Title
An appeal of the City Planning Commission decision denying the appeal and approving the Old Ranch Storage Filing No. 1 Development Plan, consisting of 4.70 acres located at the northeast corner of Old Ranch Road and Rhinestone Drive. (Quasi-Judicial)
Related Files: APPL-25-0007 (Council), APPL-25-0006 (CPC), DEPN-22-0021
Council District # 2
Presenter:
Tamara Baxter, Planning Supervisor, City Planning Department
Kevin Walker, Director, City Planning Department
Body
Summary:
Owner: Kettle Creek, LLC
Applicant: T-Bone Construction
Representative: NES Inc.
Appellant: Julie Price
Location: Northeast corner of Rhinestone Drive and Old Ranch Road
City Planning Commission, at a regularly scheduled public hearing on September 10, 2025, denied an Appeal of the administrative approval for the Old Ranch Storage Filing No. 1 Development Plan application for a storage facility (mini-warehouse) in the northeast corner of Rhinestone Drive and Old Ranch Road zoned MX-M/AF-O (Mixed-Use Medium Scale with United States Air Force Academy Overlay).
On September 22, 2025, the same Appellant filed an Appeal of the City Planning Commission’s decision to approve the above-referenced project within the 10-day appeal window (refer to “Attachment 14 - Appeal of City Planning Commission Decision”).
Background:
Please see the attached City Planning Commission Staff Report for a complete analysis of the proposed application(s).
Review Criteria:
The application being considered is an appeal of City Planning Commission’s decision on the Old Ranch Storage Filing No. 1 Development Plan. In determining the decision on this appeal, the review criteria for an Appeal and Development Plan are to be considered.
Following review by the appellant body, the application for an Appeal may be affirmed, reversed, modified or remanded back to Planning Commission. The review criteria for this decision are set forth in City Code Section (UDC) 7.5.415.A.2, as follows (refer to the underlined criteria in subsection (2)):
2. Notice of Appeal
a. The notice of appeal shall state:
(1) The specific provision(s) of this UDC that is the basis of the appeal; and
(2) Which of the following criteria for reversal or modification of the decision is applicable to the appeal:
(a) The decision is contrary to the express language of this UDC; or
(b) The decision is erroneous; or
(c) The decision is clearly contrary to law; and
(3) Describe how the criteria for the relevant application have or have not been met.
An application for a Development Plan may be approved if it is determined that the applicable review criteria have been met as they relate to the area of the development plan. The review criteria for deciding on a Development Plan, as set forth in City Code previous Chapter 7, Section 7.5.502.E, are as follows
1. The details of the use, site design, building location, orientation and exterior building materials are compatible and harmonious with the surrounding neighborhood, buildings and uses, including not-yet-developed uses identified in approved development plans.
2. The development plan substantially complies with any City- adopted plans that are applicable to the site, such as master plans, neighborhood plans, corridor plans, facilities plans, urban renewal plans, or design manuals.
3. The project meets dimensional standards, such as but not limited to, building setbacks, building height and building area set forth in this chapter, or any applicable FBZ or PUD requirement.
4. The project grading, drainage, flood protection, stormwater quality and stormwater mitigation comply with the City's Drainage Criteria Manual and the drainage report prepared for the project on file with the City Engineering Department.
5. The project provides off-street parking as required by this chapter, or a combination of off-street or on-street parking as permitted by this chapter.
6. All parking stalls, drive aisles, loading/unloading areas, and waste removal areas meet the location and dimension standards set forth by this chapter.
7. The project provides landscaped areas, landscape buffers, and landscape materials as set forth in this chapter and the Landscape Design Manual.
8. The project preserves, protects, integrates or mitigates impacts to any identified sensitive or hazardous natural features associated with the site.
9. The building location and site design provide for safe, convenient and ADA-accessible pedestrian, vehicular, bicycle, and applicable transit facilities and circulation.
10. The number, location, dimension and design of driveways to the site substantially comply with the City's Traffic Criteria Manual. To the extent practicable, the project shares driveways and connects to drive aisles of adjoining developments.
11. The number, location, dimension and design of driveways to the site substantially comply with the City's Traffic Criteria Manual. To the extent practicable, the project shares driveways and connects to drive aisles of adjoining developments.
12. If necessary to address increased impacts on existing roadways and intersections, the project includes roadway and intersection improvements to provide for safe and efficient movement of multi-modal traffic, pedestrians and emergency vehicles in accordance with the City's Traffic Criteria Manual, public safety needs for ingress and egress and a City accepted traffic impact study, if required, prepared for the project.
13. Significant off-site impacts reasonably anticipated as a result of the project are mitigated or offset to the extent proportional and practicable. Impacts may include, but are not limited to light, odor and noise.
It was determined by City Planning Commission that the Old Ranch Storage Filing No. 1 Development Plan application met the review criteria for approval.
Previous Council Action:
The City Council approved the following entitlements related to the subject property:
• On September 28, 1982, City Council approved the Briargate Addition No. 5 Annexation (Ordinance 82-138) and established the zone to A (Agriculture).
• In 1980, City Council approved the Briargate Master Plan identifying the subject property as ‘commercial”.
• On November 11, 2003, City Council approved the Bison Ridge at Kettle Creek Concept Plan, and approved the rezone of the subject property from A (Agricultural) zone district to PBC (Planned Business Park) zone district.
Financial Implications:
N/A
Planning Commission Action:
The initial Appeal application was presented to City Planning Commission at the September 10, 2025, meeting on the regular agenda. Testimony, discussion, and deliberation was extensive for the application. The Appellant expressed concerns centered around traffic impacts, compatibility of use, Preble’s Jumping Mouse habitat, safety of the surrounding residents, decreasing housing values, and communication with planning staff. City Planning Commission voted 5-2-2 to deny the Appeal and affirm the administrative approval of the Old Ranch Storage Filing No. 1 Development Plan application, based on the provisions of the City Code (UDC), and that the Appellant did not substantiate that the appeal satisfied the review criteria outline in City Code (UDC) Section 7.5.415.A.2 (Commissioners Hensler, Cecil, Robbins, Sipilovic and Casey voted to deny the appeal; Commissioners Clements and Rickett voted to approve the appeal; and Commissioners Slattery and Gigiano were absent.
Recommended Action
Proposed Motions:
1. Affirm the decision of the Planning Commission and deny the appeal; or
2. Reverse the decision of the Planning Commission and approve the appeal; or
3. Modify the decision of the Planning Commission and approve the appeal; or
4. Remand the matter back to the Planning Commission for further consideration.
Should the City Council wish to affirm the City Planning Commission decision on the development plan application, the following motion is suggested:
Deny the Appeal and uphold the City Planning Commission decision on the Old Ranch Storage Filing No. 1 Development Plan, based upon the findings that the review criteria for deciding on the development plan as set forth in City Code (Chapter 7) Section 7.5.502.E are met as decided by Planning Commission, and that the appellant did not substantiate that the appeal satisfies the review criteria outlined in City Code (UDC) Section 7.5.415.A.2.
Should the City Council wish to reverse the Planning Commission decision for the development plan application, the following motion is suggested.
Approve the Appeal and reverse the City Planning Commission decision on the Old Ranch Storage Filing No. 1 Development Plan, based upon the finding that the appeal criteria in City Code (UDC) Section 7.5.415.A.2 have been met, and that application does not comply with the review criteria for granting a development plan set forth in City Code (Chapter 7) Section 7.5.502.E.
Should the City Council wish to modify the appeal application, the following motion is suggested.
Approve the Appeal and modify the Planning Commission decision on the Old Ranch Storage Filing No. 1 Development Plan, based upon the finding that the review criteria for a development plan set forth in City Code (Chapter 7) Section 7.5.502.E, with revisions to the development plan [as determined by City Council].
Should the City Council wish to remand the matter back to the City Planning Commission for further consideration, the following motion is suggested.
Remand the matter back to the City Planning Commission for further consideration of the development plan to the applicable review criteria for deciding on a major modification as set forth in City Code (Chapter 7) Section 7.5.502.E.