[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6472009,"mediaKeyId","5777182-dc7f8212604da67ca780c2669ad0bdbf","parentId",5777182,"title","Planning Commission recommends PUD for Seawall project after airport safety debate, adds noise disclosure and housing conditions","audioSeconds",633,"startMs",661000,"endMs",1294000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5777182-dc7f8212604da67ca780c2669ad0bdbf&start=661&end=1294","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5777182-dc7f8212604da67ca780c2669ad0bdbf/thumbnail_661000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6472009/Galveston/Galveston-County/Texas/Planning-Commission-recommends-PUD-for-Seawall-project-after-airport-safety-debate-adds-noise-disclosure-and-housing-conditions","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6472009-071022db34ffa4ebdce88a32503c194f/orig.mp4?Expires=1770458932&Signature=kc9POrlWgDCorZXeWYkvXYHBn5JW6hRC64LVqNOh2238CtikkkubfoqWEDsSqrlO1sXKVNrwvzSuMQBIFhCofWYoORcyKR4UYamnk3rigtiLy~N7PJiLYR3jsJ3rmpoR8Snug2F1A7kq-KCxJzKPE6erNwkqeuA5MUZY0H60NvbP7lhJq9cE-eO-b0W0V-WC8GlQsl1gfjsEZe3qjVqyECE-WjdcQ4GHpNXEul1SpN96o6twT4HRjHuF~iMS2vdDpM2naLr4bCcE4-2YFXPjusZ-VDMReyAXg00ivQ4Wvjpb9aWaCviB2nDlRTRr5wDk-BUxKdNREqnljOnNiA2UfA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Galveston","date","2025-09-16T00:00:00Z","article","The Galveston Planning Commission on Sept. 16 recommended approval of a Planned Unit Development application for 10302 Seawall Boulevard, a multi‑building mixed‑use proposal that would include two condominium towers, a 216‑key hotel and retail, subject to added conditions requiring a full buyer disclosure about airport noise and a developer commitment for workforce and J‑1 student housing.

The project, presented by architect Steven Beagle and developer Mohammed Aldaway of Royal Crown Enterprise LLC, proposes three buildings along Seawall Boulevard and two residential buildings behind them on a 15.2‑acre site. The applicant said phase 1 would include two condominium towers (about 150 condominium units total), a 216‑key Renaissance Marriott hotel, roughly 70,000 square feet of retail and parking mostly under podium decks. The applicant said phase 1 construction cost is estimated at about $400 million, with phase 2 at $140 million, for a combined $540 million development.

City staff and the applicant told commissioners the development team reduced the proposed maximum building height from an earlier 155 feet to 145 feet after consultations with federal aviation authorities. Tim Tejans of the City’s Development Services Department summarized project studies including a traffic impact analysis and a stormwater/drainage analysis and noted the site is within the HDDZ (height and density) overlay and AE‑12 FEMA flood zone; base finished floor elevations for habitable structures would be about 13.5 feet because of freeboard requirements.

Why it matters: the site lies near established approach and traffic patterns for Galveston’s airport. Airport director Mike Shahan said the FAA had issued a “determination of no hazard to air navigation” for a structure topping out at 145 feet, but urged the city to protect airport operations through local zoning, deed restrictions and advance coordination for temporary construction equipment such as cranes. Shahan warned extended crane operations can penetrate approach surfaces and temporarily raise approach minimums, potentially affecting landings in poor weather, and said noise complaints from high‑value nearby residents are a frequent cause of pressure on airports elsewhere. \"The FAA puts the burden on the city to protect the airport,\" Shahan said.

Developer and architect presentations: Architect Steven Beagle described project components, podium parking, and the applicant’s plan to keep the towers’ design within the FAA’s 145‑foot determination. Beagle said the applicant will provide retail, restaurants and amenities intended to activate the West End and anchor future visitor demand. \"We backed off from 155 to 145,\" Beagle said, citing the FAA review that found no hazard at the lower height.

Airport concerns and mitigation: Mike Shahan told commissioners he had recommended the developer obtain a separate FAA determination for temporary construction equipment (tower cranes) because equipment heights can exceed the structure height and would require separate notice to FAA. He also recommended deed restrictions or disclosure statements to prospective buyers acknowledging airport noise and potential operational impacts. Shahan urged the city to pursue airport‑adjacent zoning changes on a separate track so the airport is protected from incompatible future land uses.

Public comment split: Speakers included residents, pilots and business representatives. Supporters — including representatives of Tiara on the Beach and the Galveston Economic Development Partnership — emphasized the project’s potential tax and job benefits, and said modern, higher‑density investment is needed on the West End. Opponents and pilots raised safety and noise concerns; several airport advisors urged stricter limits on height and on construction timing/permits.

Commission action: After deliberation commissioners moved to recommend approval of the PUD with added conditions. The planning commission vote approved the applicant’s request but the commission amended the recommendation to include two explicit stipulations: (1) a full disclosure statement or deed restriction requiring prospective buyers to acknowledge potential excessive aircraft noise and the presence of the airport; and (2) incorporation of the workforce and J‑1 student housing commitments described in the applicant’s narrative into the PUD commitments (the developer had proposed that 25% of rear phase apartments be dedicated to J‑1 student visas and 25% to workforce housing). The motion carried and will be forwarded with the commission’s recommendation to City Council.

What remains: The FAA letter covers the studied permanent structure height (145 feet) but it does not cover temporary construction equipment; the airport director asked that the developer obtain FAA review for any cranes or derricks that would exceed the studied height during construction. The developer and staff also acknowledged outstanding engineering items: revised sealed dates and coordination with TxDOT on driveway placement per the traffic impact analysis, additional downstream drainage improvements and profile surveys requested by CenterPoint Energy to confirm utility clearances.

Quotes: \"The FAA only checks whether development poses a hazard to our airspace,\" Mike Shahan, airport director, said, adding that \"the FAA puts the burden on the city to protect the airport from other develop[ments] for incompatible land uses.\" Architect Steven Beagle said, \"We backed off from 155 to 145,\" describing the design change after FAA review. Developer Mohammed Aldaway said the project is intended as a long‑term investment in Galveston and to create jobs and restaurants for the West End.

Ending: The Planning Commission’s recommendation — including the added noise‑disclosure and housing stipulations — goes next to City Council for final action. Council will also receive the staff technical studies (traffic, drainage) and the FAA correspondence attached to the record.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Galveston - Planning Commission","oneSentenceSummary","The Galveston Planning Commission on Sept. 16 recommended approval of a Planned Unit Development application for 10302 Seawall Boulevard, a multi‑building mixed‑use proposal that would include two condominium towers, a 216‑key hotel and retail, subject to added conditions requiring a full buyer disclosure about airport noise and a developer commitment for workforce and J‑1 student housing.","taxTitle","Galveston , Galveston County, Texas","taxId",5145,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6472003,"Votes at a glance: Seawall PUD recommended; several plats and a landmark approved; one PUD denied",1905,6983000,8888000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5777182-dc7f8212604da67ca780c2669ad0bdbf&start=6983&end=8888","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5777182-dc7f8212604da67ca780c2669ad0bdbf/thumbnail_6983000.jpg","/articles/6472003/Galveston/Galveston-County/Texas/Votes-at-a-glance-Seawall-PUD-recommended-several-plats-and-a-landmark-approved-one-PUD-denied","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6472003-a027b1e99c7c9b53b030b5308d8f21ee/orig.mp4?Expires=1770458932&Signature=oCkcupDAmef4273iRcHSda56zSjTUXEVX5efM0jc6jV2d5nwZ68fKxO1mGsMNeGQijsj8QAb7NzTChD47B5Et6dCDKNOPkBBVo7NwuWVvBwQpXuIOYFDw8FjwW834-g6HXEmAHEYPzVZJIFZHkw4BSiEsC3d2FLiA3uDSvs4DHN3RIM-OntxVUX6aUyjX0t6-IUC6KqeTl6LfBmiex~-u6RaxQH4XrW65g9xihDFCIS-6MyKtqjHiHirVoYRVdTpyQ97KIsfwJDEgvbvIqq8P3lCFIf582beDQ5~gaYCiamLnFhPJoE8taa7shfdR0Y81uQo2wHucPcDmIey6W34-g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Galveston Planning Commission took multiple formal actions on Sept. 16. Below are the case identifiers, short descriptions and outcomes for each item that had a formal recommendation or vote at the meeting.

Votes at a glance

- 25P030 — 10302 Seawall Boulevard, Planned Unit Development (PUD): Recommended approval to City Council with amendments (approved). The commission added conditions requiring a full disclosure/noise acknowledgment for prospective buyers and that the applicant’s workforce and J‑1 housing commitments be incorporated into the PUD. (See separate article for full discussion.)

- 25BF‑036 — 12716 Bermuda Beach Drive, Dune Conservation Area exemption (single‑family home with crushed rock driveway apron): Approved. Staff reported the applicant moved the structure landward by 6 feet and removed a rear deck/stair before returning; the commission approved the exemption subject to standard conditions.

- 25P036 — 1201 Post Office (Peter and Elena Marie grocery), Historic Landmark designation: Approved. Landmark Commission recommended approval; staff recommended, and the Planning Commission approved, sending the landmark nomination to City Council for final action.

- 25P031 — 17009 FM 3005, Planned Unit Development (private club / place of private assembly): Denied. The applicant sought to allow a private, invitation‑only assembly venue in an R‑1 area; commissioners concluded the request was incompatible with nearby and planned residential development and voted to deny the PUD recommendation to council.

- 25P037 — 2924 Ursuline Avenue North, minor plat to split one parcel into two: Approved subject to standard plat conditions. The rear lot will have alley frontage per the LDR exception for rear lots with alley access; staff noted the alley surface is paved and fire marshal comments were addressed.

- 25P038 — Beachtown replat (Sunset Passage parcels): Approved. The applicant reconfigured 26 lots into 15 larger single‑family lots and preserved two public walkway reserves; staff noted the surveyor addressed reserve labeling and HOA maintenance notes.

- 25P039 — Preliminary plat (area east of Travel Air Road, near airport): Approved. The applicant is dedicating a narrow strip of land adjacent to Travel Air Road to formalize an existing drainage configuration; staff treated the submission as a preliminary plat because of the right‑of‑way dedication. Lots meet or exceed R‑1 lot size standards.

Other items

- 25BF‑029 — 23623 FM 3005, dune mitigation (public hearing): Public hearing held; no formal action taken at the meeting. Staff will continue to monitor mitigation and compliance with the submitted mitigation plan.

How the commission acted: Several items passed unanimously by voice vote; in several cases commissioners discussed outstanding technical items (drainage, traffic signals, FAA coordination) that staff or applicants must resolve before City Council or permit issuance. For items that were recommended for approval, final legal instruments (plats, PUD ordinance, deed restrictions or HOA maintenance notes) must be recorded and filed according to the conditions included in the staff reports.

Next steps: Approved PUD recommendations and the landmark nomination move to City Council for final action. Approved plats must complete recordation and satisfy the conditions listed in staff reports; applicants are responsible for submitting revised, sealed engineering documentation and required county recording fees.

Ending: The Planning Commission adjourned after making the recommendations above. City Council will consider the PUD, landmark and any other items requiring legislative action on its next scheduled agenda.","At its Sept. 16 meeting the Galveston Planning Commission recommended approval of the Seawall PUD with conditions, approved multiple plats and a historic landmark designation, and denied one PUD application for private assembly. Details and next steps for each action are summarized below.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6472006,"Homeowner outlines dune walkover mitigation after unauthorized construction; planning commission opens hearing but takes no action",636,47000,683000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5777182-dc7f8212604da67ca780c2669ad0bdbf&start=47&end=683","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5777182-dc7f8212604da67ca780c2669ad0bdbf/thumbnail_47000.jpg","/articles/6472006/Galveston/Galveston-County/Texas/Homeowner-outlines-dune-walkover-mitigation-after-unauthorized-construction-planning-commission-opens-hearing-but-takes-no-action","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6472006-49a4985d51b594f430d5cf00bd4407b8/orig.mp4?Expires=1770458932&Signature=NcvlaeANo6ZAew1qcyVG6jygaYidDuoC5HML2wY8kgdnEnNsbPrxBmiQyboovW2go-neo6-n2fbl5zS-l~BL9OeSsjXC5sc1OC2Lm2oSJu0pdaFRnAEJjPDXQxM49ZEE53q7ky8QhE0aBJFHnyOoXNsRkfVTgZfBxciLnkybNnIBSPoOd~Y4IT~M4QufaR6NSygrBH2YuivCewzlEWp8XMW9dvwy5xaF~ft-3Xft4sA6bIpUXanegMN2tC3IrWiqoi-RIg1ybdB~epgfO2L0Aw5f4XCNWSuBUiGhBXgB2d4k0bQad1aM4buR6IkNwo~5Y9Zqxqt0HGr1uepCCRCVNA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Planning Commission opened a public hearing Sept. 16 on mitigation for unauthorized impacts to a dune system at 23623 FM 3005 after a dune walkover extension affected dune vegetation. Staff described the site, presented Bureau of Economic Geology erosion maps and photos of the impacted dune, and said mitigation was required for unauthorized sand and vegetation disturbance identified during compliance inspections.

The property is in the Miramar subdivision and consists of two platted lots described in staff materials as Abstract 121 Miramar Lot 14 (0.521 acre) and Lot 13 replat (0.6958 acre). Staff cited a Bureau of Economic Geology erosion rate in the area of about 1 foot per year.

Homeowner Bob Baker spoke at the hearing and described why his family reconstructed and extended the walkover. Baker said his wife had been struck by a six‑foot rattlesnake at the base/top of the dune while using the old, low walkover, which motivated the owners to raise and reconfigure the structure to increase clearance. Baker described construction details, including piling work and a mitigation plan developed in coordination with the city’s coastal resources liaison, and said vegetation regrowth was already visible in the weeks after construction. \"After 36 hours in the UTMB ICU and $30,000 worth of rattlesnake antivenom, thank God she's okay,\" Baker said, describing the incident that prompted the reconstruction.

Commissioners asked whether the walkover had been permitted; staff said the walkover had been permitted but that while construction was in progress contractors created unauthorized sand and vegetation impacts that staff observed during compliance inspections. Commissioners also discussed visual evidence of other mid‑dune walkovers on adjacent properties and asked about enforcement resources; staff said compliance inspections are routine but enforcement is limited by staffing.

Outcome: The commission closed the public hearing and recorded that no formal action was required on the mitigation plan that evening.

Context and next steps: Staff noted a mitigation area of record for the unauthorized impacts and said the mitigation plan allows up to three years for vegetation regrowth, with the developer/homeowner able to plant native species or seeds to accelerate recovery if natural regrowth was insufficient. The staff report and photographs are part of the administrative record. If the mitigation schedule or practices do not meet permit conditions, the city’s compliance process could trigger additional enforcement or follow‑up inspections.

Quotes: \"This is a public hearing for dune mitigation associated with the extension of a dune walkover,\" a staff member said in opening the item. Homeowner Bob Baker said the reconstruction was motivated in part by a recent rattlesnake strike on his wife: \"After 36 hours in the UTMB ICU and $30,000 worth of rattlesnake antivenom, thank God she's okay.\"","The Planning Commission heard a public hearing about required dune mitigation at 23623 FM 3005 after a beachfront walkway extension caused unauthorized impacts to dune vegetation. The property owner described a recent rattlesnake bite to a family member and the mitigation plan; commissioners closed the hearing and took no formal action.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Planning Commission recommends PUD for Seawall project after airport safety debate, adds noise disclosure and housing conditions

Votes at a glance: Seawall PUD recommended; several plats and a landmark approved; one PUD denied

Homeowner outlines dune walkover mitigation after unauthorized construction; planning commission opens hearing but takes no action