Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening and welcome to the plan commission meeting for July 16th, 2026. I'll call this meeting to order. Meredith, will you please call the roll?

David Brown. Present. Adam Daughtry. Ralph Gonzalez.

Here.

John Hayek. Here. Victor Mendoza.

Here.

Dan Mikulinka.

Here.

Brian O'Gean.

Present.

Braden Robertson.

Here.

Rebecca Spears. Present. We have quorum.

Thank you. Now, do we have any citizens wishing to speak only on items not listed for a public hearing? If you wish to speak on an item, please come forward at this time. Citizens will be limited to three minutes.

Good evening, commissioners. I appreciate the commissioners doing your job. I appreciate it. I'm Michael Vondro. I live at 2107 North Bend, Jordan. And there's a guy that runs a basketball camp at Pine City Park. And what happened, they put the net upside down and the ball, it goes all over the place. And I talked to the upper management, but they're probably busy with meetings and stuff like that and taking pictures and stuff. So they don't really have time right now. But I was wondering if someone could like, correct the problem, and they also have a rotted out tree about to fall out, and I was wondering if someone could look at or possibly trim the branches, but they have the net like this, and it's supposed to go like this. But, you know, maybe the person that put it on didn't play basketball or something. And I'm not making fun of them because I put my shirt on inside out and wore it for like an hour without knowing it. So I'm not making fun of them. But I got a net they can have and stuff. And I was just hoping they could look into it because that's the poor side of town. And sometimes they're underrepresented. And there's a person that gets a basketball camp there. Thanks and have a good evening. Appreciate it.

Thank you, sir. OK, moving on. Our first item is a variance request for the lattice-style telecommunications towers at 206 East Crestwood Drive. May we have the staff report?

Good evening, commissioners. The subject property is located at 206 East Crestwood Drive. A site plan was approved for the proposed telecommunication tower site in April of 2026. The owner and agents of the subject property are proposing to construct a self-supporting lattice-style telecommunications tower that is 345 feet in height. The proposed tower will be replaced an existing 40-year-old guided tower on an adjacent property. The existing tower is proposed to be removed and the property it is located on is proposed to be sold. The construction plans have been stamped by a State of Texas licensed engineer and are designed to be in compliance with all applicable structural, wind loading, and safety codes. The City of Victoria's building official has reviewed and approved the construction plans. The site plan has been approved and was drawn according to all applicable codes in the Unified Development Ordinance for a telecommunications tower site. Formal approval of the construction plans and the release of building permits is dependent on the approval of this variance. Staff recommends approval of the variance to allow construction of the self-supporting lattice-style tower. Preventing the self-supporting lattice-style tower would effectively restrict the replacement of an essential infrastructure that supports safe and reliable operation of the electrical grid serving the City of Victoria. Staff does not consider the self-supporting lattice-style telecommunications tower to be detrimental to the surrounding area as it is replacing an existing 40-year-old guided tower, and the tower will meet all required minimum setbacks from residential structures.

Thank you, Luke. We will now open the public hearing. If you wish to speak on this item, please come forward at this time. Citizens will be limited to three minutes.

My name is Melvin Lack, 2402 North Wheeler. My family owns the Navarro Central Shopping Center. That is, it's the strip that goes along Crestwood across 3613 through 3607. Can you see it or should I?

Mr. Lack, I can't see it.

It's closer than the 350 feet. So that means in a hurricane, if that tower was destroyed or fell over, I'm sorry, and I speak something anyway I'm concerned that in a hurricane if that tower was blown down at 350 feet in height it's close enough to hit our buildings and And therefore, I object to it. Any questions for me? Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anybody else? Please state your name.

Good evening. My name is John Witt with CTS Murray. I worked with the engineering firm that designed the substation site, and I was a representative for them. I'd like to speak on the gentleman's commentary here about the tower and the adjacent properties. Primarily, what we're looking to do is to work to make the community safer and ensure that the various utilities and aspects that make modern life livable are available to the community and the public here. This tower is not a new tower in the sense that we're placing something new in the area. There is already an existing tower that is supported by guy wires, and it's 40 years old at this point. At some point in the future, that utility structure that will need to be replaced so that we can maintain communications in the field during outages to respond to emergency systems and so on and so forth. While I understand the fear of these things occurring, the fact of the matter is there's already a danger in those kinds of things happening with various other buildings and so on and so forth. And this is a critical piece of infrastructure for this development. I'm happy to answer any questions or speak with you at a later time, sir, if you'd like, but I'd just like to speak to that. Thank you.

I have a question.

Mr. Hayek, you can't ask him questions. They're in public. You can call me back.

All right. All right. Sorry.

Thank you very much. Thank you. Anybody else? Seeing none. I'll ask for a motion on the development of this item. Do we have a motion to accept the staff's recommendation? And a second on that? Do we have any discussion?

Can I ask a question?

Yes. Now we are going to have discussion. OK.

So I was just wondering, in the document from AEP, it says functional infeasibility. What are you getting at there? Is it 40-year-old, that's the lifespan on these towers?

Yes, Mr. Hayek. Infeasibility comes from a few factors. One of those things is the upkeep of these infrastructures that we need for the actual maintenance of the system itself. 40 years, I mean, how long these things last is not something I have a direct answer to in this case. But we know for certain that it would need to be replaced at some certain point in time in the future. As it is, part of this design that we've gone through with the lattice tile structure is a reduced footprint because of the non-guy-wired tower itself. And we're keeping up with all these safety regulations and concerns of the various disciplines and requirements that are asked of us.

And then second, correct me if I'm wrong, but when I went through this, the tower was designed to handle a hurricane.

Correct.

I believe the load requirements, as he said earlier, and I saw somewhere in there was designed. I'm not sure what the design requirements are, but I think I saw 135 miles per hour or something.

That's correct, yes. It's part of the engineering design is working with foundations and the structure they're in. And so those requirements have been met in that way. All right. Thank you. Thank you.

Other discussion?

I have one further question. It may or may not pertain to this project, but is Is this setting a precedence for any other telecommunication towers? Are they the same age?

No, this isn't setting a precedent. So the reason the staff has chosen to support it is due to it being in here and replacing almost one for one, not really changing that area. We aren't setting a precedent. Any new telecommunication towers, we would not be supporting that lattice style.

OK. That was kind of my question. Are we setting ourselves up for future towers to be replaced on age or any other reason?

No. So since this is kind of a one for one and that same is the reason, any new would not be supported. We're trying to keep the, to go to that self-supporting poll style.

MARK MCQUEEN, JR.: I got you. OK.

Thank you. MARK MCQUEEN, JR.: Celeste, I have a question. Does the UDO state in the variance, it doesn't mention, it's mainly residential. You have to be a certain amount. Let's correct. So this is what Mr. Lack is talking about. That's a commercial. So that's not even in the UDO.

Correct. It does not go to commercial.

Also, on a communication tire, I think we wouldn't even be here if they would put up a mono tire.

Correct.

But I was doing a little research on this and seeing where this is, Very critical from a electrical, because during severe weather, you know, monotires will sway. So if you lose any kind of signal, you could lose a whole grid during a storm. So there's a lot more to it than just the tire, you know. So I just want to make sure, because we don't have, there's nothing in the UDO stating that, because it's not part of the variance request.

Correct. So we have nothing for the separation from commercial properties. Very good. And then as you can see on that location map, there is a manufactured home park there. So because it's a manufactured home park, that's considered a multifamily. So that goes into the classification of commercial on that one. So that's why the separation distance isn't part of the package either for that.

OK.

It's just, why Lattice? Why would the city say no to that? I don't know, is it not safe in some way?

It's mainly for aesthetics. Aesthetics, okay.

All right, thank you.

You're welcome.

Any other questions from the commissioners? Do we have a motion to accept the staff's recommendation? And a second?

TO ACCEPT?

I'LL SECOND THAT.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR?

AYE.

AYE. THOSE OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES. NOW WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE CONSENT AGENDA. the minutes of the June 18, 2026 meeting, the preliminary plaid for Coil Creek East Subdivision, the final plaid for Coil Creek East Subdivision, the preliminary plaid for Tuscany Trails Phase 1 and 2, and the final plaid for Tuscany Trails Phase 1. GREG BRUDNICKI.

Move to approve. TODD BANDUCCI.

I'll second it. GREG BRUDNICKI. All in favor?

Aye.

GREG BRUDNICKI. All opposed? Motion passes. Okay, now may we have the monthly development report, please?

Hello? In the month of June 2026, we've had a total of 96 building permits, which is less than last year at this time. For MEP permits, we had a total of 115 permits, which is also less than last year. And for total permit fees collected in June 2026, we've had a total of 44,891, which is more than last year. In June of 2026, we've had a total of four minor plots, four major plots, two site plans, zero site modifications, and zero city council action.

Thank you. Are there any items from the commissioners?

I have one comment. So I didn't bring it up, but at one time, I think when I first got on, I had asked about parkland dedication for subdivisions. And I know the city had voted that down previously. So I was going to just check into that and may bring it up at a future meeting.

Thank you, Jim. Okay, seeing no other business, I will adjourn this meeting at 5.31 p.m. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you.