Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Hey, what's up, man? Thank you so much. morning everyone welcome to the september 10th 2026 zoning board of adjustment meeting

If any member of the audience wishes to speak to an item on the agenda today, either agenda, zoning board or planning commission, please grab a speaker request form on the left side of the room and fill it out with the item number that you wish to speak to and hand it to the staff seated on that side of the room. Public hearing on item, I'll also say on public speaking today, we're gonna institute a three-minute time limit for all speakers, just so we can make sure everybody has a chance to get heard. Public hearing on item number one, the approval of the August 27th, 2026 Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting minutes is hereby open.

Motion to approve.

All right, Vince made the motion to approve those minutes and Pat seconded that motion. Any discussion on the motion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Are there any opposed? Motion carries. Item number two.

Good morning, zoning board of adjustment chair. Item number two before you is a variance request to reduce the minimum required front yard setback from 20 feet to 17 feet for a garage addition and also to waive the requirement to hard surface the first 50 feet of a driveway. This property is located at 4887 Easy Street. This property is zoned low density residential district with a future land use designation of low density neighborhood. And this property is accessed off of Easy Street, which is classified as a local street on the major street plan. So what this property consists of today is currently a single family dwelling, a small detached one-stall garage, and a storage shed. The applicant is proposing to put an addition onto the north and west side. I apologize, this is upside down. North is actually down in this. But they are proposing to construct an addition onto the north and west side of the existing detached garage to increase the space, allow for more vehicle parking and more storage. So currently the garage is about 337 square feet. The addition would bring that garage size to 1,276 square feet. Um, the reason for the setback reduction request is they are proposing for the garage addition. to follow the same building line along the eastern property line as the current garage does. So as you can see in their diagram up here, they're just extending this building line down here. Because of the way that the garage is currently oriented towards the east property line and the east property line slightly angles, This north corner down here will be about 17 feet from the front property line, which does not meet the minimum 20 foot required front yard setback. The other variants that they are requesting is by code, the first 50 feet of a driveway or the distance to the garage has to be hard surface. Currently, this driveway is a gravel surface and Easy Street is also a gravel surface as well. So they are requesting to waive that requirement, which would be triggered by submitting a building permit for the garage addition. They're requesting to waive that requirement and allow the gravel driveway to remain as it currently is. This does also qualify as an oversized garage because it does exceed the footprint of the dwelling by about 244 square feet. So you will see on the planning commission agenda as well, It is on consent, but there is a conditional use permit for an oversized garage in addition to this variance request. So when staff was looking at this variance request, we're looking at if there are any special circumstances on this property that would lend to approval and support of this variance request. There is a pretty significant ravine through the center of this property. It runs north-south right in through here, which creates some pretty topographical constraints both on the west side and the east side of this property. So on the East side, you're looking at downhill slopes. On the west side, you're looking at significant uphill slopes. These buildings were built sometime in the 1960s, and also this property is currently served by a private onsite septic system, which is located at the rear of the house back here. So when staff was looking at this property, we were looking at, are there any other viable places for a garage to be built? That would meet setback requirements one of the places that we looked is on the north side of the house here There's an open space staff determined that putting a garage there because of where the septic system lies would hinder access for proper maintenance and inspections of the septic system. Um, and then down here, you're looking at some topographical constraints. Um, there's a retaining wall that's right here. So access to a new garage structure down here, um, would not be viable as well. Um, and then when we were looking at that in terms of the driveway and whether or not it should be paved, Easy street is a gravel surface. So paving the driveway does not provide any sort of benefit to the property the right-of-way or any of the surrounding development The other thing that we were looking at with this garage addition is is this the minimum adjustment that's necessary? Currently the garage that exists on this property today is the only thing that provides any sort of covered vehicle storage so increasing this would be the best logical way to get some additional vehicle protection, also some storage on the property. The garage does meet all of the other setback requirements of the zoning district. It also meets height requirements, lot coverage. So it meets all of the other area regulations of the zoning district. So staff did find that there also are the two garage doors that will be located on this. You can see it'll be two single stall garage doors. Those face north, so they do not directly face Easy Street. So that was another consideration that staff gave when we were looking at this oversized garage. and the reduction of the setback. So it does appear to be the minimum adjustment necessary to provide something that has reasonable access. This property is also located at the southern terminus of Easy Street as it exists today. So in terms of street traffic volume and things like that that could be impacted street volume is very minimal in this area So this does not appear that it would be injurious to the surrounding neighborhood or to the public welfare So this is a front view of what the front of this garage will look like This is the east side of it, so this is what you will see from if you were standing on easy Street This is the rear of that So this is designed to match the siding and the residential nature of the single family dwelling. The single family dwelling was recently resided, so it'll look exactly like this. And then this is the aerial. This shows there is a deck and a walkway that comes off of their house right now, and then their garage will start almost immediately after that. So here's the property. Here's the garage looking at it from Easy Street. As you can see, this is the gravel driveway access, so coming straight into the garage. This is the west side of that garage. So I put this in here to show you that topographically it would be tough to put any sort of garage structure down here because you're looking at having to come down this incline to get access to it. This is also looking at that retaining wall that's there. This is that deck and entry that I showed previously. And then this is Easy Street as it exists today as a gravel surface. And this is that area on the north side of the property where we also looked at if it would be feasible to put a different garage structure. And while this is flat topographically, and could provide some adequate access. As I said before, this would limit access to their septic system in the back of the property. So with that, staff is recommending approval of this variance request. citing that the topography and location of the existing structures and the septic system do limit the buildable area, which constitutes a special circumstance on this property. Detached garages are a permitted use in this zoning district. The garage is designed to be side loading, so the garage doors do not directly face Easy Street. And the addition is residential in character and harmonizes with surrounding development. So it does appear to be the minimum adjustment necessary for reasonable access The current gravel surface, maintaining that is the minimum adjustment necessary to maintain practical access to the property. And the variance does not appear to be injurious to the neighborhood or the surrounding property.

With that, I'll stand for any questions. Mr. Chair. Yeah, Vicki. If I might add, this is our very first three-dimensional model that was presented to us and very, very impressive. I just wanted to point out that we would not be recommending approval of the setback. to the front lot line for the garage down to 17 feet if this wasn't a sideloading garage. Because we all know many of us don't park in our garages. When we pull in during the day, we park in front of the garage door. But this is sideloading. And so I do think that creates that special circumstance. And with that, and based on all the other reasons that Cassie just identified, it does appear that this would fit with the character of the neighborhood.

Thanks, Vicki. Eric Heikes?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I, too, enjoyed the model. Very, very cool. It helps you visualize what is intended. They put a lot of work into it. I think it's very suiting and fitting to the neighborhood. It feels like a very appropriate solution. And I'm going to make a motion. So my motion is to approve this variance with the stipulations citing criteria um that it is not really injurious to the neighborhood and also the since easy street is gravel already then a gravel driveway doesn't seem to be much of a deal breaker so that's my motion all right is there a second to eric's motion second karen seconded that motion discussion on the motion haven

Thank you. What stands out here is the fact that the Easy Street is gravel. I assume there are other gravel streets in the city. I know this property or this street has been in the city though for quite some time. That would be one thing that stands out to me and why that why Easy Street remains as a gravel street maybe a little apart from the specific question, but it does tie in here because I think it's reasonable to approve the to not require the hard surfacing of the first 50 feet because Easy Street is a gravel street. And I guess my observation would be that if Easy Street was hard surfaced, that wouldn't automatically then require this property to have that 50 feet of hard surface.

Mr. Chair.

Vicki.

So there are several streets in our older areas of Rapid City that have gravel and or dirt street access. For the most part, those were annexed in that way. there are design standards that the County had in place that did not match the cities. And of course we have now got a three mile plotting jurisdiction. You as the zoning board of adjustment have used the existing street condition as the rationale for granting the waving of pavement of the driveway. Cause it just doesn't make sense. If we pave that driveway so that you're not tracking onto the street, And if that street isn't paved, what are you tracking onto? It's just going to be a gravel street. So in this case, it seems unreasonable to require that the driveway be paved.

And I would accept that rationale too. Noting that, I guess, if the city would hard surface Easy Street, again, that wouldn't automatically require this property to have that 50 feet. My understanding would be only if there was some change to the property, would that requirement then come in at some later time?

Mr. Chair. You're correct, Haven. If the property should redevelop or expand structurally in the future, then we could come back and look at this same condition. If Easy Street is paved at that time, then you would see a different recommendation from staff.

I'm gonna pop in ahead of you, Vince. Similar to this, my one thought on this, and maybe this is for Todd, if the city does decide to pave that street, does the reduced setback affect it, or is there enough right-of-way there for the city to work without being too close? Todd? If you can put up a light. There we go. Todd.

So when we reconstruct the street, we will likely shift it to the east further from the garage because actually right now a portion of the gravel street is outside the right of way. Fair enough.

Thank you. Vince?

No, thanks, Mr. Chair. But between you and Haven, those are the questions I had. So thank you.

All right. Anything else? The motion on the floor is to approve this variance. Seeing no other lights, all those in favor of approval, please say aye. Aye. Are there any opposed? Motion carries. Item number three. Looks like this is just recommending acknowledgement of a withdrawal. Is that correct, Vicki?

That's correct, Mr. Chair.

OK.

I'll make a motion to approve.

To acknowledge the withdrawal?

Acknowledge the withdrawal, sorry.

Thanks, Vince. Is there a second? All right, Vince made the motion to acknowledge the withdrawal. Pat seconded that motion. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That takes us to the end of the zoning board. All right, Karen made the motion to adjourn. Second. Vince seconded that motion. All those in favor of adjournment to move to Planning Commission, please say aye.

Aye.

All right. We will now commence the Rapid City Planning Commission meeting for September 10th, 2026, starting at 7.17 in the morning. Again, if any member of the audience wishes to speak to an item on the Planning Commission agenda... please fill out a speaker request form like the one I just grabbed and hand it to the staff seated at the left side of the room and we'll make sure you get heard on the item. We are going to limit the speakers to three minutes of time. I do apologize, but I'll interrupt you at the end of that three minutes and hopefully I'll try to be polite. items one through six 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 4, 26UR017. Item 5, 26UR016. And Item 6, 26PD017. Rapid City Planning Commission's actions on these 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 six that staff would like removed from the consent calendar for separate consideration?

Four and six please.

Okay. Any items that the planning commissioner would like removed for separate consideration?

Item two.

Two? Eric?

Item four, I'll be abstaining from voting on it.

Oh, okay. Sorry. And any items, I guess we have one, three, and five left. Would any audience member like to pull one, three, or five for separate consideration? The chair would then entertain a motion to approve items one, three, and five in accordance with staff's recommendation. All right, Haven made the motion.

I'll second it.

Vince seconded that motion. Any discussion on the motion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Item number two, Haven, did you have a comment on this one or a question?

Yes, thank you. I thought this particular application deserved maybe a little discussion. It's not something that we normally do. I couldn't detect from the information that the applicant owns all the properties that adjoin that alley. I assume they don't. And so obviously the question would be if there was any comments from other property owners that adjoin the alley. And maybe that's my major question is, does the applicant own all of the properties that adjoin that alley?

Mr. Chair? I will show you on the staff report here if I can get it to work. Here we go. So yeah, that's a great question, Haven. The property owner actually owns all of this mobile home park here and then all of this mobile home park here. There is a property right here at the northwest corner of that alley that's being vacated. Oops, I didn't do that. That is owned separately. However, they did sign the petition for vacation of right-of-way, so they are on board with vacating the right-of-way.

Yeah, thank you. I guess the fact that this is a an alleyway that runs through the mobile home court all owned by the same person that that That I think answers the concerns that I would have so I would move to approve this particular application All right, even made the motion to approve.

Is there a second? Vince seconded that motion Any discussion on the motion to approve? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? The motion carries. All right, item number four. As Eric mentioned, I didn't have his mic on, but he's going to abstain from this item. Is there... Any need for a presentation from anyone on the commission?

Mr. Chair, we pulled it so that Eric could abstain. And so with that acknowledgment that he is abstaining, our recommendation is to approve with stipulations.

All right. Karen made the motion to approve with stipulations. Second. Vince seconded that motion. Any discussion on the motion to approve? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Item number six.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We pulled this item once we became aware that there was members of the neighborhood here that would like to speak to the item. So with that, Cassie will make a presentation, and then we encourage you to take comments before making your decision.

Okay, so item number six is a major amendment to a plan development overlay to allow a triplex. This is property located at 401 Hanover Drive. Current zoning of this property is medium density residential district with a plan development overlay. Future land use is low density neighborhood. And access to this property is off of Hanover Drive, which is classified as a local street. So in 2020, there was a final plan development approved for portions of this area. Let me get back to. I don't have one that shows the entire thing, but only for portions of Hanover drive and Winfield street. This was a final plan development to allow residential development, but it did designate each property within the plan development for what its use could be. And this particular property was designated for either a single family dwelling or a duplex. So the applicant is requesting to change that use to allow for construction of a triplex. A triplex is a permitted use in the underlying medium density residential zoning district. But because of the designation that the plan development overlay put on this property, that is why it's in front of you as a major amendment to that plan development. So the applicant is proposing the triplex on the property near the center of the property. This triplex will be two stories in height. Each unit will be a two bedroom unit by code. They are required to provide five parking spaces as you can see on their site plan up here. Um, when staff further dug into this, um, we found that federal regulations actually do not require a triplex to have an ADA accessible parking space. Um, none of these units are accessible anyways. They're two story. They have a staircase in them. So the applicant is allowed to remove the ADA parking space that is shown on this site plan. And with that, they are going to provide six standard parking spaces. So in excess of the minimum five required, they are, um, volunteering to provide six in order to deter some of the on street parking. Um, that I know is a concern of some of the neighborhood. So when staff looked at this, um, with a triplex being an, a permitted use in the underlying zoning district, we were looking at, um, if this is in harmony with the surrounding development with this plan development amendment, they are looking for one exception request. They are looking for an exception to reduce the minimum required lot width for a multifamily dwelling. which a triplex is considered a multifamily, from 100 feet to 76 feet, which is the platted width of the lot. So the general purpose of that width requirement is to ensure that when a property is developed, it has adequate room to be able to meet setback, parking, open space, landscape, all of the regulations. The triplex does meet all of the area regulations of the medium density residential district with regard to lot size, or yes, lot size, height, setbacks, parking, all of those things. So staff did find that because it does meet all of the other applicable regulations, that reducing that lot width to 76 feet, we found that to be minimally invasive. So we do support that exception request. So here is what that triplex is proposed to look like. As you can see, it will be three units, each accessed from the front of the building. The surrounding development in this area is a mix of residential uses that range from single-family dwellings all the way up to an apartment complex down the street to the east of the property. There is currently a duplex constructed to the west directly abutting this property. The property directly abutting to the east is a single family dwelling. And then across the street, let me go back to the aerial photo here to the, so this property right next to it, this is a duplex. This property is a single family dwelling. There are multifamily dwellings all along Parkview Drive right here. And along Winfield Street here, there are currently three duplexes and four fourplexes that are currently constructed on Winfield Street. So adding a triplex from the standpoint of being in harmony with surrounding uses does appear to be appropriate for the surrounding development. Here's kind of a floor plan. This is the lower floor plan of what these units will look like. So the lower floor consists of the dining room, the living room area. And then the upper floor is the two bedrooms. So this is the map that was accepted and approved with the original plan development. So as you can see, this is what designated this property down here as either a single family or a duplex. Um, so the property next to it was a duplex. These larger properties were all designated as fourplexes. And then these three properties up here were designated as duplexes as well. So that is what is spurring this major amendment. So when staff was reviewing this, because multifamily dwellings included triplexes are a permitted use in the medium density residential district, staff did find that this is in harmony with some of the surrounding development. So we are recommending approval of the major amendment with the stipulations noted in the staff report. A representative of the applicant is here as well, and I do believe you have several speaker request forms also.

Mr. Chair. Vicki. Cassie, and I apologize. I had to take a phone call. Did you go through the parking? Yes. OK. So we are getting six parking spaces on this site in lieu of the five that would typically be required. When we look at the underlying zoning, there are rights that are granted to that property owner based on what is permitted within that zoning district. Medium density residential says that in this zoning, you can have single family, duplex, triplex, or apartment, four or more units by right. We have a height restriction of two and a half stories for a single family home and three stories for a multifamily structure. When the height is considered, if they were asking for an exception, the planning commission has the authority to say, we are not gonna support additional height based on whatever that criteria might be that is cited as a part of that discussion. For today, the height of the proposed structures fall while below what's allowed for a triplex and what is allowed within the medium density residential district. These are always hard. The only exception that's being considered in this case is the width of the lot. Medium density residential says that for a triplex, you need to have a lot width of 100 feet. They have a lot width of 76. Cassie, could you put up the site plan again? Yep. If they were not meeting setbacks, if they were not meeting lot coverage, you would not have seen a recommendation to approve that. But as we look at the use of this property, knowing that they are meeting all area regulations and exceeding the parking requirement, there wasn't the criteria that we could lean on that said that this is an unreasonable use. I also cite that our recently adopted comprehensive plan strongly encourages us to bring additional housing opportunities to Rapid City. And that mixed use development is what truly makes a community feel like a community where we don't segregate. Single family residences only in this area, apartments only in this area. And so this leans into that goal as well. Are you sure that's going to segregate?

Please, no comments from the crowd. We have some speaker request forms. Merrick Wagner, if you'd like to address the commission.

Hi. I sent in a statement over email, which all of you should have. I also just wanted to add, I don't know, as far as I knew, we were supposed to be notified at least 14 days prior to this hearing. And my letter was postmarked the 3rd of September. So I only got seven days notice. We didn't have very much time to prepare to kind of fight this. Like I said in my email, my boyfriend and I just built our home. We're the ones directly next door to the proposed triplex lot. And the hit to the property value would be really, really bad for us having a triplex directly next door. So, yeah, I just, it's, we're 24 years old. We just are trying to start our lives in Rapid City. We were born and raised here. So it just would be not very beneficial to me or pretty much any of my neighbors. That's all I wanted to say.

Okay. Thank you. Paula or Wes Haberger? I hope I got that right.

I also had sent in an email and I got recognition that you had received it but my concerns our concerns are where our house is we are not on Hanover we are kitty-corner from the lot you are talking about it also takes my our issues are the on-street parking, because nobody, I'm sorry, nobody just has one car. They have two cars, motorcycles, whatever. And that is a narrow and a T area, which will cause more blockage than we already have. Paula, you live back here, correct?

You live back here, right?

I live, yep.

On that one. This one.

Yep. OK. Just to show you guys proximity. That's where we are. I'm concerned about the two story. The duplex next to it that came in is a story and a half. It already blocks our hill. I'm concerned that it's a triplex. I saw the layout. It tells me you're going to have a small family that's going to have to move soon because there's only two bedrooms. It's not for seniors because seniors cannot. I know I'm a senior. You can't be going up and down stairs like that. That's just not feasible. So they'd be moving. So it's a constant move. which means constant people in and out and in and out. I understand that we need low income rent. I heard there's a whole new area being built for low income rent. I would really rather it be a single family home or a duplex that is a story and a step up. What is that? no where they have a basement it's like steve's a split level yes um that i can understand but i really don't want a two-story and i really don't want a triplex i really rather have just a single family home that's all all right thank you uh clayton severson

You know, ma'am, you had stated that this triplex being put on Hanover Street fit the rest of the layout of that area, but really it doesn't. It doesn't fit our street. Winfield, I don't have a problem with. Parkview, those triplexes have been there for a long time. But you know, if you drive by there, And look, there's old motorcycles sitting there. There's cars sitting there that don't run. And it just looks horrible. And it doesn't fit our street. Our street is mostly single-family dwelling, except for the duplex that Steve put in. And I don't have a problem with the duplex. But six cars sitting off the street. You know, if each of these folks have a child... that is of driving age. There's a potential that each one of those units could have three drivers. So now we're looking at three cars setting out on the street. We've got more traffic. And it just doesn't look good. It doesn't look good at all. Like I said, I don't have a problem with Winfield. you know, putting up their triplexes and that sort of thing. They've got an outlet, you know, that road goes up and meets Minnesota Street. They've got an outlet up there, putting it along Hanover Drive. You know, they either have to go over to Park View or they can go out on Winfield Street and that sort of thing, too. But more traffic, not a good deal in our book. So... That's about all I've got. It doesn't fit the street. Okay?

Thank you. Daryl Bowden.

Morning, everybody. Gerald Bowdoin, excellent pronunciation. Thank you very much. I live right across the street from Mr. Clayton over there. And again, as previously mentioned from the other folks, I'm not sure exactly what the notification timeline should have been. Ours was received Friday, so approximately six days ago. Didn't give us much time to review, prepare, plan. Did some furious researching yesterday. So it sounds like everything I've seen is like there was already a plan put in place. years ago, 2020, 2017, I think I saw another date as well, that it is going to be a single family or duplex because it makes sense for the neighborhood, makes sense for the planning, makes sense for the size of a lot. But right now, we're looking at 24-foot deficit, it sounds like, and they want to change. So instead of going width, we're going to go vertical. Fine. I have no issues with that. I did note some other issues. It just kind of makes me ask why, i.e., who was Calum Brooks? I have no idea who this person is, but we have a representative. I'm assuming you're Steve. So don't know who this person is. All my indications sound like a kid who just graduated high school like a year and a half ago, which an adult got it. out of the norm. And I could be completely wrong on that. The other thing I noted that the reason for having a triplex here versus a duplex or a singleton per the plan was for something requiring an exceptionally deep foundation on this particular lot of land. And that it's going to incur an extra cost of $80 something thousand. And they want to recoup this cost by having an extra unit on the property, more money. We all know how that works. I guess the duplex, that's right.

A second stacking lane of seven lanes or seven cars and all that. The argument against it didn't make much sense.

And I think that's what you face here a lot.

And so, you know, you're here to adjust how the rules are written. And a lot of what comes to this committee comes straight from Miss Vicki Fisher. I know it says staff recommends, but she's the boss, so I'm guessing she gets to decide these things. And she speaks eloquently about some things, and she speaks equally negatively about other things. But she does come here, and sitting out here, it kind of seems like you are getting spoon-fed what you should do based on her opinions. And it concerns me that any one person has that much power in the city. So here's why I have the concerns that everything that comes out of that office is just followed by you without question. The last item you voted on, number two, the vacation of right of way, is labeled as 110 East Madison and 110 East Watertown Streets. As a pure coincidence, I used to own 110 East Madison Street. And it's not on the drawing that they just showed as to where that, what you voted on. pertains to. It's a block north. You should question everything you hear. Thank you.

Thanks, Mr. Miller. All right. That's the last speaker request on this item. Eric Heikes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I sure enjoy the comments we've received on this item. I am going to kind of discuss the missing middle, which is a land use gap that we have in a lot of communities. We've got single family housing on one end and apartments on the other. But there's really not a lot of housing opportunity in the gap between them, townhomes and courts and triplexes and quads. That more efficient land use is really a prescriptive solution to a city just like ours with a housing need. This triplex, I believe, I think is a good solution. And I know that I might be the minority report from the crowd here today, but It's very efficient in the way it uses the land. It has a nice architectural look from the perspectives we saw that it looks a bit like a residential home, standard single family. And it also solves a bit of our housing crunch. And Mark, is it Mark? The gentleman that just spoke? Yes. Yeah, and I think for myself, I'm not spoon-fed by the planning director. I'm going to make these comments on my own. In fact, this is an agenda I've been pushing for a long time to solve our housing crunch in Rapid City, and I'm kind of going out there boldly here, but... think this is a great idea and a great plan I think I should I think my support for this is because of the rationale I just described we need more housing we need more efficiency and if it weren't for the plan development overlay on this this is medium density residential land this would be an allowed use on that land so It's the only encumbrance is that there was a previous plan development that only limited to duplex. So I will be voting for this if that is the option. So I do want to make sure that my statement is heard and that I do agree with the fact that this planning commission has hard choices to make and it's a tough job. So I do appreciate that, Mark. Thank you.

Thanks, Eric.

On that street, Hanover Street, that similar parking, in other words, on the front side of the lot.

All right, Eric made the motion to approve this major amendment to the plan development. Is there a second to that motion? I don't usually do this, but I will second it, because I want to see where this is going. So, Eric and Eric. All right.

But we don't get any of that benefit. And so we just ask you to please delay this. We think we're close. With a few minor tweaks, we can get to a workable product. Thank you.

Thank you. Not sure on the last name, but William Wagner.

Y'all should get used to it. Thank you. I've been here for a while. Good morning, Board. My name is William Wagner, and I'm here today because public office requires public accountability. You sit there not just as elected officials, but as fiduciary trustees. of this community's future in our public funds. For months, I have been persistently voicing my concerns regarding the proposed data center, backed by the South Dakota codified laws and a brand new data center bill of rights. I have hand delivered a comprehensive data center ordinance directly to this government. This is not unprecedented. unprecedented right now in Piedmont the new administration is actively using my extraterritorial jurisdiction ordinance to protect their employers these citizens this ordinance includes a vital safety net a hundred and fifty million dollar reclamation bond that was written the one that I gave to her And also, I want to say, furthermore, under state law, specifically SB 228, the rules governing public development have changed. State law demands strict and independent physical transparency. You cannot bypass accountability. I hold the true, unvarnished data for the Ecuador EDGE Data Center, sourced directly from Virginia Blanchford, proving what these projects cost a community of resources, water, energy, and public nuisance. You know, I'm gonna ask y'all put this in the record word by word, okay? Because therefore, I'm aware that the corporation used legal threats to silence public dissent, but under South Dakota's anti-SLAPP law codified via SB 137, our state explicitly protects public participation. Any meritless attempt to intimidate citizens speaking out faces fast-track dismissal. Therefore, I am moving forward to formally invoke South Dakota codified law 1-27-1.23 I'm using our open records law to expose exactly who in this government has seen the true data, when they saw it, and whether you are fulfilling your duties. Piedmont is already leading the way. The paper trail is ready since April. The law is on our side, the citizens, and the community is watching y'all. Thank you. And I ask you all to please look back at all my data center speeches and also the ordinance that I wrote. You know, like I said, or I understand y'all get these packet drops from, you know, her and the lawyers that have been working on it six, seven months. They give you a couple of days to vote on this and they're having y'all push some things that are not true. Okay. And y'all are going to be held accountable. I got plenty of paperwork. with stamps as affidavits. I thank y'all very much. Have a great day.

Thank you. Denise Ghiago? Doesn't look like Denise is here. We'll move to Eric Wolf.

Good morning, thank you for the time to meet and talk this morning. My name is Eric Wolf, I'm the business development manager for Black Hills Energy. I oversee all the large growth projects in both South Dakota and Wyoming. That experience has given me the opportunity to serve Microsoft and Cheyenne since 2016. I often hear in Rapid City that we don't want Rapid City to become Cheyenne. And understand that, a poorly cited data center in Rapid City could change the landscape. But there's a reason why those data centers exist today in Cheyenne and not in Rapid City. They need specific criteria to cite their projects. So one, they're gonna look for a large population. So Cheyenne has Denver. They're gonna look for a large natural gas hub. That's something they need. Cheyenne has the Cheyenne Hub, which sits 14 miles south of Cheyenne. Rapid City has the Williston Basin Hub, hundreds of miles in North Dakota. They're also looking for redundant fiber. They need that reliability that exists from more than one carrier. Cheyenne has two railroads. They have two interstate systems. All those right-of-ways carry different carriers of fiber. All our carriers and all our ISPs in Rapid City use this single SDN network. It runs east and west. They're also looking for a sales and use tax exemption. Wyoming has had that for years. South Dakota's legislature continues to push that down. So those are the reasons why they're in Cheyenne today and why they're not in Rapid City. Also, as stated, data centers have been used by right for almost two years in Rapid City. We haven't been flooded by inquiries. We don't have a current project other than this Ecuador project which seems to be failing because of the risk that they see in the Rapid City area. Black Hills Energy recently had a public announcement about our Lang 2 power plant that we're building. That's a simple math problem. It's a $320 million investment. You divide that out by the kilowatt hours that the residents pay and the commercial users and industrial users pay in Rapid City. If you add another large user to Rapid City, those costs would have been substantially lower to residents. Growth done right does provide some rate stability to our residents, and that's one of the things that we often hear that they're looking for. As this stands today, the CUP is a deal killer for these projects. You're not going to build a $100 million project on a revocable CUP. Also, even if you do feel like you can get past that, the cost that's added to that is extreme. You're going to pay a higher percent for your cash down. You're going to carry a higher interest rate to underwrite those projects. Vicky's team has done a great job of addressing everything. There is the opportunity to find a way to cite these in a spot where it doesn't affect residents and where they are a good fit for Rapid City. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Wolf. Taylor Gunhammer?

May I mention one more thing?

I've got another request. I'll give you another 30 seconds after that. Mike Stanley.

Good morning, Commission. I'm Mike Stanley with Dream Design International down 18 East Kansas City Street and wanted to thank you very much for taking the opportunity to hear us voice concerns and agreements and disagreements with this item. As far as work been reviewing the ordinance, we're really in agreement with the majority of it. I think it's great. I think the staff has done a wonderful job. There's been a lot of research that's been done in looking at all these different criteria and how they can go about helping define and stabilize the ordinance. The only issue we have with this is the use of the conditional use permit because of its revocability. We've been working now for the last three to four years with four to five different data center developers. These developers have ranged in from 15 megawatts to sky's the limit, wanting to look at Rapid City. One of the positives and one of the, I'll say, advantages this area has is the use by right in its zoning code. But then, I guess I'll... recognize what Eric said as they go through these different reviews of the area six months in, seven months in, the project usually will go away because of exactly what Eric said, that they're unable to make their electrical requirements met. And then they cancel the purchase agreement or they cancel the letter of intent. In those documents and in the letters of intent and purchase agreements, typically there's standards that have to be met and conditions of those. And irrevocable zoning and irrevocable land use is typically always one of them. In fact, we just had one that had that stated before, and that went away about three days ago. So our ask is really to work together, not as on a conditional use permit basis, but upfront to use the public input process and start to work together to develop a set of rules. I think staff and that entire team has really set this standard. to start with, but go through and refine and make those better and better and better. Work with the public, get the public input process in on the front side of this, because it is a citywide issue. And you may have areas of heavy industrial that don't have neighborhoods around. It might be a mile between a house. So our ask is to work together, set those regulations up front, and write those into the code. And as far as light industrial, I think a conditional use permit would be good for what staff and Jessica has said. But on heavy industrial, to allow that as a use by right for the micro and the large, because we feel that's a good use for what heavy industrial actually is. So any questions, I guess on my side, definitely let me know, but I'll be sitting in the audience.

Thanks. Thank you, Mike. William, I'll allow another brief comment here before we get to the commission. Again, identify yourself, though.

William Wagner. Thank you once again. I'm the man that initiated on February 25th the burden of truth under the fire mitigation for Black Hills Energy. They got $700 million five years prior for fire mitigation plus other grants and whatnot. Then if you look at the timeline when Black Hills Energy proposed the Lane 3 project, soon after, I think it was a month or two, Mayor Solomon said, oh yeah, we should be open for data centers. I kid you not, Garth a couple weeks later said, oh, is coming in. This has been planned. Y'all are getting played. Dropping these packets on y'all a couple days prior saying, oh, this and that. They're playing y'all. Y'all need to know the true data of what's in here, OK? And look up one compute project. The closed loop specialist says there's no true expertise data on closed loops projects. Better pay attention. Thank you.

OK. Thank you. Going to the commission, Eric Kikis.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. There's a lot to unpack here. This is interesting. Mr. William, what was Mr. William's last name? Wagner. Mr. Wagner. I'd like him to hear this, but I guess he's leaving. His comments, there was a lot of technical citing of references, codified law, that sort of thing. There was a couple holes in what he described, though. There was a couple issues there. I think we need to take a hard look at. If he wants to have all of that put to the record, I think We need to start with we are a quasi-judicial branch. We are not elected officials. We are appointed officials. And our job gives us a little bit of an arm's length away from what the council, they are. They answer to their constituents. We're here for a more objective and unbiased purpose. So I want to counter some of what William was saying. At least let's go through what he said as a point by point on the accuracy of it before we put it to record. That said, Jessica, a lot of us in here are scientists and have a scientific background. And this is just a courtesy ask, but When this was put together, can you cite any references or examples or templates that you used that were helpful? And you don't have to answer it either if you don't want to, but did you start from some place in a similar community or that sort of thing?

Yes, I believe we looked at at least 10 to 15 other communities and what they were doing, as well as some research on the noise, especially looking at what those impacts look like at different decibel levels and things like that. Sure. Absolutely.

Thank you. Okay. I've got a couple more things. I'm going to try to keep this short. I might have to put a three minute limit on myself here. So I really do admire and appreciate all the comments from the public. And I think Mr. Stanley makes a fair compromise on the conditional use for light industrial and then a more long-term relationship on the heavy industrial. That seems like a fair compromise. I'm struggling with data centers. I'm a little bit afraid of them personally. I don't know that that is the highest and best use for our community, but I know that in all things there needs to be both sides of the coin. My biggest concern in the data center consideration is the use of water. And we are already in sort of a droughty, difficult time with water here. And speaking as a person who tries to save water in the West like we do, I know that we either need to do a better job of making these data centers more efficient in their use of water or bolstering the treatment and reuse of water and not just the waste of water. So with all that said, I appreciate the ability to speak. Thank you.

Thanks, Eric. Vince?

Thank you, Chair. No, those are good points. And obviously, there's a lot to consider. And just to speak to the increase in electrical rates, and we don't have anyone here from Black Hills Energy, do we? Yeah, that's Mr. Wolf. And one of the things that, and you could probably clarify this better, and that is the Public Utilities Commission is elected by the people. They make decisions on those type of increases. And I'm not sure, but I think the last increase was more than a dozen years ago. And they're restricted as to those increases. So it didn't just come out of the air that there's a new possible electrical increase. Now, one of the items that you state here is that approval letter from the electrical utility is required, confirming capacity and resources to provide service. Really, I'd love to hear Black Hills Energy if they want to add anything more to that. especially with the comment recently about the rate increases.

Mr. Wolf, if you'd address that.

Eric Wolf, Black Hills Energy. So I want to address that in two parts. So first, we have our rate increase. So that was the first announcement you saw at the beginning of the year. The last time we changed base rates was over 12 years ago. So base rate, so what we're trying to recoup in that is We've undergrounded some overhead. We've replaced conductor. We've replaced rotten poles. We've hardened the systems. We have to replace meters. That's what we're trying to get out of the rate case that was announced earlier in the year. That was the first one. The second one is what we call our phase-in plan rider. What that's recouping is investment in generation here in Rapid City. Today on Deadwood Avenue, there exists 104 megawatts of natural gas generation. Most people don't even know it exists. It runs all day long, produces no smoke, produces very minimal noise. It's there. But it was also built in 1968. So it's at the end of its usable life. We are retiring 104 megawatts. We're building 99 north of Harley-Davidson, a little further out on the edge of the city limits. It's a good place for it. There's no residential around it. Most of the uses out there are industrial uses. That is the second announcement that we had this year. And that was the one I referenced earlier. That is simply a $320 million project. And you divide that amongst the kilowatt hour cost, excuse me, the total kilowatt hours that we serve in this area, that's what each person pays per kilowatt hour. If you add another large user on the system, you now have more kilowatt hours that you're spreading that same $320 million across, which does give a lower cost to each customer. In regards to citing a project here, we go through a very extensive study process. We're going to study transmission, distribution, how that project affects, how a data center project would affect being cited here in Rapid City. So what that usually looks like is there's generally a substation that's going to need to be built. There's going to be maybe a short length of transmission usually. Like if we're using the industrial park as an example, The sequitur project actually would need none of that built. We have existing distribution today that would serve them. That building is like 40,000 square feet. By the time that's all built out, you're not going to know which projects out there is the data center and which one is a standard commercial building. But with that said, if we did get a project that was closer to the 50 megawatts, we would build a substation out there, probably a short length of transmission that would follow the same transmission corridor that comes across the landfill today. Those costs, add those all up. The way we do this in Wyoming is we segregate all those costs. We put that one customer in its own rate class. All those costs that are in a FERC regulated accounting method to where they are able to be tracked and allocated only to that customer. So they will backstop that investment. They will pay for it up front. It is non-reimbursable. It doesn't matter how long they're on the system. It's been super effective. I always say call someone in Cheyenne and ask them if Microsoft, being down there for the last 12 years, has raised their rates, because you're not going to find somebody that can say that. They do a good job of stabilizing the rates when they're done wrong. Also, to level set, where most of this happened is on the East Coast, what they call the PJM market. And out there, they treated data centers like a regular customer. They would just put them on the system. Well then, as they started adding them, they were socializing those costs across all rate payers. We've never done that in Wyoming. We have a very tried and true way of keeping those costs allocated to only those customers. I don't know if I answered all your questions, though.

Oh, you did, actually. And if I could just add one clarification on that, because again, part of this is that the approval letter from the electrical utility is required, confirming capacity and resources to provide those services. And obviously, that's something that you want to take real good care of, but only because there are customers that you currently have right now. So if there came a choice between the two, who are you servicing first?

Yeah, so in our contracts in Wyoming, I'll give you an example. I can't use megawatts because that's highly differential, but I'm going to do a fictitious one. If Microsoft down there is 100 megawatts, our contracts say that 30 of that is firm and 70 of that is interruptible. One time in the tenure that I've been at Black Hills, we've interrupted them for four hours, which meant their generators ran for four hours that day. It was a peak summer day and a generator off our system had an unplanned event. But that's the only time in my tenure there in the last six years that we've had an event where we've had to curtail them. But we did not curtail any other customers. No other industrial users, no other homeowners. Homeowners would always be the last to be curtailed. We would always ask our industrial customers first. And a lot of times our industrial customers have no problem doing that when we reach out to them.

Thanks for the clarification, sir. I appreciate that. Thank you.

All right, Pat Roseland.

Thank you, I appreciate that. I read through this whole thing, and a lot of it's way beyond my head, and I appreciate what the planning department has done in getting all this information together. My thing that I really picked up on was an optional neighborhood meeting. It basically says that a city center operator may hold a neighborhood meeting. I would like to see it, shall or be required to hold a neighborhood meeting prior to them uh getting a conditional use permit just because some of the neighbors who may not get letters or they should at least have the opportunity to speak on this because it's highly uh you know it's a brand new lifestyle i guess with the data center so it's going to put one in their neighborhood or close to they all should have the opportunity to be available to speak on that rather than just getting a letter in the mail and not responding to that. Thank you.

Thanks, Pat. John Roberts.

Thank you for letting me speak. I've just got a couple of minutes, because I've got to meet with a client at 9 o'clock. But I have a couple of comments and a couple of questions. So I'll start with the questions to Vicki. One of my concerns is the noise level. The noise level is very low for industrial, especially heavy industrial. So my question is, is when we go in and we do this study in an existing area, what do we do if the decibels are higher already than what our recommendation in this ordinance is? Because you're going to find that in a lot of places. I can think of three or four major industrial users that are way beyond that.

Vicki? So part of the research was looking at what other communities have done regarding the noise and vibration. And we did meet with the group earlier this week that represented the electric companies in the area, as well as Mike Stanley, Hanny Shafi, Garth Wadsworth. And I think our biggest discussion was about the noise and vibration. We, again, went back after that meeting and looked at Cheyenne, Wyoming, someone who has stood up many, many data centers, and what are they allowing? And we noticed that our regulations are pretty in line. Theirs are about 5 dB higher. I think the difference is that there's a lot of industrial uses that don't persist 24 7, so that when the business day is done. That noise level drops drastically for a data center. it's 24 7. and i think that's why you see maybe some of these stricter noise regulations specific to that use you can see that there's an allowance for when people are expected to be at work versus when they're home we did acknowledge that we probably need to take more input to see if these numbers should be more reflective of what Cheyenne is allowing, which is the 70 DBA. Many communities do not even regulate the DBC. And that's those bass sounds that you hear. There just isn't a lot of research, but you know it when you hear it. And in our meeting, Todd Pekosz made a great comment. If you have two cars coming down the road and they both have the radio on and they're exactly the same volume, you may not hear one, but you hear the one that's got the big speakers and the bass turned way up high. You hear it, you feel it. We've all had that teenage kid in our neighborhood that you wish would stop it. And so there lies the difference. And there should be about 15 DB separation between the DBA and the DBC. And our regulations don't reflect that right now. So that is something going into this meeting today. We knew that we were going to have to work through as this progresses through the process.

So to me it sounds like there's quite a bit that still needs to be worked out on this. And one of my recommendations before I leave would be to probably push it back to planning so they can work with the developers and with Elevate more on this. I think that we've came a long way. Not very pleased with the CUP. I wish that Rapid City had a planned industrial development that we could run this through instead of the CUP. Because like Elevate said, CUP is going to push anything that we just can't build here away. I mean, they're not even going to look at Rapid City. And I don't think that we should be necessarily pushing people away before we even have the opportunity to see what they're recommending. So that, I know I had a couple other things, but I just can't think of what they are at the moment, and I have to go.

Can I bug you for a question, John?

Sure.

Would you rather see this get to council so council can provide comments and then if council decides it should go back to the starting line?

I'm personally good either way. I don't know what Vicki's recommendation would be on that. I'm good either way. I mean, there's going to be good comments at the council. And I do like that idea because if it comes before the council and there's a lot of comments and a lot of discussion on it, the public, usually there's 40 people watching the council meeting where there's only 10 watching this meeting. But people do look at it after the fact. True, very true. Either way, as long as it gets out to the public, I think that's what's important.

Mr. Chair, I think that what might serve the interests of the community as the whole because remember We have received comments from those that believe that the ordinance hasn't gone far enough So obviously this is one where we're just not going to make everybody happy I think a better course of action knowing that we need to work through the acoustical issues and and again, we've had wonderful representatives from the community as well as city public works department that's helped us through the electric and water requirements and analyzing what that looks like but on the acoustical sign side we're really leaning into other communities to try to gather that information and we get different answers across the board it might serve us well to continue this for 60 days and here's what we would do in that 60-day time frame We would have discussions with those that were present here today that made comment about our concerns with the CUP and what it might look like depending upon the underlying zoning. We also need to probably do a work session with the city council so that we can bring the best plan possible for their review, depending upon which council you're talking to. Again, some think it's gone too far, some think it hasn't gone far enough. But then I think we would like to host an open house, like a coffee with planners, where we're just inviting the public to say, this is the proposal and these are the portions of the ordinance that would address the nuisances that we have seen across the nation. And part of the problem is, is that this is an industry that is rapidly changing. Two years ago, when we stood up the data center ordinance, there wasn't the angst that we hear today throughout the nation. And one of the biggest concerns, while if you can't get water and you can't get electricity, you can't get the building permit, one of the biggest concerns that this has created is air quality and noise and vibration. We've limited this in size so that those private power plants aren't being constructed on data center lots. But in some communities, that took them off guard. And now they've got individual power plants throughout industrial parks, and the plume coming off of them is creating great concern for residential neighborhoods. Do we need a motion to continue the meeting or extend the meeting?

Make a motion to continue the meeting past 9 o'clock.

All right, Vince made the motion to continue past nine. Eric Heikes seconded that motion. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed?

All right. Kip, if we were to continue this for 60 days, what would that date be? November 5th.

Okay. We still have a few people that want to chime in on what they've seen today, but I've noted the date. Anything else right now, Vicki? Okay, Karen?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I'll try to be brief. First, I applaud the staff for what you've given us. I think this is better than what I've seen. And it gives us a place to start. And I agree that we do need to continue to talk about this. And I really appreciated the information from Black Hills Power, because there's things that I didn't understand. And it was very clear. He did a very good job of doing that. My only concern with data centers, I think we need to do some of them. The micro data centers, I don't think that's gonna hurt anybody, I mean, with all the regulations. The questions I have in the future really is water, I guess, because of the drought we have. And if we start out and authorize a data center that has so many gallons of water, and then all of a sudden we're in a drought, We have to cut them back. What does that do to them? Just the idea of more people living in Rapid City in the future, you've got to take that into consideration with water. And so that's my concern overall. But I agree we need to talk about this more. I think everybody's got good ideas.

Haven? Thank you. Yeah, I've tried to follow this whole discussion on a national basis and it's extremely complex and that was kind of my concern when I Reviewed our agenda today Trying to get a handle on this it with only a short notice and Obviously a lot of issues come up. I I guess I I don't Want to pass this on at this point to the City Council? I think I think we need to really start here with with something and I would definitely agree and was thinking about the same thing as Vicki suggested so I would move that we continue this to the November 5 Planning Commission meeting. All right even made the motion to continue.

Is there a second? Jeff second All right further comments even Eric hikers Thank You mr. Chair

wholeheartedly agree with Councillor Havens comment about let's Let's make this a planning item before it's a civil City Council item The one comment I have on the timing of water the work that the Western Dakota regional water system is doing on a alternative option for water for this community does the timing and the alignment of this should that be a long-term consideration because I In our current status, we are running out of water. So fair to say, or to assume. Thanks. Bye.

Mr.

Chair? Yeah. If I might, it's rare that we write an ordinance and then 24 months later we're coming back with a complete rewrite. But this is one of those uses that, due to technical changes, the way these businesses are operating is drastically changing. Two years ago, the demand on water for a data center was extreme. Now, with the design and how they are cooling these, that has significantly dropped. In two more years, I think it's going to change again. And so even though we're going to work hard to stand up something that ensures that the use is allowed in Rapid City, but protects the community as a whole. In two years, we're probably going to be back in here making additional amendments.

Pat Roseland? Just a short comment. Vicki, you mentioned you might have a working meeting with the council. I'd appreciate it if you'd invite the Planning Commission through that also.

Mr. Chair, whenever we have a working session with council, the public is invited. So it's a noticed meeting and anyone can attend.

Thank you much.

I'm going to jump in since no other lights are up. I thought the regulations as written were really clear on what's allowed and what's not. The one question I had, I was concerned about bring your own power. That's off the table here. I don't know enough about appropriating water from the aquifers. Is bring your own water an option here? Can somebody sink a well? I see those notices in the paper that so-and-so is looking to appropriate so much. If you want to comment, you go to the state. I guess I don't need an answer for that today since it looks like this is getting continued, but I think that's something to look into just to make sure that we don't go through regulating a utility connection and force people to drill a big well. Mr.

Chair, that's a great comment, and thank you for it. We all have seen the impact on our recent drought on our aquifer levels. And while we have written in protection on the electric grid side, it's assumed that they're always going to use city water or Rapid Valley Sanitary District or some other community water source. But certainly language can be added that protects the water sources as well.

My other comment just on the procedures discussed and this, I'm gonna bring in two entities totally unrelated to this, but the city's learned recently that code enforcement of telling somebody they need to do something doesn't always guarantee that they will do something. And this isn't something, especially the water procedures and noise procedures aren't things where you can go out and hire somebody to mow the data center's lawn and send them a bill. uber when it was getting going took the idea of move fast and break things you know go into markets don't follow the rules pay fines whatever i think we're far enough behind sort of the wild west of this that that wouldn't be an issue but i just want to make sure that if we do stand up these regulations that we have some enforcement mechanism that the city believes in and can go to quickly so if and i don't know anything about noise levels but if a data center comes and passes the certificate occupancy test but then turns up the noise by a factor of two that we have a way to deal with that and that again since it's a different method, I just want to make sure that that's in the thought process behind the regulations.

Mr. Chair, one of the things that does assist us is the ability for the city to look at smart meters. So we can tell When a user is using the water, it's not like you use it for 30 days and then you do an average. That smart meter will break it down to show, okay, are they using it for the initial fill and what is then that daily usage? On the electric grid side of it, that's something too that we would work with the electric companies if they thought that they were exceeding that amount. It really is the noise and vibration. That's the one. We do get complaints right now regarding light, and we do have some light regulations, and we'll get a complaint about an LED sign being too bright or someone's light shining outside the boundaries of the property. And we do have meters that we can go out and look at it. The problem is that staff isn't working at 2 a.m., And so then someone's got to volunteer some time to go check those. But when we get a complaint, we figure it out. We go and address the issue. We just don't get a lot of those complaints. There are similar meters that will assist with the noise detection as well.

yeah i and i not to put too final point on it but if the you know fine for being too loud is ten dollars a day or something like that a data center might just pay that and continue to pollute noise wise so i just i just want to make sure that in the enforcement side that we're tailoring any regulations that we need to as well towards this use karen

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to add something to my discussion of water. It also, I'd like to have a little bit more discussion on what happens when, if they have a closed system, they have to replenish that water, and the old water goes out, goes to the sewer system, and what harm that would do down the road. And I just want some more information on that when we go back to talk about this.

That is also a great comment. We thought about that, too. And there is language in the ordinance right now. But if we do need to make it clearer, when they go to discharge that water, that filtration and purification that's needed before the city will accept it. Because again, we've been watching the impact on other communities. And that is one that rose to the top.

All right. Anything else from the commission today? The motion on the floor is to continue this item to November 5. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Are there any opposed? Motion carries. That's our last regular agenda item today. Any discussion items to add?

I think we're good. Thank you for all of your bested time.

All right. Eric Heikes?

I have one. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The task at hand and the work we do as Planning Commission, I think, I appreciate the value that our community puts on us. We're volunteers. We're not paid. We are up here for the sake of doing the right thing in our community as a body of peers and hopefully making the right decisions. I really do want to appreciate John Roberts and his comment in buffering my comment on that item about the MDR aspect. That was a very timely comment he made, and it kind of took a little bit of the logic and the linear out of mine, which I appreciate that. I do appreciate Pat Roseland very much as well. We do not always agree. We are friends, and that's part of our friendship. Mark, I do want to make one comment about your, and this is my opinion. I've got the mic now. I get to talk about what I want to talk about. The timing of your comment, I think, really was detrimental to that item on the agenda. And I think that maybe the timing for those kind of comments should be in a general session or before the meeting or something like that. Getting us all emotionally charged up here with, you know, monkey wrench comments and throwing sand in the gears of the machine doesn't necessarily make this any easier. And I didn't really take a lot of respect from that for us.

Could you define where 110 is? I need to finish. Mr. Miller. I brought a mistake to your attention. Mr. Miller, please. Now you're using your position to attack me. That's not what we're talking about here we're talking about the comments that you made on the item So

Mr. Miller, let Mr. Heikas continue to speak.

Go ahead, but if he's going to attack my character or the fact that I came here and made a comment in a public meeting, then I should be able to defend myself.

I would likely recognize... Mr. Miller, I would likely recognize you...

that when they have to ramp up their modulating energy generation, that it's going to save the prior customer's money.

Okay. Let's just take a break from this, Mr. Miller. This is not a back and forth. We're trying to finish the meeting here. I have the floor. We need to take a break.

So you're really out of line here. Yep. And the creation of that emotional charge for this group sure didn't benefit the outcome of that item or the process of our meeting. So I think we need to be a little more careful here. We all have the right to be heard and we all have the right to speak, but we also need to know that there is a system in place and if we are outside the lines of the productivity of that, then I think we need to call that out and we need to make sure that we bring that back in line. I want that state for the record that that that happened today, and I don't think it was helpful at all.

So, thank you Mr. Miller Mr. Miller I Wasn't here last Mr. Miller, I can't shout you down from here. I'm sorry. We just have to wait, speak in turn. If you want to speak again, please ask. Chances are I'll recognize you. Eric, do you have anything else to say?

No, thank you for hearing me.

Appreciate it.

Vince Vidal? We're independent. So this commission, we all have our thoughts. We all bring our expertise to the table. I mean, to give you an example, I spent 20 years in the military. I tried to bring my military experience and what I've learned over that time. I've worked in large corporations, one of them here in Rapid City, General Electric and so on and so forth. Each and every one of us has so much that we can bring to the table from our experience. And one of the things that I tried to do, and I don't know if you noticed this, but I tried to, when there was a comment about the electrical rates and so forth, those rates were set by the Public Utilities Commission. And the local provider, Black Hills Energy, came up and clarified more information for me, so that that information can be understood by all, The customers that they currently serve are their priority at this point. That type of attitude, I should say attitude, that type of operation is going to get more attention, and that's why they're here. That's why we have an open meeting. I mean, I'm sorry, when I say open, we have to be recognized by the chair, which we are waiting our turn to speak to each and every one of you. But I'm going to, if somebody in the audience brings up something and I don't think it's been answered, I'm going to keep pushing. So that's just a personal of mine. And every one of these members of the commission, I noticed, do the same thing too. They bring that expertise. I rely on it. We talked about the drive-through. And we have an expert that spent many years in fast food. And so he brought up why that drive-through would work the way it did. So it doesn't go past me. That neighborhood that I mentioned today, I actually walked that neighborhood at least three times a week. And so those folks are going to see me on the street again. I understand their concerns. It was very, very difficult for me to say no to it. But I understand the growth and opportunities that something like that project could present. So we appreciate your time for being here. We appreciate your time, your effort. The points that you bring up, we truly do, and not just you, everyone in that audience. And I'll make sure that they get a voice. Thank you.

All right, Mr. Merle, briefly, if you'd like to respond or say anything, this is your chance.

I'm trying to decide how to respond now. It seems like my free voice to speak is now being stifled.

Everybody's voice to speak is stifled in a meeting like this.

Yep, but then using the advantage of coming back after the public comment is closed to assassinate my character because I have an opinion, because I think people are feeding you full of bullshit. Do any of you remember when the PUC allowed Black Hills Power and Light, before they brought YGen 1 and YGen 2 online in Wyoming, that the PUC allowed Power and Light to charge their customers during the building of the generators? The plants were already paid for by their customers by the time they came online. And shortly after that time period, that company was allowed to go private and become stockholders. Nobody supported the people in South Dakota and Western South Dakota when that took place. All I'm telling you is there's fine numbers and fine lines that you're kind of bouncing over. Just like this. My whole reference to item number two here is, in fact, a fact. I used to own 110 East Madison Street. It's nowhere on the damn map that you showed up there, but you guys voted it in. Now, when I brought that to your attention, somebody should have said, did we just vote on the wrong property? Are we in the wrong neighborhood? Did we make a paperwork problem? That's what the people in this city are trying to tell you. I can't tell you how to make every decision, but I have the right to tell you to look at the damn facts and make sure they're right.

Come on.

Protect yourselves. Protect yourself. It's kind of like Mr. Elevate coming in and he starts speaking about the sales tax.

Karen made the motion to adjourn. Vince seconded that motion. All those in favor of adjournment, please say aye.

Aye.

Well, I'm glad we got that covered.

That's it.