HAS HAS STARTED, STOP THE VIOLENCE RALLIES, TALKED TO THE KIDS ABOUT DRUGS, ALCOHOL. BE PROUD OF YOUR HISTORY, YOUR HERITAGE AND CULTURE.

I RESEARCHED THE HISTORY OF BLACKS BORN ON THE ISLAND.

IT'S A UNIQUE MUSEUM. IT'S ACTUALLY IT'S A MUSEUM THAT HIGHLIGHTS LOCAL BLACKS THAT MADE A CONTRIBUTION TO THE COMMUNITY.

TAKE, FOR INSTANCE, LIKE DOUG MATTHEWS, THE FIRST BLACK CITY MANAGER OF GALVESTON, NOT ONLY GALVESTON, BUT THE STATE OF TEXAS. MIKE EVANS, THE FIRST BLACK TO YOU KNOW, GO OFF INTO PROFESSIONAL FOOTBALL.

[00:25:09]

JACK JOHNSON, THE FIRST BLACK HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPION.

SO THESE ARE ACTUALLY ROLE MODELS. SO THOSE KIDS CAN PATTERN OFF OF.

AND THAT'S THE PURPOSE OF THE MUSEUM. IT'S DONE WELL.

I HAVE A LOT OF GUESTS COME FROM OUT OF HOUSTON.

TOURISTS COME FROM DALLAS, HOUSTON, LOUISIANA, DIFFERENT PLACES.

SO IT'S BEEN REALLY BUSY. AND WE REALLY LIKE TO HAVE THAT MUSEUM TO CONTINUE ON IN THE COMMUNITY HERE.

ALL RIGHT. WELL, THANK YOU, MR. JOSEY. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHTY.

OH, SIR. SO WHEN YOU WHEN YOU CAME IN AND BOUGHT IT YOU HAD TO DO EXTENSIVE REMODELING OR REMODELING OR HOW MUCH REMODELING? YES. YES, A LITTLE UPKEEP. AND IN FACT, WE'RE STILL DOING SOME UPKEEP.

IN FACT, ME AND MY WIFE, WE WORK OUT OF OUR POCKET NONPROFIT.

SO WE DO THE BEST WE CAN WITH THE MONEY WE HAVE TO KEEP IT GOING.

YEAH, AND A LITTLE DONATIONS FROM THE TOURISTS.

THEY, YOU KNOW, PUT IN IN THE BUCKET 5 OR $10, YOU KNOW, JUST TO PAY THE UTILITIES.

SO WE AND GUYS IN THE COMMUNITY, IN FACT THE, THE PROBATION DEPARTMENT, THEY SEND PROBATION GUYS TO DO COMMUNITY SERVICE AND TO HELP OUT TO KEEP IT GOING. SO IT'S A IT'S A ROUGH STRUGGLE.

BUT WE SINCE 1999 WE'VE BEEN KEEPING IT OPEN.

COOL. OKAY. THANKS. BUT THANK YOU, MR. AND MRS. JOSEY, FOR FOR THIS AND KEEPING IT UP. I KNOW IT'S A LABOR OF LOVE.

AND WE APPRECIATE Y'ALL. ABSOLUTELY. VERY COOL PROJECT.

ALL RIGHT DO WE HAVE ANYBODY FROM THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT? SEEING NOBODY WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

COME BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR ACTION. I MAKE A MOTION WE APPROVE 25P-048 WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.

SECOND. SECOND. GOT A MOTION AND A SECOND. I GUESS WE'LL ANYBODY HAVE ANY COMMENTS? QUICK COMMENT. SURE. YEAH. I WAS GOING TO SAY I LOVE THE PICTURES IN HERE.

I WAS LOOKING AT SOME OF THE I DON'T KNOW WHEN THIS PICTURE WAS TAKEN WHERE IT SAYS OFFICERS, BUT I WENT TO SCHOOL WITH SOME, PROBABLY THEIR GRANDCHILDREN OF MR. MRS LEMMONS AND MR. AND MRS. POPE. MR. POPE WAS MY COUNSELOR AT BALL HIGH SCHOOL.

I HAVE VERY, VERY FOND MEMORIES OF MR. POPE. SO YEAH, THAT'S WHEN I SAW THAT PICTURE AND SAW THE NAMES.

OH, I WENT TO SCHOOL WITH SOME OF THEIR KIDS OR GRANDKIDS.

GOOD WORK. THANK YOU. YEAH, I THINK I'LL JUST MAKE A COMMENT.

I THINK THIS IS A REALLY IMPORTANT PROJECT FOR THE COMMUNITY. AND SO YOU KNOW, I'M HAPPY THAT Y'ALL ARE ABLE TO, YOU KNOW, CHAMPION THIS AND I APPRECIATE EVERYTHING YOU'VE DONE OVER THE YEARS TO TO MAKE IT A REALITY.

SO I GUESS WE'LL TAKE A VOTE IF NOBODY ELSE HAS A COMMENT.

ALL RIGHT ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? ALL RIGHT. LOOKS LIKE IT'S UNANIMOUS.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, MOVING ALONG.

[7.C.5. 25P-049 (5228 Broadway /Avenue J, 5100 Sealy, Avenue I, and 5215 Winne/Avenue G) Request for a Final Plat. Properties are legally described as M.B. Menard Survey (0-0), Block 232 and the South 1/2 of Adjacent Avenue I; M.B. Menard Survey (0-0), Block 291, 292, and Adjacent Streets; M.B. Menard Survey (0-0), Block 351 and Part of Adjacent Avenue H and 52nd Street; and M.B. Menard Survey (0-0), Block 352 and Part of Adjacent Avenue H and 52nd Street; in the City and County of Galveston, Texas. Applicant: Mona Purgason, Galveston Housing Authority Property Owner: Galveston Housing Authority]

THIS IS THE OLEANDER SIDE. IT'S 5228 BROADWAY, 5100 SEALY AND 5215 WINNIE.

THE REQUEST IS FOR FINAL PLAT. 32 NOTICES WERE SENT, ZERO RETURNED.

NO OBJECTION FROM CITY DEPARTMENTS OR FROM PRIVATE UTILITIES.

THE BACKGROUND, THIS PRELIMINARY PLAT WAS, AND THIS WAS A BLAST FROM THE PAST.

WHEN I READ THE THIS PIECE OF INFORMATION, THE PRELIMINARY PLAT WAS SCHEDULED TO BE REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON FEBRUARY 16TH OF 2021, BUT WE HAD TO CANCEL THAT MEETING BECAUSE OF WINTER STORM URI.

SO THE PLANNING, THE PRELIMINARY PLAT WAS NOT APPROVED BY COUNCIL, BUT BY COMMISSION, BUT WAS APPROVED BECAUSE NO ACTION WAS TAKEN, IT WAS DEEMED APPROVED. THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, THE APPLICANT IS NOW REQUESTING A FINAL PLAT FOR PROPOSED MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL COMPLEX, WHICH HAS BEEN COMPLETED IN THE PLAT. THE APPLICANT IS ESTABLISHING FOUR NEW LOTS AND REESTABLISHING PORTIONS OF SEALY BALL AND 52ND STREETS.

THE WORK FOR THE INFRASTRUCTURE HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND ACCEPTED BY CITY COUNCIL, AND THIS IS THE FINAL STEP IN THIS DEVELOPMENT AND WILL PRETTY MUCH CLOSE THE DEVELOPMENT OUT. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL WITH THE STANDARD CONDITION AND WITH SPECIFIC CONDITION ONE AND STANDARD CONDITIONS TWO AND THREE.

WE HAVE AN AERIAL. YOU CAN SEE THAT THE SITE IS COMPLETE.

ALL OF THE BUILDINGS HAVE BEEN CONSTRUCTED AND ALL OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE HAS BEEN PUT IN, CONSTRUCTED AND ACCEPTED BY CITY COUNCIL.

NEXT SLIDE. THIS IS THE SURVEY SHOWING THE CURRENT CONDITION.

AND THEN THE NEXT SLIDE. WE'LL HAVE A VERY POOR RENDERING OF THE PLOT, THAT THE PLOT WILL JUST CREATE THE NEW LOTS AND

[00:30:03]

AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT. ALL RIGHTY.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE WE'LL MOVE TO OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING.

DO WE HAVE AN APPLICANT PRESENT? SOMEBODY WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON IT. IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE ANYBODY.

IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? DOESN'T LOOK LIKE ANYBODY.

SO. ALL RIGHT, I GUESS WE'LL COME BACK TO COMMISSION FOR ACTION.

I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THIS. OH. SORRY.

25P-049 SECOND. ALL RIGHT. WE GOT A MOTION IN A SECOND.

ANYBODY HAVE ANY COMMENTS? I'LL MAKE A COMMENT.

I'M KIND OF TICKLED TO BE ABLE TO VOTE ON THIS.

THIS IS A REALLY COOL PROJECT THAT I THINK HAS BEEN, YOU KNOW, COMING FOR A LONG TIME.

IT REPRESENTS A BIG STEP FORWARD FOR THE CITY AS FAR AS YOU KNOW, MAKING SURE THAT EVERYBODY HAS A PLACE HERE.

SO I APPRECIATE ALL THE WORK AND ALL THE LONG DISCUSSIONS THAT HAPPENED.

I WAS IN HIGH SCHOOL WHEN HURRICANE IKE HAPPENED AND WATCHED A LOT OF THESE, YOU KNOW, HOMES AWAY.

AND IT TOOK A LONG TIME TO GET BACK HERE. SO IT'S PRETTY EXCITING.

ANYBODY ELSE? ALL RIGHT, WE WILL I GUESS, TAKE A VOTE.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? LOOKS LIKE IT'S UNANIMOUS.

ALRIGHTY. MOVING RIGHT ALONG AND MOVING TO DISCUSSION ITEMS. WE ACTION ITEMS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS. WE HAVE AN ACTION ITEM REPRESENTATION OF PLANNING COMMISSION AT THE JANUARY 15TH,

[8.A Action Item – Representation of Planning Commission at the January 15, 2026, City Council Meeting (Staff)]

AND I BELIEVE THE COMMISSIONERS WERE GOING TO COME UP WITH SOME THOUGHTS ABOUT WHAT THEY WANTED TO PRESENT TO CITY COUNCIL, GET SOME FEEDBACK FROM OUR, MY EX OFFICIO ABOUT THE PROCESS ITSELF, OR WHAT IS ENVISIONED IN THAT FIRST PROCESS.

THAT FIRST MEETING, I SHOULD SAY. AND THEN THE PROCESS.

THE FIRST MEETING IS JANUARY 15TH. IS THAT THE.

SO I THINK I JUST WANTED TO HEAR YOUR THOUGHTS ABOUT WHAT IS IT THAT, YOU KNOW, OR MAYBE FROM THE EX OFFICIO, HOW DO YOU ENVISION THE PROCESS WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION? KIND OF LIKE I MENTIONED LAST TIME. I ENVISION IT VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT WE'VE DONE WITH THE THE, THE WHARF BOARD AND THE PARK BOARD AS WELL. THERE'S BEEN THINGS THAT WE'VE DISCUSSED THAT HAVE BEEN ITEMS THAT I THINK THAT WE IT'S BEEN MENTIONED CONTINUALLY VISIT OR, YOU KNOW, HAVE TO VOTE ON.

AND I WOULD THINK THAT THAT WOULD BE A GOOD ITEM TO BRING UP AND AGAIN, I THINK A LOT OF THAT HAS TO DO WITH THE UP AND COMING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN I THINK WILL YOU KNOW, WILL ADVISE US FOR A LOT OF THAT. AND I KNOW THAT THAT'S BEEN ANXIOUSLY AWAITED AND WE'RE STILL STILL WAITING.

IT'S A FUNDING ISSUE WITH, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE WERE INITIALLY PROMISED AND WHAT THEY'VE BACKED OFF OF AND I THINK KIND OF PULLING THROUGH ON IT'S KIND OF GONE BACK AND FORTH, BUT THAT'S BEEN WHY EVERYBODY'S IN PLACE AS FAR AS THE COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMITTEE THAT'S BEEN YOU KNOW, READY TO WORK, WORK AT IT AS SOON AS THEY GET SOME DIRECTION.

BUT AGAIN, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT SOME OF THOSE ITEMS JUST KIND OF TO KEEP THEM FRESH AS FAR AS DISCUSSION THAT WE HAVE HERE.

BRINGING THOSE UP WOULD BE A GOOD THING. BUT SO FAR, IT'S JUST BEEN, YOU KNOW, PRESENTATION KIND OF AN OPEN FORUM DISCUSSION BETWEEN US. IT WOULD BE GOOD TO HAVE AN AGENDA, BUT I DON'T THINK IT NEEDS TO BE ABSOLUTELY SPECIFIC.

I THINK IT'S MORE OF IT'S GOOD THAT WE ARE COMMUNICATING BETWEEN US.

I MEAN, I SHARE AS THINGS COME UP ON THE AGENDA THAT WE'VE ADDRESSED JUST EITHER SUPPORT OR DENY WHAT WAS DECIDED HERE AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION. THE ITEMS THAT ARE PUT ON THE AGENDA FOR FINAL CITY COUNCIL VOTE, BUT ALWAYS SHARE THOSE, EITHER THE VOTE OR WHAT WAS SUPPORTED, WHAT WAS NOT SUPPORTED.

SO THINGS LIKE THAT SHOULD COME UP. BUT I THINK WE SHOULD KEEP IT AS OPEN AS POSSIBLE.

[00:35:04]

DO WE WANT A REPRESENTATIVE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE COMMISSION? DO WE NEED TO MAKE A MOTION THAT IF THERE ISN'T A QUORUM OF THE FOLKS PRESENT AT THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING, CAN THEY STILL GO FORWARD WITH, WITH HAVING THAT DUAL MEETING? SO I THINK THAT'S PART OF THE ACTION ITEM AS WELL.

SO MAYBE WE CAN TAKE THAT FIRST TO FIGURE OUT HOW THEY WANT TO PROCEED.

IF THERE'S THE WHOLE BOARD NEEDS TO BE PRESENT, IF THERE'S A QUORUM OF THE BOARD THAT NEEDS TO BE PRESENT OR JUST WHOEVER'S AVAILABLE TO BE THERE CAN CAN SPEAK ON BEHALF OF WHAT THEY WANT TO SPEAK ON.

YEAH. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S, YOU KNOW, IT'S AN OPEN PRESENTATION, IF ANY ANYBODY'S OPINION OR DISCUSSION ITEMS ARE IMPORTANT TO ALL OF US, SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE IT'S NOT JUST ESTABLISHED AS CERTAIN PEOPLE GET THE OPPORTUNITY.

I THINK IT SHOULD BE OPEN OPPORTUNITY FOR ANYBODY THAT'S SERVING ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

YEAH. WE SHOULD. I THINK THAT'S EXCELLENT. YEAH.

I MAKE A MOTION THAT, BASED ON COUNCILMAN'S RECOMMENDATION, THAT WE HAVE AN OPEN FORUM.

AND AS MANY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS THAT WOULD LIKE TO ATTEND CAN ATTEND DURING THESE MEETINGS.

THAT. GOOD. I'LL SECOND. ALL RIGHT. WE GOT A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ANY COMMENTS? WE WELL, I THINK I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS I WAS ABOUT TO SAY IS WE NEED TO ADDRESS THE QUORUM ON THAT ASPECT OF THE VISIT, THE THE PLANNING COMMISSION BEING PRESENT.

DO WE NOT? WELL, WE WE PUBLISH IT AS A MEETING.

YEAH, PUBLISH IT THAT WAY. SO YOU'RE AUTOMATICALLY ENTITLED AND FINE IN BEING THERE.

WELL, OKAY. IF THERE'S NOT A QUORUM, IF THERE'S ONLY TWO PEOPLE PRESENT FOR PLANNING COMMISSION, THAT IS STILL ACCEPTABLE. THERE'S NOTHING IN THIS MOTION THAT WOULD PRECLUDE OR INCLUDE THE THE AMOUNT OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS THAT NEED TO BE THERE AND THE AND THAT IS CORRECT, BECAUSE THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS IS KIND OF UNIQUE IN A SENSE THAT THEY CAN APPOINT SOMEBODY TO REPRESENT THEM IN, IN A FORUM IN A DIFFERENT FORM. SO HENCE THE QUESTION.

IT SOUNDS AS IF ANYONE FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION CAN ATTEND IN THEIR OWN STEAD AND SAY, THIS IS MY THOUGHTS ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AND THE BOARD HAS AGREED TO THAT.

SO WHETHER THERE'S TWO, THREE, FOUR OR, YOU KNOW, EVERYONE, THAT'S FINE.

SO WE JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR. YEAH. AND THE COMMISSIONERS NEED TO BE CLEAR THAT ANYBODY CAN SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES.

I GUESS AS A MEMBER ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THAT'S WHERE THEY WANT THINGS TO GO.

AND SHOULD WE ALSO MAKE OUR AGENDA ITEMS? PRETTY MUCH.

I GUESS YOU HAVE TO DO THAT FOR ALL CITY MEETINGS, AGENDA ITEMS KNOWN TO THE PUBLIC.

AND SO WE COME UP WITH AGENDA ITEMS THAT WE'D LIKE TO PRESENT TO THE PLANNING.

AND VICE VERSA. YOU READ THEM BOTH. I DIDN'T HEAR IF YOU'VE READ.

NO, I DON'T THINK SO. BE ON IT, CATHERINE. BUT I THINK THE DISCUSSION OF OF TOPICS.

I GUESS THAT'S NEXT IS NEXT ON THE AGENDA. SO IF WE WANT TO FINISH UP THIS FIRST MOTION, IF THERE ARE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THAT, THEN. ANYBODY ELSE. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WE'LL HAVE A VOTE THEN.

ALL IN FAVOR? ALL RIGHT. THERE WE GO. AND SO THEN WE'LL MOVE ON TO 8.B DISCUSSION ITEM.

[8.B Discussion Item – Topics for discussion at the January 15, 2026, City Council Meeting (Walla)]

IF AGREED, I CAN. YOU CAN DEFINITELY SUBMIT ANYTHING THAT YOU'D LIKE ME TO INITIATE OR DIRECT TO OPEN UP THE DISCUSSION.

FEEL FREE. I CAN, YOU KNOW, I VOLUNTEER MYSELF TO TO HELP LEAD US INTO DISCUSSION.

IF THERE ARE ITEMS THAT YOU'D LIKE THAT ARE REALLY IMPORTANT INDIVIDUALLY, IF YOU'D LIKE TO EMAIL OR TEXT ME THOSE I CAN HELP ORGANIZE THAT TO INITIATE THE DISCUSSION AND CONVERSATION. THANK YOU.

SO THEN WE'LL MOVE ON TO 8.B DISCUSSION ITEM TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION AT THE JANUARY 15TH, 2026 CITY COUNCIL MEETING.

ANYBODY HAVE ANY THOUGHTS ON THIS? ANYBODY WANT TO GO FIRST? YEAH, RIGHT OFF THE TOP.

AND WE'VE GOT THE AIRPORT DIRECTOR HERE. WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS.

I THINK WE'VE I'VE BROUGHT IT UP PREVIOUSLY ABOUT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY ZONING NEAR THE AIRPORT.

[00:40:04]

AND THIS WOULD BE A GOOD TIME TO DO IT, IF THAT'S OKAY WITH YOU.

YEAH. IS THAT A MOTION TYPE OF THING, OR IS THAT.

DO I HAVE TO MAKE A MOTION? THAT'S WHAT I WANT ON THERE.

NO, THIS IS JUST A DISCUSSION ITEM. SO WE'LL JUST COME TO CONSENSUS ON THESE ITEMS. SO WE SENT OUT BEFORE THE HOLIDAY A POWERPOINT THAT WE HAD DONE, WE REVIEWED AT A WORKSHOP IN THE SPRING THAT INCLUDED SOME TOPICS, ALLEY ACCESS LOTS THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT A BUNCH, BONUS ZONING, A CONCEPT THAT COMMISSIONER SINGLETON BROUGHT FORWARD.

HARDENING BEACHFRONT DUNES COMES FROM A CONVERSATION WITH COASTAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT.

YOU KNOW, THAT'S A TOPIC THAT COMES UP VERY REGULARLY.

AND THEN ALSO WORKFORCE HOUSING. SO THOSE ARE ITEMS THAT WE'D ALREADY TALKED ABOUT AND HAVE ALREADY IDENTIFIED AS BEING, YOU KNOW, PRIORITIES OF THE COMMISSION. A NEW TOPIC WAS ADDED BY COMMISSIONER HUMPHREY AND THAT'S COMPATIBLE LAND USE ZONING AIRPORT AREA.

AND WE DID INVITE MIKE SHAHAN, WHO'S THE AIRPORT DIRECTOR, TO COME, SO MAYBE HE CAN GIVE US A LITTLE BRIEF SUMMARY OF WHAT WHAT THAT IS, AND THEN WE CAN YOU CAN ASK HIM ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE ON THAT TOPIC.

THANKS FOR BEING HERE, MIKE. I'M MIKE SHAHAN, THE AIRPORT DIRECTOR.

THE COMPATIBLE LAND USE ZONING. WE'VE GOT A THE THE COMPANY, KAUFFMAN ASSOCIATES, THAT DID OUR AIRPORT MASTER PLAN A FEW YEARS BACK.

WE'VE RECEIVED A ESTIMATE ON WHAT IT WOULD COST TO DO THE ZONING FOR US, AND THAT'S ABOUT $30,000.

AND THAT INCLUDES A VISIT WITH THIS COMMISSION TO PRESENT IT TO THE COMMISSION AND ALSO CITY COUNCIL.

LIKE I SAID, IT'S IT'S ABOUT $30,000. WE'VE GOT SOME AIRPORT FUNDING I THINK WE CAN USE FOR THAT.

IT'S IMPORTANT, YOU KNOW, THE AIRPORT'S 93 YEARS OLD.

IF IT'S GOING TO MAKE IT ANOTHER 93 YEARS WE'VE GOT TO PROTECT THE AREA AROUND THE AIRPORT FROM INCOMPATIBLE LAND USES.

IF WE ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN, IT'LL BE JUST LIKE MANY AIRPORTS THAT USED TO BE HERE, YOU KNOW, IN THE UNITED STATES THAT ARE NO LONGER AROUND. SO IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE GET THIS DONE WHILE WE STILL CAN BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE.

ANY QUESTIONS? I DO HAVE A QUESTION. SO WHAT WHAT ROLE WOULD THE FAA PLAY IN THAT PROCESS? I MEAN, WOULD THEY GIVE US THOUGHTS ON, HEY, THIS IS WITHIN OUR GUIDELINES? I KNOW PART OF THE TROUBLE WE'RE HAVING, RIGHT, IS THE THERE'S GRANT TERMS. RIGHT. WELL, OUR GRANT ASSURANCES, THEY'VE ALREADY GIVEN US THE TERMS. Y'ALL HANDLE IT. IT DON'T LET INCOMPATIBLE LAND USES HAPPEN, BUT THEY DON'T DEFINE THAT CLOSELY.

THEY'RE JUST LIKE, HEY, MAKE SURE YOU DON'T LET IT HAPPEN. WELL, NO, THERE'S PLENTY OF DOCUMENTATION.

LET ME SEE. SOME OF THE INCOMPATIBLE LAND USES NEAR THE AIRPORT WOULD BE.

LET ME SEE. I'VE GOT IT HERE SOMEWHERE. IT'S A RESIDENTIAL, EXCEPT FOR VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL AREAS. HAS ANYTHING IT'S HAZARD TO FLY.

IT'S PETROLEUM REFINERY AND STORAGE. NATURAL GAS AND PETROLEUM PIPELINES.

SCHOOLS. DAYCARE CENTERS. LIBRARIES. HOSPITALS.

NURSING HOMES. THEATERS. AUDITORIUMS. BUT THE BIG ONE IS HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.

AT LEAST AT MY LAST AIRPORT, WE ZONED AROUND THE AIRPORT, AND IT THEY LIMITED IT TO IT WAS ONE DWELLING UNIT PER FIVE ACRES WITHIN SO MANY FEET OF THE END OF THE RUNWAY.

NO MORE THAN 100 PEOPLE PER ACRE. AND THEN IT ALSO REQUIRED 30% OPEN SPACE.

AND THAT'S USUALLY THAT WAS AT THAT PARTICULAR AIRPORT.

IT WAS THE FIRST 5800FT FROM THE END OF THE RUNWAY.

AND THEN IT GOT MORE, LESS RESTRICTIVE AS IT GOT FARTHER OUT.

AND THAT'S JUST UNDER THE APPROACH ZONES. OKAY.

SO AND OFF TO THE SIDES AND EVERYTHING. SO SO IT LOOKS LIKE YOU HAVE A DOCUMENT WITH SOME OF THAT.

DO YOU MIND. COULD WE. YEAH I'D LOVE TO TAKE A LOOK.

LET ME SHARE THESE WITH YOU. OR WE COULD, AFTER THE MEETING.

EVEN. OR JUST. BECAUSE. YEAH, I'LL JUST JUST TO KIND OF EDITORIALIZE A LITTLE BIT. I, I'M BLOWN AWAY BY THE IDEA THAT ANYBODY COULD YOU KNOW, WANT TO SHUT DOWN AN AIRPORT BECAUSE YOU KNOW, THEY BUILT THEIR HOUSE SOMEWHERE TOO CLOSE TO IT. YOU KNOW NOW, I DON'T DOUBT THAT THAT HAPPENS. I MEAN, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE ALWAYS SURPRISE ME SO.

WELL, IN 20 OR 1995 TEXAS HAD 330 PUBLIC USE AIRPORTS, AND THEY'RE DOWN TO 283 RIGHT NOW. WOW. SO THEY GET SHUT DOWN. YEAH.

AND A LOT OF AIRPORTS. THERE WAS ONE IN CHICAGO THAT WAS SHUT DOWN DOWNTOWN.

MAINLY FOR THE SAME REASON. YEAH. THAT'S INTERESTING.

AND SO, BUT THIS STUDY THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT WOULD TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THESE FAA GUIDELINES.

[00:45:01]

YEAH. IT DOESN'T DO ANYTHING WITH WHAT'S ALREADY HERE.

THOSE ARE PRETTY MUCH GRANDFATHERED IN. BUT IT WOULD GIVE US GUIDELINES ON WHAT TO ALLOW AND WHAT NOT TO ALLOW AND SO FORTH, AND THEN PRESENT IT FOR THIS COMMISSION TO REVIEW AND APPROVE OR MAKE CHANGES.

AND THEN SAME WITH CITY COUNCIL. OKAY. AND DO WE HAVE ANY IDEA HOW FAR AROUND THE AIRPORT THIS MIGHT BE? BECAUSE I KNOW THE AIRPORT OWNS A TON OF PROPERTY OVER THERE ALREADY. WELL, BASICALLY IF YOU LOOK AT EACH END OF THE RUNWAY RUNWAYS, IT WOULD BE ALL THE WAY TO THE TO THE BEACH ON THE SOUTH SIDE.

YEAH. AND THEN TO THE NORTH IT WOULD GO FARTHER OUT TO.

OKAY. OKAY. COOL. THAT'S WHAT I GOT. ANYBODY ELSE.

SO IN LOOKING AT THE PROHIBITED USES, WE'RE WE'RE KIND OF ALREADY INUNDATED WITH WE'RE PROBABLY ABOUT IN ABOUT 60% ALREADY.

WE'RE BEHIND THE CURVE. I SHOULD HAVE BEEN ON THIS A LITTLE BIT SOONER.

SO 5800FT, THAT'S LIKE. I MEAN, WE'RE AT. IT'S A HALF MILE OR QUARTER MILE PAST SEAWALL.

YEAH. OKAY. WOULD BE ZONE A IT AS IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT PARTICULAR ZONING.

WE DID AT MY LAST AIRPORT. EACH LOCATION IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT.

BUT. SO THE LATEST ONE THAT I WOULD JUST USE AS AN EXAMPLE AND I'M JUST, YOU KNOW, VISUALIZING THIS.

SO THE 16 OR 17 HOMES THAT WERE PUT RIGHT BEHIND THE BASEBALL PARK WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WOULDN'T, WOULDN'T BE AN AGREEABLE THING FOLLOWING. THE APPROACH SURFACE OF THE RUNWAYS ARE ALREADY PAST THAT POINT.

SO IT'S IT'S MORE TO THE SIDE. IT'S OFF AT THE VERY END OF EACH RUNWAY.

AND I GUESS I'M JUST LOOKING AT LIKE A, YOU KNOW, IF WE TOOK A, A BIG RADIUS AROUND APPROACH I GUESS ON WHAT, FOUR SIDES. YOU KNOW, I GUESS, LIKE, THE, YOU KNOW, INCOMING FROM CRASH BOAT BASIN AND COMING FROM THE SEAWALL.

YEAH. WELL, IF YOU JUST TAKE THE CENTER LINE OF EACH RUNWAY AND GO OUT, THAT'S.

IT WOULD BE KIND OF A CONE SHAPED. IF THIS IS A TOPIC THAT GETS DISCUSSED AT CITY COUNCIL, IF THERE CAN BE SOME KIND OF VISUAL JUST SO THAT WE CAN HAVE IT.

YEAH, IT'LL BE VISUAL. THIS WAS ACTUALLY OFF THE ZONING ORDINANCE FROM NORTH TEXAS REGIONAL AIRPORT UP IN SHERMAN-DENISON, TEXAS. IF YOU NOTICE I THINK IT'S ZONE C, I BELIEVE WHETHER IT'S ON THE SIDES, THERE'S THE ONLY RESTRICTION WAS JUST TO NOT LET PEOPLE NOT ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THERE'S AN AIRPORT NEARBY AND EVERYTHING'S OFF ON THE ENDS.

NOW, THAT PARTICULAR AIRPORT, THEY USED THE EXISTING AVIGATION EASEMENTS THAT THE MILITARY BOUGHT WHEN WHEN IT WAS AN AIR FORCE BASE.

WE SHOULD HAVE THE SAME. WELL, THAT ONE CLOSED IN 72.

SO WE'VE GOT SOME AVIGATION EASEMENTS, BUT THEY'RE NOT AS EXTENSIVE AS THAT PARTICULAR AIRPORT HAD.

YEAH. I GUESS I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION. YOU SAID YOU THINK THE AIRPORT HAS SOME FUNDS TO DO THE STUDY.

DO YOU KNOW WHERE THOSE FUNDS COME FROM. THE SOURCE OF THAT.

PART OF IT, THE LAND SALE AND SOME OF IT'S JUST OUR RESERVE FUNDS.

YEAH. WE'VE GOT A LITTLE BIT IN RESERVE FUND.

YEAH. AND THEN I. SO SORRY. JUST. I DON'T MEAN TO HARP ON IT.

I'M JUST. I'D LOVE TO KNOW, LIKE, DOES HE. HOW GRANULAR DOES THE FAA GET? BECAUSE I SEE THAT YOU'VE GIVEN US THIS HANDOUT, BUT THIS IS FOR A SIMILAR STUDY AT A DIFFERENT AIRPORT.

BUT I'M WONDERING LIKE DOES THE FAA HAVE, LIKE, VERY SPECIFIC DON'T HAVE A BUILDING ABOVE X FEET IN THIS AREA? OR ARE THEY JUST SAYING, WELL, FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN THEY DO THESE FAA 7460-1, THAT IS THEY LOOK AT THE APPROACHES AND AND THEY SEE IF ANY BUILDING STICKS UP.

FOR EXAMPLE, THE LAST THE ONE THAT HITS HERE, THE THREE HIGH RISES THERE WERE FIVE FEET BELOW THE PROTECTED SURFACE.

SO IT'S OUT OF THE IT'S OUT OF IT. SO THEY SAID, YEAH, THERE'S NO OBJECTION.

IT DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO. IF IT'S COMPATIBLE WITH THE AIRPORT, THEY'RE JUST LOOKING STRICTLY IS DOES THE BUILDING STICK UP INTO THE APPROACH SURFACE.

BUT IF YOU LOOK AT OTHER PARTS, LIKE OUR GRANT ASSURANCES, THOSE ARE IT'S IT'S INCOMPATIBLE LAND USES HAVING HIGH DENSITY THAT CLOSE TO THE END OF THE RUNWAYS. AND THAT'S WHAT WE NEED TO PROTECT IN THE FUTURE.

ANY ADDITIONAL BECAUSE THERE'S STILL A LOT OF VACANT LAND IN THAT AREA.

AND WE NEED TO PROTECT THE AIRPORT AS BEST WE CAN.

I MEAN, YOU KNOW, NOTHING'S PERFECT, SO. YEAH.

DO YOU KNOW WHAT YOU CAN WHAT YOU CAN DO? SO THAT MAKES SENSE.

SO I GUESS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS LOCALLY WE WOULD HAVE SOME LEEWAY TO SAY, ALL RIGHT, THIS IS WHAT FITS GALVESTON.

EVEN IF THIS OVER HERE IS WHAT FITS SHERMAN-DENISON.

THE COMPANY WILL MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS. IT'S UP TO THE CITY, AND THE FAA PUTS THE ONUS ON THE ON THE CITY TO ADOPT IT OR NOT ADOPT IT.

GOTCHA. OKAY. APPROPRIATE ZONING. YEAH. MR. CHAIRMAN, I THINK THE WHAT YOU WERE REFERRING TO IS THE FAA STANDARDS ARE PRETTY EMPIRICAL.

[00:50:08]

BUT I THINK CITIES HAVE, YOU KNOW, A PRETTY GOOD AMOUNT OF LATITUDE IN WHAT THEY, YOU KNOW, CHOOSE TO PROHIBIT OR RESTRICT OR WHAT HAVE YOU.

I SEE HERE THIS IS, YOU KNOW ONE DWELLING UNIT FOR FIVE ACRES ON THE DENNISON STUDY, WHICH OF COURSE, IS VERY, VERY LOW DENSITY. AND, YOU KNOW, AT SOME POINT, YOU KNOW, YOU ALSO HAVE THINGS LIKE FHA FINANCING, WHICH, YOU KNOW, THE FHA WON'T FINANCE CERTAIN THINGS WITHIN AIRPORT ZONES FOR FOR RESIDENTIAL LENDING.

AND SO YOU GOT YOU REALLY SORT OF BRING ALL THOSE THINGS INTO THIS PLAN AS A WHOLE, AS A TOTAL SORT OF CONCEPT.

OKAY. BUT I THINK $30,000 PROBABLY, PROBABLY WOULD DO IT.

YEAH. IT'S THAT AND THAT ONE DWELLING UNIT PER FIVE ACRES.

THAT'S WHERE THE AIRCRAFT THAT'S IN ZONE A AT THAT PARTICULAR AIRPORT, THAT'S WHERE THE AIRCRAFT ARE UNDER 200FT OR LOWER.

SO, YOU KNOW, AND IT GOES UP PAST THAT. SO IT, YOU KNOW, WE'D HAVE THE SAME THING.

IT NOT NECESSARILY THAT PARTICULAR ONE DWELLING UNIT PER FIVE ACRES, BUT THEY'LL COME UP WITH THE RIGHT RECOMMENDATIONS AND THEN LET YOU ALL DECIDE ON WHAT'S BEST FOR GALVESTON.

YEAH. AND I MEAN, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE, MIKE AND I'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT IS, HIS FUTURE FUNDING, BECAUSE THE FAA WANTS TO KNOW THAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO SOME DUE DILIGENCE IN PROTECTING THE AREA AROUND THE AIRPORT, SO WE GOT TO DO WHAT WE CAN TO SHOW THE FAA THAT, YEAH, IT'S OKAY TO GIVE US A COUPLE MILLION DOLLARS OR MORE.

YEAH, WE WANT THEM TO TRUST THEY CAN INVEST WITH US.

RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. WELL, YEAH. AND I'LL JUST SAY I, YOU KNOW, I AM A BIG FAN OF THE AIRPORT.

I THINK IT'S AN ENORMOUS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TOOL.

AND, YOU KNOW, WE CAN ONLY GROW FROM HERE. SO I DO THINK THIS IS A, YOU KNOW, AN IMPORTANT THING TO DISCUSS AND FIGURE OUT.

I JUST WANT TO BE SURE THAT WE HIT THE SWEET SPOT AS OPPOSED TO GOING TOO FAR OR NOT FAR ENOUGH.

RIGHT. ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. IT DOESN'T REALLY WORK VERY WELL.

IT'S ALWAYS BEST TO GET WHERE IT'S IT WORKS FOR EVERYBODY.

EVERYBODY'S HAPPY OR EVERYBODY'S NOT HAPPY, WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE.

AND MY THOUGHT IS, I'M HOPEFUL TO PRESENT THE STUDY TO CITY COUNCIL AT THE AT THE JANUARY MEETING TO GET APPROVAL TO GO AHEAD AND MOVE FORWARD WITH IT.

GREAT. OKAY. SO IF I'LL DISCUSS THAT BEFORE THE, YOU KNOW, AT THAT MEETING.

IT'S A GOOD SEGUE. YEAH. SO ANYBODY ELSE? WELL, I'M IN FAVOR OF DISCUSSING THAT ONE, SO I DON'T KNOW IF WE WANT TO.

EVERYBODY WANT TO. THANKS FOR COMING, MIKE. WE REALLY APPRECIATE IT. ALL RIGHT. MOTION TO ADD THAT TO THE ITEMS OR.

NO. YEAH. WE'LL JUST YEAH. WE'LL JUST RECEIVE CONSENSUS THAT THAT WILL BE ONE OF THE ITEMS THAT WE'LL PUT ON THE LIST.

DO, YOU JUST WANT TO PRESENT THE LIST OR, YOU KNOW, ASK FOR DIRECTION ON THESE THINGS.

I MEAN, IT'S THIS IS THE TIME TO TRY AND FIGURE OUT HOW DO YOU WANT.

HOW WOULD YOU LIKE THE MEETING TO GO FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S POINT OF VIEW ON THE 15TH.

SO I ENCOURAGE YOU GUYS TO TALK ABOUT IT. OKAY.

SO YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT WE NEED TO LIKE, ON THE ALLEY ACCESS LOTS.

WE NEED TO COME UP WITH SOME THINGS. MAYBE TO BE.

WE WANT STIPULATED WITH THE COUNCIL TO DISCUSS ABOUT ON THE BONUS ZONING, CERTAIN ITEMS THAT WE'VE.

WE SEE, IT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED, ETCETERA. IS THAT YOUR THOUGHT? I THINK THAT'S WHAT YOU GOT SOMETHING TO TALK ABOUT RIGHT NOW.

OKAY. I THINK IT MIGHT BE GOOD TO KIND OF PRIORITIZE THE LIST.

YOU KNOW, WHAT'S WHAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO YOU AND, YOU KNOW, FOCUS ON THE BIG ITEMS FIRST.

YEAH, YEAH. AND I'LL THROW MY TWO CENTS IN. YOU KNOW, I THINK THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS HERE THAT ARE REALLY ACTIONABLE THAT, YOU KNOW, WE COULD PROBABLY GET TO SOME SOME CONCLUSIONS WITH HOPEFULLY BEFORE THE END OF 2026.

AND SO, YOU KNOW, I'LL JUST THROW OUT I THINK ONE OF THEM IS PROBABLY THE HARDENING BEACHFRONT OR DUNES.

THE OTHER ONE IS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. AND THEN THE THIRD ONE IS THIS COMPATIBLE LAND USE AROUND THE AIRPORT? THOSE WOULD BE MY THREE TO SAY. HEY, I THINK WE COULD ACTUALLY MAKE SOME MOVEMENT ON THOSE.

NOT THAT THE OTHER WORKFORCE HOUSING BONUS ZONING AREN'T AND ALLEY ACCESS LOTS AREN'T IMPORTANT, BUT I JUST THINK THAT THOSE ARE KIND OF THE AREAS THAT WE COULD TRIAGE.

I THINK THE CONCEPT OF CHOOSING THREE TO BRING TO THE COUNCIL TO TALK ABOUT IS A GOOD ONE.

[00:55:04]

SO WHAT WE CAN DO, WE HAVE ONE MORE MEETING BEFORE THIS JOINT MEETING.

SO ACTUALLY, TWO WE CAN DO A SURVEY AND SEND IT OUT TO YOU ALL AND ASK YOU TO RANK YOUR FAVORITES, YOUR HIGHEST PRIORITIES. AND THEN WE'LL PUT ON AN ACTION ITEM ON THE NEXT AGENDA TO WORK THAT OUT AND COME TO CONSENSUS ON WHAT THE THREE ARE GOING TO BE.

HOW DOES THAT SOUND? THAT SOUND GOOD? I SEE LOTS OF NODDING.

OKAY, SO I'LL SEND OUT A SURVEY MONKEY. KIND OF LIKE WHAT WE DO FOR THE AWARDS.

AND THEN WE'LL PRESENT THE FINDINGS AT THE NEXT MEETING.

I GUESS I WOULD ASK TOO. AND MAYBE THIS IS SOMETHING, ONCE WE HAVE THOSE RANKINGS WE CAN TALK ABOUT IS YOU KNOW, BASICALLY WE'RE GOING TO BE ASKING COUNCIL THEIR OPINION ON SOME THINGS. HEY, YOU KNOW, WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT? BUT WE CAN'T JUST SAY, HEY, WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS? THEY MAY NOT HAVE ANY THOUGHTS ON PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, BUT IF WE TALK ABOUT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS AS IT RELATES TO, YOU KNOW, DEVELOPMENT ON THE SEAWALL OR WHATEVER, YOU KNOW THEN I THINK THAT WE COULD PROBABLY BE A LITTLE MORE PRODUCTIVE.

SO MAYBE I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S BETTER TO HAVE A COUPLE OF, YOU KNOW, A NOTE SECTION ON THAT SURVEY WHERE WE CAN SUBMIT SOME QUESTIONS, OR MAYBE WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT AT THE NEXT MEETING.

DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY THOUGHTS? I THINK THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT.

YEAH, THAT'S VERY WISE. I THINK THAT'S A GREAT IDEA.

AS WELL STAFF, LEGAL STAFF, PLANNING STAFF, WE ARE ABSOLUTELY.

YOU KNOW, WE WANT TO BE THERE TO SUPPORT YOU GUYS AND WHAT YOU'RE DOING TO SUPPORT CITY COUNCIL AND WHAT THEY WANT.

SO USE THIS AS A RESOURCE THROUGH THAT PROCESS.

DON'T DON'T, YOU KNOW, JUST YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO IT ALONE IF YOU DON'T WANT TO.

THANK YOU. TIM. ALL RIGHT. ANYBODY HAVE ANY OTHER THOUGHTS OR DO YOU WANT TO DO SOMETHING A DIFFERENT WAY? WELL, I THINK THIS IS A GOOD WAY TO GO FORWARD.

AND BY, BY GOING JUST WITH THE TOP THREE, I THINK THAT ONE OF THE METRICS THAT WE OUGHT TO THROW IN THERE IS, IS TIME CRITICAL, MAYBE, YOU KNOW, THINGS THAT WE SUSPECT MIGHT BE TIME CRITICAL AS TO HOW IT PLAYS DOWN ON THE LIST AND RANKINGS.

I AGREE. SO OKAY, SO WE'LL TAKE THAT DIRECTION.

WE'LL SEND OUT THE SURVEY. WE'LL CONSOLIDATE THE RESULTS, AND WE WILL DO AN ACTION ON THE NEXT AGENDA TO DETERMINE THE THREE TOPICS.

ALRIGHTY. SOUNDS LIKE A PLAN. AND I GUESS THAT'S IT.

SO WE WILL ADJOURN. THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH. VERY MUCH.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.