Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I have a request to speak on item one from James. Anyone? Item one, request to speak up.

Right seats are represented.

Yeah, let's move the shakers.

Oh, sorry. That doesn't mean .

I'll just clarify that.

morning everyone welcome to the june fourth twenty twenty six zoning board of adjustment meeting starting at seven oh one in the morning if any member of the audience wishes to speak to an item on the agenda today there are speaker request forms located on the table to the left of the dais 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 that side of the room The public hearing on item number one, the approval of the May 21st, 2026 Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting minutes is hereby opened.

Motion to approve.

Okay, Vince made the motion to approve those minutes and Mike Crosby seconded that motion. Any discussion on the motion to approve? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Item number two, 26VA011.

I'll take that. Item number two, we're requesting to be continued at the applicant's request. So it will be heard at the June 25, 2026 meeting. OK. Thank you.

And I'll second.

All right, Mike Quasney made the motion to continue to June 25. And Vince seconded that motion. Any discussion on the motion to continue? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Item number three.

All right, good morning. Good morning, Chair and Commission. Item number 26VA012 is a request for a variance to allow a six-foot fence in lieu of a four-foot fence in a second front yard located at 1123 11th Street. This property is located on the corner of Clark street and 11th street. And the applicant is proposing to install a six foot privacy fencing around the backyard area of this single family residence. The zoning code allows for a six foot fencing along the rear and side of the property, but limits fencing in a front yard to four feet in height. The code does allow for a six foot fence in a second front yard when the fence is set back a minimum of 10 feet from the property line. However, this fence will be located 4.9 feet from the South property line. Therefore a variance is required to allow for a six foot fence here. This property is on medium density residential. And is identified on the city's future land use plan as urban neighborhood. Um, this property is located off of 11th street and Clark street, which are both local streets on the city's major street plan. And this is a site plan showing what is being proposed. So the variance request only applies to the bold, the bolded fencing area to the south along Clark Street there. This is a 35.7 foot stretch of fence to be installed there along that Clark Street frontage. There are no site triangle issues with the location of this proposed fencing and also no drainage or easement concerns This is the proposed fencing material that will be used And this is a picture of the home showing both sides on 11th and Clark and This picture really shows better where this proposed variance requested portion will be. This is the south side of the home along Clark Street, and the fencing will enclose that walkway portion from the detached garage to the porch entrance to the home off of Clark. And that is going to provide both privacy and security as well as to help to fully enclose that backyard for pets. This is a picture looking to the west down Clark Street and a picture of the front of the home from the east side. As you can see, there is an alley that runs along the west side of the property. So not only is it a corner lot, but it also does have alley access off the back. And this is just looking across the street to the south. And then I'm going to go back to the site plan here. It won't let me go back. So with that, staff is recommending approval of that variance request, finding that the location of the single family dwelling and the detached garage on the property create a special circumstance which prevents that second front yard fence being 10 feet from the property line. and that that six foot fence height meets the intent of the zoning code as it does not cause any site triangle, easement, or drainage issues. The design is residential in character and the location of the fence does not appear to be injurious to the neighborhood. The requested variance does appear to be the minimum adjustment necessary to maintain that desired level of security and privacy. So with that, staff is recommending approval of the variance request to allow a six foot fence height in lieu of the four foot in the second front yard. And I do have, I will stand for any questions. Also the applicant is here in the room if you have any questions.

Thank you.

Eric Heikes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I received the mailer on this one. This one's near my home. I walk by it regularly. I think this is a nice update. I would move approval, citing the situational circumstances and that this is the minimum adjustment required.

All right. That was Alicia that seconded Eric's motion. Mike Quasney.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Can I see where that fence is going again? You had a plan there. It showed exactly.

Yes, I'll bring up that site plan again. Sorry, having a little technical difficulty this morning. Just a minute.

Yeah.

Let's go out, maybe, and come back in.

OK.

I just wanted to. How did you do that?

But it's only going forward. It's not going backward. Mm-hmm. That's what I was talking about. Oh. There we go. Perfect. Thank you.

Okay. I just wanted to make sure that it wasn't going out beyond the garage. I didn't think it was, but it would be a sight triangle from the alley if it was. So I just wanted to see that. So the fence looks great. So no problem.

Thanks, Mike. Anything else from the commission on this item? The motion from Eric, seconded by Alicia, is to approve the variance for the fence. Seeing no other lights up. All those in favor of the variance, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. That's our last item on Zoning Board of Adjustment. Today I'd look for a motion to adjourn this meeting and move to Planning Commission. Second. All right, Karen made the motion to adjourn. Vince seconded that motion. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All right, we will now start the Rapid City Planning Commission meeting for June 4th, 2026. This meeting we're going into at 7.10 in the morning. Again, if any member of the audience wishes to speak to an item on the Planning Commission agenda, please grab a speaker request form from the table along the left wall 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. I'm also gonna note we have a number of speaker request forms today. We're gonna be running this like the city council where there's a three minute time limit on speakers. I believe the stopwatch will show behind me. You'll get to see that and at the point where you hit three minutes, I'll start asking people to wrap up their remarks. Items one through 12 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 items. Item 11, 26UR008, and item 12, 26PD008. The Rapid City Planning Commission's action on these two items 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 12 that staff would like removed from the consent calendar for separate consideration?

It's five through eight, please.

Okay. Are there any items, so that would leave one through four and nine through 12 that any planning commissioner would like removed for separate consideration? And are there any items one through four or nine through 12 that any audience member would like removed for separate consideration? Five through eight are the GCC items, just to identify those for the audience purposes. All right, the chair would then entertain a motion to approve items one through four and nine through 12 in accordance with staff's recommendation.

All right, Eric Heikes made the motion to approve those items and Karen seconded that motion.

Any discussion on the motion? All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries.

All right, item five.

Thank you chair planning commission. I'm going to present on both all five through eight rezones cause they're kind of tied together, but we'll take action individually on them. Um, sorry, this, the portrait doesn't show up super well on here, but the, this is a map of the four different reasons. They're all the GCC cement plant properties. This land, um, was originally owned by the state. The cement plant was developed in the 1920s and over time grew to this area. In 2000, the state was planning on selling the cement plant. And in doing that, in a special legislative session, they adopted a state code. It's under essentially the planning for municipalities. that the land that they have owned over the years which is every parcel that you see on this map is zoned in conformance with what they were using it at the time which was cement plant and mining and extraction so you've seen the cement plant ordinance for the district that would be created that's the area in orange and blue down here um i will note there are a couple properties that are not being recognized as the it's sdcl section 11 430 which is where that zoning requirement comes in at this in the state law but these three this one is light industrial currently and these two are ldr i will note all three of those properties were owned and operated by the state at the same time So they still fall under the state provision that zones them in conformance with cement plants and mining and extraction, which is why they are on the list for rezoning as well. So the orange and the blue would be the new cement plant district. There is the difference between that and mining and extraction because they really allow similar things is GCC agreed to take out the blasting and the kind of more of the explosive nature of mining and extraction. recognizing those areas are developed. Um, so they're very similar zoning districts. The rest of this, the green and the pink is mining and extraction. I'll show you some of the maps we have today. When the state adopted that, that legislation that it is zoned in conformance with what they were doing and the state commission plant or the cement plant commission actually put out a resolution that identified the uses on that property being cement plant operations, mining and extraction, transportation related facilities. and all of the accessory uses to that. So we had updated the map. This used to be zoned public, and I think that's how it switched from public to just recognizing the state law. These were zoned, but since the state owned them, they did not have to come through us for permits. Again, those lots, although they are showing on our zoning map as LDR1, and light industrial down here, they still are covered by the state law that allows them to continue that use whether we rezone this property or not. I do believe that rezoning it, and this is what the map would look like at the end of the day, we do have some caveats up here and here where land has been sold and is in different ownership, so we'll need to do some cleanup items on those. But this shows you what the map would look like at the end of the day. And it reflects the current uses of the property. So I think it's important to rezone the land to show the neighbors that those are uses that are permitted today so that they acknowledge that that would not become residential in the future, at least for the LDR properties up here. The majority of this aligns with the future land use plan. I don't know that it was recognized that this was owned by the state as well as GCC when the future land use map was set. So that is the only one that is not aligned with the comprehensive plan future land use map. And you also note that there are a lot of future connections that go through this property if it's ever reclaimed and plotted. I do want to go back for a second. Yeah, we'll continue. So just to get an idea of the improvements, this is the cement plant area that would be rezoned cement plant. Um, I apologize. It's difficult to get pictures of this property from public right of way. Uh, but you'll notice the different improvements they have on the cement plant end. Um, and then we're getting closer up to that, uh, West Chicago side again, along West Chicago and what's around there. And then we're going to go up to Sturgis Road. And this is in that northern portion and the surrounding area of what it looks like out there. There is some topography as well. And again, this is at that Hidden Valley Road site at the northern property that we're looking at today. So I'm going to go back to the maps here. So staff is recommending approval, recognizing that these rezones are consistent with essentially implementing the state law as we've been directed to do. I know there are a number of people in the audience. The applicant is also here if there's any questions related to operations. I will note this area is Not necessarily near term. It's more of a long term if they need it type of a thing. So I know there's a lot of questions about mining in that area. We did get clarification on that. It's not necessarily a near term option. So I'll stand for any questions.

All right. Thank you. We do have a number of speaker request forums on this one. So if the commission has questions for staff, I guess volunteer them now. And if not, we'll go to the speaker requests. Haven?

Thank you. Maybe you could explain a little more this issue of the state law and what the city can do In light of the fact that there is a state law, I guess, I'm a little not quite clear on that issue.

Yeah, so the state law says that all of the land that was owned by the state, once it's owned by a private business, since it has since 2001, they zoned it in conformance with what it was being used for. So all of the cement plant uses and the mining uses are today allowed on that property as if the state owned it and were able to do what they wish with that property. We're trying to reflect that in our own zoning code so that we can gain regulatory things like setbacks. There is noise, seismic, as well as the dust is regulated by the state, but it is called out in the code. So we do gain some regulatory factors when it comes to having a district in our zoning code that's applied to this land on top of the state allowing the uses in the first place.

The two parcels here that are shown in pink are now zoned LDR, low density residential.

Yeah. So on the zoning map, they've always been shown that way, but in looking at the deed history on those properties, they were part of the original sale of the cement plant. So that, that section 11, four 30 still applies to them.

And so if the zoning on those two lots stay low density residential, are they allowed to mine that property with that zoning?

Mr. Chair?

Vicki?

So this really falls back into our legal non-conforming regulations. When the state owned this property and they operated the cement plant from the site, They could preempt us and when they sold it in 2001, the new owners could continue on under the legal non-conforming status. When they wanted to do some improvements, they needed a building permit. We could not issue a building permit because we did not have a zoning district that said cement plant. And in working with them, and I must say, Jessica has done an excellent job meeting with them at length to make sure that we are capturing the right zoning in all areas of the use. that in many instances was initiated by the state and is now owned by GCC Dakota. And those two in pink have been a part of what the state owned and operated as a part of the cement plant. So again, That legal nonconforming status is what we have to lean into. For now, knowing that we are in a position where we need to bring this into compliance with our adopted regulations so that we can get some more regulatory control over all of this area. The zoning that has been brought forward would capture the uses that are there today. And just know that I think that's something that for the audience, too, is that GCC is not proposing to expand different uses in different areas. It's just really maintaining the uses that are there today.

And you mentioned the city having some regulatory control. Maybe you could explain that a little more. If they would commence activities on these properties, what would they be required to meet with regard to city regulations?

Absolutely. So currently, without there being a zoning designation on the bulk of this property, we can't apply the parking regulations, the landscape regulations, setbacks, height restrictions, lot coverage. We don't have the tools in the toolbox to do that. By zoning this to recognized zoning districts, and council did act on second reading to create the cement plant district. Itself and a portion of this is being rezoned to cement plant district We now have the ability to ensure that as this property continues to improve over the years It's meeting the same regulations that all other properties within the city have to meet All right, thank you Alicia I

Thank you, I wanted to disclose to the other members that a neighbor did call me on this This item and they expressed concerns around the time they were notified and they also live adjacent to the portion that Haven just mentioned so the It's not item number eight. So I'm wondering if you have any images on Hidden Valley Road and to learn a little bit more and It seems like this one, since it isn't consistent with the comprehensive plan and just thinking it's tricky to rezone something that is existing for residential use. She also stated concerns around what you mentioned, Jessica, with just thinking about noise and seismic activity and dirt. Wondering that particular one of these five through eight seems the trickiest for me in terms of this rezone.

Lisa, do you mind, can I ask that we take these, we got a presentation on all four of them. If that's on, particularly on eight, maybe we could run through the speaker requests, because I think they cover everything, and then we'll run through five through eight, if that is okay with you.

Mike Kwasny. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Vicki, you said this is cement, you called it cement plant district. That seems like it's a new type of district. How's that compared to any other district or what's different that it has cement plant district versus industrial or?

Mr. Chair, Jessica, could you put up the graphic that shows the actual area of the portion being rezoned cement plant? So when Jessica was working with the new owners, there was a lot of discussion about whether or not that should just be heavy industrial. because you could do those kinds of uses in heavy industrial. But this is more limiting because it's specific to cement plant activity, whereas heavy industrial, as all of you are aware, has many other uses that could be allowed. So to their credit, they wanted to ensure that the uses that are existing on the site today are what's preserved and captured to come forward. So that is the reason why we created that cement plant district. Planning Commission, you saw it probably two months ago. And then it's been to two readings to city council since then. But this is the outline of it. And can you just use your cursor, Jessica, to see where the residential lots are? Are they shown on that graphic? Are they further to the north?

Yeah, the Hidden Valley is much further to the north on Sturgis Road. They're adjacent to mining and extraction, which are the other reasons.

The only thought that I had was that we have some requests, and if they understood why there is a different district and what the differences, how that would affect them is why I brought that up.

That's a good question.

And I'll note too on the cement plant district, if it were to be a different mining and extraction or heavy industrial or the other two options we had in our code, they allow a lot, like Vicki said, a lot more uses than we would necessarily want to look at in this area. So the cement plant district itself just lists the uses that they have always been doing since the state owned the cement plant. So it's aligned with that state law where it says, you are allowed to continue to do the uses that have always been on this property. So we just made a list of all of the uses that have been on that property. So it's a more limited list than any of the other industrial zoning districts.

Okay, thank you.

Kelly? Thank you. Just a quick staff question. So this has been legal nonconforming from 2001 until today. Is that correct? So when they were to build in the past, how have they been able to go about the permitting process, QC, inspections, et cetera? Who had oversight of all the construction up until now? And how does that contrast with the city's? I support the city having sway over this. So how does it contrast currently? What have they been doing up until today, contrasted with what the city's going to do.

So from 2001 until recently, they've just been maintaining the operation. And that operation itself has to meet federal and state regulations. And so that's been the oversight for the operation. When they're looking at that structural expansion, that requires the building permit. And that's when it came to our attention that, We didn't have the ability to issue a building permit.

Gotcha. So it'll still have federal and or state oversight, but then the city will just issue permits within there. Okay. That makes sense. Thanks.

I can't help myself. There was an enormous expansion there 10 years ago. I mean, one of the biggest cranes in South Dakota at the time was located there for a year. Was that not permitted? Was that just done at their discretion?

You know, that could have very well been an error on our part, where we did issue a permit without working through this. But we get better every day. And our new skilled planners don't let those things slide that maybe in the past would have gotten through.

Gotcha. OK. Vince? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Oops, sorry.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair. No, I guess my questions are on the same line as what Haven has been asking or what we're asking for. When we talked about this was approved back in 2000, it was recognized that the property at 4245 Hidden Valley Road is adjacent to a land zone for residential use. And what kind of considerations for mining operations that above ground and below ground were taken at that time when no other changes or protection was made for that property?

If we can have the applicant speak, I don't know if you guys. Can you repeat it for them, please?

Sure. Well, what I'm saying is that this was reviewed, as we've already pointed out, and we understood that that land was adjacent to residential property. But at that point in time, we also have to respect the property's expected use, which had included the area's dust and noise regulations. And I'm wondering what was reviewed at that point in time, because we are here today revisiting this issue again.

So the property was zoned LDR when it was annexed. It's probably, and I don't know the history on this, that the state had acquired it at some point. With the state being able to not, they can do work on any property without falling under the regulations of the city, so we've always just left it as is. But it was part, if you look at the deeds, all of those properties that are shown here have the same deed on them, which means it falls under that state law that zones it in conformance with the mining cement plant and transportation uses that were identified by the state cement plant commission and so we were looking at it from from that angle of these uses have always been allowed because the state was always either planning to do them or was doing them in some part so there's we recognize that there it is surrounded by more low density residential areas but it it's almost circumvented to be able and it could be left the way it is and they could still do those uses. I just want to make that.

Sure. I understand that that's the purpose that we're here today because the city needs to review the process if they intend to continue their mining operations, which can impact those residents that are now there that wasn't aware of this six years ago.

Yeah, and that's why I noted that it's almost important to zone it to a district that reflects the uses that are allowed there by the state laws. So we're making the map match what has already been kind of circumvented in our code through the state law. Yeah, and then. But in recognizing we didn't realize this in the future land use plan, realized this was part of that mining land that was to the north there as well. OK, thank you. Yeah, it's.

ERIC HIKAS?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Kind of piggybacking on Vince and Kelly's comments, as far as air quality, does this fall under our purview then as a city, by the state? Is that correct? This is regulated by the state. Okay. Just clearing that up. That would be helpful. I would love to hear this. Thank you.

Hi, Morgan Twombly, environmental planner. Everything that occurs on the GCC site is with Danner. They have a Title V permit. As soon as they enter public right-of-way, then it's our purview as the city. I know that's deeply unsatisfying, but that is how the system works. We don't have permitting authority once the state has a permit with them.

Okay. Our office is near this location. Dust is an issue in this area. I'm understanding we're crushing and blasting and possibly burning tires out there now. Is that in the long-term plan? I'm going to voice my concern for that aspect and the fact that we do not control it within the city or have a word or a voice in this. It's going to the state and the state to manage. So anyway, just throwing that out there.

All right, I'm going to go to the speaker request forms here. These are, most of them are written for multiple items. If there's a particular item that you wish to address, just say so when you come up and I'll call you back for that item. But we'll start with Angela Hansen.

Good morning. I live at 5524 Hidden Valley Lane. And so I wish we could leave the schematics up just so I can show Hidden Valley. I've lived there for 16 years. I'm a little confused of what they're talking about as Hidden Valley Lane, as that that was always the way that it was. If you're looking at Hidden Valley Lane or Hidden Valley Road, to the right of that, there always used to be an old farmer that owned that. And so I'm a little confused of what we mean by that that was always owned by somebody else. To the left of that, my understanding is there is still a house there. I believe that that land was purchased. If anybody has any... direction on that, that would be great. As far as the road goes, is the road going to remain open for Hidden Valley Road if both sides of it are now owned by GCC? That's my other concern. The blasting in the area, I live at the very top of the hill on Hidden Valley. My backyard is Pete Lean's quarry. We have blasting at all hours. I was woke up this morning at 4 AM by the siren going off down the road. And also we have trucks. They built a road back behind our home and we have trucks going up and down that dirt road. It is a constant dust, constant. My house is 1968 and we have no air conditioning. So we have to leave the windows open in order to be able to cool the home. And so we have got a constant dust in our area. It's very concerning that It's just going to be additional dust control, additional blasting. I'm worried about our water district. We have a very small water district up there. It's called Hidden Valley Water District. I believe there's 18 to 20 people that are on our district. So we also have encumbrances on that. My biggest concern, though, is Hidden Valley Road. So if Hidden Valley Road is going to be taken away from us by implementing both sides of that road into mining, then we're losing our access to Sturgis Road. And we would have to go down through, down by the cathedral, that whole area, or I'm sorry, I'm not saying that cathedral, but down by the monastery and the Good Samaritan and go all the way out in order to be able to access Sturgis Road. So those are my concerns. I hope that we do a little more research before implementing this. Thank you.

Thank you. Excuse me. Jim Anderson?

Good morning, council. Jim Anderson, Rapid City resident for 30-something years. I actually work at the cement plant as a process engineer. I was the environmental engineer there for 10 years prior. I filled out the speaker request form in case there were any questions you had that I could answer.

Okay.

Thank you. We may call you back up. I'm just going to run through the rest of the public comment. Eric Kuhn? Oh, I see you got four any questions on there as well.

Exact same for any questions that we may have. Yeah.

Gotcha. All right. Thank you. I'm not going to take a try at your last name, but is there a Scott that wanted to speak to item 8? Yes, thank you. Maybe you could give your full name once you're up.

Sure. My name's Scott Armstrong. I'm a local attorney here. Some of you already know me. And I have been a property owner in vicinity just south of the Hidden Valley property for about 30 years now. So a couple of things. When we start talking about legal nonconforming in 11430, my reading of the statute is that any land that was not owned by the cement plant in 2000 when it was sold does not fall under the purview of the statute. The 4245 property, Hidden Valley Road, which, by the way, I tried to research it online. The physical address doesn't even seem to exist. We're trying to do a chain of title research to see who actually owned that land in 2000. Obviously, 11430 was in anticipation of the sale to Guanacastro Concrete in 2001. But... I have a number of concerns. And even if it does, even if Guanacastro or excuse me, the state owned that property in 2000, that land has changed significantly in the last 26 years. We have a gentleman here from the diocese that wants to speak to the fact that there is, he owns the school there. There is senior housing that has been developed there. There's a subdivision that has gone up back in that area to the south of it. And for years, I have had to deal with what can only be described as an ongoing public nuisance by Hills Materials and what is now Simon. And they have been reclaiming their property. They had a five-year reclamation plan that was approved 15 years ago, and they're still not finished. There's a number of concerns regarding this use. The use that I recall from the Hidden Valley Road property, I've never seen anything there but a wheat field for years. And then a few years ago, a Quarry 2 sign went up, maybe two years ago. So in terms of consistent with its existing use, well, its existing use looked like ag low density residential at the time. So, you know, I have a couple more comments to make. I see I have 15 seconds left. I don't know that I can make them in that amount of time. I would just ask for an extension of my time.

unfortunately, we're going to keep rolling through this. I, uh, we will try to get you back up if, if one of the commission members has questions for you. How about that?

That's fine. I, I, obviously I'm asking that specifically the 42 45 hidden Valley road property. I'm asking that it remain low density residential. It's consistent with its existing use. And, um, There's a lot of properties that are going to be affected by this because these guys don't stop until they hit the ground water.

Mr. Armstrong, thank you.

Thank you.

James Schaffers.

Good morning. Yes. My name is James Shafers, and I represent the Diocese of Rapid City. And we own the property back on St. Martin's Drive to the school and the retreat center. So just so that you know, there has been the mining and stuff to the north of us, of our property. like angela was saying they blast anytime all hours of the of the day and that shaking our buildings is causing mortar and the rock between the rocks and stuff to fall we have to keep dusting and cleaning up the floors so the more they the closer they get and everything like that it's just it's a continual problem and the dust for the school and the kids And the retirement center, I would just assume, we would like to see it stay minimal density residential instead of more mining. So I yield the rest of my time to Mr. Armstrong.

Thank you. I don't know that we necessarily allow that from the audience, but such is life. Lillias Jardings.

Good morning, everybody. My name is Dr. Lillias Jarding. I live fairly near to the site, within a mile. I can hear the operations from the Simon property. I have a couple of comments, and some of them have been sort of covered a bit, but the wording that I heard from Staff was that they were talking about bringing the land into conformity with current use they were talking about make the map match what is already there and They were saying this use was always allowed that is not true for the property off strip west of surges road as you saw from the pictures that's open land with trees and So those statements don't fit here. Maybe they fit other areas, but not the area off Sturgis Road I've kind of sort of wonder why and this wasn't totally come explain to me Why this This process waited 26 years for somebody to try and do it That shows me that it's not urgent and that this is a decision that could be put off pending more information such as the legal issues that mr. Armstrong raised The other thing that concerns me as someone who lives in that general area is that if the land west of Sturgis Road by the school and the retreat center and the senior housing is Was made into mining zoning that sets a precedent that they would be going west of Sturgis Road and and the Neighborhood lore is that the outdoor campus area which is right to the south of that and west of Sturgis Road Was going to be developed and the developer decided that that would not be appropriate use of this land West of Sturgis Road because residential development has occurred around the area so Those are the immediate concerns that I have about this This particular property between Hidden Valley st. Martin's and Sturgis Road I don't want to see mining move further west into our neighborhood and and I think Stopping it where it is is probably the best use so I'd like to ask that this be this decision be put off until we have full information and if that's not something that you would like to do that that part of the Project stay low density residential. Thank you.

Thank you All right, that's our last request on these items. I guess I'd request maybe we could put up the land use plan, or not the land use plan, but the one that shows where these applications are located, the different colored map, and then we can start with item five, and I think it'll help to take these separately at that point. So item five, two, six, RZ008 is the yellow to the lower part of the map, am I correct?

Correct. Do you want me to pull up the map just for each one as we go through them?

If you have that, that would be great.

Mr. Chair, so listening to the comments, because we always appreciate when the neighborhood shows up, it's important that we work well with our applicants as well as the community as a whole. So the rezone applications, there is the one, the rezone from LDR to mining and extraction that is the eastern lot. that is currently nestled amongst other mining and extraction. In that one application to LDR1, they are proposing to rezone two parcels from LDR. My suggestion on that one, and I know I'm jumping out of turn here, but I think we should continue that item, get with the applicant, and see if that western lot, if there isn't a better rezone than mining and extraction for it. The other comment that was shared with the last speaker is that sliver. And Jessica, is that the cement plant district where there's just a sliver on the west side of Sturgis Road? I'm sure it's a remnant that's attached to what's on the east side.

Correct. It's part of a parcel. It's this one. This area is an unplatted balance. Well, it's basically the road subdivided a quarter quarter section. So this sliver as well as this side of the road is all one parcel. So that's why they're included.

I see opportunities to visit with the applicant to see if there might be a better designation for those two areas. And then just quickly addressing the comment about if they own property on both sides, would that have an impact on Hidden Valley Lane? Rezoning something does not change the public's right to use that lane. And Tanner did go out and look. We've got section line that reserves that right, and then there's other dedicated right-of-way in that area that preserves that street networking that is there. So with that, we can go through these one at a time. But again, I see that there might be room on those two applications that maybe we sit down with the applicant and try to come up with a better solution on those two parcels.

All right. So item five is what you see before you. I was going to pull these items. Anyway, on this one, my concern is what's along West Chicago. And I guess my question after hearing the presentation is, these parcels, is it quite clear that these are part of that SD 11430 parcel that the state was able to collect?

decide because these aren't being changed from anything are they an underlying zoning correct right now on the map they show as the cement plant district and these were all part of the the land that was owned by the state and sold in 2000 2001. they did acquire a property down here that we had left out of this process which is currently light industrial So Jessica, I went through a ton of legal descriptions from annexation through the sale of the property. And that's always been part of it.

OK. And Mr. Chair, kind of leaning into what I think you were inferring, that parcel that they did purchase that abuts directly onto West Chicago, we did not want that to be cement plant. We wanted there to be other development between that street and the cement plant activity to serve as a buffer, because we do have some high end development in this area. And we wanted to make sure that we were minimizing that impact to the greatest degree possible.

Yeah, and I think what we saw on the old Bird Soul Sand and Gravel office recently is the kind of perfect thing, just a lighter intensity use in between a major roadway. But I guess if we don't have the choice, that's one way to look at it. Mike Quasney? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I guess the question I have... Doing the rezoning, it doesn't change what they're doing. Is that correct? Because we're controlled by the state. So whatever rezoning we do, changing this to cement plant, we really can't change what they're doing. I like the comment about the buffer zones, keeping those in place. I guess the concern is it sounded like the state has control and we're just kind of just making this zone. I'm a little confused on where the city then comes into play.

Mr. Chair, so there are certain permits that the state has authority over. And some of that mining activity itself, the air quality portion of it, they have control over that. But by putting a zoning designation on it, Now we can start implementing other regulations as well, like hard surface pavement and landscaping that might be required for additional buffering. Today we don't have that ability, but once we rezone this from a no-use area to the newly created cement plant district, it will give us additional regulations that currently we do not have.

Okay, so for example, the two partials that are LDR, you commented that you'd like to go talk to them and see if we can.

I'm sorry, can we wait till item eight to do that? I know we all want to get to that one.

Okay. Well, the other question I guess I have is the, and I guess maybe it's on item eight, also is the left and right, it was brought up about the housing and the fields that were there. So was that on item eight as well? Okay, I'll let it go then. I promise you we'll talk about it.

Alicia? Oh, I lost you, sorry.

Thank you. This is a follow-up on this one, Vicky. You mentioned hoping to keep the buffer areas and uses existing as they currently are. So I do wonder what Eric mentioned along West Chicago, if there could be consideration around those areas that don't appear to be used as cement plant or industrial at the moment and retaining them as a buffer or somehow redrawing what that looks like or is your recommendation to get it rezoned so then you are able to have some oversight and

Requirements in that area i'm going to have jessica explain one more time our direction on the area that was used as a cement plant and Their right to continue to use that as cement plant Even if the state didn't have that use in that particular area That was owned by them and that part moves forward with that sale

Yeah, and we're speaking about these properties here that are along West Chicago Street. Again, they've always been owned by the State Summit Plant Commission as the one that was the authority over the land there. So that resolution and the code apply to those properties as well. Note, there's some typography here. The main, and I'll circle back to the reason why this rezone is probably more important to address than the rest of them. As Vicki mentioned, the building permit side. So when we look at a new structure, you want to be able to say there's setback requirements, there's coverage requirements that have a predictable land use pattern in that regard. That really is what is gaining here. The focus is really going to be in the primary cement plant area to be able to have some additional storage buildings, things for operation and that sort. That is the main point of the rezoning district so that we are able to apply area regulations specifically when they go to place buildings at building permit again the uses aside from the building permit side if there's uses that don't require a building permit they would be able to do that today based on the state laws and the the history of these particular parcels lisa do you have further comments we lost your mic um thanks jessica that was good

All right, on item five, the change from the codified law district to the cement plant district. Other questions or comments from the commission? I guess I'll just say, my read on this is that we don't necessarily have a choice on what the cement plant does with these areas. I would just ask them, please consider instituting a buffer zone and make it be as good a neighbor as you can to that neighborhood to the south of West Chicago Street. Karen?

I make a motion to approve the resign of this property to the cement plant district.

That was Jeff. OK, Karen made the motion to approve. Jeff seconded that motion. Any discussion on the motion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. So item number six, this one has some effect from what you were talking about, Vicki, that orphan triangle. Do you recommend any change to what we do with this one?

Well, I might have to lean in on Kinsley here. So the reason that the parcel on the west side of Sturgis is picked up is it's a remnant. So it's attached to something on the east side. And we have those all over town. I don't know that it's even usable for this purpose. And I'm just wondering if we can approve this rezone without, in part, where we're eliminating that little sliver. And then we'll sit down with the applicant to see what would be a better designation that would align with the development in the area just on the west side of Sturgis. Kinsley?

I don't know if there's enough in the legal description to be able to take that out. I guess that would be my question as to what it shows up if it shows up as the remnant or if it needs to meet some bounds or something like that.

I think it would be the legal description of the parcel less or being that west of the Sturgis Road right of way is what I gathered. But we'd need to look at that in more detail before we commit.

I'm looking at it right now. A suggestion would be, if you're inclined to approve it, it would be to approve the application less that portion located west of Sturgis Road. I think that clearly defines the area that we're wanting to leave. out of the mining and extraction district.

Thank you, Vicki. Karen?

I don't disagree with the idea, but does that mean that that little sliver, I don't know how many feet it is, it's not very big, but that would still be part of the original state-owned piece, if you left that out from this?

Correct, yes.

OK. Thank you.

So this is one of the pieces when I intended to pull these items that stuck out to me. I did a rapid map pull of dimension. I think a rapid map, which is not accurate. About 130 feet deep on the widest side goes to nothing. I'm not sure of the length of it. Are there area regulations? Because this, you're going to mining, and resource extraction with this one. Are there area regulations or setbacks to what would be low density residential, I'm assuming surrounding it, that would prevent any use of this if we change it to mining and extraction?

It would be extremely limiting. And then in addition, just state regulations on how far back you have to be from right of way. So... Again, I think looking at what's the zoning to the south, it looks like there might be a residential component on the very southern portion of that triangular shaped piece that might be profitable for the applicant if they looked at doing something with it in that regard. Sure.

I support the idea of sort of using Sturgis Road as a dividing line. However, if it's better to change the zoning to something that almost prevents use of that mining zoning, I could also see an argument for that. So that's my two cents, Mike Kwasny.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. You know, along Sturgis Road, their mining on Highway 16, they've got the rock quarry that they, and they were required to have a buffer of sorts where you couldn't see the mining actually taking place. Is the same thing here? Do they, they're not required to have that buffer there so that you can't see the mining along Sturgis Road?

So the mining and extraction district has a landscaping section that calls out that the yards, meaning there's, we did check that's 35 foot for setbacks in this. So within that 35 foot yard, generally they would need to maintain some sort of landscaping, buffering, screening. But there's not a set has to be this big, you know what I mean? So it's more just recognizing that those areas that are along the right-of-way as well as around the buildings should be landscaped and kept neat is the way that it reads. If they do, and realistically landscaping and buffers are triggered by building permits, I don't know that there would be anything on here that would really trigger a a solid requirement for coming in and redoing all of those areas with buffers.

Okay, so it feels like we're kind of hoping that they're good neighbors and they take care of that. One of the things when the state owned it, we actually had some control on it because we could vote who was in office and so forth. Now the state has sold it to a company, we no longer have that control. So it's a different animal once it was sold, so it's kind of, Strange that they would have the same, that they bought all the same rights. To me, it feels strange. Because now we're dealing with a business. When the state owned it, we did have control. The city did have control the people in the community had control now. We no longer have that control. So That's a little bit concerning. So I guess we go have to go back to hoping that the People that own it the business is a good neighbor. So I Would hope that the buffer along Sturgis Road is something that is taken care of and hopefully we can work out something on the sliver here.

So Eric I guess I'm sorry, Mike, were you, okay.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. You finished, Mike? Okay. So my, I see the value in the planning tool. I don't have an issue with that, the rezone. My issue is with the air quality, the precedents that we're setting there. Also, I'm gonna be a little bit critical of the state. I don't think they're doing a great job in managing that Here, I think we would do a better job. I know that this is that's not what's on the table right now, and this is not we're discussing but having this amount of Dust and issues right in our city is a concern for me so Can somebody speak to that, or should we just leave my comments there? That's my question. All right, thanks.

I don't know what to tell you, Eric, other than probably have to call your state senator and state representative. Mr.

Chair, just for information, We do hold meetings, air quality meetings, and the state participates in those meetings as well. And they seem to be very open to work with Rapid City. Morgan Twombly our environmental planner has created a very workable productive relationship with that team and So if we did receive a complaint from any of the neighbors any of you We would contact Danner and let them know that we have a problem. And they have air quality requirements that they are trying to meet and maintain in the state. And so when they do have a violation, that looks bad on all of us when we don't address it promptly. And in our regular meetings, every time there's an incident that does peak an allowable or acceptable amount of dust palliatives, it gets discussed in detail. So I think they are watching. I just don't know that they're as reactive as our air quality representative is in the city.

All right, item six. Other questions or comments from the commissions? I'll just go back and say, I wish I had a suggestion on that sliver. I don't know which is the better way. And again, I would hope that the city would consider whatever happens up here, working with the applicant to see if that might be better suited with another zoning designation.

And Mr. Chair, if it does get approved for that portion, for the legal description, less that portion located west of Sturgis Road, we will sit down with the applicant to see what is actually a better plan to actually bring value to that property for them as well. Because just with the setback requirements and buffering requirements. There really isn't much they can do in regards to mining and extraction on that. There's a higher and better use for that property, I believe.

Okay.

Vance? Thank you, Mr. Chair. If I could just get one more bit of a clarification about it. So the city wants to work with the applicants based on this sliver that is on the west side of Sturgis Road. So if they have access on the mine side to get to this sliver, they can create their own road in and out of that area? Is that correct? Can they access that sliver from Sturgis Road is what I'm asking.

Correct. The access would be off Sturgis for the sliver portion of it. There's some topography there on the east side. They access that road from other internal roads. So I don't know that there would be some crossing that makes sense there.

Yeah, I haven't redesigned this from the dais here. But I just want that confirmation because we have other items that are going to come up and I want to be consistent. So that's why I'm looking at this and wondering, other than if this is now zoning, we now have to say how they beautify it or don't, then that's where we have additional input. Am I correct? Or the city will have additional input on how that gets developed there?

It would be the standards of the mining and extraction district. As I mentioned, there is some level of landscaping to be able to have to landscape the yards adjacent to the right-of-ways. And then they would, again, have to meet setbacks 35 feet from that right-of-way. I don't know that that leaves room for any building. So I don't know that it would really pencil out to do much on that property either.

Well, you can dig down hundreds of feet, though, on that property too.

Mr. Chair, to speak to one of the things that Vince said, that graphic, by the time you highlight the boundary, Sturgis Road, State Highway, take away the yellow outline. It goes right through that parcel. That doesn't change. That's going to separate the west from the east. And it is a significant right of way that goes through there. So what we've indicated is a suggestion may be to remove the western portion from your action today And we'll go back and look to see what would be a better land use for it. And then everything on the east side of Sturgis, the mining and extraction would be limited to that area.

Okay, I just want to be clear because I want to make sure, and I don't want to conflate these two ideas, but in Blackhawk, in a nearby area, we've had sinkholes that destroyed some of these residential units. And I want to make sure that if this, how the state, and I think Eric may have pointed out, The state didn't do such a great job, and I'm glad that we're getting on top of it today so the city could take a better look at this. I just want to be clear what we're going to do with it. All right, thank you. Karen?

I missed you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think the issue of that little sliver, there's not much that the GCC is going to do with that piece, at least in my mind. I mean, they're not going to put a building on there. And if they would sell that piece, that would be the best thing. Somebody buy it, and it would be out of their hands. But at this point we can leave that out of this motion and that's not going to hurt anything. It's just going to still remain that little sliver will still remain in the state's purview to do what they think is correct because it's not going to change what's there today. So I'm going to make a motion to approve this rezone with the leaving that sliver of land out of the on the west side of Sturgis Road.

Yeah, it'll be the rezoning area less the area west of Sturgis Road.

Correct.

That's what my motion is.

All right. Mike? OK. Mike Quasney seconded Karen's motion. Yeah.

Mike Quasney? It seems odd to me that slivers on the other side of Sturgis Road, at the top there, there's a sliver that's almost the same. Who owns that?

Mr. Chair, Tanner's looking right now. We have those all over town. A lot of these were created by deed and Those are quarter, quarter, quarter sections. And then right of way goes through it. And then we have a parcel that's on opposite sides of a right of way. So these exist probably throughout the state on a very regular basis.

So GCC owns that property as well. Like Vicky mentioned, it was part of a quarter quarter that got subdivided a little bit toward the left. But the H lot, essentially, the right of way split the parcel by looks. But that parcel is connected together. And that area is actually zoned mining and extractions. Sorry, you can't really see it as well on our zoning map. But the slivers over here. both this sliver and this portion of this property are already zoned mining and extraction district, and they're both owned by, it's all one parcel that's owned by GCC.

Okay. So is that in another part of the?

It's not covered on our, I don't think it's covered on this.

So it's not gonna be a part of the cement plant zone?

It's already zoned mining and extraction district, which is what these parcels are proposed to be zoned to as well.

Just a friendly reminder, you've already acted on the cement plant district rezone. This is the mining and extraction district application. So that's existing. This sliver is a little bit different, because when we look at what's to the south of it, we have a different land use in that area. And so if you do act on Karen's motion, That'll bring the mining and extraction on the east side forward for council's consideration We'll sit down with the applicant to see what needs to get done on the west side.

Okay.

Thank you All right any further questions or comments on the motion for item number six Everybody clear All right all those in favor, please say aye aye any opposed aye Okay, the motion carries with Eric Heikas voting no. Item number seven. So item seven, this one's zoned light industrial currently. It's just a small parcel that had an existing zoning. Is that correct, Jessica?

Where? This one?

What do you want to? This actually is technically a lot that is part of a larger parcel. It was platted lot that has now since been added to this larger parcel feature here. It's one of those ones that that got left out when we transitioned the GIS map, but in looking at the deed number, again, it has the same deed number as the rest of the properties here. So this is more of a cleanup item. It would be rezoned to cement plant district to match the adjacent properties. It's surrounded by light industrial and this area actually is the future land use here is conforming with what would be the cement plant zoning district as it's identified as mining and extraction and the future land use plan. So it acknowledged this area was part of the cement plant. It's just the light industrial zoning got left on this property. as that transition was made in the early 2000s for updating the GIS map. So we just acknowledge that it's always been shown as light industrial here and are proposing cement plant district for this portion.

And this little chunk was part of the sale from the state to the cement plant in 2000?

Correct.

And so if we don't change it from light industrial, they still have every right to use it as they do the cement plant currently?

Correct.

OK. That was, I just struggled on each of these with the why. OK. Mike Kwasny made the motion to approve, and Eric Heich is second of that motion. Any discussion on the motion? All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Motion carries. Now this is where the action is.

Alicia has first crack at this one.

Alicia.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, I guess I wonder with the group if we want to continue the discussion or take Vicki's recommendation to get a little more legal clarity and then have this discussion again. I think based on a lot of what we've heard, both from our own staff and community members, that might make sense. But I'm also happy to say more reasons why I think it makes sense to continue it.

You you're in the your patients are in the right to spend whatever you want on this I guess my question for Vicki on this one and maybe the Commission as well that orphan parcel out in the existing quarry is there any reason not to

change that one i i don't think anybody has any view of that being low density residential which is in direct contrast to the one to the west okay let me you're absolutely right the one to the east it aligns with um the the surrounding zoning that one is just kind of a cleanup the one to the west that is currently undeveloped and thank you I think it was Scott that brought that comment forward. I'm looking at that legal.

I was going to say, they're separate parcels. Yes.

We could approve the one in, and Jessica, you're going to have to tell me which one is which. So it's lot one of section 28, or lot one of section 29.

So we could approve the rezone for lot one of section 28 and continue the rezone

We could do this one of two ways. We can continue this application in its entirety, maybe for just two weeks. We'll get with the applicant to see if there isn't a better zoning designation for the parcel to the west. Or you could act on it and only approve for the parcel that's to the east. Then they would have to come back in with a new application for the one to the west. My suggestion is we just continue this two weeks. And we will probably get a new application for the one to the west. But we could move things forward together to get these addressed in the future. And realistically, we probably need to continue this for a month to meet notification requirements.

Makes the most sense to me personally to just continue them both, even though the, I don't know if there's questions on that Eastern parcel, but let's go to the commission.

Eric Aikas. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Could we extend the courtesy to Mr. Armstrong to finish his remarks at this time? That'd be loud.

No, that's, Commissioner, let's say another three minutes. How about that, Mr. Armstrong?

And again, my comments are confined to the Hidden Valley Road property, which mostly concerns us. Can you put the mic? One of the other folks here today is, in terms of legalities, if we look at 11-430, even if it was owned by the cement plant at the time back in 2000, the statute speaks to consistent with its present use. Well, it's present use and and in fact its current use is it's vacant it was always used almost i i thought it was ag property uh because there was a a wheat a wheat field there for years for decades um so that that was my thought um but it apparently is ldr and 26 years has gone by and that neighborhood has changed considerably we have a retirement community that's been, um, uh, by the, uh, archdiocese. Uh, there's a school, uh, by the archdiocese right back in there. Um, and there has been a considerable amount of single family dwellings that have gone up in that 26 years now. Our concern is twofold. It's fugitive dust, which is never ending. And when we talk about, let's talk about dust for a second. This is limestone dust. It's abrasive. It's abrasive. And under PM five, it goes directly into your bloodstream. So there's something called a natural events action plan that DNR came up with years ago to basically exempt this whole area from Clean Air Act PM10 emissions every time the wind blows hard in South Dakota. So when we talk about oversight, that's an issue. Dust literally causes damage to residences. It washes off your roof and literally takes paint off of your home. aside from the health issues. The other issue is these folks uniformly, they will quarry all the way down to the ground water. So we have all these little spontaneous lakes and ponds going up which create a couple of issues, right? One is potential groundwater contamination. And the aquifer is just like a big river that runs underground. Everybody in that neighborhood has wells. There's been a lot of problems with well pumps going out because of the explosions and all the particulate matter that the well pumps have to deal with. And the huge amount of evaporation that occurs from these pools during drought years Everyone in that neighborhood is concerned that more construction, more quarrying, more groundwater compromise is going to result in wells failing. And if you don't have a well, your property is worthless. And so we're just asking that this particular parcel stay zoned low-density residential. And I think the petitioner By the time we figure out the setbacks and everything else, there's really not a lot they can do with it except go down. And that is our concern, that they're going to be in the groundwater. So I appreciate your time. Thank you for some more time to address you on this issue. And those are my thoughts. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Armstrong.

Mr. Chair, just for clarification, if it is your desire to continue it, the meeting we suggest that you continue it to is your July 9th Planning Commission meeting.

All right. Thank you. Mike Kwasny.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I hope we can figure out something on this. I would make a motion then at this time to continue until July 9th. with uh and and i hope you know in the community i i think a lot of us didn't know that the cement plant owned that per se that the state owned that and and we've developed that uh there's been a lot of development over there so i hope that there's something that can be worked out to make it better for our community. This being in the middle of Rapid City, basically, it gives it a little different environment. And I understand that a lot of times a company has something that they, a quarry that they have the opportunity to mine. They like to do it because there's limited, it's part of business, but at the same time, this is right in the center of our community. So hopefully we can work something out and we'll go from there.

Second.

Okay. Eric Heikes, second of Mike's motion to continue to July 9th. Kinsley?

Thank you. I just wanted to give a little more context on the resolution that was talked about earlier so that Mr. Armstrong and others understand what we're working with. So there's obviously the state law that we've talked about. that talks about the use 11-4-30, but there was a resolution of the South Dakota State Cement Plant Commission, and it specifically said that as of December 28th, 2000, the state of South Dakota by and through the state cement plant Commission was using all of the Pennington County South Dakota real property owned leased or otherwise held by it for mining and earth resources extraction and related processing operations and for the manufacturer and sale of several types of cement and related businesses and uses data so I just wanted to state that that's one of the things that we're looking at when we're looking at The state law and what it allows the. The property. You know what we're dealing with? What with what it was? It's bound by in terms of uses.

So Kinsley, what you're saying is even if it wasn't in use, the state said it was in use. Is that correct? Sorry you lost you. Can you go?

That is what it appears.

Gotcha, that's depressing. Alicia, you left your light up. Do you have anything else on this?

Vince? Thank you, Chair. Also in 1141, regulatory powers of the municipality is that they may enter an agreement with any landowner specifying the conditions under which the landowner property may be developed. So yes, I'm glad we're waiting until July to look at this again. Thank you.

Haven?

Thank you. Just to clarify, Kinsley, what you were just reading there, what document was that taken from?

I keep deleting it, Kinsley. I'm sorry.

That's OK. This is, let's see, a February 23, 2001 data document from the South Dakota State Cement Plant Commission, and I can provide it. I don't know if it was anywhere in any of the documents, but we can send it out to the, planning commission members. And probably, if an item is further continued, we can put it on as an attachment. But it just reflects the fact that when you're looking at what we're legally bound to, GCC does appear to be working with us already in terms of what's going on. And so we're coming from a place where some of what's happening is dictated by state law.

Mr. Chair, this is the reason why we hold these public meetings. We notice property owners within 250 feet. We meet with the applicant extensively before we put these things on an agenda. We heard a lot today from neighbors, a little bit from the applicant. But I must say, the applicant has been very good to work with. not wanting to speak on their behalf, but just knowing the concerns of the neighborhood concerning those two parcels that we're trying to do a workaround. I look forward to having those conversations with them to see what that land use might better be so that they continue to be a good neighbor in this area.

David.

Thank you. And just to clarify, when this comes back before us, there seemed to be a question about whether this particular property on the west side of Sturgis Road was included in that deed. I think Mr. Armstrong raised the issue. I know, Jessica, you had done the research on that. But just so when it does come before us, we can have a little more clarity and assurance that it was included in that original deed.

Yes, we can get the paperwork on that in looking at the, the parcel database. There's a section when you go on rapid map at the very bottom of the parcel descriptions that states the deed number. And that's where I was noting they're all the same, but we can try and pull the paperwork to confirm further.

I think that would be very helpful. Yeah. Mike quasi.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm assuming the state is completely out of this because they had an opportunity when they were doing this that they could have cleaned this up really easily when they sold this. Now they've left it to the city to have to take care of it. And I guess that's a little disappointing. So a shout out to the state. You could have helped us out here, but they didn't. Anyhow, I just wanted to get that shout out there and hopefully they're listening.

Appreciate it, Mike. The motion on the floor for item number eight is to continue till the July 9th meeting. Further questions, comments on that? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Are there any opposed? Motion carries. That takes us to item number 13. Mike, I know these get lengthy. If we start getting towards nine, I'm going to interrupt you, just so you know.

Absolutely.

Good morning, Mike Dugan with Finance. I have a brief presentation for you. This will be amendment number one to the project plan for the Rapid City Catalyst District. For reference, the Rapid City Catalyst District was originally approved in September of 2025. The original purpose was for partial funding to the new Rapid City Sports Complex, along with additional public infrastructure improvements throughout the boundary that are needed. The City of Rapid City was the applicant and developer number one for this district. So what the request you're seeing in front of you today is from Elevate Rapid City is requesting approximately 25% increase in cost to the currently approved project plan to do improvements to two parcels that are within district the catalyst district boundary the improvements they are making would become a future business park on the Approximate request is a little over 19 million to add and then by the new to the city The new state legislature that was just passed earlier this year that affected that affects tax increment financing goes into the effect July 1st The city is being proactive with that and with this request. Previously, the additional expenses or increase in costs was 35% of the original approved costs. That was lowered through the new legislation at 25%. That'll follow this ahead of time. Also, was it last week, Director Ainsley and I held an open public meeting that the taxing entities that are involved or affected by this were invited to. And that is also out on YouTube. So that follows the new state legislature approved as well. So this request completes the funding gap that's needed. Elevate has been working with the state on grants and low interest loans. This completes that funding gap that's needed to complete what is needed. The undeveloped parcels that they're looking to purchase is approximately 128 acres. And so this is, there's a lot of acronyms in the staff report, but the REDI loan and the GOED is the South Dakota Governor's Office of Economic Development, and then the REDI loan is the Revolving Economic Development Initiative. So what this is is just through the state that Elevate's working with, It's just low interest loans is that acronym So this is the boundary of the current approved Rapid City Catalyst District as you can see This next slide here. So outline in in the pink there is actually the the property that elevate Rapid City is looking to purchase so for reference here This would be the proposed or where the future sports complex would go in. So this is up close. The shaded there in the maroon or pink color there is the property that L.A. is looking to purchase. So to the south of the property here is Mall Drive, which is existing. It's a principal street. Then for reference, this is Haynes Avenue, which is also a principal street. The funding they're requesting, the 10 million of the capital cost of this would be for the grading itself. If you've been by this property, there's an extraordinary amount of grading that'll need to take place for any future development on this property. So that is approximately half of what that 10 million will go to is the grading. There will need to be some improvements along Mall Drive such as turn lanes and there's some potential intersection improvements here for the future North Maple Street here and then Mall Drive. Part of this request is to put in that's adjacent to their properties that they're gonna purchase is this portion of North Maple which is a proposed collector street. This is a proposed layout of the property. This will still need to go through planning and through public works. So the cost itself, so the original approval last year for the city's portion of this was a little over 84 million. That included partial funding for the sports complex and public improvements that are needed. The amendment of these costs will be to add Elevate Rapid City on to this request as developer number two for their portion. 10 million will be added to capital costs for street and utility improvements to North Maple Street, north of Mall Drive, intersection improvements, intersection of North Maple Street and Mall Drive, and street and utility improvements to Mall Drive. Then as I previously stated, there is extranurian grading and excavation needed on the development site. And then up to 9.4 million for the financing costs. And once again, how financing costs work, they are earmarked in these and then if the Planning Commission and City Council do approve that, they only get reimbursed of what they can prove. So if this development takes off and it develops quicker and the interest is seven million over the course of the life until this district is paid in full, that's so the request would drop to 19 million. They only get reimbursed what they approve, and I do check that on an annual basis where they got these finances. I do get where the principal balance is at and where they're at interest each year, so that is followed throughout the life of the district. And also important to note, Elevate's only going to receive, and this will be part of the developer agreement if this is approved today and then by the city council, The developer agreement would go before the council. Elevate's only going to be collect the increment that they produce. So what they produce off their development will be going back to them for their repayment. What the city produces on their existing, what was approved in the original project plan, the city will collect. There'll be two separate increment sources. One, the city, the original approved plan, and then today, if this is approved, Elevate will only collect what they develop off of their parcels. So this is the sources and uses. The total cost of the project is $30.6 million. So the funding gap is that part C on the bottom there of what the TIF request is today. So the purchase price of the property is $4 million, and then there is $8 million additional internal roads, utilities. That's not part of this request that Elevate will be responsible for. So their source, as Elevate does have cash they're putting towards, Then outside of the TIF, there would be state funding that they're going to apply for. So the TIF is essentially the gap that's needed for this development to occur. This is a little ugly, I apologize. I got some more close-up ones here. So this is just kind of a close-up of what that slide was before. So they're projecting over the build out of this a little over $21 million in increment to be generated over the 20 years, which is allowable by state statute. So with the request being 19 and a half, it does show that there's enough increment generated based upon their projections to prepare this request back in full. Also with that slide showed previously, so the two parcels undeveloped that sits today are assessed at approximately 26,000. They're billed out at year 20. They're anticipating that these two parcels that they're anticipated to purchase at 120 million. So that is substantial growth with this development. Then also a close-up of that previous slide here. So this is the projected build-out. So they're projecting vertical construction to start in 2028 with their industrial tenants coming on here each year and the approximate value of each one of those properties. Then also 2028 to 2032 of the commercial properties, they're anticipated to be built out. So as tax increment financing works, the increment is based on the vertical construction as this is built out. So if this doesn't go to plans and the build out is slower, the increment doesn't build and there's a potential for the developer to be short at the end. If there is anything short at the end, the city is not responsible for. That is up to the applicant and their funding sources if there is a deficiency. But the way Elevate has this projected, this will pay back in full within the 20 years. This is their projected amortization based upon their increment calculations with the vertical construction of the infrastructures in place. So this is anticipated to pay back by year 19. So this will pay back in full based upon state statutes. And this follows the original approval in 2025. What that means is they don't gain an extra year. They've actually lost a year with that. But it still shows back that they can pay this back within the 20 years. And so this is so elevate and just a little, Those aren't familiar with Elevate. Elevate was established in 2019, merging the Chamber of Commerce and Economic Development Organizations to lead the economic development and small business efforts in the Black Hills region. Elevate is committing to promoting business and personal advancement in western South Dakota through targeted spotlights on jobs, infrastructure, and overall quality of life in and around the Black Hills region and Rapid City metro area. So elevate does have access to extensive forecasting models and, and systems to kind of project out using data that's existing out there from the region and national data. So what they're projecting, um, with this development of this business park is it is upwards of 450 total direct jobs that consists of manufacturer and retail transportation, warehousing, financing, insurance, and then professional scientific and tech technical services. So some of these are above average wage and the median income for the community. And so the bottom diagram here is showing kind of the indirect of these jobs. You have the direct park employment of 450 jobs that would be additional added to the community. But then also kind of the indirect business to business. With these new businesses coming to the community, there might be a need for additional accountants, lawyers in the community, some kind of byproducts of having these new businesses in town. And also you can see there there's going to be upwards of $27 million in new wage income in the community. So that'll affect the retail. That money will, a lot of that will be spent locally in the retail. So byproduct is there'd be more household spending within the community, which retail members might have to add future employment as well. So the fiscal return on the public investment. So once again, the request is a little over $19 million. So at year 20, LV is projecting that increase in the property taxes to be about 1.6 million additional. And right now, I believe on this property, the city is collecting upwards, or the total is collected. You know, that split between the school district, the county, and the city is about $500 a year. So this would increase that to 1.6 million that would be split between the entities. The important part of the city here, so the projected municipal sales tax revenue of 2%, the $4.5 million in the sales tax revenue that would be collected by the city, that's important. So when property taxes are collected, so for every dollar that's collected, on average, the city collects annually 15 to 20 cents of that, so 15 to 20%. but the bulk of that going to the school district and the county. The sales tax is important to Rapid City because that goes back into the city. And then in large part, that's what funds the capital improvement budget. So the funds that are needed to take care of the existing roads comes from that sales tax to kind of backfill that capital improvement budget each year. And then also the projected sales tax on the state side is a little over $10 million per year. So the total local impact on this investment would be a little over $16 million annually that would go back into Rapid City and to the state. So the but-for analysis on this, so Elevate could purchase the property, but there would be, without the TIF, with the gap here, what they're asking for today, they couldn't make the improvements, the grading, the extraordinary grading that's needed, they couldn't make the improvements to Mall Drive that are needed, and they couldn't put in the Collector Street and North Maple. Also, their funding through the state is strengthened by community support. So having the tip in place is very important. Um, uh, as far as their, their state loans they're applying for in the grants. And I apologize. This is not part of the slide, but I think this was handed out to you. Um, this morning, this is kind of hot off the press. There was a letter of support, um, actually sent, uh, to the city is coming from the governor's office of economic development. that they are in support of their side of the funding. And they'll work on the consideration of that to fill that part of the funding gap that's needed. But the TIF is important for Elevate to move forward with this request. So as of Monday, there was a new district approved, the East Rapids City Improvement District. So there's 21 active districts. Those resolutions just need to be signed by the mayor and the director Ainsley. So we have 20 districts, 12 economic, industrial, affordable housing, and four local districts. So currently we're at 2.20%. of the total base valuation, total rapid city taxable valuation. Well, that's important, why I show that to you each time. With the new legislation, also, currently, we're allowed up to do TIFs up to 10% of the total of the rapid city valuation, so we're well underneath that. Under the current law or codified law, that would mean another $800 million in base value we could use, which is an astronomical amount with the new state legislature legislation approved effective July 1st that drops that to seven and a half percent is the allowable, which means we're still approximately 600 million under that. So we're still within, um, the guidelines, even with the new legislation, even with this, uh, new record this way, I guess the base value has already been set. And so it's part of that 2.0, but just as reference as of year end 2025, there's 277 active tips, uh, throughout the state of South Dakota. And this is just the breakdown of our current, uh, active districts. So with that I will stand for any questions And mr. Chair if it's allowed the applicant would like a couple minutes to kind of speak About the project that might help with any questions that you might have.

Thank you Why don't we do a motion to extend past nine since we kind of got a pause All right, that's made the motion Eric second of that motion all those in favor, please say aye aye aye All right. We'll go to Todd Kenner then.

Good morning, commissioners. Todd Kenner, interim CEO at Elevate. Appreciate your time this morning. I'll begin by just giving a little color to the proposed project itself. Probably the best way to describe it is if you're familiar with the Rushmore Business Park out in the valley, this is almost a carbon copy of what was done there. Some similarities, one, that project was driven by an economic development organization. several decades ago to really set the table for long-term opportunities for business expansion, business relocation. The other common thread is the uses that are represented in the Rushmore Business Park. You have professional business, you have manufacturing, you have government, both local and federal entities that that are present within the park. We have the FBI, we have the county, we have RPM, there's Fenske Printing, Respect, Monument Health has a presence in the Rushmore Business Park. There are very few remaining parcels, five or six, within that Rushmore Business Park. And mainly, those parcels exist on East Anamosa and probably will not develop until East Anamosa is pushed through, which is probably two to three years out. What we're trying to do is really provide the next generation of the Rushmore Business Park. Again, it's a partnership. As staff pointed out, we're partnering with GO-ED, the Governor's Office of Economic Development, and also working closely with the city. Probably one distinguishing difference between this business park and the Rushmore Business Park is, working with the city, we have provided buffers really for the adjacent land uses. Along Mall Drive, there'll be seven commercial parcels, which really work well and complement what's happening on the Mall Drive corridor. And then on the north side of the property, we'll have about 12 acres of multifamily residential type of buffer zone. Interior, there's 28 lots, two to four acres. And just through our efforts at Elevate and what we've seen within the area, we're missing out on opportunities because we don't have pad ready parcels where we can entertain either a business expansion or business relocation. So our goal is really to put in place a business park, light industrial park, that really positions Elevate and Rapid City in the community to really have pad ready two to four acre parcels to be able to really act quickly as businesses want to expand. Specific to the amendment that's before you, as pointed out, and I'll just re-emphasize, the TIF amendment request is really for two regional infrastructure elements. The grading really involves a regional detention and retention pond that will be interior to the site, and then MAPO, which is a major collector on your streets and highway plan. That is the sole use for the TIF. Otherwise, it's a huge capital lift, especially for a long 10, 15-year development for $25 million, which is our probably all-in cost to really get this project in place and ready to entertain business opportunities.

Thank you. There might be future questions from the Commission, so we'll call you back up. I've got one other speaker request from Lillias Jarding, if you'd like to address the Commission.

Hello again. I'm Dr. Lillias Jarding. It seems odd. I have never been before this body before, and then there are two items on the agenda that I'm interested in today. One thing that struck me as I looked at the materials was the map that was put up earlier showing the boundaries of this TIF. And just from my background and looking at it, there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of rational backing between the boundaries of the TIF. It looks like it's cobbled together and that this would be some additional cobbling. So that would be one question I would have. Um, the other thing, and I have many of you may know this, uh, but I've worked with, um, developing models, doing research, statistical work, those kinds of things. And, um, When people want to do a project, they come up with a model that has assumptions that flash big dollars in front of people's eyes about the income that might come in. I would be able to come up with a model based on slightly different assumptions that were just as realistic that would show that this project would not bring any money in. So the reality would probably be somewhere in between there. but I just want to kind of flag you to not put too much weight on what a model says. The other thing that really struck me about this is that the northern boundary of this property is immediately up against an area that is being developed for things like a school, there's already a school there, Um, there's gonna be a community center there and, and I'm sure there's more of a plan, but I don't know what it is, but I, when, uh, we're talking about, uh, one document said 10 industrial tenants, uh, six was said here more early or earlier today. Um, and, and I first, I would wonder why those numbers were so different. Um, but we're talking about industrial operations. By a school and by a community center and by the housing that's proposed for the northern edge of the property I would want to know more about that too. What what is what is this industrial activity? That we're talking about putting by Existing housing to the west that new housing on the north side of the property and whatever's done just north of there and then Um, the other question that arose for me is traffic. Um, I go up and down Haines street pretty regularly. And when, and when you get north of mall drive, it closes off to one lane. And, um, whether this project would bring in additional traffic would be a question during, during rush hours, that road is you can't even turn onto it. It's just vehicle after vehicle after vehicle. So adding traffic to that I think would be something that would be concerning. So I think that's all I got, thank you.

All right, thank you. Eric Heikes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm a big fan of the work that Elevate is doing. I think tech and innovation, some sort of light manufacturing and value add in this community is something that we should put great, great support for we're kind of bringing ourselves out of a touristy area that extracts minerals to more of a destination where we're bringing value added and keeping our brain power here so big picture for me i'm going to support this Not so much on the basis of this individual project, but of the work that Elevate is doing. And I'm really excited to see the Governor's Office of Economic Development supporting this too. So this will be receiving my support.

Mike Clausey.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I like the proactive versus reactive type environment with this. I think we're being a little more proactive. I did have the same question on Haynes Avenue. Now they talked about Maple, but Haynes is not part of the, we're not doing anything with Haynes.

Not proposed under the TIF, but if I have it right, we still get to see the subdivision plan for this area? Am I correct in saying that this plan hasn't come before us yet? Vicki?

Mr. Chair, you're absolutely correct. And many of the comments that were made by Dr. Jarden, well-made comments. When they come forward to rezone this, and just kind of an FYI, this is a light industrial area, not heavy industrial. So that's pretty clean. A lot of manufacturing, those types of things. Banks, offices, those other uses are allowed in that zoning district as well. But this plot would then trigger a traffic impact study. We did share with them that we want a buffer to the north because NDN owns the property to the north and they've got a master plan showing residential. So they are looking at providing that buffer as well. And then we wanted to maintain a general commercial corridor along Mall Drive. Again, even though this is a clean industrial area, we still want those buffering. And so we'll work with them as a part of those rezones and the platting application to address many of the well-made comments by Dr. Jarden today.

Okay, I like that buffer comment. I think that's great. I got one other. Where was Liberty Land? Is this the same property that Liberty Land was using or is it a little different?

So no, for reference, and I can, Mr. Chair, if I may, I can kind of speak to the reasoning for why the boundary was set up and approved for last year as well.

Maybe start with Mike.

Absolutely. So this is the sports complex. So this actually would have been down through this would have been Liberty Land itself. This parcel is not within the boundary. And then up to the north. This was also included. This was going to be. the multifamily and single family, and then also Liberty Land was over here for future development as well.

Okay. Yeah, I thought it was a little different, but I just wanted to verify in my mind. So, okay, appreciate it.

And so the boundary, the way it was approved last year, so this, once again, this is the sports complex boundary. So as South Dakota codified law reads, the boundary has to be contiguous So all your parcels have to touch and right away can be used. The reason why it stretches out to here to make it contiguous is a big part of the increment that's coming in for the city side, for the sports complex, partial funding, comes from the Black Hills Energy, the new power generation project, which is up here. So this had to be, this northern part up here had to be contiguous to get to that to capture that increment. How it comes through south here is there is, and it depends on the increment generation and how the bids come out with the sports complex and the public infrastructure components. There could be some additional development down here. This all down here to the south, along Omaha is owned by the city, and that's floodway. So it's not developable. You couldn't do housing. So there could be some recreation components, the pool over here. I know it was floated. It wasn't part of the project plan, but covering the pool. So that was all included within the boundaries. This over here, I don't think this is developable land all through here. So a large portion of these are undeveloped properties with some Here, the city could only develop this to the south. And this, I don't believe, could ever be developed, or a majority couldn't. But the main part was to get to the Black Hills Energy to capture that increment with their new construction on that power plant.

Thanks, Mike. Alicia?

Thank you. I have a couple questions in terms of the addition of this Amendment 1 to the TIF, and most of this is likely just due to my own deficiencies reading through your report. I'm wondering, are you able to pull up the future land use based on the comprehensive plan from 2025?

I don't believe I have that.

It's a little hard for me to go back and forth from I'm looking at it on my

I believe that the future land use plan on this is medium density residential. Urban neighborhood. I'm sorry. I apologize. Urban neighborhood.

So I sort of wonder how that's taken into account just as we're making this decision with this amendment for the TIF because it looks like we wouldn't approve that plat until later on and that plat didn't look like residential yet, but the owner mentioned 13 acres to the north would be potentially residential. So sort of wondering where we see that reflected and how we take into account, you know, thinking about what the comprehensive plan that we approved approves, and then this use, which doesn't seem to be aligned with that plan.

So on the TIF side, you're absolutely correct that this will have to go through Director Fisher and planning on the land use part of it. What's before you today is the TIF funding. So this would put the TIF funding in place. And it's typical for an applicant to come forward on the funding part of it before they do the legwork. Because if there's no gap funding in place, they typically don't. I mean, that's what TIF is for, that the project wouldn't move forward. So you're correct. This portion, what you'd be voting on today, is just for the TIF funds itself. And then the platting and the zoning would come at a future date through Director Fischer and her department.

But it seems like the TIF pencils out with the land use that's not currently been changed. that correct yeah it's based on the projections and projections okay and the road projected there to the um east uh the collector that would be part of the tiff yes would that extend towards other potential neighborhoods and you know would that be considered as a benefit to future development and the ndn property as well this would be this would just be to get it on the property they own

So it would just get to North Maple Street and then to the north. And maybe Director Fischer could help me with that. But if that's developed, then it would be the responsibility to keep it going north.

Mr. Chair? Vicki? So that is identified as a proposed collector street on the major street plan. So there's benefit to it. It is to connect neighborhoods. So getting this connection in place will provide a second point of access. for that property to the north as it develops so that it can then take access off of Mall Drive. You see other street connectivity, which we try to do in a systematic fashion so that we've got access off Haines, Country Road. So this is a needed component in order for our master plan for transportation to get constructed long-term. Good question, by the way.

Thank you.

Vids? Well, thank you, Chair. Mike, I know you presented more than one TIF in your time here. And just to, I know that the doctor brought up that there was some risk, but there's risk in everything. And as far as the plans that you presented, how many have you presented and how many have been successful the way you presented it?

Since I've been with the city, they've gone as planned as far as the increment generation. There has been one, a small project that did reach, this was 21 years ago that the TIF was created. The public infrastructure that was a part of that TIF, when it went in, so the city did capture that. It wasn't a city-backed TIF, so there was no loss to the city. I believe there was a couple hundred thousand dollar loss that was between the developer and their funding. The development just didn't occur as planned. I think actually now there's development that is going to be occurring in that area. But the city did capture the public infrastructure that did get in place. But since my time here, you're absolutely right. A lot of them, our majority, are based on projections. And we do track these annually through the audit process. We rework the amortizations based upon the increment captured, and we do look at those on an annual basis. But to date, they've performed as agreed.

I believe Mr. Ainslie wants to add something to that, if we could let him.

Yep, go for it.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think going back to the commissioner's direct question there, it's important to note that the city is not guaranteeing and is also not providing any of the funding for this amendment. And so while we do believe that it's conservative as far as repayment cycle, if at the end of the 19 years, which is what's left on this, if for some reason it is short $50,000 or $100,000, whatever that happens to be, That would be up to Elevate to make that whole. Elevate is obtaining other financing to complete the infrastructure here. The city is not providing any of that financing. And so if there is any loss, if there's any risk, it's going to be borne by Elevate. And I think importantly as well, what we do know is that this is a way that the community can leverage a substantial investment that's being made by GO-ED or by the state in our local infrastructure here so that we can attract additional companies. Without this gap financing tool of tax increment financing, we really do not have that local match to be able to bring forward this sort of opportunity to our community.

Okay. Thank you, sir. Haven?

Thank you. Just a couple questions. For my information, where's the state one-stop center? Is that shown on this map that's on the screen? Just south. Right on the south side of Mall Drive?

Yep. There's Lowe's right here. I believe this would be.

And I noticed that the current assessment value on this property is like 23 or 4,000 but they're paying 4 million for it. So how does that factor into the TIFF?

financial information that's It's as far as the TIFF itself. There's no funds going towards the purchase price of the lot it's it's part of their the sources and uses so the the source to actually pay for that would come from elevate cash and then Contributions, you know, okay.

Yeah, that wasn't my question. I was wondering how you factor that base Value into the TIFF.

Okay. I apologize. I understand now. So the base value itself Is set so you know the i believe this the base value of the the whole because it goes off the boundary so but so the base value is set of i believe 40 million but off off this you go off if you don't go off of the the purchase price you go off the original evaluation of of the property it

I think what you're alluding to is that through this purchase price and through the development, that is going to be increased in the valuation of the property substantially. And so the base valuation of the TIF is close to that $29,000 for this particular parcel. That's the current assessed value when the TIF was established last year. And so through this development, just the purchase of the property and then the grading that Elevate's going to be doing Within the next 12 months, there will be substantial increases in that valuation and new property taxes that are paid that are going to be going to pay for this TIF amendment.

Eric Heikas.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Move approval of resolution approving Amendment 1 for the project plan for the Rep City Catalyst District TIF. I'll second.

All right, Eric made the motion to approve this amendment. Vince seconded that motion. I do have a few people that still want to talk. So comments on the motion? John Roberts.

You can bring in Planning Commission members first if you want to, since I'm not a voting member. Let's get through it. So I just have a quick question for Daniel, or maybe for Todd. But since Elevate's going to be doing this, and Elevate is a nonprofit, will they be paying property taxes on this? Nonprofits don't pay property taxes. That was on my list, John.

For state statute allows up to, I think it's $680,000 cumulative. And that number is maybe not exactly right. It's somewhere close to that. Maybe it's 700 and some. I think that adjusts. That is forgiven for economic development purposes. I'm pretty sure that the land valuations that Elevate has greatly exceeds that. And so they would be paying taxes on this.

When it's developed into parcels, then you'll be paying taxes on those parcels?

Yeah, that's a significant cost that EDCs throughout the state pay.

And hopefully that will be a motivation to sell these properties as quick as possible, because those holding costs will kill you. So that was just my main question. I appreciate that. I've got lots of other ones, but I'll probably wait until Monday.

Thanks. Karen Bowman.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just have a quick question about the fact that this parcel, the income taxes that come back, they will go to Elevate just for this parcel, and the rest will go to the other. It's separate. You've got two different things. Is that done through a resolution, or is that done through a legal thing? How do you do that?

It will be a legal agreement that will be drafted between Elevate and the city should this proceed. And so the benefit to the city with this is that if Elevate does proceed more quickly with the developments here than what we had projected, then the additional increment would end up going to help pay off the city's underlying funding for the infrastructure and also the structure itself of the sports complex. But we will be separating that out every six months when we receive the increment. We will know what portion of the increment that comes in for the overall TIF district is associated with this project, and that's the only thing that Elevate would be receiving.

Okay, thank you.

Is the opposite true? Yes. The increment for the rest of the district pays the city off for the sports complex sooner? Yes. So is that the reason why this isn't a separate TIF application? I mean, I've been wondering why this is an amendment, not a separate TIF.

That's not the reason why, but what you said is true, that if the underlying city TIF gets paid off sooner, then the increment would be used to pay this amendment off sooner. The reason why is the new legislation has made it more difficult to do overlapping TIFs. And so since this was already included in the TIF boundaries for the Catalyst TIF, it's really the only option to proceed.

I apologize, Lisa, I got on a track here. But this, so this catalyst thing, we had that phase two that was possibly gonna be funded by some large industrial client that included a whole bunch of utility work to the west of Haynes Avenue. That's still ahead of the, I don't know, If there's any overage in the increment from the city's portion, phase two is still ahead of this industrial park on receiving that increment, correct? Yes. But the phase two is at the city's discretion to proceed or not proceed?

Yes. And we only have four and a half years still to proceed with the additional projects with that. And we will not be proceeding unless we see that there's increment growth in excess of the phase one.

And then my memory is not clear, but I think when we saw it at planning, there was actually even a phase three. Mike mentioned the, I'll just call it craziness down along the creek. But is that part of the Catalyst District currently? And would that be ahead of the industrial park as well?

The phase three was not approved by the city council. It was just phase one and phase two. So phase three was not. However, the funds that were allocated for phase two are available. And so there could potentially be a reallocation if there is increment that would show that we are able to actually repay that. Then we could look at using those funds for some of the infrastructure along this area. So along Omaha, all of that sort of thing. But that would be done two years from now. but that all is in advance of elevates. Okay.

I'm going back to you on this, John. I'm bringing some of this stuff up because I think the council probably needs to decide how hard of a line they want drawn between this Amendment 1 and the rest of the Catalyst District. Would those reallocation of costs, would that be a future amendment to this, or would that be done administratively?

A reallocation would be an amendment, so we would bring that to the council. And so we will want to be doing that, but we are going to wait until, honestly, probably a year and a half, two years to see what the increment built up is so we can actually accurately determine what realistically is available for some of the extra infrastructure projects, whether it's along Omaha or anywhere else.

I apologize for my detour, but having this as an amendment, there's a lot of, I would say, remaining questions about what's going on in the Catalyst District even without this. Alicia?

Thank you. My only comment I think is just briefly explaining I'm going to vote no and mainly just the time that was put into the comprehensive plan on what the land use should be and not having total clarity from the written information from the owner and then the verbal information of part of it being housing. I do appreciate what Elevate does and I know they're concerned about creating comfortable places for people to live and that also supports you know different values with the economic sort of components so I would hope that to the north if this passes that they do think about those 13 acres of residential and how that will connect to their southern plans and the other neighborhoods in that area and i hope that city council also takes a look at the comprehensive plan that they approved last year that city staff spent some time um thinking about thank you thanks alicia john

I lost you. I keep turning you on.

We could just spend all day here discussing this today. But I want to go back to the comprehensive plan real quick. Because if we look at the 2010 land use plan, I remember one of the things, and Vicki will remember this, that really bothered me about it was this portion of property and all of Mall Drive was put in as low density residential or And they had no commercial aspect against Mall Drive. Do you remember that, Vicki, that we had to get that changed? Because, you know, and I guess the reason I'm talking about that is the land use plan has always been changeable. Everything changes over time. I think that, you know, because this is a long discussion I had with Elevate about how we're going to buffer this on that north side. You know, because we can't put... light industrial, you know, the way that this should flow is general commercial against small drive, light industrial, and then your MDR along the northern part of it to buffer it out from those neighborhoods. But again, To be realistic, this whole property up there probably is never intended to be all residential. There has to be some kind of a general commercial whatever. Anyway, go ahead, Vicki, real quick, and then I'm going to come back to something else.

Mr. Chair, if it's okay. So one of the things that is spelt out very clearly in the updated comprehensive plan amendment that we just got through in 25, as well as even our existing future land use plan, is that there needs to be flexibility. And one of the things that our current plan, which we'll be visiting with you in the near future about what that future land use plan update looks like. But one of the things that we have not done a great job doing, and this is an area that this might serve as an example, we need to preserve residential. That's the heart of the community. But we also need to open up the concept that there be employment opportunities next to residential areas. We want that walkability. We want to make sure that we are functioning as a more inclusive community in every neighborhood throughout the city. It's the chicken and the egg. Do you get the funding, aka TIF, so that you then start land planning? Putting together these design plans takes a significant amount of money. If you don't secure the TIF, then potentially you've spent a significant amount of money and it never gets off the ground so these are really hard if it is helpful we had met at length with elevate it appears that what they are proposing with this mix mixed use of residential light industrial and general commercial does fit well in this neighborhood with the road networking that the tiff dollars would go towards

Making improvements on and it brings that employment opportunity to a significant number of housing units that exist in this area One one more thing if if you could pull up the map that shows your your roads on there real quick because I see stuff all the time that should change so if you where This green one up here, that's what, a minor arterial street? The one on the top? A collector street? OK. And that should have been shifted down to Catherine, to be quite honest, because it shouldn't be coming out of that neighborhood street. It should be coming out of, and we'll talk about that in the future, because I do know that area real well, since I live up there. And we are going to have to be looking at something within the next five to ten years on Haines to alleviate the traffic up there, because they are... The lady that talked earlier, she is correct. I mean, once you get past Mall Drive and it goes into one lane, It is a mess during rush hour up there anymore. Will this create more traffic? Maybe, maybe not. Depends on more housing going up north. And I want to go back real quick to the TIF that didn't pay off. So we had one TIF that didn't pay off. And I believe it didn't pay off about a year ago. is when he came in and wrote his $280,000 check or $60,000 check, whatever it was. But that TIF could have paid off because I wanted to put a project on that property 10 years ago, and the city wanted us to completely upgrade Creek Drive, which was $1.5 million, and you couldn't put another TIF on there because there was a TIF there. So sometimes I think we have to look at how we can, as a city, get these projects in even without using a TIF. Because personally, I don't think it was fair for that developer to have to pay that when he could have had projects that came in and paid it off. And one, since we've been doing this, is a damn good record, in my opinion. So anyway, thank you.

All right, the motion on the floor is to approve this amendment number one. I'm just gonna take a personal moment here. I am going to vote for this amendment, but I don't like the idea of amending current TIFs because we don't want to do another TIF. This seems like separate from the Catalyst project. And so I don't want to do a protest vote because I like this proposed project by Elevate. But in the future, I think these should be separated, even if there's overlapping TIF boundaries. I think that... we should just be willing to navigate that as a community and deal with one issue separate from another. Because there's a lot of questions that have to be answered through developers agreements and what have you and paperwork that it would be much easier to do just as a separate TIF. Anyway, any other comments from the commission, questions? All right, all those in favor of the motion to approve Amendment 1, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Aye. All right, the motion carries with Alicia voting no. That takes us to the end of the, we'll call it the regular agenda. Any items to add today, Vicki?

Mr. Chair, our project planning division manager, Marlo Capsa, has asked for two minutes of your time.

All right, Marlo, you're on the clock.

I need one, because I can yell. OK. Planning projects, division manager, Marlo Capsa. By ordinance, the main purpose of my division is to implement the comprehensive plan. Yes. I think as everyone is aware, staff ended up putting a little more work into that project than anticipated. However, we did end up with a really good plan because we have a plan that is completely structured around public feedback. And all of our opportunities identified across each chapter area is what shapes the policy, Um, and focusing on how we can build a better future for rapid city period. So could we as planners sit down today using the feedback that we got through that process, um, and come up with a revised future land use plan from our desks? Absolutely. Based on best planning practice. Do I feel comfortable? Ultimately what we're doing with the future land use plan update is spatializing the policy. Where do things fit? Where do things not fit? And everything I've heard today is asking questions around, does this fit here? And we are not going to prescribe a future land use plan to the public without confirming that it makes sense spatially at the geographic level. So we're getting ready to kick off a public engagement process. More to come on that. We're working with Rapid City Area Schools. We'll be primarily hosting the public meetings there. And then also building a whole entire online engagement platform. But I just want everyone to know this is on our mind. And every I'm going to Chicago this afternoon to go to a wedding. And if you want to know how fun it is to go on a trip with me, I'm looking around at existing places that exist. And I'm researching the zoning code and the future land use map. And how did this place come to be? So that's the question we are going to be asking the public is, what does this place look like today? What could make it better? So I think I'm probably already over my two minutes. But thank you. Stay tuned.

All right. Thank you. Eric Aikus.

Don't forget to have some fun on your trip. Get a deep dish Chicago pizza or something besides the zoning research.

All right. Anything else from the staff or commission?

I'm running late for meetings. I'll make a motion to adjourn.

Okay. Vince made the motion to adjourn. Eric Kuykis seconded that motion. All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.