Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I'm here. I was going to tell you just remind How long do you

think? Good morning. Welcome to the January 22nd, 2026 zoning board of adjustment meeting. If any member of the audience wishes to speak to an item on the agenda, there are speaker request forms to the left of the dis. Please fill out the request with the agenda number of the item you wish to speak to and hand it to the staff seated on the left side of the room. The public hearing on item number one, the approval of the January January 8th, 2026 zoning board of adjustment meeting minutes is hereby opened.

Motion to approve. All right. Vince made the motion to approve those minutes. And Jeff seconded that motion. Any discussion on the motion to approve? All those in favor, please say I.

I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Item number two is 25VA023 and we're getting the presentation loaded up. There we go. They're working. So many times I tried to

It's always tough when the IT issues are for everyone to see. Yeah, that was like my brain. Let's go to variance. Yeah, that's the variance. Yeah, that works. Thanks. Go.

So, good morning. This item is a variance request uh to reduce the east sideyard setback from 8 ft to 6 feet to enclose an existing carport to reduce it from 8 ft to 7 ft for an addition. And also the applicant is proposing to increase the lot coverage from 30% up to 32%. So the property is owned low density residential district. The address is 3806 West St. Louis Street. Uh future land use is low density neighborhood. Uh the property is located south of West Chicago Street which is classified as a principal arterial street on the city's major street plan. So this is the survey of the existing development. This property consists of a single family home with an attached carport. This existing development was built in 1956 and at the time it was built, it was built with six foot sideyard setbacks, which is pretty typical uh for this area. There's a lot of homes in this area with reduced sideyard setbacks just based on the age of of the city block. So then this is the proposed site plan. This is what the applicant is proposing to do. They're um building an addition on the northeast corner of the dwelling that that addition is going to be set back 7 ft uh from the lot line. And then that existing carport, they're going to be enclosing and creating a one-stall garage. Uh that carport or that new garage is going to maintain the current setback of 6 ft. So there's not going to be any any changes to that setback there. And then these are the proposed elevations. Uh so the proposed development is going to be approximately 13.5 ft from the neighboring dwelling to the east. And there's no openings being proposed uh along the east wall. So reducing the setback requirement does not appear to have or cause adverse impacts to fire safety drainage and appears to be consistent with the setbacks that are already in in this area. And then this is the proposed floor plan. Uh it's a little difficult to see, but this floor plan was a little outdated, so I did mark it up in red. Um so the applicant is proposing to

increase the law increase the lot coverage by 2% which is equivalent to increasing it by 101 square feet. Purpose of lot coverage maximums generally is to control density by limiting the buildable area of a lot. Um this is a minor increase in density a minor increase in lot coverage. Um and it it doesn't appear to detract from the character of the neighborhood by approving this request as well. So then on to site photos. Uh that's looking at that existing carport that's going to be converted into a one stall garage. That's looking at you looking at the rear of the dwelling. That's where uh the addition is the addition is being proposed coming off right here. And then this is looking east down West St. Louis Street. The applicant's going to be replacing the sidewalk uh in front of the property which will require a rightaway permit and that is stipulated in the report. And then this is looking west uh along West St. Louis Street. So staff is recommending that this variance be approved because the proposed development is permitted in the zoning district. Single family homes, garages, they're all permitted in that lowdensity residential district. The existing building location constitutes a special circumstance because it's already set back or the current setback is 6 ft. Um and then reducing the setback increasing the lock coverage appears to be in uh the in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the zoning requirement. So with that I'll stand by for any questions. Uh the applicant is out in the audience as well. Thank you.

Thanks. Uh any questions for staff on this item? Haven. It would appear then that if uh if they do something like this to do with the carport and they've got a six six foot setback now that they would have to come in and and get that approved even though it's six feet at the present time. Mr. Chair Vicki,

thank you. So, uh, our legal non-conforming regulations state that when we have an encroachment that can be maintained, but there can be no additional, uh, construction on the site unless it complies with setback regulations. But as Tanner noted, uh, it was when when we first stood up our zoning regulations, our sideyard setback was 5 feet. Um, we changed that somewhere in the 80s. So we have many many homes in our community that that are less than 8 feet with a single story home. In this case, it's just extending an existing building line so it will not further encroach um into the uh and and impact the adjacent property owner.

Um I would move that we approve with the stipulations. Second. All right. Haven made the motion to approve this uh setback change and the lot coverage change and Mr. Chair sorry yes uh friendly amendment uh citing for criteria that the use is allowed in the district uh that it's an existing setback that is being um extended uh and that it does not appear to have adverse impact on the neighborhood. Yes.

All right. Alicia was the second on that motion. Any discussion on the motion? Then all those in favor, please say I. I. I. Are there any opposed? Motion carries. That was the last item on zoning board of adjustment. I'd look for a motion to adjurnn to get to planning commission. Okay, Vince made the motion to adjurnn. Second and Pat seconded that motion. All those in favor of adjournment, please say I. I. I.

Any opposed? The motion carries. We'll now commence the Rapid City Planning Commission meeting for January 22nd, 2026, starting at 7:09 a.m. If any member of the audience wishes to speak to an item on the planning commission agenda, again, there are speaker request forms on the table along the left wall. Please fill out the request with the agenda number of the item you wish to speak to and hand it to the staff seated on the left of the dis. Items one through four have been placed on the consent calendar today and may be approved as a group. Action will be taken on all consent items in accordance with staff's recommendation by a single vote. Any item may be removed from the consent calendar by any planning commissioner, staff member, or audience member for separate consideration at this time. The findings of this planning commission are recommendations to the city council. The city council will make the final decision with the exception of the following item. Item 426UR040. Rapid City Planning Commission's action on this item is final unless any party appeals that decision to the Rapid City Council. All appeals must be submitted in writing to the Department of Community Development by close of business on the seventh full calendar day following action by the planning commission. Are there any items one through four that staff would like removed for separate consideration?

No, thank you. Any items one through four that any planning commissioner would like removed for separate consideration? And I have item four on this. We're going to pull that because Haven needs to abstain from that item. Anything on one through three from the commission? And any items one through three that any audience member would like pulled for separate consideration? Chair would then entertain a motion to approve items one through three in accordance with staff's recommendation.

Okay. Karen made the motion. Vince seconded that motion. Any discussion on the motion to approve? All those in favor, please say I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries. All right. Item number four, unless anyone has questions, I'm not sure we need to do a presentation, but we'll just note Haven is abstaining. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Approve on item four.

All right. Karen made the motion to approve and Pat seconded that motion. Any discussion on the motion? All those in favor, please say I. I. I.

Any opposed? Motion carries. Item number five. PD27. Yeah. PD27. Yeah. Number five. So this item uh is a final plan development overlay to allow residential development. It's going to be southeast of the intersection of Shamber Street in Twin Elms Drive. Property is owned medium density residential district. It's located within the Canyon Lake Overlay district. The future land use is urban neighborhood. Uh the property is located north of Jackson Boulevard which is classified as a principal arterial street on the city's major street plan. So, in July of last year, the planning commission did approve a preliminary subdivision plan to subdivide these properties into three residential lots. Um, these prop or these proposed lots are going to be known as proposed lot D, proposed lot E, and then proposed lot F. So, I've highlighted the new common lot line that's being proposed as a part of the plat. So, proposed lot D consists of a single family dwelling. Uh, proposed lot E consists of a duplex with north attached and south detached carports. That north attached carport or or lean to is going to be removed as a part of this application. And then proposed lot F consists of a single family dwelling with accessory buildings. All those buildings are going to be removed um as a part of this application. This proposed lot F is going to be redeveloped with a duplex and they're also planning to keep uh the detached garage that's located at the south of the property. So the applicant has or is requesting a few exceptions with this application. Um so the applicant has requested to reduce

the minimum lot size of proposed lot D from 6,500 ft² to 4,282 ft². Uh to reduce it for proposed lot E from 8,000 ft² to 4,794 ft². And then one of the purposes of lot size minimums generally is to is to control density similar to lot coverage um by limiting the number of dwellings per acre of land. Um through this redevelopment, this entire redevelopment, they're going to be adding one additional dwelling unit with the duplex and we feel that the density proposed as a part of this project is appropriate for the area is consistent with the surrounding area. So they're also requesting exceptions um to reduce the minimum front yard setback on proposed lot D from 25 ft to 3.82 feet. Uh as part of the plat they will be dedicating 5 ft of additional rightaway on Chamber Street and on Twin Elms Drive. Um so that existing setbacks on set setback on proposed lot D um is legal non-conforming and once that dedication of rightway comes in it's it's going to increase that legal non-conform increase the non-conformity. So the dedication of public rightaway is a permanent public benefit for the city. It will allow for property line sidewalks and allow for inter um improvements at the intersection. Um so that public benefit justifies approval of reducing that setback. And then on proposed lot F they're also um proposing to reduce the setback from 25 ft down to 24.43 ft. This is a minor again this is a minor deviation from the code. This is about a 7 in uh deviation and the proposed SEP act does not appear to detract from the character of the neighborhood. And then the last exception that they're requesting here is to increase the lot coverage from 30% up to 38%. Um I think that's equivalent to 896 square ft. And again the purpose of lot coverage uh maximums generally is it same thing as the variance is to control density by

limiting the buildable area of land. And as already noted the density does seem appropriate uh for this project. So this is the proposed floor plan of the duplex on lot F. It's going to have front front attached twocar garages and then these are the proposed elevations. It's going to be one story or approximately 14 ft in in mean height. So public notice was posted on the property. This is looking at the single family dwelling on proposed lot D. The single family dwelling you'll remain the same. No changes proposed. And then this is the duplex on proposed lot E. You can kind of see that lane two there. That lane two is going to be removed. And then this is the single family dwelling on proposed lot proposed lot F. And the single family dwelling will be removed and as noted it'll be redeveloped with that duplex. And then this is looking north on Twin Elms Drive. Looking east on Chamber Street, looking west on Chamber Street. Um so yeah, so with that staff is recommending that this final plan development overlay be approved subject to the stipulations outlined. I'll stand by for any questions and the applicant is in the audience as well. Thank you,

Mr. Chair. Yeah, Vicki,

just as a reminder, this is a project that really does to uh infill development. We've got an older neighborhood. We've got some distressed structures on this property and the applicant's looking at u rejuvenating the ability for families to live in residential structures that aren't all that large. So, this does reach out and meet some of that affordability that we're looking for, especially on the west side of town. Um, we saw the streets and the pictures that Tanner took. the acquisition of the additional right ofway will go towards making an improvement throughout this area. That's one of the hardships is um ensuring that with the density that we have that there is sufficient parking for those uses. Uh, one of the things that we looked at in order to support all of the exceptions was to ensure that there was uh, sufficient parking on each of the lots and the applicant is meeting that. Thank you. Questions for staff on this comments? Haven,

one of one of the photos that you showed there on the street. I guess a couple questions. What is the reason for limiting the uh setback to 3.82 feet uh for the one structure? Is it is that a new structure?

No, that's an existing structure. So that so the setback currently is around 8 ft and with that dedication of rightway that's going to be reducing that setback. So that's that existing single family dwelling um right here. And I noticed that there's no sidewalks here. Uh I suppose that's a mon monumental project in that area to start establishing sidewalks. Mr. Perhaps Todd could speak to that. All right, Todd.

So they are proposing to build sidewalks along these lots. uh and there's sidewalk to the east, but a lot of the neighborhood does not have sidewalk, which is one of our challenges when we reconstruct the road in the past. We've only put sidewalk on one side um because of the the limited rideway. Mr. Chair, thank you.

Just a point of clarification. So, when you come in and get a building permit for new construction, uh if your property does not have sidewalk, you are required to put it in as a part of that building permit. All right, that was kind of my question. I think the property line version is as good as it gets in this neighborhood, in this case. Probably we have to start somewhere.

That's right. All right. Anything else from the commission? I'll just comment. I appreciate people investing in properties like this. It's difficult. It's hard. Um, there's nothing uh nothing fun about remodels. So, I appreciate that. Anything else from the commission? The stipulations. All right. Karen made the motion to approve with stipulations. And Kelly seconded that. Any discussion on the motion to approve? All those in favor, please say I. I. Any opposed?

Motion carries. We're going to go to item number six. On this one, unfortunately, I'm going to abstain due to a personal relationship with the applicant. Um, so Vince will be taking over the meeting here. Yeah, I think. All right. So item six is uh 25T1020 and do we have the presentation for for this item?

Yep. So Mike Dugan with finance and this morning I have a brief presentation uh for a new tax increment financing uh application known as the rapid gas LLC redevelopment district. So, the project details, the property is located at 715 and 721 uh Mount Rushmore Road. Currently, this is uh Philip 66 Gas Service Station. Um been in operation since the early 1950s. The applicant is requesting uh TIFF funding to demolish and remove all structures and concrete on this property uh including three uh 10,000galon underground fuel tanks, dispensers, and all associated equipment. Then the applicant would conduct environmental studies um as those tanks have been underground for approximately 70 years um to see if there's any spillage and any uh environmental cleanup that needs to be included. Um and then uh the the app per the per the applicant's application, the funds would include reconstruction of the parking lot and new landscaping and lighting on the property. Uh after removal and clean of the site, the applicant is proposing constructing a 21 unit apartment hotel with 20 on-site parking spots. Uh the the apartment hotel itself would be a little over 26,000 square ft. Um and then the uh one apartment would be approximately uh 680 square feet and then 1,000 square feet uh for the additional apartments in the penthouse apartments are total 1,500 square ft each. So each unit will be like an apartment um they'll have its bedroom, bathroom, living room, kitchen, dishwasher, washer and dryer. Um and then outside of the ground level apartment each apartment will is proposing to have a balcony on the project uh uh is estimated to support one hotel manager assistant manager and

then three cleaning and support staff. The estimated cost of construction is a little over uh 6.1 million and it's estimated to be completed in the summer of 2027. So the the district boundary is proposed would just be limited to the the applicant own these two properties located at 715 and 721 Mount Rushmore. The district's zoning would is in the central business district and then the major street plan um Mount Rushmore Road, Prince Ontario um runs along and then the side uh um is Quincy Street which is a collector. So this is the property as it sits today. Uh the potential uh projected tax increment income over the life of the TID which is 20 years is estimated to be uh a little over 1.9 million. So the estimated uh base value um is estimated a little over uh 485,000 and then with the construction and then a 3% appreciation year-over-year. It's estimated by year 20 of this uh this property be worth a little over 9 million. So this request will have two pro project plan options. Project plan option one is as proposed by the applicant. So this is what the the applicant has requested in their application. This will come with a staff recommendation to deny. There is a second project plan option that we'll speak about uh here shortly that we'll have a recommendation to approve. This first option is as presented by the applicant. So the tiff capital costs um total approximately 870,000 which would include the demo of the property, the parking lot construction, the landscape and the lighting, the architecture fees, engineering, environmental testing, and

a 5% contingency. Um so of those total tiff costs uh the applicant is asking uh 721,250 of those to be allocated to use towards these costs. So um factoring in the financing costs and then the ad administrative cost um to the city and to the county to set these up um the eligible project cost would be a little over 1.9 million. This is the amorization schedule um with those costs and financing. So this is estimated to pay off in uh year 2024 which would be uh year 19. So this would be the request with the prep projected increment would be um using out that total estimated increment. So that would pay off within the 20 years. So, just some projections the applicant put together. um projections that were more detailed as far as how um the the figures were um put together in his application, but using some assumptions for the TIFF loan of the 721,000 for the capital costs and then using the the bank loan and the SBA 504 loan that would be involved in this and then just taking those those two debt payments over 20 years and just using a 7% interest rate, which is kind of fair market right now to to estimate that debt payments. The debt service coverage would be about 1.21 times. Uh my experience industry average with that in banking is about 1.25. That's give or take. Some banks might be 1.3, some might be 1.2. So this would just meet that with these um just be a little bit short of that. If this uh was denied uh in those those TIFF funds were, you know, either, you know, put back into a larger bank loan, that's

what it would look like. Um it just be about a one point just cover itself, a break even, the debt service coverage. Um so the sources of this would be the bank and SBA loans, the owner equity, and then the tiff request to get to that 6.1 million. So project plan option two does have the stack recommendation to approve. So the cost the would remove the parking lot construction, landscaping and lighting and the architecture fee from the request to leave the demo of the property the engineering environmental testing and then the 5% contingency that would drop the request um from the 721250 of the capital to the 451 451,500. So adding in the financing costs and the administration costs to the city and to the county um that would put this request um a little over 900,000. So I basically cut the request in half. So the amorization schedule uh with the removal those costs um uh additional costs from project plan one this district would estimated to pay off in year 2036 which would be year 10. So adding in once again estimating those bank the bank loans the SBA 504. So it would add dropping this to the 451,500 um would add approximately 270,000 more to those bank loans. So that would increase the the applicant's monthly bank payments um approximately $2,100 a month. That would drop their debt service coverage ratio to 1.41 41 times um increasing that um that bank load or the applicant would have to have more funds out of pocket, you know, to keep that debt load down. But that's what it would look like. Um and then the sources that as you can see the bank I in SBA

loans that's estimated that would increase by 270,000 to get to the total sources that 6.1 to complete the cost of the project. So, this is a proposed uh layout of it with access coming in um uh access from Quincy Street and then exiting out under the alley to get back on to to Mount Rushmore. So, as you can see, all of the properties would be demoed and removed. Um and then the the structure would be put on this that would have underground parking or first level parking. So, this is the proposed um layouts of what a typical floor plan of the apartments would look like. Once again, they'd be set up like a typical apartment. Um all the features an apartment would have for the stays. This is a proposed rendering of what the project would look like at completion. Once again, the first level parking and then the apartments um built on top of that. And then this is the current active district districts. Um this is a little dated now. Uh all my information was submitted before the Liberty Land vote. So that is included on here. Backing that out. Um with that in there, we're at 2.39. Backing that out, we'd be um at approximately 2.31%. Once again, 10% um is allowable by statute. And then also um I just received I'm working on the city's um the presentation of the annual tiff report to the city council. The rapid city's total valuation increase from that 10.1 billion to 11.1 billion. So that'll further drop the the valuation down or the um we're down to 2.10% and once again 10%'s allowable. um TID 52 on here. Um there's a resolution to

dissolve that at the February 2nd. So this will drop us from 21 districts to 19 after the removal of Liberty Land at 1052 or TID 52. Uh with that I will stand for any questions. Um the applicant is in attendance and Mr. Chair, if it's allowable at some point the applicant would like to speak briefly about the difference of the project plans into the project. Thank you. And uh we do have uh a speaker request. Uh are there any questions for staff at this point? Then why don't we uh bring Mr. Schmidt up? And Mr. Schmidt, would you please identify yourself?

Uh hello. Uh my name is Peter Schmid. I'm the sole owner of Rapid Gas LLC. Um and Mr. Vidal, we're on item six, which is just creating the district right now. So, we're going to discuss the two projects, but the votes on the district. Um, and my speaker request form was for three minutes. Is it okay if I go to five? Yeah. Yes, sir. Let's let's try that.

Okay. Thank you. Um, I'll try not to duplicate what's already in the written application. Instead, I want to give some background on why I purchased the property, why redevelopment is happening sooner than planned, and how the size of the proposed tiff affects what can realistically be built on the site. U, my job is managing the investment properties that my wife and I own. We have two mixeduse buildings in the central business district and one just outside the CBD on Mount Rushmore Road. Those two buildings include a mix of retail, office, long-term apartments, and short-term furnished apartments. I've always loved the location of Bob's Phip 66. I grew up very close by and I remember skateboarding there as a kid. My wife and I still live in the neighborhood today. The property is in the central business district, but not in either of the two historic districts. It's kind of in between the residential and the downtown one. Uh which made it especially interesting to us. We purchased the station January 1st of last year, so I'm on my first year of it with the intent of operating it as a gas station in the near term and redeveloping it someday down the road. I ended up becoming the gas station manager myself. I've never worked retail before, so I wanted to understand the business before hiring someone. I kept several of the existing employees and spent months learning the station actually works day-to-day. We did make some changes, open the space up, improve the lighting, focused on making it feel safer and more welcoming. Uh we quit selling, you know, we we quit accepting food stamps, we quit selling single beers. We quit accepting cash for a little bit. We went back to it. Um revenue did go down, but the environment improved. Expenses went down. It was it's a nice little place. Um what I learned is that this location does not have a strong long-term future as a gas station. Rapid City has a seasonal economy. There's a growing competition from newer, larger stations with better layouts and access. This site simply doesn't have the space to compete and long-term trends such as vehicle efficiency, electrification, changing

travel patterns, um, you know, even 12% of the population is on a ampic now. So, people don't go into the convenience store like they used to. They're putting additional pressures on older infill stations like this one. Based on that experience, my original 5-year redevelopment timeline got pushed forward to now. Because I already operate apartments and short-term lodging, my goal is to build a mixeduse apartment hotel, the kind of building I see in vibrant downtowns and the kind of place my own family enjoys uh staying when we travel. This site is well suited for that kind of use. It's infill, it's walkable, and it aligns with how the central business district is intended to evolve over time. This property has been a gas station and mechanic shop for roughly 70 years. Changing the use means removing underground tanks and addressing whatever contamination is discovered. The risk is unavoidable, but the extent of cleanup isn't known until demolition begins. That uncertainty is the primary reason a tiff is necessary here. If infill redevelopment in the CBD is inherently more expensive uh than green field development and environmental re remediation is a major part of that cost. uh city staff has recommended a more conservative tiff focused primarily on demolition and environmental costs. I do appreciate the work the staff has done on that analysis. Under the smaller tiff scenario, the only feasible project for me would be a much smaller building, something closing closer to a $2 million uh project. That project would technically work, but it would not deliver the same long-term benefits in terms of tax base activity or design quality. The larger TIFF I applied for supports a roughly $6 million mixeduse building. That scale is what makes the project financiable and allows for better architecture, uh, better parking, better landscaping, better lighting, and just just a little better building that fits, uh, with the downtown a little better. Even during

construction, the $6 million project is a meaningful economic activity. Roughly a quarter of that cost goes to local architects, engineers, contractors, permits, and professional services and excise and sales taxes. This is a high-risisk project for me personally. The monthly bank payment will be substantial, and I'll be owning and operating the building myself. There is no developer fee, no pre-leased anchor tenant, and no exit strategy other than a long-term operation. I live, work, and spend time within a mile of this property. I'm not an out of town developer, and I'm not flipping the site. I'm trying to find the best long-term use for a challenging property in the heart of the city. Uh, thank you for your time. I'll be happy to answer any questions. Does commission have any questions?

Okay, Karen.

I'm trying. That's Thank you, Mr. Chair. My questions are for Mike. Um, in doing this development, are we are we um, let me think, rephrase this. Are we looking at just the idea that the creation of a tiff is appropriate for this area, not necessarily which project plan we're doing? That's what the motion should be on the on the district part of it.

Yeah, just the district. I mean, we're just taking the item number six. So the the district would just be to set the boundaries that the the planning commission would recommend approval to the city council. Um just to set those boundaries. The the item number seven would be the creation of the project plan. So you could either deny both options or recommend approval to the city council of one. Um the the way the statute works is if you recommend approval of the uh district to the city council but reject both project plans um the the district itself can move on to the city council your recommendation to approve the city council then would be able to approve or deny it. If you were to deny both options of the project plan um that that part would would stall. Um and then the I would work with the applicant to revise to the application and the project plan to bring the project plan to the planning commission at a at a later um date.

Okay. Um Mr. Chair, in the past what we have done is taking these two items together, right? So that you do talk about what the TIFF project includes. uh and if you're leaning towards favor favoring that then approving the district but if you don't then typically you don't first act on creating the district. So in the past we've just considered them together.

That I guess that was my question because I didn't want to talk about the project plan if we're not going to be voting on it. So, um, part of my comments, I know there's some areas in here that it was stated that there would be a 7% in in one of the charts, a 7% interest, and yet the final decision is in the other section is 7 and a half%. So, I'm not sure which they would recommend, but it looks like seven and a half% is what's

so on on that. So the 7 and a half% would be on the tiff side of that's how the would be up to that amount would be allowable for reimbursement. The 7% was just the projected of what a bank would charge on the banking side. Um so if the applicant if this was to move forward from the planning commission city council if the applicant got their bank financing on the tiff side and it's all 7% just up to that 7% is reimburseable. So this the project panel would allow up to 7 and a half%. Which is the max you could get um per our TIF policy right now. Our TIF policy is Wall Street Journal prime plus 3/4. Right now prime is at six and 3/4 that'd be 7 and a half. But if if the applicant was to obtain financing at that lower amount, which we would encourage, they'd only be allowed up to that amount. So the bank side was just a projection at that 7% of what long-term financing costs would be. So in effect that that might lower some of the interest.

Absolutely. Okay. That that was one one of my questions. Um the other question is about the petroleum release fund. Is that something that has been considered and is that part of the uh financing that would be lower or would it be the same? Mr. Chair, if I have the applicant speak to that. Mr. Schmid, please again identify yourself.

Uh Peter Schmid. So, when I first started this process, I did reach out to the Department of Natural Resources, Zach Burggo, last October. Um, he did educate me on the petroleum release fund, how to apply for it. Uh, part of the procedure when removing when you before you hire a contractor, how to do it. U, there is a $10,000 deductible. It's a million- dollar limit. We'll definitely use that um as available. It's just so if if we don't use the whole $350,000 allotted um it's from my understanding um once we certify the tiff um the goal is to to get that amount as low as possible and we'll use the petroleum release fund um if it's available.

Okay. Thank you. Chair recognizes Haven sock. Uh thank you. Let's see if I can get it going. Uh, this is a little different kind of a tiff. What are I guess what I'm struggling with, what are the benefits infrastructure-wise to the city?

So, infrastructure-wise, this would be um considered infill development. So, there's no public infrastructure improvements. There's no extensions of roads, water, sewer. uh this would be considered blight with those with this being a a 70-year-old gas station. So, how this fits into statute would be that blight portion of the site cleanup.

I reviewed the comments that u county commissioners uh Cruz and Rossk connect made and that was my initial u u when I read through this that was what I originally thought too. um how uh how uh uh yeah, I guess I I kind of agreed with their comments when I originally read this. I kind of agreed with the comments that uh the county commissioners were making. What response or how how how do you take their comments into consideration?

I add them if they have specific questions to me. Um I do respond. Um I think there was as far as the the eligible costs you know is this really fit in for eligible. So my response was, you know, just how state statute, how it reads as far as these would be eligible costs um tiff eligible, but then staff, you know, should should the you know, tax increment financing be responsible for the parking, you know, the on-site parking because parking is allowable. So you could have parking that, you know, adjacent to the property. The applicant's response to that is, you know, what if 21 units are are rented out, you know, parking, the off- streetet off-site parking would kind of hinder the the rest of the neighborhood. So, that's the reason why the the the public benefit, I guess, is to have per the applicant's application is to have that on all on on-site parking and not have it all off-site parking. And it seems like one of the criteria uh would be that this development I I like the development. I think it's a great idea and u certainly positive for that for the site. But one of the criteria in the tiff would be whether it would go forward without the tiff. What uh yeah how how do you analyze that? So that that was using the the applicant's projections of showing that that um that debt service coverage ratio if those if those costs were added back into so one of two things would have to happen. the applicant would have to put in the additional 700,000 in cash, which um isn't an option, or the the applicant would have to increase that debt load, which is probably not an option on the

banking side. But even if the banking side went through with adding $700,000 um to that bank load, the debt service coverage ratio based on the applicants projections is a 1 one. So, we would just break even. So that's that's the reason for is having, you know, some of these tiff eligible costs be eligible for reimbursement to lower that that bank debt load and then make it more of a bankable um request that the the bank is kind of sharing the um the risk with the developer. You know, it's it's hard to know what we what we learned from the recent vote of two days ago. Uh, you know, one of the issues were are we just uh benefiting a particular u u property owner or contractor with with the tiff or are we actually getting something that would benefit the city? Mr. Chair.

Um, yes. Go ahead. Uh, please identify yourself, Mr. Anley.

Sure. Daniel Aninsley, finance director. I think those are all, uh, very poignant questions. Uh when we look at the recently revised uh tiff um policy that was adopted by the council um about a year ago I believe there was some significant changes in there. One of which was to uh try to attempt to incentivize uh infill development and to uh get certain areas that have been long established to redevelop those so that there's a higher tax value. So this is one of those examples. Um it is definitely on the threshold to say is there enough of a p public benefit to apply for a tiff in a lot of communities throughout the state. Uh these are absolutely uh go through because they want to try to redevelop uh existing areas. Maybe there's commercial uses that are starting to fail. They have not fully failed yet, but they're not as economically viable or vibrant as other higher uh density uses. So, that's what the developer is looking for at this, but without a doubt, there's not going to be an exact public benefit as far as um a new street or a new signal or something like that. The public benefit instead is saying, does the public benefit of the additional sales tax revenue and um the higher property value, does that necessitate um or justify enough uh for there to be a tiff? And ultimately that's a policy decision that comes to the planning commission and the city council. Um but these are allowable expenses uh within state statute as well as within the the uh city guidelines. And uh Mike did go through an analysis to um determine kind of a but for test for this. And so that's where um looking at the capital investment that's

required to allow this to occur um that it truly is not reasonable. number one to get the financing that would be necessary to construct it and also the return on the investments inadequate to really have a developer proceed without having those investments and so that was the but for criteria that was uh analyzed for this. Thank you.

Yeah, I did hear me. There you go. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, just a couple questions. Um, I think it's a great concept. I like the design. This might be a a Daniel Mike Daniel question, a Mike question, maybe a Mr. Schmidt question. Um, so the staff is recommending the smaller tiff with the quicker payout. I guess I'm trying to wrap my head around what Mr. Schmidt said. Correct me if I'm wrong. If you get the smaller tiff, you'd only be able to afford or achieve a 2 millionish project. If you get the larger one, you can go up to six million. Is that correct? I'm kind of stumped. How can you know, I'm looking at the percentages of the difference in the tiffs. How could it skew your endgame so much um from two to six? How does that work?

Oh, sure. Uh Peter Schmid. So, I would need it. I would need a I have a set down payment that I can come up with. Um, so to get my debt service coverage to that 1.25% I would have to double or triple my down payment. Um, you it's also more less economical to build smaller infill. Um, so I'd have to decrease some the size of the project and like do a lower level that wouldn't require an elevator. Um, not not do it land the parking lot lighting, maybe some of the landscaping. Um, so so that's how given my the given down payment that I can come up with and the the bank financing and the SBA financing, it translates into a $2 million versus $6 million building.

Okay. Thanks for that. Do do you have option like do you have a scale down version to plan everything if at the 2 million level two at the 2 million? No, I I don't. Um the city staff recommendation was was just brought out. So I I did I have it in my in my remarks today that I can I can definitely email you. No, that's fine. I was just curious if you had you know planned on anything other than that top tier $6 million level. So no. Um, as uh long as I'm up here, can I make a quick comment? Sure.

Um, I I did watch the legal the presentation from urban 3 development at the December 10th uh legal and finance I think it was legal and finance. Um, it was an hourong presentation. It was it was really I just I thought really well done. Um, but but she analyzes what what buildings are the best investment for the town. It was it was mixed use. uh central business district was you know we can grow the city with an infill development without growing any city services. So there's no extra foot of water pipe or sewer or roads being built. It's already you know it's already there. Um so I after after that presentation I I got more you know I'm nervous about the project of course. Um I felt a little better about it after that uh presentation.

All right. Thank you so much. Appreciate it. chair recognizes Alicia.

Uh, thank you, chair. I, um, like you said with that presentation, do appreciate this idea of urban infill and how that works with TIFFs and being connected to existing infrastructure. Um, I also hear you weighing the bigger and smaller project and, you know, what might be able to create a better design and higher density for you. You also mentioned uh at one point, you know, you might have had a longer timeline on your project which could include, you know, figuring out financing and um some of your other investments and properties. So, I do wonder how else um the developer might be able to accomplish that desired um design and density while also aligning with the staff recommendations of um you know, meeting the requirements of um codified law and also the city's tiff policy. So, I think I think it's a good project and that infill is important and um I think I also agree with the city planning staff on option two.

Chair recognizes Karen. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have some uh other questions, I guess. Um, number one, the land cost that for purchasing that is that still in the tiff one or two? No, that that was just shown as the original purchase of that property and then shown as the total cost of to get to that 6.1 million. There's no land cost purchase in in either project plan.

Okay. Um, and as far as the parking is concerned, you have 21 units, but you're going to have 20 spaces. So that means somebody's not going to be able to park there. And if you have one or two people living in the single, you know, units, the rest of the people will have to park off site someplace, which is Yes. Which is allowable in the the central bench district business district.

Okay. Just seems kind of different. Uh the size of the the the building. Uh I know it's for financing. It's what's best for the financer, but it does seem to be pretty large to be right there on that street next to the Y and you know, and I don't know if there's because it's not in a uh uh district that has to go through the envir uh the people that

Yeah. Yeah. Have to look at it. Uh that's not something that we can say we don't want it. I mean, it's not it's it's not something that we can agree with. Um, I think creating the district is probably okay because it does need some infill. It needs to be changed. This is to me not complicated, but when you have two decisions, one or two, and for the public, if they were looking at this, how how would they decide you did the right thing? you know, this is uh it's just different. I think I don't support uh the first um

project plan at all. I it's just got too much stuff in there and things that if we give it to Peter, then the next guy would say, I want some landscaping and stuff in mind, too. And I that's not to me that's not appropriate. I don't know. I don't know what the last city policy is that was approved a year ago. I I don't know all the uh things that were in that policy. So, I don't know what the city council wants to to agree with, but as far as me, I think it can be done with the item uh project plan two. I think the staff has has uh looked at this and and that helps a lot to know what should and shouldn't be. It was hard to kind of go back and forth reading all the information for me and trying to decide, okay, is this good or bad? and you know, so I guess I'm I'm supportive of creating the district if we can find out a way that the project plan will work for everybody, including Peter. Um, if we uh deny the any of the project, if we go from uh item six and approve that, they go to item seven and say we're not quite ready and maybe Peter's not ready to go with item two, you know, maybe we have to continue this and have him look at some other thoughts and how he wants to do it. But, um, I guess I'm just saying for me, I I would agree with creating the district without right now talking about the project plan. So that's it.

Chair recognizes Haven. Uh thank you, Mr. Chair. I I guess that ra uh Karen's comments raised a question then is if the district is uh is approved then uh and we don't go forward with uh either of the two uh project proposals then what

the if you approve the district this morning to recommended approval of the city council that'll move forward to the city council. council um for to either approve or deny. If the both project plan options are denied, um the the TIFF can still remove move forward regarding the district, the city council, and then uh the applicant and I would work together and staff would work together um on revising the the project plan to be seen at a planning commission at a future date. But if you were to deny both option, both the project plan options and the district, the the the project itself would couldn't move forward at all. And yeah, I guess what you're potentially saying then, uh, with the denial of the two, if if that was the case, uh, we denied the two project plans, then we would, uh, we would expect to to see sometime in the future uh, a further proposal uh, as far as a project plan.

That is correct. If you the recommendation is to move forward with the creation of the district boundaries, that is correct. the project plan can be brought forward at a planning commission at a future date. I would just say I appreciate all the the comments and and the information from Peter and Dan and and yourself. Uh I think that's that's certainly helped in my mind uh be more a little more clear on what we're what we're looking at.

I just want to clarify or get some clarification myself here. Uh, you know, we opened up item 25T1020, which is, of course, a consideration for the for the application for a resolution creating a a tiff for the Rapid Gas LLC redevelopment districts on those lots 2932 and block 102 of the original town of Rapid City. So, we've also been discussing the project plan, which is detailed more in item 7, which is 25T1021. So, we've been discussing both. So today uh we're looking for uh a motion on on item 25T1020 which is which is um on the TIV.

Yes. The the first the item six the first motion would be to either approve or deny the the creation of the district boundary. And as we've discussed here we've also discussed uh the two two different projects. Uh neither one of those are are being considered at this point. Just just the tips. Just just the the district itself. Correct. Just just to clarify before we make a motion. Anyone makes a motion. Are there any further comments questions? Mr. Chair and chair recognizes Vicki.

So typically you always keep your district and your project plan approvals together. If you just approve the district and then say to Mike and Peter, go work something out. that clock is ticking and there's a timeline on when those improvements have to be in place. So, I think that Peter is probably wanting option one approved. Um Mike's made a a recommendation to approve option two. Uh if you decide that you want to move one of those forward, um Peter then has the opportunity and I guess Daniel, could you could you help me with something? If planning commission acts favorably on one of the options,

is that the only option that's then up for consideration by the city council?

No. The city council would be able to make amendments to the option. So, if the planning commission um well, first of all, the planning commission has to approve the formation of the district before anything even goes to the council. And then the project plan has to be recommended by the planning commission before the council hears it. Once the council hears it, they could make changes to it. So technically uh the planning commission could recommend um option two and then the plan sorry then the city council could amend that to be closer to option one or something that would be option three. Um that would be possible as well. I think what Mike was saying is that um if the planning commission wanted to, they could proceed with setting the boundary and then um on a separate motion deny both of the project plans and then it would be up to the applicant um to come up with a different project plan that would hopefully meet some of um the concerns that are expressed and then bring that forward at a future meeting.

Mr. Schmidt, please. Uh thank you, uh Peter Schmid. That's the direction I would prefer is the creation of the district. Um because I haven't had adequate time to come up with a plan that works with the city staff recommendation of project two. Um and I don't know what the timeline is, but I I think it's five year is it five years? Yeah. So it's I've got time. I've got time. Um I can hire a local architect. you know, we can we can figure something out, but um but it's a dis but I I need to have that district approved uh to for the support of the city.

Chair recognizes Karen.

Hi. Um I I guess I you know I like I said I think the district is is a place that we can do some revitalization in the in the downtown. I I have no problem with that. They meet some of the requirements and it's you know to do a tiff and so that's not an issue for me. U but there were certain things that in like item number uh the first uh project plan is like I don't want to have landscaping in there. I don't want to have the lighting in there or the reconstructing the parking lot. I mean to me those are things that should be developers architectural thing that is something the developer has to do. I mean you you have to have certain engineering things in there to make sure it works. But uh just so people know and for Peter to look forward that uh those things are not something that I I would approve. Um, like I said, this is to me to look at both project plans and you know, I kind of disregarded the first one after I looked through it because that just wasn't my thought. So, the item uh project plan number two might work. I just don't know. But if if Peter needs some time to to think about that and maybe it just doesn't work for him either on item number two. Maybe there's another way to come up with something that's works for both people. But um I just it's just uncomfortable to to pass the project plans as it is if the applicant's not even crazy about it. So all that saying, I'm going to make a motion to approve the district at this point and uh see what goes from there. We have a motion on the table to approve the district. Uh, and do we have a second?

Any further questions, concerns? I'll second it for the purpose of discussion. Okay. And we have a second from Har Haven. So again, to clarify, this is just to create the district and that's all we're doing with this with this particular item at this point in time. Okay, we have a motion from Karen and a second from Haven. All those approved. I'm sorry. Oh, I'm sorry. We do have a Pat. Give me just a second, Pat. I'll get your mic on there.

Uh, thank you. Uh, I think I agree with approval of the district, but I'm not sure just because we approve the district, does that mean we're approving landscaping and all that stuff, the planning? All we're doing is planning approving the district and that's it. That is correct, Mr. Rosen. You're just approving the district boundaries, not any component of the project plan. No components. Okay, I agree with that then. Thank you very much. Right. And then there's still an opportunity in item seven here if you want to. We want to dig in further. That'll be a separate motion. Yeah, it'll be a separate motion. Alicia,

uh, thank you, chair. I guess I have a question for Vicki. You mentioned that even though in the past, um, we and I've approved a district and not approved a project, uh, you just mentioned that you don't really recommend doing that just for other, you know, um, reasons down the line. Can you kind of explain that if some of us aren't really sure that we would like to approve the project and we like the idea of the district if we're not sure if it's quite ready yet? Vicki,

um thank you, Mr. Chair. You you can do that. Uh we've I I don't know of an instance where we've ever done that before uh because it is capturing that tax revenue without knowing what it's going to be going towards. So that's just it would be very unique and I I have to wonder if that's something that council would support and that fiveyear deadline to have all improvements complete. The clock starts ticking. Okay. Thank you.

Chair recognizes Haven. Um yeah, I I want a little clarification on the comments you just made. Uh Vicki, uh that concern that went to whether we approve the district now, but wouldn't go forward with either of the two plans in the next application, item seven, I guess, right,

Mr. Thank you, Mr. Chair. If when a district is formed, I think the anticipation is that there would be a project plan that would be brought before the commission within the next probably 60 days. I would imagine something like that should be done. Um once a district is formed, uh Mike goes through a process with the county as well as with the state, uh to actually start capturing that tax revenue. That takes quite a bit of time. um at that point when um property taxes are received, we put them we segregate them into their own fund. So say if over the course of the next 3 years um there's no agreement on a project plan and you know they're just miles apart, what ends up happening at that point uh we would come forward with a resolution to abolish the tiff district because no project plan is is possible. And then at that point um you would um recommend I would imagine uh to abolish the district and then the council would adopt that resolution to abolish the district. And then that tax revenue that we capture would be divided um amongst the county, the city and the school district and uh the tiff district would just be dissolved like anything else other than the valuation probably wouldn't have changed by that much. And so that's the process. It is important what Vicki said though is that it truly is five years. Um so it's not like this can go on forever. It it does have a limit. Um but with that being said, I think the developer would be incentivized to say this shouldn't drag on forever. It should be a a fairly quick process.

And Mr. Chair, just one more. Okay. Go ahead, Mike. Just one more quick point on that. Uh it there has been multiple in instances in the history of tax refinancing Rapid City that the planning commission and city council have both approved the the district boundaries and the project plan and the project didn't move forward in those five years. So it just was dissolved. So it's not uncommon, you know, that it can be approved and then the project didn't move forward forever reason and then it's just dissolved within those five years. Karen,

thank you, Mr. Chair. And I was that was just exactly what I was going to to mention that it does it does happen and especially right when we first started doing tiffs uh years and years ago ago, a lot of those just people wanted to do something and then they just didn't have their plan together and they just gave up. There's been some districts that have been approved and didn't pay off. I mean, there's probably one or two is about it. I know one that didn't, but um it it's tips are are complicated to start with, I think. And you start talking about all the different ways of doing things, it it it's hard. I know when uh when I was working on tiffs, there was a a tiff committee and at that point we had staff get together with the developers and really work everything out to make sure that it it went smoothly and and had we had one project plan and said, "Here's what we think is best." And when you put two things together and you have a project plan that the applicant would like and a project plan that more staff would like because it fits better with the future and other people coming forward to do tiffs after this one is approved say um because I can think of several people who would say well if I can get architectural stuff and and my landscaping put in there'd be more people that would apply for something like that. So, I think it's just it's hard, but um if we feel that this district or this area really needs to be revitalized, if we think that's a good reason to put a tiff on there, no matter whether it's Peter or somebody else's, um I think that's that's why my vote is to say let's let's create the district and see what happens and uh not worry about the project plan at this point, I guess. So, that's my comments,

Mr. Basley.

Yeah. Um just so the the commission is aware, the reason we presented both is because for the past several years, um we have done uh what you described, but the public did not see that there was a a difference between what the applicant was requesting and what was coming forward. And so I think a lot of the public perception was that everything that the applicant requested, you know, they received. And so that was the reason why we wanted to bring it forward to say there are two options with that um that the staff is not recommending everything that the developer is requesting. So we apologize for the confusion. Um that was our attempt to try to be more transparent so that the public could see that there's a difference that um a developer can't just come in and request everything and everything is provided. So, I apologize for any confusion that that caused.

Okay.

Thank you. Uh, I appreciate staff's involvement and all the work they done to get this to this point and I really like seeing a project like this coming to the city and uh because it would really help beautify Mount Rushmore Road if I look at that way. My thought is if we plan if we approve the tiff and the plan is approved or not. If the plan is approved and it comes back different than what is presented to us, would that be a problem with city council? I think it in the past we've had some uh discussion about a project that would did not uh meet the same criteria whether be designed or whatever uh that was approved by the tiff for the tiff and then come back different and uh we'll make sure that the city's protected. That's the main thing and I really feel like you know uh you know the if if if this does not get we say if the tiff is approved and then the the project does not come through the only thing the loss that the city is is liable for is staff time more or less that's about it.

Yeah. And nothing more than that. Okay. I just want to make sure that if we approve the TIFF that if and if there's a project that's approved along with it that it it's the same project down the road rather than a different project or a different design. I yield. Thank you, Mr. Mr. Angley.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh that's why the the project plan is so important because we will ensure that whatever the description is in the project plan is what the certified costs will be. And so the the verbiage that is used in the project plan has to align with what the certified costs are. So, if um if a developer receives a TIFF and then they also receive approval for a project plan and then they get a building permit for a a building that's entirely different, they can proceed and do that, but then the cost will not be certified and they will not receive any reimbursement um from the TIFF. So the because of the tiff that doesn't prohibit that sort of development, but it does prohibit them receiving any funding from the tax increment financing because those certified costs have to align with what the verbiage is in the approved project plan.

So the motion on the floor is to approve the tiff district. Uh, and I don't believe the motion maker included e uh either of the projects to present it. Uh, was there an amendment to the motion or are we ready to vote on that one? Did you Okay. So, again, sorry. So, I'll call the question. Okay. In other words, advance it to Sure. Uh for all all those in favor of uh creating the district uh in 25T1020 say I. I. I.

All those opposed. It's unanimous. Motion approved. Okay. Number uh item seven number 251021. Uh it's a request by Peter Schmidt and the Rapid Gas LLC to consider the application for resolution approving the project plan of Rapid Gas LLC redevelopment district. And we have project plan option one and project plan option two. Do we have any questions from let's see Karen

I guess to start this conversation for the the plan if I can make a motion to to not necessarily deny anything totally but um I would like to make a motion to deny the option one project plan and so we don't talk about that. I mean, that's my personal thoughts. Um, and we I'd like to see what everybody else has to say about that. We have a motion on the floor to deny uh option our project plan one. Do we have a second? We have a second from Alicia. So, project plan one is been denied. We're reviewing project plan two.

We haven't had a motion. Oh, I'm sorry. Discussion on the motion. M Mr. Chair, I I we're getting into some

um so if you start making a motion to deny the plan, that's what's going to go on to council. I I think your better option is to take action on if you want to favor one of them, bring that forward because remember council can change it anyway. But from the discussion that I've heard today, I think Peter would really like to go back and look at um some of the numbers and what you've discussed. So maybe your your uh motion should be to continue your action on that application to allow Peter to go back and look at it. Peter, how how long do you think you need? Uh uh Peter Schmid, I I think in 60 days I can we can bring a project uh for you to review. And in the meantime, if anyone city staff, council, any anybody at all has input um just send it my way. And that would be that your March 26th planning commission

because if you approved project two right now I I can't I can't the project two would be a different way to finance the original design and that's not possible. So approving project two I still would need to bring a new a new project to planning. So So I would make a substitute motion. Hey, let me get your mic on. substitute.

Can you chime in again on your button? I would then move a substitute motion that we continue item number seven to our March 26 planning commission meeting with the applicant's concurrence with the concurrence of the applicant. We have a substitute motion to move item seven to the March 26th meeting. Do we have a second? I'll second. We have a second from uh from Kelly. All those in favor? I'm sorry. Do we have any further discussion?

Uh I thought Alicia.

Uh thank you chair. I agree to um you know wait 60 days and have the applicant rethink the project a bit. Um it makes sense that the option two won't work for you with your financing. I wonder from Vicki, you know, he said he's open to hearing from us and I don't know what the legalities are around, you know, us um or if it's just city staff, but I I would recommend in terms of it aligning with the TIF that as much density as possible and if that means bringing on another partner or, you know, in it might take the end of the five years to make it work. But I I do think a strong infill um that would be aligned with that urban 3 presentation would be significant density and have a mixeduse component. Um and have a local architect and designer and I mean it it's a it is an entry into downtown from Mount Rushmore Road. So I think it's important that um you know design qualities aren't aren't sacrificed uh just to get it through as soon as possible. Um, and I think it's a really cool opportunity and I'm, you know, I'm glad you purchased this and are going to redevelop it. Uh, so looking forward to the project, uh, a new project plan and, um, you know, wondering if we're able to give any input and thinking that we're we're probably not. Vicki,

chair recognizes, Pat,

thank you. Uh, my question is we approved number six for the TIFF and that will go to city council. if if it's not approved by city council, then the 60-day is basically done, right? That you won't have to come back. So, I really feel like I think it's a good project. I like the design. I like, as was said earlier by Alicia, that it's a a good thing for Mount Rushmore Road as you're driving up going up the street. But uh it's it's a difficult difficult thing to talk about and all the ifs and ends and buts that we don't know yet. But um I agree with what is said that we could let it set up for 60 days and come back and just hopefully the city council will make the right decision. Thank you.

And I'm trying to get your mic on. It's a okay. Chair recognizes Karen. Thank you. I appreciate the the uh motion on the floor to continue. I think that that is the right thing. I was trying to get something off the ground when I made the other one, but uh I think that's a good idea because we do need to know if we even wanted to approve item or the project plan too. Peter still couldn't go forward with that. you have some of concern and then it would be up to the council to make changes and yeah it gets more complicated. So I think the motion on the floor to continue is correct. Chair recognizes Jeff.

Thank you Mr. Chair. Uh my accolades today for Mr. Dugan and all the work that you've been doing with the Tish TIFF initiatives. It's h very valuable. Uh also Mr. Mr. Anley for your comments today and the work that you've invested uh in the uh the development of Rapid City. Mr. Smith, your properties that you've been developing over the years are are wonderful projects uh and they have been noticed and I think it's remarkable that we have a a homegrown kid that's coming forward and doing some amazing things. So, very much appreciative to you. Uh I am in favor of this tiff district to see how it develops. Sometimes our bestlaid plans don't always come to fruition and we start out big and then we have to come back and modify. You're very well aware of that, Mr. Schmidt, and the work that you're your enterprises that you're doing. Uh this seems to be one of those those occasions. Uh, and so rather than adopting one or the other and making it more complicated, I'm going to be uh in favor of continuing um the uh the the item uh to give a little bit more time for Mr. Smith to work with city staff and and other professionals to determine what a reasonable uh substitute might be. So that's how I'll be voting. Thank you.

Do we have any further discussion on the item? So, the motion to move the item seven to the March 26th uh uh meeting has been made and seconded. All those in favor? Any oppose? It's unanimous. Thank you. Eric, do you want to come back up here? Okay.

Oh, sorry. Would you press the button again? I'm sorry. If it's if it's appropriate, Dan, I I you made a comment. I uh this is on I guess discussion items here with regard to the the uh real estate taxes that are paid to the tiff to in the tiff district. Uh my understanding would be that that base amount would be distributed uh just as if there wasn't a tiff. It would be immediately distributed to the appropriate entities is

rather than being held for any reason. You you are absolutely correct. I guess what I was trying to refer to fairly quickly and I apologize is that if um say the project took three years until a project plan came forward or something like that. In that case if the project asis increased in value, the additional valuation would be held by the city. That's a lot of ifs. I was trying to be very short. I apologize. Oh well. Yeah. Thank you. I just wanted to make uh that clarification and and making sure that I understand how that worked too. No, you're 100% correct.

Any further discussion items from the staff? Not today. This has been a good one. Any further discussion items from the commission? Move to adjourn. There being no further business, uh Karen move to adjourn. And sorry, Pat. and Pat seconded. All those in favor of adjourning the zoning board adjustment meeting, uh I'm sorry, the plan commission meeting say I. I. Although those opposed, motion passes unanimously. Thank you everyone. You worked hard.