Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

that one because I can't see that far. So, I'm blind as a bat. Yep.

Excuse me. Yeah, that's all right.

Good morning everyone. Welcome to the March 26th, 2026 zoning board of adjustment meeting starting at 7 a.m. in the morning on this beautiful Thursday. If any member of the audience wishes to speak to an item on the agenda today, there are speaker request forms on the left side of the room. Please fill out the form with the agenda number of the item you wish to speak to and hand it to the staff seated over on that side of the room. At this time, we would also like to ask that if any member of the audience has a cell phone or other electronic device, that you either turn it off or turn the ringer to silent. If you need to take a call, please step out to the hall so the meeting is not disrupted. The public hearing on item number one, the March approval of the March 5th, 2026 zoning board of adjustment meeting minutes is hereby opened.

Approval. I'll second. All right. Karen made the motion to approve those minutes and Vince 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.

So good morning. Uh this item is a variance request to allow asphalt millings for parking and circulation in lie of uh hard surface at 1949 Plaza Boulevard. This property is only industrial district is primarily surrounded by other industrial uses. There is an office commercial land directly to the north but primarily surrounded by lay industrial zoning district. So the future land use is lay industrial. Uh the property is accessed by Plaza Boulevard, which is classified as a minor arterial street on the city's major street plan. So this is the proposed site plan. The applicant is proposing to build an approximately 16,000 foot welding and fabricating shop. It's going to be set back or located more than 300 ft from Plaza Boulevard. The zoning code does require that all hard surfacing, parking, and circulation circulation be hard surface. And the purpose of that requirement is to reduce adverse impacts on neighboring properties and also to reduce the tracking of dirt and dust into the public rightway. So as you can see from the plan only the concrete aprons um and the accessible parking space will be hard surfaced. The rest of this proposed development is going to be surfaced with asphalt millings. So this is the proposed grading plan. Uh we've included stipulations of a in the report that a dust palative uh be applied to the asphalt millings annually or as needed and this will reduce any adverse impacts or adverse impacts to the neighbors and we're also requiring that the first 50 ft of the driveway be paved. uh that's to meant to reduce tracking into Plaza Boulevard and staff thinks with these feels with these stipulations of approval that the purpose and intent of the zoning requirement will be maintained with this request. And then this is the proposed floor plan. Uh the northern wing of the building is going to have offices. It's going to be twotory in height. Um the rest of the building is going to be one story. It's going to be open. Uh it's going to for space for storage, welding, and fabricating. Uh the applicant has indicated that the proposed development

requires heavy trucks, uh forklifts, uh fabricating equipment that's going to accelerate wear on traditional asphalt surfaces, um and require ongoing maintenance. Also, this property is shielded from view from the southeast and there's limited visibility from the public rightways. Um so staff did feel like this constituted a special circumstance that would have justified uh that justifies approval. And then these are the proposed elevations. Uh the applicant has also indicated that there's going to be limited traffic. It is a welding and fabricating shop. So there's going to be 11 employees that work work at the shop. There's going to be deliveries once or twice a week. There's going to be a contractor that may visit once a week and the occasional walk-in customer. So considering the limited limited traffic with this, um it appears that the variance would not be injurious to the neighborhood or detrimental to the public welfare. So this is looking at the looking at the site from Plaza Boulevard. Uh the applicant did recently or earlier this year they got a footing in foundation and a grading permit. So that you can you can see there that the site work is underway. And then this is looking north at the property from South Plaza Drive. You can honestly you can barely see the property from this roadway. It's um you can kind of see some of the equipment in the back there, but um so this is from South Plaza Drive and then this is looking north on Plaza Boulevard and looking south along that same street. So staff is recommending that this variance request be approved because it's the usees permitted in the zoning district. The heavy equipment that'll be used will cause wear on traditional asphalt surfaces. There's limited visibility from the rideway, uh limited traffic that's going to be here. Um and also the stipulations of approval. We're requiring a dust palative and also the first 50 feet of the driveway be paved and that will uh maintain the purpose and intent of the zoning requirement. So I'll stand by for any questions and the applicant is in

the audience as well. Thank you. Thank you. We do have a speaker request from James Krauss on this item if you'd like to come up and speak to the commission. Thank you everyone for meeting me. Um, I didn't really have anything to add. He did a great job. I just wanted to say thank you and we're very excited about this project. Everybody's been very helpful. So, I forgot to ask, but if you could state your your name and association with the project for a minute, that' be great. Yep. Uh, James Krauss, uh, EJ Investments. I'm the owner and uh, Black Hills Medal also. So, thank you. Thank you. We may call you up if there's questions afterwards. Okay. Eric Hikus,

move approval. um variance to allow asphalt millings in lie of hard surface with stipuline stipulation outlined in project report. Eric, I'm going to have to ask for the criteria because we're in zoning board of adjustment. Sorry. Stating criteria. It's not a hardship to the neighborhood and it's it's allowed under this zoning. Close enough. Vicki, thoughts?

I I thank you, Mr. Chair. I I think I would state that um it's a minimum adjustment necessary and with the type of traffic that it should have minimum adverse impact on the neighborhood. I'll amend my item to that. Thank you. Thanks, Eric. Is there a second? Vince. Okay, Vince seconded Eric's motion. Discussion on the motion. Haven. Oops.

Uh, thank you. Uh, so the first 50 ft, I guess, is the stipulation that that would be paved. Well, why 50 feet? It seems like uh there would be traffic traveling a lot faster before they get to the 50 ft coming out of the property or going in. Uh what's the what was the reasoning for the 50 ft? Mr. Chair Vicki,

um thank you for the question. Uh we require the first 50 feet of every driveway, even on a residential lot, to be paved. And what that does is it prevents tracking onto the adjacent hard surface street. So, the traffic coming off this lot will be very slow. They'll be yielding to ensure that they can access the adjacent street. And 50 ft um historically has provided that distance needed so that there isn't any debris on the tires that would enter the street.

Uh thank you. Then then I would understand it that that would be the only hard surfaced area on the lot. I mean the area around the building uh would would uh also be the the millings. Yeah, you can um you can see it from this plan. So we got hard surfacing for those concrete aprons and for the accessible parking space. And then uh yeah, the rest of it it's that greenish area there that's going to be asphalt millings. Mr. Chair, Vicki,

this is actually a really good conversation. So, as Tanner pointed out, and it's something that uh I want you to um uh remember for consistency, this is a light industrial property. This area of our city is uh an industrial park. Um if Tanner goes to the future land use plan, you can see that as um the site this area continues to develop and redevelop, this will be one of our industrial areas that we will hold in reserve. So, while we wouldn't bring you the same recommendation on a commercial property uh with other commercial type uses, we do in these because of the reasons Tanner uh noted the limited traffic, the type of heavy equipment that's going to be on it and always with the stipulation that they maintain air quality um through the dust paliotative requirement.

All right, Mike Quazny. Thank you, Mr. Sure. I guess in the past have we done the dust pip when we do asphalt milling? I I don't remember doing that but okay. Um so that's how much dust is kicked up by the asphalt millings is it it's not as much as gravel right theoretically no but asphalt millings can break down over time. So, uh, again, we just require that they maintain it. Um, if there's an issue, we can have them put paliative on it more than once a year.

How thick is the asphalt milling? Do we require a certain depth, thickness, or is it just over the top? Perhaps the applicant can indicate what he's proposing. Mr. Krauss, if you're willing. Um, our proposed uh thickness probably in the 3 to 4 inch pack range. So, a pretty substantial layer of asphalt millings. And to go back to the other question, it does produce less dust than like a gravel parking lot. It's a little more stable. Yeah, that area tends to kick up a lot of dust when the wind starts blowing because you can see over on that side of town that it's it's there. Yeah. Okay. Thank you, Karen.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I have a question as far as um um the not just the dust itself, but if down the road it there's something that causes issues out there, is there any time that we could go back and request that they put more hard surface on there? Mr. Chair, if they should expand the use on the property or change the use, that all triggers a building permit and we could then reassess at that time.

Okay. Um, when you mentioned that the parking would have uh hard surfaces, is that where those I see the parking spots, but I can't tell if they're I know that I know the aprons are hard surfaces, but I'm talking about the other Yeah. So, these these parking spots right here are going to be asphalt millings, and then um the accessible parking space right here is going to be concrete. Just that one. Okay, that's my question. Um, the other question I had is on the other map in the middle there's somebody a building of some kind. It belongs to the city. Is that Yeah, that. Yeah. So, so that is a city building. Yeah. So, they take access from the same road coming in.

I think believe their access is right here where I have my cursor. There's a access easement through there. Okay.

Yeah, I see that. Thank you. That's all I have. This is kind of an odd property. My my comments are that the 50 feet seems like an arbitrary number. It's hard to tell with, you know, with regular cars, three car lengths, that seems like enough. But this is trucks. I guess I'm just ask going to ask the city, please follow this. You know, most of the millings variances that we've had in the past have been for behind the building for circulation within a storage area. This is the first I can remember on the access the front side of the building, let's call it, but it's a very unique lot. So, I'm in support of the motion, but I would ask the city to follow up on does this work.

Mr. Chair, we did do some research just to see where we've landed on these. And even in this area, we have done other similar requests. It's been a while, but we have done them. Um, however, that u certificate of occupancy will not be issued. Uh, we have inspectors that will look at this to ensure that all of the elements that we discussed today are in place. And then, of course, we have the uh position in our department that oversees the air quality portion of this. So we feel that um we stay very well coordinated within our team. So it's it's been working. All right.

Thank you. Any further questions or comments? The motion on the floor is to approve this. Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion to approve with the stipulations, please say I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Item number three. Um item number three comes with a recommendation to continue. Vicki. Uh yes, Mr. Chair. That would be our request today. We are continuing to work with the applicant on the parking side of the variance request. Okay.

All right. Mike made the motion to continue item three to April 9th and Vince seconded that motion. Any discussion on the motion? All those in favor, please say I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Look for a motion to adjurnn. Motion to adjurnn. Okay. Vince made the motion. Eric Hikis seconded that motion. All those in favor of adjourning zoning board adjustment to move to planning commission, please say I. I. I.

All right. We are adjourned at 7:16 a.m. We will now start the planning commission meeting for March 26, 2026. Again, if any member of the audience has a item on planning commission agenda they wish to speak to, please grab a speaker request form at the left side of the room, fill it out with the agenda number of the item you wish to speak to, and hand it to the staff seated on that side of the room. Items 1 through 10 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 seven, 26 PD00001. The Rapid City Planning Commission 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 7th full calendar day following action by the planning commission.

Are there any items 1 through 10 that staff would like removed for separate consideration? Number two, please. Okay. Are there any items that any planning commissioner would like removed for separate consideration at this time? Eric, I'll be abstaining to on item three as we're involved with this project.

Okay. And are there any items that any audience member would like removed from for separate consideration at this time? The chair would then entertain a motion to approve items one and 4 through 10 in accordance with the staff's recommendation.

What's that? I don't think so. There was no request to take seven off this, was there? Okay. All right. Okay. Second. All right. Mike Quasnney made the motion to approve items one and four through 10 in accordance with the staff's recommendation. And Vince seconded that motion. Any discussion on the motion? All those in favor, please say I. I. Opposed? Motion carries. Item number two.

Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh this is a preliminary subdivision plan. Tanner is going to make a very brief presentation and then we'll turn it over to Roger Hall, our city engineer. He would just like to bring to your attention and the applicant's attention just a couple issues um as a result of this layout.

So this one is a preliminary subdivision plan. It's at 1247 Pinnacle Court. They're proposing 12 town home lots. They're also This is a pretty big shape here. So they're also adjusting uh two existing single family lots address 1250 and 1243 Pinnacle Court. So the property so the proposed town home development uh is zone medium density residential district. It's within a plan development designation and the future land use of it is low density neighborhood and then it's located north of Catran. Uh this is the proposed plat. You can see these town home lots. These are the 12 that are being proposed right here. They're going to range from 0.12 to 0.24 acres in size. And then these are the two single family lots down here. And then these lots are going to be accessed by a 34t wide access and utility easement. Um from city criteria, this utility easement has to be built to has to be 52 ft wide uh built with a 26t wide pave surface or else the the applicant will have to seek exceptions to that. Uh we're also going to require that a private covenant agreement be entered into for the maintenance of this private road. And then this is their preliminary subdivision plan. You can see those 12 town home lots. It is within a plan development designation. So they'll have to come back with a final plan development overlay. One of the exceptions that will that will be needed with that final plan development overlay is that um all residential lots have to be above a public street a minimum distance of 25 ft. So none of these lots above Pinnacle Court that minimum distance except for these two southeastern lots. So as part of that future final plan development overlay, we're likely going to see an exception for that. And then this is the master plan. Um believe there's 43 existing residential lots in the Whisper subdivision. They're proposing 12. Uh you can only have uh 40 lots with a single access point. Um so there there is a stipulation in the report that um as a part of platting a

second access has to be identified or else the an exception through city council is needed to allow 54 lots with one access point. Um also we're going to be requiring that a covenant agreement be entered into to um provide fire or to ensure the fire suppression systems in this town home development. Um, and then this is looking at the property uh from Pinnacle Court looking west into that property. Remember that that access easement extends west off Pinnacle Court. And then this is looking east um along that same street. So I'll pass it over to Roger. All right, Roger Hall.

All right. Thank you, Chairman. Uh Roger Hall, city engineer, and I I see Joe's in the audience this morning. So, thank you. Just a couple things to be made aware of. I've met with our operations people. Uh we have a public sewer main and a public water man that's going to go up into this uh private easement. Um also I met with our garbage people. Three three things. One on the water main and sewer main. That's two. that uh that'll be public mains, but we'll have an agreement with the uh developer that we're not responsible for surfacing if we have to do repairs or something like that. And uh the other one is garbage. Uh our garbage trucks uh don't want to come in here. We're trying to keep all of our garbage trucks from backing up at any time. So, the garbage for all of these uh will have to be delivered down to the culde-sac, I guess. And I'd like to if there's any questions on that. That's really the three things. The water, sewer, and the garbage.

All right. Thank you, Roger. We do have a question here. Kelly, uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. The the second access point was I guess an exception was mentioned. Is the second access point part of this review process today? Is that in our scope or is that a separate city council decided decision?

Vicki. So, uh, uh, exceptions to the what we call the 40-unit rule can only be granted by city council. So, remember this is a preliminary subdivision plan. It's a what if. If this property gets platted, what will be required? So, approval of this today does not necessarily indicate that the final plat will look just like this. Um the applicant and his consultant will work with us and the city council and submit the exceptions and then if any adjustments are needed those will be made at that time. Gotcha. Understood. And then the back lot remain the balance of that lot is that just going to remain undeveloped while you know public access parkland. What's the plan? Uh single family residential

in the back. Those are two single family lots. Oh, gotcha. Where would access be for those lots? Just curious. You're talking about this big lot right here. Correct. Yeah. So the access access point is right here. Right there. Okay. Yeah. And then show the other one. Um the other one's just off pinnacle core. This is the only other one that they're adjusting for single family. Oh, this one. Yeah. So it's right that right at this point. Gotcha. Okay. Thanks. Thank you, Karen.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I drive this road several times a day. So, I I watched all the houses that are being built up there. They look really nice. Um, my question is, how many are up there right now? Do you know that they're that people are living in or soon to be lived in? I think I'll pass that question over to the applicant. Once you're up, if you could identify yourself uh before answering, we'd appreciate it. Yeah.

Morning everybody. I'm Joe Muth. I'm a member of uh Muth Holdings, the uh developer, and I also uh am the realtor uh selling these town homes. And as of right now, we have um 10 8 to 10 uh town home units occupied. Okay. Thank you. I didn't think there was very many that were built up there yet because it's you can't see way beyond the first parts. Um the road going out when you get out to the uh Catron Boulevard is a oneway only. Has to go up the hill. can't go down the hill. I believe

it. It's a right out. Yeah, right out. Yeah. Do you know if there's going to be any issue? This is more of a staff thing, I guess. Is there going to be an issue with a lot of traffic coming out of that one spot on that hillside? That's kind of in the future. It's kind of hard to say probably, but yeah, if development came in with any density, they would have to do a traffic impact study. Okay. And then we have to address that at that time. Okay. That's all I have. Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Yeah, Vicki. If I might, I think it's important to note that one of the reasons that Roger wanted to speak to um the garbage pickup issue today is uh on these private easements and because of the design of it and the turnaround, these garbage trucks can't get up there safely. They would have to back out. So, that will not happen. Once these lots are developed and sold, I would anticipate that city council may hear from some of these property owners about having to pull those garbage cans down a sidewalk on a snowy day um to the culde-sac bulb. So, that's just important to to, you know, put a pin in it that um at this point we did identify that and and your decision and council's decision will determine if that's going to be allowed. Since we're on the garbage issue, it what's being proposed is the folks come and they bring their cans down onto what's a city street at the point where there's that bulb culde-sac. Um, and that there's I would assume since it's a city street to a certain extent, anybody can put their garbage cans there. There's no I mean any neighbor issues don't don't have any sort of code behind them like my neighbor can't put his garbage can in front of my house. Correct.

That's correct. You can't block a driveway but otherwise that's public rightway and it can anyone can use it. Okay. Mike Quney.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, boy, it feels like we're kicking the can down the road here on because they got a bunch of development back behind there and that access. Um, I I understand the city council will have to make this final decision, but I hope they look that all the development possibilities down the road. Uh, it just feels like we should have a a solution right now versus waiting for the other developments to take place. So, I I just think there should be a dual access. I I I'm a strong believer that we need to have more access to a lot of these neighborhoods and um this one just feels like we're kicking the can. So, um I I just I'm struggling with this for a lot of reasons. So, Haven,

um thank you. Yeah, that will was one of the issues I had to it. But also, I know in the past there's been some difficulty with uh uh authorizing uh streets, nar narrower streets, and the issue with the garbage truck is is an issue, but there would be other trucks uh uh like a fire truck, for example, that uh need to get in there. So, are we are the access points to the to the lot to the north in the blue? Well, it's not blue in that one. Uh lot to the north, the bigger lot, and then the access straight west into these. Are they What's the width of those? And is that uh are we creating some problems down the road with not wide enough access? Vicki.

So on that blue on the if Tanner can go back to the blue. There you go. So that's a driveway um similar to anyone else's driveway that would go to your single family home. Tanner, is that width 25 ft?

No, that one's under 25. I can't remember off the the top my head, but it's less than 25 ft. And can you go back out to the blue graphic again? Um, well, I think we all appreciate the concern about master planning the entire area, uh, because of topographic constraints specific to uh what Joe and and his team own, they're somewhat isolated. Um and so uh as properties continue to develop, we do require connection to the greatest degree possible. Um a bigger traffic issue in the area is the access to the view. And ideally, uh we would help coordinate with the adjacent property owner to the west and somehow get that access diverted to Healing Way where there's a signalized intersection. But we continue to have these conversations. We continue to work with individual developers um trying to look at the bigger picture and traffic impact studies are required for the larger projects and we work with their traffic engineers as well. So there is coordination and we do try to funnel access and then have uh that um control as they enter into those arterial streets which Katherine Boulevard is an arterial street. I I note there's no culde-sac though on the west end of these new lots. So, um apparently in some cases a culde-sac is required, in some places it is not.

So, what you can see is they're proposing to do a hammerhead turnaround. And um as you heard uh Tanner indicate, one of the stipulations is that the buildings must be fire suppressed uh so that the fire department if they did need to pull a truck up in there um they would have that assistance with ease of control of that fire within the residence. And then they do believe that depending upon um the vehicle that they would take up in there that they could get back out again assuming nobody was parked in the hammerhead turnaround.

It'll have to be posted no parking. And you're right, we still have to assume that people will abide by the no parking signs.

All right, Roger. Uh yes, thanks chairman. Uh and thank you Joel for being here. I I just want to make sure I'm clear. I just want to make Joel aware that when these residents uh have their garbage that they do take it down to the culde-sac and you're you're right, Eric, nothing prevents my neighbor from setting his garbage can in front of my property. In fact, I set I live on a culde-sac and I have to set mine in front of my neighbor's property all the time. So, that's one thing. The other thing with the garbage trucks is we don't really want the garbage trucks going up and onto a private uh what we call a private u street. uh they are very heavy and they can cause a lot of damage as we see all over town on our streets. So, and one of the goals is just to keep them off the street and I think I think Joel understands that he's done a lot of this kind of development. And then the other thing is with the water and sewer, you know, obviously it's going to be a public main, public uh water man, public uh sewer main and if something was to occur up there and you know, we designed these things for 75 to 100 years, we don't anticipate that. But just so we're clear, it is a private easement and we won't be responsible for that. We'll enter into some kind of agreement up there with them. Does that make sense? And I I guess chairman, I'd like to ask Joe if he understands what I'm saying. So, and I'm not being real clear this morning, I don't think. So,

Mr. Moose, yeah, I think we're, you know, through our meetings, we're all in agreement that this uh private driveway will be uh governed under a covenant, an association agreement with the uh residents that front this property. Yeah, that that's been discussed in length. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mike Wasnney. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Since the uh garbage came up again, uh how many buildings would have to take their garbage down to the culde-sac? Is it 10 or so? Looks like 12. Could be wrong. Yeah, 12 lots.

Last I checked, the garbage likes to have so much distance between every garbage can, and they they get kind of funny when you don't. Um, is there enough room for 12 along that um culde-sac? And if I'm the last one, am I down down the street before I can get my garbage can out? I I guess if we're talking garbage, it it just seems like we've created a another problem with that.

Roger, we're gonna have to ask you to take a shot at this one. Thank you, Mike. Uh, appreciate the question. Uh, you know, I I think so. Uh, you know, my experience is that not everybody takes their garbage down every week. A lot of us do. When I had kids, obviously it was my recycle and my garbage down every week. As now that I'm living pretty much by myself, uh, I take my garbage down once a month. But if you look at the culde-sac there to the south, uh, there's plenty of room down there and and, uh, on each side of the driveway. So, I don't think that'll be an issue. Obviously, you know, we'll have a learning curve with the residents up there, uh, learning how to place their garbage cans and everything else. And our our landfill people are remarkable at assisting and helping whenever they can. So,

thank you, Haven. Uh we've talked about this second access and uh there appears to be uh a street to the south of that culde-sac which I think has been referred to as Healing Way. Is that Healing Way that goes down to Katherine? Mr. Chair, this property is significantly uh east of Healing Way. Yeah. on that uh you could refer to as blue map. There's a there's a little piece of blue that goes to the southwest. Um yes.

Is that what you're talking about, Haven? The where the arrow is off the ceilac? Yes. This would show that. I guess maybe the question is we've talked about this uh the need for a second access and there appears to be something in the future plan that would provide that second access to this uh to to uh Pinnacle Court. uh at what point I guess uh does that second access become necessary and and what what beyond this I guess would would would prompt opening up that second access off the culde-sac Mr. Chair Vicki,

there is an existing utility easement that's been in place for many, many years. The adjacent property that that easement is actually located on is uh Lloyd's. It's the view. They have parking um in this area. Uh it will not provide for a second point of access. It's it's uh basically because of um their existing development. And right now they're trying to work with this property owner to vacate it because they're short parking. They meet the parking requirement, but just a lifestyle of many um that that uh take in roommates, they need to create additional parking on that property. So um if this easement does get vacated, then they'll build additional parking. So that would apparently eliminate then what appears to be the only uh potential uh access for a second access to this this property.

So this is this is not secured as an access easement. Um and topographically it would be very difficult to try to work with the adjacent property owner eliminate a lot on um Joe's property and then build a street in that area. All right, Eric Hikus.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I believe uh adequate and suggested uh garbage container separation is 4T. So, 48 ft of spacing for 12 containers. Todd, back me up if I need it. Okay. All right. Okay. Love that we have that level of expertise up here. Thank you, Eric. Uh, any other questions or comments on item number two? Karen?

Oh, thank you, Mr. Chair. I I think this area is beautiful and it's going to be, you know, really nice when there's all all the houses and stuff are out there. They look beautiful right now. My my concern is a second access in the future. I don't see the way you get there because you can't go next where the view is. You can't go that way at all. And to get to Healing Way would be great. I don't know how you'd get there from from this property. Are we overbuilding that area right back there because of all the issues that are with it and how to get to a second access? I'm not sure whether the city council will approve 54, you know, homes in that area, but if they do, that's a lot of people in that one spot.

Mr. Chair Vicki.

So, uh, you know, one of the uniqueness of Rapid City is that we are a three-dimensional community and as a result, we have many culde-sacs um that exist that exceed more than 40 dwelling units uh on that one point of access. And how we offset that is to ensure that we can get fire trucks up in there. Um and we ensure that the structures are are fire suppressed. Uh and it will be a council decision. And again, approval of this preliminary subdivision plan today still requires the applicant to stand before the city council and request that exception. If that exception is not approved by council, then this preliminary subdivision plan will need to be amended to uh reduce the number or somehow find a second point of access. So I I don't think we're going to resolve that issue in today's meeting, but just as a reminder, we do try to create safety protocol knowing that we want the highest and best use as someone is developing a property. And uh this does provide for uh residential opportunities, something of which uh as our community uh is growing um we from time to time become very short of.

Thank you, Jeff. Consistent with staff recommendations, I would move approval of this preliminary subdivision plan with the stipulations outlined in the project report. All right. Is there a second to Jeff's motion? All right. Thank you, Kelly. Any questions or comments on the motion? Then the motion is to approve with stipulations. All those in favor, please say I. I. Any opposed?

Okay. Uh, I've got uh Eric Hikis and Mike Quasny in opposition. Otherwise, the motion carries. All right. Item number three. We pulled this one so Eric can abstain from it. Um, any need for a presentation? Um, any request from that from the commission? All right. I'd look for a motion on item number three. Approved. Second. All right. Vince made the motion to approve item three with the stipulations. Yes. Karen seconded that motion.

Any discussion on the motion. All those in favor, please say I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries with Eric Hikis abstaining.

That takes us to item number 11. Good morning, chair, planning commission. Item number 11 before you is a major amendment to a final plan development overlay to allow an outdoor storage facility and a mixeduse building. We are on property located at 3980 Campbell Street. This property, you see on the map here that this is currently zone general commercial district. There was a reszone application approved for this property just recently to reszone this property to the light industrial district. That reszone takes effect tomorrow actually. So this property is actually zone light industrial district. Future land use is also light industrial and this property is accessed from East Minnesota Street which is a proposed minor arterial street and it also fronts Campbell Street which is a principal arterial street um on the west side of the property. What they are proposing to do here is they are proposing to construct an outdoor storage facility um for recreational vehicles, trailers, and other vehicles um as an extension of the anytime outdoor or anytime mini warehousing storage facility that's located southeast of this property. Um they are proposing to develop this in two phases. Phase one would be the outdoor storage lot. Um and also a um 6' tall anti-limb chain link perimeter fence with a 24 ft wide slide gate down here um at the entrance off of East Minnesota Street. I do also want to point out there will be a gate up here as well. There is currently a billboard on this property that was approved through a 2015 plan development. Um they made some alterations to that. So, they are putting a gate over here as well to maintain access to that billboard for maintenance and things along those lines. Um, and then phase one would also include one polemounted sign um down

here in this southwest corner. Um, phase two would then include um potential canopy coverings, which you can see here. Um, it would cover these parking spaces and then also these parking spaces over here potentially. And then phase two would also include the addition of this um potential mixeduse building up here um on the north side of the property. That mixeduse building would be anticipated to be used for auto detailing, an office, and storage as an accessory extension of the Anytime Auto dealership that's located south of this property um that's located right down here. You can see some of the vehicles um of that. So, what staff is looking at with this one is there is I do also want to point out that there is um regulated 100-year flood plane on a significant portion of this property. So, any work that is done on this property will require a flood plane development permit and that does include grading. Um there is also flood way adjacent to this property to the north and to the east as well. That's kind of this um pink area that you see up here on the screen. This is a major drainage easement and is also in the flood way. The applicant is requesting three exceptions as part of this major amendment. Um the first exception that they're requesting is to reduce the minimum required rear yard and front yard setbacks on this south side um from 25 ft to 15 ft and then also to reduce the minimum required east sideyard setback from 25 ft to 24 ft. Um so the setback requirement in the light industrial district is 25 ft to all property lines. Um what they are proposing the reduction for is for this future canopy um and then also the future mixeduse building. Um and so when staff was looking at that since floodway does abut the subject property to the north and the east and then right ofway abuts to the south and the west um there could be some concern

for future structures encroaching into those required setbacks. Um so what staff is recommending with this major amendment is that this major amendment approve phase one of this project only which would be the um outdoor storage facility, the fence and the pole sign. And then future phase two um once there are more defined and final plans um for what phase 2 is going to look like, what those canopies will look like, what that building will look like, um then a subsequent major amendment comes in for phase two and we can look at a setback exception at that time. Um once we have a little bit more idea of what those structures are going to be like. So at this time staff is not in support of a setback reduction. um but it could be considered as a through a future um major amendment. The second exception that they're looking for is a landscaping reduction. Um so by code, this property requires 68,052 landscaping points. Um and the applicant has indicated that the maximum amount of landscaping that can reasonably pre be provided on this property um due to those flood hazard areas and then also a major drainage easement that restricts um hedges, trees, things like that being placed in that easement um would be 51,770 points. So they're requesting to reduce that um minimum required landscaping. Um the minimum required landscaping is somewhat dependent on the size of those future structures. We calculate landscaping points required um based on the lot size and then we reduce out the square footage of structures on the property. So given that the future size of those buildings may potentially change. staff is in support of a landscaping reduction up to 20% of what is required to allow for um future changes in the size of those structures, but also give them some leeway um on

what they could provide for landscaping. So rather than a defined point amount, um we would um ask that the exception be approved for an up to 20% reduction of what is required. And then the third exception that they are asking for is for an exception to allow gravel surfacing um for this outdoor parking uh or outdoor storage facility. So the only things that would be paved on this property would be the approach right down here to the south and then the parking spaces for the future um building. So this they have identified as three parking spaces right now. that number of parking spaces would be determined in the future based on what those actual uses come in as and what that square footage is. Um but they are just showing here that the parking spaces would be paved and the approach would be paved. Everything else um that you see in the gray area that would be gravel surfacing. So when staff is looking at this um we looked at the location of this property being at the intersection of a proposed minor arterial street and a principal arterial street and also the size of the graveled area. Um so the size of that graveled area is about 62,500 square ft. Um and so the location and the size does raise some concern for us with regard to fugitive um dust emission, trackout, runoff um things like that that are associated with a gravel parking lot of this size. Um there's no trackout control um on that approach right now and um fugitive dust mitigation measures um on a lot that size in that location. Staff does have concern for a gravel surface. Um, so at this time staff is not in support of a gra of a gravel surface for this property. Um, excuse me. So this is the property um as it exists today. This shows the billboard um that is on this property. There are no

changes to that billboard that are proposed. I do want to make that clear. Um that billboard is not being changed as part of this request. This is the proposed sign um that they are looking to put up. As you can see, that's a poll sign um about 120 square ft in size. This is looking um at the property from East Minnesota Street. So, you can see um this is the development to the north where these trees are. This is kind of that drainage channel that goes down in through there. This is looking east um from the property. Again, where these trees are, that's that drainage channel that goes in through there. This is looking across East Minnesota Street. So you can see over here is the Anytime Warehouse facility. Um and then this is Anytime Auto. Um so as I said, this property would be an extension of those two um uses. Again, East Minnesota Street looking east. This is Campbell Street looking north. So you can see there's some residential properties on this side of Campbell Street. Um there's an apartment complex. um across the street at the corner of Campbell and um East Minnesota Street on the other side. This is Campbell Street looking south and then at East Minnesota Street. So this side of Campbell Street has some more commercial um businesses, um warehousing, things along those lines. And on the back side of um Anytime Auto here, this is largely industrial on that side of the pro or on that side of the street. So with that, um, staff was looking at several factors when we looked at this one. Outdoor storage facilities and mixeduse buildings are permitted use in the light industrial zoning district. So overall, this is in harmony with development in the surrounding area and it does promote infill development on an underutilized property um that has been

making for quite some time. So staff is recommending approval of the major amendment um to allow this development um granting the exception for a reduction in landscaping up to a maximum of 20% um denying the exception to reduce the setbacks at this time um as that would come with a future phase 2 and um denying the exception for a gravel surface and then also limiting this major amendment to phase one of this project only. Um, so I will stand for any questions and um, the applicant is in the audience as well. Thank you. Appreciate the presentation. Any questions on this one or comments?

Haven, just maybe a comment too. Uh, u Minnesota is a major uh, street both to the west and to the east of here, but it apparently stops for a distance here. I don't know that it would have any direct impact on this particular application, but uh are there plans to extend uh fill in this piece of Minnesota Street that is not finished at this point? Mr. Chair,

as Cassie has put up, that is the major street plan and it does show that Minnesota Street will extend significantly east of this property and eventually at some time connect back to Katherine Boulevard. So as development occurs um the city will ensure that that right ofway is dedicated and built at that time and that's something that we look at and Cassie made said it as a part of her presentation. While East Minnesota Street that's existing in front of this property right now is on a major street plan uh a principal arter excuse me a minor arterial street. Um, it will eventually provide for another connection back down to Catherine.

Eric Hikkins.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, this is a good presentation. Um, I would uh I would make a motion the uh to approve the major amendment to a plan development overlay for the outdoor storage facility and mixeduse building considering the stipulations. I'm also understanding the denial of uh surfacing other than hard pavement as part of that and the setbacks and then an approval of an exception for uh landscape points. So, um hoping this is a thorough enough um motion. So, um I think given the context of the neighborhood and the complications of the flood plane, this is a this is a appropriate project and I think it would it would it would fit in this neighborhood. That's that's my motion. Thank you.

All right. Is there uh Mike Quasnney seconded that motion? Mr. Chair. Yeah. Um the representative of the applicant would like to speak if you don't mind. Yeah, go for it. Uh once you're up at the mic, please identify yourself.

Sure. I'm Jason Petty John with FMG Engineering. Um I want to make a comment on the gravel surfacing stipulation uh especially as it pertains to phase one of the plan development. Uh phase one is an outdoor storage facility. Um it has very very low traffic impacts. Uh people who store their campers sometimes access it once maybe twice a year. Um so the initial development is very very low impact. Um and it's been approved many many times for uses such as this to have an outdoor storage area that is gravel surfacing. Uh as we pointed out earlier in the presentation, uh this is a heavily encumbered piece of property with drainage easements and the flood plane on it. And uh it's very difficult to find an appropriate use for this property. Um, and this applicant has done a a great job of trying to develop something that brings value um with also u slightly beautifying and fitting in with the surrounding uh use of the property and uh not approving the outdoor storage with gravel surfacing would basically terminate the viability of this project. So I ask you to reconsider uh the gravel surfacing stipulation for phase one uh of the proposed development. Thank you. Uh, Kelly.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Before I vote, just quick question. It's hard to see on this lot layout. Is that a pedestrian sidewalk along Campbell? Um, as noted in here. Yes. So, they are proposing to install sidewalk along Campbell Street. They will be seeking a variance from city council to not install sidewalk along east Minnesota because there is no other sidewalk on it.

Gotcha. Uh yeah, anything to beautify. Oh, I know it's a tricky lot. Not many uses for it. So, you know, some development is better than no development on the lot. So, um just wanted to see if that was curbing got to go along with that obviously into Campbell with the sidewalk or is just a free floating pathway. Mr. Petty, John, it's just hard to see on here.

Curb and gutter exists along Campbell Street already. There there is some um difficulties with extending the sidewalk to the actual intersection. Uh the available rideway um is not quite there. um and the availability to put in ADA uh ramps uh just doesn't quite work as we transition from the urban curbon gutter cross-section of Campbell Street to the rural section of Minnesota Street which has no curbon gutter. Um, in fact, there's uh sidewalk on the other side of the street that just looped around their property but didn't actually put in the ramps because there's no ramps on the other side and it gradewise it just doesn't work in the intersection at this time. But we are proposing to put in the sidewalk on the the frontage where it makes sense to have at least some viability of future connection.

Gotcha. Thanks. Thank you, John Roberts. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, can I ask Vicky Fisser a question or two? Vicki, I'm trying to think back and I cannot think of an exception we have made inside of the city limits for a long time for gravel. I can think of quite a few of them for asphalt millings. Um, I can think of a few that were portions of gravel for parking or for storage or you know, stuff like that. But could you answer that question real quick for me? Uh, Mr. Chair, Vicki,

so I think that the only time we've ever allowed the gravel surfacing is when it's a heavy industrial site and there's track equipment that even the asphalt millings would get eaten up. But beyond that um and I don't recall because I can think of two exceptions for that in the last 15 years.

So my my concern on this is if we allow gravel we open up a can of worms towards you know who is the next one because it's a difficult piece of property to develop. There's a lot of deep difficult pieces of property to develop in Rapid City. And I think that we've been pretty adamant about, you know, asphalt millings. I mean, the it is a possibility to ask for an exception like that, but in my opinion, gravel is too much of a stretch, especially in a high residential area like this. So, thank you.

Thanks, John. Eric Hikus. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that, John, very much. Um, I'm sorry, but I'm not going to amend my motion. I'm I It's too It's too uh too much to put on. I'll withdraw the motion and we can ask for another one, but I'm I'm sorry. Not going to amend my motion mainly because of the this the precedence we're setting. So, so you can take my motion and we can vote or or I can withdraw it. You decide. So, sure. the applicant um would be willing to accept accept a revised stipulation that uh asphalt millings could be considered in lie of gravel surfacing.

I think we'd probably want to see that as part of a plan versus just saying it in the meeting today. We'd have to continue this item that would have to get submitted uh for review by public works because of the flood plane and drainage issues in this area. This this is this is a difficult one. So I I I guess probably put that back to the applicant. If if you're okay with looking at a continuence, you could request that we think about that for time to revise plans and have staff review those plans. Otherwise, we have a motion on the floor.

We would gladly accept a continuence. Vicki, do you have a kind of an idea of timeline of to suggest for that continuence? I think your next meeting, April 9th, would be sufficient. It I I know we've worked with you for years and you can get on things pretty quick. We'd probably need something the first part of next week. We can make an amended application. Okay. Uh, Haven, I've got you on the mic next, but

maybe that does answer my questions because I I just wanted to verify that the the issue here is the surface on uh inside the lot and I I I think we've kind of discussed that. So, I guess I I certainly would be in favor of of continuing it. Okay. Mike Quney.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh I think asphalt milling came up before uh and in a previous today. Um and so there still is dust that is developed or and and as John pointed out, this is kind of a residential um across the street there's there's residents. Is it still a concern even with asphalt millings? I I I'm I'm just not sure. Well, I'm we can sure continue. I I I don't know if asphalt millings is not is the solution to this with the residential across the street. I I I I'm still concerned.

I think that's fair to point out, Mike. Um the motion on the floor is to approve with the stipulations as listed. Eric, you said you'd be willing to withdraw the motion if we want to consider a different motion. Is that the best way to move forward? Or Eric can amend his motion to continue it. Eric. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will withdraw my motion and replace with continuence as our on the floor motion. Thank you. To the April 9th meeting. To the April 9th meeting. Thank you.

Does that work for you, Mike? Okay. All right. Any comments on the amended motion to continue to April 9th? Mike Quasn. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I guess I'll just say again, the asphalt milling I I I'm not sure if that's the solution here. So, going going forward. Mhm. All right. Uh seeing no other lights up, all those in favor of continuence until April 9th, please say I.

I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Item number 12. Do you need unplugged, mate? Do you need unplugged? We'll note just for the minutes here. Andrea Eric Hikus is exiting after voting on item 11. Item 12. He was on here. There he is.

Oh, and Alicia as well. Good morning. Uh Mike Dugan with finance and I have two uh um requests this morning. The first one here is amendment number one to an existing uh tax increment district of um High Point North Livestation. Uh this is the the boundary of the district um that was established uh in 2023. This is in southwest uh Rapid City just west of Sheridan Lake Road. Uh the zoning for this district is low density residential too. uh major street plan. Uh there's just collectors around it and residential roads, but the the principal material um just east of it would be Sheridan Lake Road. So the original approal approval in 2023 was uh the purpose of constructing a lift station, force and gravity sewer line extension that serves this uh High Point North subdivision, surrounding properties and future neighborhoods. The total eligible costs were just under $6 million uh with a little over two million in capital cost, 3.4 million in financing cost, then contingency professional fees, and then the city administration

fee. So, amendment number one of the project plan. This will not increase uh costs of the district. Um what the applicant is proposing to do with these uh additional costs is to uh decrease the financing costs that were allocated and then also decrease the costs the contingency costs and reallocate those to the c to the um construction costs of the district and the professional fees. Um this district is overperforming um and is anticipated to pay off a little quicker than the original project plan. There are currently 31 homes that are in either constructed in the planning or completed phase. There are additional upwards of 156 single family lots to construct on. In the original project plan, as anticipated with these initial constructions of these the phasing, the homes would be in the half million dollar range. These homes currently have assessments over a million dollars. So that's increasing the the increment generated with this district currently. So the drivers for the change, the increased costs um in this area is a little bit difficult for construction. They when they're constructing the lift station, uh they hit a solid sheet of bedrock in the lower basin. Uh this uh attributed additional cost for engineering retaining walls and rock which uh uh required blasting to prepare the the site. So what you see here with the diagram, the original construction costs were just under 2.1 million with his additional costs with this amendment would bring those to a little over 2.7 million. So a difference of approximately 644,000. So with the the financing costs um that were that allocated with his original approval, it's estimated that the the applicant will not need as much as that. So those will be decreased um along with

the contingency and that'll be put towards the construction cost and professional fees with these additional expenses. So once again um there are no additional costs um with this. Uh one thing to note in I believe it was March of last year with the policy the TIFF policy uh for rapid city change there is now an administration fee assessed to the county of 15,000. So with this amendment that'll be added as well and that that um will be part of the administration costs along with the cities that would pay out first when this tiff is certified. So the updated amoriz am ann amortization schedule. So based on the the applicant's application and they did work with their bank on this um to update this conservatively this is estimated to pay off in 2038 which would be year 15 of the of the tiff district. um they do note in their application uh that they anticipate this it could be year 10 to 12 that this pays off if the current trends continue with um the current increment increment and development that's being generated with this district. So here's some these pictures are a few months dated but just to kind of give you an idea of the retaining wall and the size that needed to be added to this um the for the lift station uh for it to be fully developed. here is you can see the you probably guess when this picture was taken how how much snow has been but uh it's kind of giving you an idea of the work that's been um taking place out there. So this is just more of an aerial view of the streets that kind of come in and the residential streets and the collector that does come in of what this development uh looks like. Um this would be as of October of last year. So, just to kind of end up here, the the

city currently has 19 active uh tiff districts. So, here's a breakdown. Currently, as as year end 2025, the state as a whole had 277 tax increment active districts. So, Rapid City represents about 6% of the total of the state. So, we're currently at 2.1% of the taxable valuation. As it sits now, uh the the max valuation total valuation allowable is 10%. for well underneath that with the changes legislature came with um in July 1st that'll change from 10% to 7.5% as allowable rapid study which is still well underneath that. So with that change we'd have approximately 500 million plus in base valuation that we could use towards uh future different dis districts. So we're still well underneath what is allowable. And here's a breakdown of the districts. Um, I don't have a maybe I can get a pointer going here. I'm not very good without a mouse. So, as you can see, uh, High Point North 89 right here. The original base valuation of this district was 222,000. If you look over here, this is from the Department of Revenue. This is the 2025 equalized tax valuation. So, they're just above 17 million on that evaluation. Um going back if you look at the original project plan for 2025 they anticipated the district would be worth 14 million. So that they are slightly over um of what was anticipated. And then if you go all the way over here, this is what's anticipated or this is what if all taxes are paid. The 2025 assessed value mean taxes paid in 2026 is this will just be bringing in just under a4 million dollars in increment for 2026 which is slightly uh above um or a

little bit above what the original predictions were. So this this district is overperforming than anticipated in the original um projections. So the recommendation for this for this amendment from the staff is to approve. Uh there's no additional costs. It's just reallocation of costs from financing the applicant and contingency um over to those uh those unexpected costs. Um with that uh I will stand for any questions. the applicant is in the audience um for any questions that may have for him. Thanks, Mike. Uh Karen Bowman.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. These are appropriate things to amend a a district for. So, I I uh I applaud the changes. So, I'm making a motion to approve the recommendation. I'll second.

All right. Karen made the motion to approve amendment one to this tax increment financing district. Vince seconded that motion. Any discussion on the motion? I just had one question. The revised uh financing costs show a 6.75 interest rate for like five years. Is that just reflecting the current lock of the rates and then the nine that's shown later is kind of a question mark. Depends on where rates are.

Yeah. So, with the original tax increment financing, Oh, to ask you your first part, the six and three/4ers. Yes. I check these rates annually with the banks to make sure they line up with our TIFF policy. I also check um with each bank annually, how much interest has been spent. So, I track that throughout the life to make sure they're not um over overspending. And if they are, we cut that portion off and the increment payments go straight to principal. But with the with these districts, how it was originally, you could do a max interest rate of nine. So that's how they were calculated. Once again, they're only repayments based on what's acred. So we don't pay that. But um with the the policy change, it's prime plus 3/4. Um the Wall Street Journal prime plus 3/4. So the max that the city will reimburse right now with prime being at 6 and 3/4 right now would be 7 1/2. So, if a bank was charging 10, they're only going to get reimbursed up to seven and a half.

Okay. Thanks, M. Yep. Anything else from the commission? The motion is to approve this amendment. All those in favor, please say I.

I. Any opposed? Motion carries. We're going to go to item 13. Item 13 is something I'm abstaining for or on again. So, I'm going to hand the gavl over to Vince. Good. Good. All right, our second uh request this morning, this was seen at the January 22nd planning commission. Um it's for a new district, Raptor Grass LLC redevelopment district. So just to kind of a little background here. So this was reviewed for the first time at January 22nd planning commission and with that the the recommendation to create the district was approved or recommended to move forward by the planning commission. Um so that went forward to the the next step to the legal and finance committee. The legal and finance committee at their January 28th meeting decided to table the resolution to create the district. The reasoning being they felt more comfortable having the project plan come forward with it look at the project as a whole at that time. So that was tabled at the legal and finance um uh committee. So also at the January 22nd planning commission the the resolution to adopt the project plan was continued to today's um uh planning commission meeting. The reason being is the planning commission wanted the applicant

um to work with the city on a revised uh application to you know bring the change the scope of the project potentially and to lower the costs um with this district. So the applicant uh has provided an updated application that we'll discuss uh this morning. So this is located on Mount Rushmore Road. It's two properties. The boundary will be just the two properties the applicant currently owns. It's currently a Philip 66 gas station. It's been in operation since the 1950s. So, what the application is seeking is TIFF funding to demolish and remove all the structures currently on the site. That's including the concrete. Underneath is three 10,000galon uh underground fuel tanks, dispensers. So, the the applicant would like TIFF funding to remove uh those underground fuel tanks and then conduct environmental studies. And if there's any uh required remediation, removal of soils, any site cleanup, the applicant would move forward with those cleanup costs as well. Then the applicant would also like to include uh TIFF funding for the reconstruction of the parking, new landscaping, lighting, and professional fees. So after removal of all the structures and any environmental remediation, the applicant would like to construct a 23 unit apartment hotel with 19 on-site parking spots. The new construction building um would be three levels. It's a 21bedroom um uh apartments. So these would be not apartments where you'd have an annual lease. These are hotel kind of extended stay living um kind of vacation type apartments that uh would have 21-bedroom apartments and then three twobedroom suites. So these would be furnished um like a typical apartment would be for you know extended stay you know hotel stay with the bedroom,

bathroom, living room, kitchen you know dishwasher, washer and dryer. It's estimated the project would support one manager, one assistant manager, and three clean and support staff. So, the estimated cost of construction is just over 5.7 million for the entire project. So, under the tiff, the new uh updated and council approved tiff policy, this does qualify as uh for infill development. So, they got to meet four of the the six requirements. This does not extend the existing development plan. It makes use of existing infrastructure which is water, sewer, streets. There's no extension of anything currently. Is generally surrounded by existing development which it is. It's you know downtown and is served by existing fire and ambulance service with the standard response time which it does. So this is the boundary map uh just off Mount Rushmore Road as you're coming into um the heart of downtown Rapid City. the boundary will just consist of the the the properties owned by the applicant. It is located and surrounded uh generally by this in the central business district major street plan. Uh it's just off of Mount Rushmore Road which is a principal arterial and just down from St. Joseph. So it's surrounded by uh collectors and principal arterials. This is current pictures of what the property looks like uh today. I'm sure you well known, you've driven by there many times. Um it's it's been here since the 1950s. The projected tax increment income, so this is anticipated to bring in over 20 years, a little over 1.7 million. The current value, assessed value of the property today is $485,800. So, with the new uh construction and then um a 2% just annual appreciation

rate, by year 20, it's anticipated that this um property, you know, as proposed by the the applicant would be worth um just over $8.3 million. So the project cost the applica applicant I'm sorry that's a little small on here but uh the capital cost would be the demo of the properties which includes all structures concrete and fuel tanks the parking lot construction the landscaping and lighting the agret ag architecture fees engineering fees environmental testing and the contingency costs of just over 631,000 so there would be an additional uh anticip anticipated 723,000 in financing costs using an interest rate of 7% which is allowable for the Rapid City TIF policy. The professional fees which is the the architectural and the uh engineering fees of 200,000 and then the administration costs of 40,000 which is 25,000 the city 15,000 the county. So this would be um a little over 1.3 million. If you remember from the original application, um the applicant was asking for a little over 1.9 million. So this is a $600,000 reduction in the overall the TIFF request. The amorization schedule, so this is anticipated to pay off in full in year 16. As you can see that it does include the capitalized interest which is in incorporated into the ask with the interest um of 723,000. So this this does meet the requirement of of being paid back in 20 years or less. The performer uh perform is on the left or your right hand side with the tiff uh request and the performer without the tiff request. So as you can see if you look through the perform the bottom line the the cash after debt service the debt

service coverage ratio of 1.15. It's a tight project with the ask um as you can see in the the column on next to that without it doesn't cash flow. Um so it this this shows right here it the project is not feasible without what um the funding needed that the applicant is asking for. So even with the funding it on banking requirements it would be a tight project. Um this is a layout. Um the the applicant is proposing having the underground parking um with this. So the parking would be on site and that's part of the TIFF funding is to is is to put in the um the parking this property. This would kind of be a layout of what the the one-bedroom apartment would look like and what the two-bedroom uh apartment would look like and kind of a layout of of the footprint there. Um, here's kind of uh what each each side of of the property, the north, south, east, west would look like. And I got uh and then there are once again the the active tiff districts. Um, Mr. Mr. Chair, if if you would allow I I do have some uh updated renderings I think would kind of help you give an I better if I can just give it a minute to switch out my computer to Absolutely.

Apologize for that. Thank you for allowing me to do that really quick. Apologize for that. So, here are um just some recently this is kind of um it may not be final, but this is kind of what the the project's anticipated to to look like. um a little bit behind than the last presentation there of kind of what it would look like here off um this would be off the dry the side. So there would be kind of the what the front off Mount Rushmore would would look like there. And then the access through I think that's Quincy into the parking structure there. And then come back out through the alley um back onto Mount Rushmore and kind of an aerial view of what the proposed structure would look like. Um we talked about um the 19 active districts here and the the currently

we're at 2.1% um which is well underneath what's allowable uh by statute. So the recommendation, so as proposed, the staff is um recommending a nigh as proposed. Um if you remember from the the planning commission um in January, there was two project plans. The staff was comfortable supporting the costs of demolishing the current structures, the concrete, the removal of the fuel tanks, the engineering fees, and then the environmental fees to be eligible for for reimbursement. Um, the staff does not support the the fees, the architectural fees and the fees associated with the lighting, landscaping, and the the parking, the parking. The reason why this being in the central business district, off-site parking is allowable. So, if the applicant wanted to have parking on site, that would be the responsibility of the applicant. There's only one project plan in front of you today, unlike um the the the original planning commission. They had two options. The reason being is discussing this with the applicant. This this project does not move forward unless the the the costs that are identified in the updated um application are included in the TIFF district. So there's just one application before you today. And with that, the applicant uh is in uh the audience and Mr. Chair, if it's allowable at some point, he would just like a couple minutes to speak um towards the project. Thank you. Uh we do have one uh speaker request. Uh do we have any questions from the commission? If not, uh Peter Schmidt and sir again would you identify yourself and of course so that for the record.

Hello. Uh Peter Schmidt. I'm the applicant. Um I'm the sole owner of Rapid Gas LLC. Uh do you mind can I go uh beyond a normal speaker request and do my presentation now? my again sir. Yeah, within I guess a time limit. Do you do you I need like seven, eight minutes. All right, I can come back up. With no objection, sir. Let me go ahead and Yes, go ahead, please.

Okay. Um so I I was here two months ago uh when you voted to continue it. I admit I was a little I felt a little defeated. Um it turns out it was the absolute right decision to do. I went back to work at the gas station. Uh the community showed up. I got a chance to speak to a lot of neighbors. Um, a lot of public have questions about how a TIFF operates. I went back to the drawing board on the project and and really appreciated the two months to kind of rethink everything, rethink my own business plan. Um, it it was a good two months. So, um, I learned my lesson uh that patience can be a virtue. Um, I also uh would like to thank Eric for recusing himself. We've been friends for a long time. Um he's been a volunteer for for 12 years on the planning commission. Uh if he voted it down, we would still be good friends. I just wanted to let you all know that, too. I'm o do what's best for the city of it's no hard feelings anyway. I can always find another uh project. It's it's just that's just how it works. Um but my goal this morning is to explain the new project, why we need the TIFF, and why I believe this is a good opportunity for the city. Um, most I'll I won't repeat what I talked about two months ago, just to keep it short. Oh,

it's okay.

Um, the gas station is a fun business. I enjoy it. I I work there. I like seeing people. It's just doesn't have a long-term future. Um, so I'm trying to get ahead of the game so it doesn't sit as a vacant uh property waiting for development too long. Um, so uh that that's that's why I proposed this new this new building. I'm in the hospitality business. I've owned a hotel, converted it to more longer term uh vacation rental type property. U went smaller scale. Uh really enjoy it. I I do feel like Rabbit City is a tourist town. Um the more options we have, more places for tourists to stay just the bigger that pie grows. Um when we shut down the gas station, the people are going to buy gas somewhere else. There's five stations on Mount Rushmore Road. There's two beautiful ones up Highway 16. So, it is good economic development I feel for um uh for the city. Um I my original application did have a retail spot like for a coffee shop. I'm not in that business. I I couldn't reach out to tenants. I don't know what the buildout out cost. So, I did leave that off this new project. Um the new project is just designed to fit the space a little better. It's not quite as tall. Hopefully, a little better, easier construction. Uh the units are a little smaller. I have more experience renting smaller units um versus big ones. It's it's better in the offseason in the shoulder. They're more in demand. So that was just a little business decision. Um but even with as the city mentioned, even with the tiff, it's a very risky um project that construction the big element is big variable is the cost of construction. Um and it kind of keeps it keeps going up every time um every time I turn around. Um uh let's see. Sorry, I get off uh script here. Uh the let me address the cleanup

cost that I have in there of $200,000. I have two bids for $100,000 to just scrape the whole the whole thing. The other $100,000 is to like what are we going to find? Um there is and the testing associated with it. There are programs um for uh tanks that leak. We'll use every available state federal funding source. Uh there was a there was one that went broke in the 80s. That one's not available anymore. We'll use everything we can find. I've been in contact with the DNR um representative about that. It the unknown is, you know, if you spill a couple gallons every year for 70 years, you know, that could be a big thing. Um, so I don't know if the tank release versus just dumping it behind the building 50 years ago. Um, we we just don't know. So if we don't need it, uh, that decreases the amount of the tiff. Um, I I do want to respectfully address the staff recommendation. U, there are some important issues that we agree on. It's just not feasible without the tiff. Uh, the city does benefit significantly both immediately in the stimulus. Um the excise and surplus tax is going to be close to $400,000. Building permits $30,000. Fees to the county and city are 40,000. Um you know, then general contractor, architects, engineers, they this it's a lot of money being spent the community instantly. And then after it's done, you know, we anticipate 70,000 a year in sales tax. And then of course once it's paid off, you have a $9 million building to assess instead of a I don't know, two or three that can be done without the tiff. So it is a good deal for the city. Uh no financial risk for the city of course. Um uh and the application follows all the city guidelines and and state city and state guidelines. We do differ on the parking, landscaping and architectural components. Uh from what I understand, similar costs have

been included in prior city center tips recently and there have been not there has not been a change in state law or local guidelines. So, there's no master class for someone like me to take on how to submit a TIFF application. So, you read the state laws, you read the city guidelines, you work with city staff, you look at the past applications all over town, you see how the city voted. Um, and I I feel that that I I don't I just I don't understand how how the city staff came to their recommendation to deny um on that. So, but they do put a lot of time into it. So, I might just not understand. I might be missing something. Um, I also watched the uh urban 3 consulting's analys uh study done at the legal and finance meeting from December 10th. I was very impressed by it and after the meeting I was just I kind of got you know more excited about the project because it is it seemed to me what they were uh proposing is a good fit for the town. It's higher density, uh, strong tax generation per acre. It's located in the city center. You use existing infrastructure. Um, it's there's no, we're not increasing future liability for the city. The consultant did say the most profitable building in town by far per acre is the Alex Johnson Hotel. And it sounded like close behind it was the block five development. That was a tiff. Um, so I I feel like mine is a a good investment uh for the city. Um, uh, I think I pretty much covered everything. Um, I just want to say I'm I am the develop I'm not a collecting a developer fee on this. I am local. I run the gas station. I'm going to run the hotel when it's done. Um, you know, the bank payment on this is $35,000. That's a quite a quite a chunk. Um, so it is a risky project for me. Well, I'll be

working for free for five years, then, you know, maybe in 10 I'll get a return on this. Um, I'll be 60 years old. It'll be just something for my kids to deal with. Um, but I do believe in the location. I believe in Rapid City. Um, and I I like this project. Any any questions, please uh don't hesitate. Are there any uh questions from the commission? And the chair recognizes Karen.

Sorry. Thank you. I appreciate that. Um this is a a a much improved presentation. Uh, and I I like the fact that the the building is a little slightly smaller and it's been revised and it looks a lot better. Um, I guess my comments go back to the city's recommendation and over the years I just believe that landscaping and some of those other things that we are saying the city is saying we don't want the tiff. I agree with that. I think the project if we could take those out I think it would be I would vote for it. not crazy about the parking, but you know, it's part of downtown. I guess even if you have parking issues, I guess it's it's part of the deal, but it's kind of a congested area. But I think it would be an addition to the downtown, the building itself, and and what's going on. But I I do not think we should pay for landscaping or have that in my on a tiff. And I think that's something that the public would start looking at and say, "What are you guys doing?" So, I agree with the motion or the recommendation by the city and I just wanted people to know what my stats are about that. So,

chair recognizes Kelly.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. You know, this is a really tough one. Some of these are tricky and I I'm going to agree with Karen and the staff's recommendation and the reason for that is, you know, I just don't think it's a proper application at TIFF. Um, couple of reasons. One reason is when you assume that property, you purchase the property, you had to know that if there was any other use for that lot other than a gas station, there'd be costs associated with remediation, removal, environmental. I mean, you had to have known that you're taking on that that category and that risk. The second thing is, you know, when I look at a tiff, I look at the the impact for the the community at large. You know, the overall benefit is the benefit to the overall community and mass worth the the commitment by the city. and I just don't see it on this one. Uh so I'm I'm going to agree with the staff on this one to deny. No offense. I mean, great design, great project, great intent, but I just don't see the the reasoning for the tiff to be created for this one.

Chair recognizes Haven.

Uh thank you. And I I would agree with what Kelly just said. You know, my concern is is uh the use of the tiff for uh not for public improvements, but for demoing the existing property. And you know, I think we're going down a slippery slope when we start to do that. So, that part of it really uh concerns me. I guess my my other question I suppose would be for Peter. Uh there was some financial information that was put up on the screen. Uh showing uh the economics of the property with the tiff and without the tiff. And I I always kind of question, you know, how you determine your income on uh those proposals. Uh uh the the one on the right shows it doesn't quite meet the the cash flow apparently. Uh and I I guess I can't u analyze it myself just by looking at that how you determine what your income was and whether that's going to be sufficient to meet your your uh your expenses and debt service.

Uh uh hold on, Mr. Schmidt. Let me let me get that microphone on over here uh for you and we'd like your response. Uh I

Yes. Uh Peter Schmid, uh Havenstuck. Good, very good question. I own um nine 10 similar smaller Airbnbs in town, so I use that data. Um I assume I can get a little more rate um in this building uh than my other ones. Um uh oh, what was the other one I used? Oh, and then the occupancy. I increased the occup the uh occupancy rate on the smaller units because uh it's a little longer season. You can get better occupancy in the winter, but that that is a tough one. I mean, if I knew exact revenue and exact construction cost, um it would be more comfortable for me for sure. Uh and to address Kelly's um and and the the planning commissions, I could definitely develop this lot. I with a smaller building. I mean, there's a a coffee shop or a sandwich shop or, you know, some little um building. I could I could use it for my own business. Um I I definitely have other options for this lot. This is the best one for the city, the return for the city. This is this is the best one. And this one won't happen without the full TIFF. Um the the landscaping costs being broken out. So, so I've I've seen plenty of tips where it's just discretionary recently when I did it as landscaping. At least, you know, a good chunk is going to be spent beautifying the area. So, that and and the parking, you know, at least the neighbors aren't going to be upset that their street parking is taken up even though I don't have to provide it. Um, so, no, I I get it. It's I I preferred to break those out instead instead of doing discretionary is what I'm trying to get at. So, does that answer any other question for

me? I don't have any other uh comments or questions from the commission at this point. Uh look for a motion.

We have a motion from Kelly to deny. I'll second. And we have a second from Karen. All those in favor? I'm sorry. Any further comments? There we go. Haven.

Well, it is a this is a tough one. I you know, I really like the project and you know, it it uh it looks good. uh you know there there I think is definitely some uh demand for that sort of thing in in that area. But uh I have difficulty I guess with the use of the tiff for what is being proposed here to to uh basically demolish the property and remove the tanks.

Karen,

thank you. I just want to make a comment after Haven. I I think some of the issues to remove the tanks, those things are are eligible costs in my opinion. They've kind of belong in a tiff. It's the extra things is the architectural fees and those kinds of things that just I just don't want the public to see that we're going down that train and everybody else will come in and want the same thing. So, I I just am concerned about that. So, that's why my, you know, motion to or second my motion to deny Any further comments? We have a motion on the table uh to deny with a second. Oh, a motion from uh Kelly and a second from Karen. All those in favor of the motion say I.

Any oppose? The motion passes. And I'll turn this back over to Eric here.

Thanks, Vince. I don't know if there's anything left on the agenda, though. Anything from the staff today to add? We're all good. All right. Any general items from the commission? All right. Karen made the motion to adjurnn and Pat seconded that motion. All those in favor? Oh, Vince, sorry.

No, I I just want to make it clear that I I I know uh Mr. Schmidt mentioned uh Eric's theme during his presentation and just to make it clear that Eric made it clear that this is everything was above and abort uh and none of this was discussed with Eric prior to our meeting and uh this is well thought out. Uh I mean you have some really good ideas Mr. Schmidt and uh you know I look forward to to seeing what you come up with next. All right. Thanks Vince. A motion on the floor is to adjurnn. All those in favor please say I. I. All right. Thanks, Vince.