Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

[clears throat] Morning everyone. Welcome to the January 8th, 2026 zoning board of adjustment meeting. If any member of the audience wishes to speak to an item on the agenda today, there are speaker request forms on the left side of the room. Please grab one, fill it out, and hand it to the staff seated over there if you wish to speak to an item. Public hearing on item number one, the approval of the December 4th, 2025 zoning board of adjustment meeting minutes is hereby opened

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

Motion carries. Item number two. [snorts] Good morning. Item number two is a variance request at a property at 3602 Campbell Street. You saw this property in a reszone request which ended up being approved by the city council. So, we're now moving the variance request forward. They have an existing fence um that is under consideration. It's currently 7t tall. That's 6 feet of chain link and a foot of barbed wire. That fence was allowed in the heavy industrial district. It was reszoned to general commercial. It's not quite effective yet. So, you'll see um it's still heavy industrial, but it will be reszoned to general commercial. The general commercial district requires 4T fences, 4 foot fences in the front setback. And the front setback is 25 ft. So, that's what's under consideration today. This is the site. They are off a uh principal arterial Campbell Street. So that fence is running Campbell. It's a little hard to see, but the fence line runs essentially the front property line down and to the back and then along this side as well. So in question the area of 25 ft on this side, the front and on this side would be in the front setback at that 7 foot height. what when it requires 4 ft. [snorts] This hatched area you'll see is the area that it was reszoned. So just the front edge of the property, the applicant did request to reszone to general commercial to turn over to more commercial uses along this corridor. In knowing that the

fence itself is more industrial in type, so they're asking for industrial design but also having a commercial property. So staff is recommending denial on this one just to give you a insight of what the property looks like. Again, it was industrial to begin with. Now transitioning to commercial at the applicant's request. Um so staff is recommending that in order to transition to that commercial area, the industrial style fence should be um should meet the general commercial requirement. Again, either 4t or uh 25 ft back. The site itself, as you can see, um, let me go back a little bit to the bigger view. It's has a non-confor, it's not paved currently, so it has that non-conforming condition since that is a requirement in both districts. It was not required to get a variance or come into compliance. So, there's nothing improved on that property that would prevent them from moving the fence back the 25 ft. Again, for a barrier purposes, the 4T would still accomplish the goal of keeping, you know, people from moving back and forth. They didn't site security as an issue, but again, they could have the barrier at four feet or move the back 20 the fence back 25 feet and still have ample room to store trailers on that property. So, in looking at the variance criteria, we have to look at is there a special circumstance in this case? No. They have the room to be able to move it. They did request to go to general commercial and so in that they should be meeting the requirement. Again, this is a higher standard than what was in the heavy industrial district. It was allowed there. This is a higher standard and so that's why we would require the variance in the first place. Um there's reasonable use of the property. Again, they could move it back and still have ample room for parking the trailers for sales.

um it's not the minimum adjustment necessary and it is not in harmony with what they are proposing to be a commercial area. So with that staff finds that the um request should be denied. Again you'll not you'll see the the commercial building that they've redone. The area is industrial, but remember these other properties, including this one, are are essentially zoned industrial and can have those type of fences. [snorts] And I will stand for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. We do have a speaker request on this item. Dave Madden, if you'd like to address the commission. [clears throat] Good morning. Uh yeah, I work for uh Winding Guard Investments, uh the property owners. Um so we just kind of wanted to stop by and plead our case. Um we did uh reszone it to general commercial just for future plans of our use on the property. Um at some point uh when the lease of uh Blake's trailers is up, we will move them around on the property. As she said, there's over 10 acres. There's a lot of room there. Um, but we'd rather not move the fence back just for future plans. At some point that fence will be gone cuz we'll uh develop the front end of it. There'll be commercial buildings on there. Um, so yeah, for the time being it is mostly security for Blakes. We'd like to leave it there. That way their stuff is secure. 4ft fence isn't really security. It's easy to get over, but um, if you guys have any questions for me, I'm happy to answer them.

Okay. Thank you. We might call you back up, Mr. M. Okay. Thank you, Eric Hik. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, the last time we saw this item, as I recall, we had uh really applauded the massive cleanup that was done on this site and uh there was discussion of possibility of a coffee shop in there. Is that does my memory serve me correctly on this one? Okay, correct. Just bringing just bringing myself up to memory. Thank you, Haven.

Uh, thank you. A couple things. Uh, the request, does that include the entire property? I'm I'm quite familiar with this property. So, there's the the picture that we've got in front of us now is kind of the south half of the property. So, uh, is the fence request also include the north half of the property, which would be to the left of this picture in front of that, uh, commercial building?

Jessica, could you put the uh, site plan up again? There you go. So, in general commercial, you can have a six-foot fence, but not in the front yard. So the only part of the variance uh specific to fence design is that part [snorts] that's adjacent to Campbell Street and then extending east 25 ft. And so my question though uh going back to that picture before here uh that shows the south half of this property. There's a another part of the property to the left of this picture and

that's the commercial building. Yes, that would be this point and then it goes a little bit further to the left. Is is is that part of the fence request for us?

That's a good question because variances do run with the land, but this variance request is for the existing fence. So only where the fence exists today within that 25 ft setback, there's not a fence that that runs within the 25 foot setback north of the area where Blake's Trailers is. And uh I'm assuming then with the with the zoning change they have to do something with the existing fence. Going back to the picture again that uh you had. Yeah. So that they have to do something with the the fence that now exists on this portion if I could Mr. Chair.

Yeah Vicki.

So uh this is always kind of the chicken and the egg. You cannot reszone a property that has existing development on it um if there is a land use that does not comply with the proposed zoning. So, uh, sometimes we will bring the variances to you first to say, would you grant this variance to allow an industrial fence in a portion of a property that's going to be reszoned, general, commercial? In this case, because we were not supporting the reszone, uh, as planning commission also recommended to deny, um, we decided that we would let the reszone come forward first and save the applicant the expense of the variance if that was upheld by planning commission and city council. Uh, city council did grant the the the reszone, citing that they wanted to see this area transition into more general commercial uses. And so it's like it the frustration the difficulty is you can't have it both ways. They could have chosen to only reszone that portion of the property general commercial that they're developing today and then come back later and reszone the southern portion of the lot. uh but to maintain that aesthetic appeal that we uh the regulations call out in commercial corridors that fence does not align with any of the other uh general commercial uses in this area. And so, um, if, um, if the request is denied, then I'm guess I'm questioning that then what? Uh, so now we have a fence there that doesn't comply. So, what happens at that point?

They have two options. If the fence is denied, they can relocate it 25 ft back. So, it's out of the front yard and then the six-foot fences is allowed in general commercial. Or they could come back in and propose to reszone the southern portion of the lot back to heavy industrial and leave that as an industrial area until they're ready to develop it general commercial. There's a third option, right? They can cut down to 4 feet as is. Correct. Okay. But if they wanted to preserve the fence because the the gentleman in the audience today made a good point. 4 feet does not provide them the security that they need.

Yep. Good. Haven. Okay. Mike Quazny. Thank you, Mr. Chair. [clears throat] Um Vicki, is there any thing we can do with timing? I don't know how long they plan on Blakes's being there. Is there a an option and I guess maybe a fourth option that uh six months to a year this has to be taken care of? I don't know when Blakes is planning on what when they're planning on doing this, but if we give them a time frame where um because there are fences on the other side just like this and this is we're gradually reszoning this anyhow. I I think it's going to end up happening where we do commercial all along here. Is there any option for a timing on this so that they don't have to?

Oh, that's a difficult question. I think first we should probably speak back with the representative to see what is their realistic timeline to see if that's even an option. Mr. Madden. Yeah. Um I would say I mean I don't have a specific plan just yet. Um, we've got a lot of pokers in the fire at the moment, but I would say within three to five years is probably what we're looking at. Um, because we do have a lease with Blakes and that does map out their usage of that entire property. So, in your lease with Blakes, uh, do you have to have it as far forward as you have it right now? Can you move it back?

Um, we could talk to them to move it back. Um, like we said, the amount of expense to pull that fence out and move it back the 25 ft or however much is, you know, in our eyes, not really worth the expense to do that versus just cutting it down to a 4ft fence. And we're, like I said, in 3 to 5 years or maybe less. It just depends on how things work out. You know, once we develop the front of that property, that fence will be completely gone. Anyways, so what I think has been stated here is a fact is a hard fact that because it's been reszoned, you have to change what you have to fit into that zoning. So, it sounds like you do have an option to uh go back to the zoning in this piece of property as it was and then come back and and ask for a reszone, which I think all this is going to go commercial. So, it's eventually going to happen anyhow. I think it's important that we do the easiest thing right now and and fix this problem. we can't have we start making exceptions it it just creates other problems

right so can I follow on on this and Mr. Madden, I apologize this isn't really for you, but zoning board adjustments that you know a different set of standards than our other meeting today. Uh I don't recall ever doing a timeline on a on a zoning change. Is there an avenue to even do that?

Typically, we we've done them on plan developments and conditional use permits. We've never done one on a variance before. You are a quasi judicial board as you sit right now and so your decisions are final and if the applicant doesn't like it, they need to appeal it to a circuit court of law. Um it would be difficult to enforce in police. Okay. With that is that something that you're willing to go back to making this industrial this piece of property?

Um I can double check with my boss. um he would have the final say on that decision. But I mean me personally, I would think if there's a good feeling that yeah, if we go back to heavy industrial just on that portion of the property and then once we're ready to develop it that we'd easily be able to get it back to general commercial, I don't I wouldn't see the problem with that. As Vicki has stated many times in our meetings, we're not here to design. Uh but so I might propose that we take and ask that this be moved to the next meeting. Um is that a possibility? Vicki,

certainly you can. Um I just I I want to point something out. While we understand we understand what Mr. Whittia is wanting to do. We understand that sure he could reszone it who driving down the highway. who knows what it's zoned. But when you look at the criteria for a variance and whether or not we can hit the mark in order to support this, we just can't. So whether you act on it today or you act on it in two weeks, um I'm still going to point you back to the criteria.

That said, that gives Mr. are the time to discuss change what they their plan is and come forward with a better plan on this whether rather than us determining this and and I think that's where if we can get the businesses to to take care of their own works and we don't have to get involved I think we can we can come up with a solution that will help all parties. So Mr. chair. Yeah.

If um the uh property owner does concur uh that he will just relocate that fence or he will reszone it back to heavy industrial. Uh we could work with him internally to allow him time to get that fence moved, but it would probably be within that six-month time frame and then it would become a code enforcement issue. Again, as long as they're taking steps to address it, we work with them every way we can.

And you've done very well. We appreciate all that you do, Vicki. So, um, but I think that would be a better solution is to let it come up with the solution that works because we're our hands are kind of tied on this and we need to come up with something that that works for all parties. And we like to work with you. we'd love to be able to help you. Um because business is important in Rapid City, but at the same time, you got to go with what we have. So, so with that said, I would make a motion to uh take this to the next meeting, giving them time to discuss. Second.

All right, that's January 22nd. All right, Mike made the motion to continue to January 22nd. Vince seconded that motion. and uh discussion on the motion. Eric Hikis.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think Mike makes some really good points. Um sounds like we're trying to work toward a compromise. I do want [clears throat] to remind everyone that our original recommendation on the reszone of this was to deny it. So, um, let's make sure that we remember that that our that our direction was that to begin with to keep it as industrial. So, thank you,

Haven. Thank you. I had a question. The property that we're talking about here, the we're talking about a portion of the property. Is it is this one lot or is it is that platted separately what we're talking about which is south of that driveway. It's one lot with split zoning. So a portion of one lot is zoned will be zoned general commercial and then the back portion would be zoned heavy industrial.

Okay. Thank you Karen. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm talking about the motion on at hand to continue. I don't see the purpose of continuing it because we'll have the same decisions to make. And if we just look at the the zoning requirements that we have to deal with, they're not in compliance. We need to get them into compliance. It's up to them whether they want to reszone it or they want to cut the fence down or move it back. Those are options that they have. But in two weeks, I think we're going to have the same thing in front of us. So, I'm I'm saying we should make the decision today with what we've got and and then let the applicant come back and do what he has to do because he has to do one of those things. So, um that's my decision anyway.

Can I follow on to Karen's point there? A lot of times I look at continuing as a way to to be honest save the applicant a application fee. Um are we saving anything on this? because there would have to be a new application to reszone another portion to heavy industrial or the option is move the fence, cut it down, which is not I mean building permit. I guess

some some municipalities do require additional fees be paid if an item is continued because that's new information coming in. Staff's got to review that, too. Rapid City does not. So there's no additional fee to the applicant for the continuation. However, the reszone and/or moving the fence will definitely be an expense on the applicant. I I guess I more mean like we're not we're not avoiding a a new application by continuing and then hearing the answer that they want to apply to change to heavy industrial.

I don't know that I fully understand your question. Yeah, hypothetically today if the applicant said, "You know what? We want to apply to change this portion to heavy industrial since that's what not what we're talking about today." That's a new application, new item on the agenda. Um, that is the case whether or not we approve this.

That is correct. specific to this application. Um, if the majority of the zoning board of adjustment deems that the criteria for granting a variance that set forth by codified law is not being met, the variance would be denied. The applicant also has the option of withdrawing the variance and then coming back and looking at the three areas of remedy that we just discussed and picking one of those. Okay. Uh Vince,

thank you chair. No, I I I think of and again to Eric he hike his point earlier that uh we've we we reviewed this issue already when it came to the resoning. Uh I don't think any of us uh you know didn't see the the possibilities of improved business there. And as a matter of fact, I complimented the owners on the uh on the business next door that wants to offer the uh coffee shop and and restaurant. and I told him I didn't recognize that building because of the improvements they made. And that's what we're looking at again. Now, but I do agree. I I think what what Mike and I are trying to do because I second the the motion to move it two more weeks is that we're trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, you know, and if two more weeks gives you the definite, yes, we need to fix that fence, then you see our point is that we really wanted to just, you know, we denied it, but but we are we're also working with you. We we'd like to expedite this as quickly as possible. We thank you for your information. So, I appreciate it. Thank you,

Mike Cosnney. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Vince, you said that very well. Thank you. Um, our purpose is to try to build something here uh where we don't have to determine it. Our our hands are kind of tied. We're going to if we deny it, um, it it I I guess I don't know what that does for you, Vicki. Uh once we deny it, do we end up with the they have to come back anyhow and they have to re submit to reszone or can we avoid some of this by having two weeks to really discuss what the options are.

I I think you've pretty much let the applicant know that there's probably not support for the variance. So either you deny it today and let staff work with the property owner to determine which one of the three options he wants or you continue it so that when you take that action, you know what the end result's going to be. But if you should deny it today, we will visit with the applicant and if he decides he wants to relocate it, he doesn't want to reszone back to heavy industrial, maybe a different council would be seated at that time and maybe they would concur with planning commission that that is spot zoning. So, uh, we would work with them and give them at least up to 6 months to get that fence moved. Um, the other options would be they could lower it or they could bring in the reszone application.

But again, those are all things that will be worked through with staff. I guess the question I come to is whether the two weeks allows a better line of communication or it's in staff's opinion deny would be the best and and open up the the discussion. I I think because the criteria isn't being met, the right action today is to deny it, knowing that staff will reach out and work with the property owner to review the three options and work with them generously to ensure that one of those three options are met.

Substitute. Okay. I guess then I'd do a substitute to deny. All right. So Mike Quasnney made a substitute motion to deny the variance. Second and Karen second beach event. Sorry,

Mr. Chair. Yes. I just like uh the company to know that we're w we want to work with the businesses and we want to make sure that that is taken care of and I think Vicki and planning will will she they will take care of you. So, all right. Any further uh comments on the substitute motion to deny? All those in favor, please say I. I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Item number three.

Good morning, chair, zoning board of adjustment. Item number three before you is your second variance request. This is a request to allow gravel surfacing for a storage yard in the in lie of a hard surface. We are at 2900 West Chicago Street. This property is zoned light industrial district with a future land use of light industrial as well. And access to this property fronts West Chicago Street. Um access is actually off of North St. An Street um over here to the west which is a proposed collector street on the city's major street plan. and West Chicago Street is a principal arterial street. So, this um property consists of three separate parcels um that are currently tied together under one ownership. They total approximately 6.17 acres of property. This currently contains a vacant office building. What they are proposing to do here, as you can see up here on the screen, that office building sits up here. They are proposing to have a gravel surface contractor storage yard here on the east side of this property. Um, so what they are proposing to store is construction equipment and materials that are related to commercial building projects. The equipment that they would be storing would be things like skid steers, mini excavators, job trailers, um, ground heaters, medium and light duty trucks, things along those lines. Um supplies would be things that are waiting to be installed on projects like walls, panels, um trusses, insulation, concrete forms, and materials like that. They are also proposing to, you can't really see them real well on this site plan, but there are some shipping containers um indicated on the site plan here that they are proposing to place on the property as well um for some storage of materials. In addition, um so access and parking um for light industrial does have to be hard surfaced with either asphalt or concrete. Um as you can see

on this site plan, the circulation, the access and the parking lot for the existing office building are hard surfaced, but they are proposing that the surfacing for this storage yard be gravel surface only as well as the access. So the access would come here um down through here and then the gravel storage yard is approximately 80,000 square feet in size um and that all would be gravel surfaced. Um the reasoning for the gravel surfacing is that the construction equipment that they are storing over time would likely damage a hard surface and cause them to have ongoing maintenance issues um that they would frequently have to repair. I do want to point out that a contractor's storage yard is an allowed use in the light industrial district. So, this variance would not grant a land use that's otherwise not allowed in this zoning district. Shipping containers do require a building permit. They are considered a structure by code. Um, so they will have to come in and get a building permit for shipping containers when they put those on here and those will have to meet setback requirements and things along those lines. Um, public works is also going to require a drainage report when they submit a building permit for this storage yard um or a grading permit. Um, they that will be required to address um runoff and also water quality on this site. And then staff is also recommending if this is approved that a dust palative be applied like we do with all of these gravel storage areas to try to mitigate some of that dust. Um, I do want to point out that in terms of screening, the light industrial district does require that outdoor storage facilities be screened um by either an OPEG fence, some sort of OPEG screening or plantings that are no less than 7 ft in height. So, what they are proposing rather than construct a large fence along this, they are proposing to use landscaping as

their screening. Um, so as you can see on this site plan, there is this buffer of tree coverage right in here that would be used for screening on the south side to screen West Chicago Street. And then there is existing tree um existing tree groups, I guess you could say, here on this east side that also screen as you're coming west on West Chicago Street. And then as you're going east down West Chicago Street, um there is a pretty significant hill right here. Um that does allow for some natural screening from West Chicago Street coming east. Um so a a contractor storage yard is generally expected to produce a pretty low traffic volume. Um so this is similar to some other um gravel storage areas that we have allowed in the past. I do want to point out that staff did look at this in terms of whether or not this is the minimum adjustment necessary. They could reduce the size. This is a pretty significant size storage yard at about 80,000 square ft. They could reduce the size to reduce the amount of paving that would be required. I will say with their access, there are some easement things up in here and also some drainage um down in this area that would have to be addressed if they did do um some sort of paving surface. So, gravel surface is their ideal situation. Um so, here is the property looking at it from West Chicago Street. These gravel piles is exactly where that gravel storage yard would be. [clears throat] This is another view of it. As you can see, this property does abut the um cement plant to the north. So that is another consideration that we took into account as well um considering the surrounding area is largely industrial on this side of the street and commercial on the other side of the street. Um this is that existing office

building and this is looking at it from the top of West Chicago Street. So you can kind of see this natural topography. That storage yard sits down below this hillside. This is the cement plant looking at it from the access to that property. This is looking across the street of West Chicago um at those commercial areas that are over there. This is West Chicago Street looking west, so up the hill. And [snorts] this is West Chicago Street looking down the hill to the east. As you can see again that kind of shows that topography difference that storage yard sits here below that. So ultimately staff is recommending approval of this variance request with stipulations outlined in the staff report. I'll stand for any questions. [clears throat]

Thank you. Just a quick one. The access to the storage yard would be just to the right. Okay. It is right. So the access to the storage yard would come off of this existing pavement right down through here. Eric Hikus. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Please note my absence abstinence. I will be abstaining from this vote [laughter] because I'm involved with it. I can be a resource. I'm going to go sit in the audience. Thank you. All right. Thanks, Eric. Mr. Chair. Yeah, Vicki,

if I might. So this is an example um of looking at a property in an industrial area and trying to find that minimum adjustment to ensure that we have viable full use of property. Uh the storage area needs to be the size it is. This is a community that's growing. building is taking place in many different areas. And so we want to see this property fully utilized because this is exclusively an industrial corridor on the north side of West Chicago Street and because the equipment that they're going to be using at times to pick up materials will damage uh some of the uh harder surfaces. Uh we did feel that it was appropriate to allow the gravel and as Cassie noted there are stipulations to ensure that air quality is being maintained at all times.

Thanks Vicki Kelly. Uh thank you Mr. Chair. So the the paliative is a annual application. If there were issues with dust or complaints from neighbors would that trigger code enforcement would that and this has come up before. We've dealt with these and I just want to refresh my memory. If there was an issue, the city can enforce some sort of action for another application of the of the palative chair. Oh, Kelly, I knew you were going to ask that question. So, I ran out and checked and the stipulation says annually or as needed. As needed. So, yes, if we get a complaint, we can The city does have teeth though that Okay. Thanks,

Haven. Thank you. That was the that was the issue that I was going to raise also. Um I I know this area in the past has has had some u uh air quality uh issues and so I think it is important that there be some dust retardant and some uh some uh attention be uh given to the u uh any air quality problems that this would create. Mr. Chair Vicki,

we're fortunate today we do have Morgan uh Twambbley, our environmental planner, in the back row of the of the room as we speak. Uh and and she does an excellent job uh working with property owners to ensure that they are complying with these uh uh requirements uh when she does issue these annual permits. All right, Kelly, just one more quick question. Eric will love this. the the tree screen. Are there any requirements for are these going to be mature trees? Are they going to be shrubs? I'm just kind of curious over time, what's it going to look like and feel like if they do add some sort of barrier for sight?

Absolutely. So, we're looking at coniferous and deciduous trees so that we get the best coverage possible. Um the landscape regulations look at what is that caliber, that diameter uh of that uh trunk. And so for coniferous, uh, it is a little, you have to plant a little bigger tree, but we can't require that they be like a 16ft tree right away cuz those are hard to take root. So we're probably going to get six, eight, maybe a 10ft tree to begin with. Okay. All right. Karen Bowman.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I have two things, I guess, for the trees. Since we're just talking about the trees, I know a lot of times uh people plant those and then some of them die and that would be a code enforcement question. If they die, they have to come back and put another one in.

Absolutely. And Jessica is training our code enforcement officers, zoning 101, so that they can be the eyes in the street. They're not just nuisance regulators of no one mowing grass or shoveling snow. and they're doing an excellent job. Um because we just don't have this the the planning staff to get out and do annual inspections. Uh or if someone complains, then we can um cite them and ensure that they do replant as needed.

Okay. I I thought that would be the answer, but I just wanted to make sure. Um I think we've done a lot of these in the past and it makes good sense. I mean, why would you want to pave that and then tear the paving up with the heavy equipment that you're going to use in there? And I, as long as we have that dust palative going forward, I I don't see why we wouldn't support this one also. So, that's my comment. All right. Any other comments, questions on this item? No, I'll make a motion to approve. All right. With the uh five stipulations. Second. All right. Vince made the motion to approve the variance and Alicia seconded that motion. Mr. Chair.

Yeah, Vicki. Uh, if we could just get the motion maker to do a friendly amendment and cite that this uh is a minimum adjustment necessary and allows for a use otherwise permitted in the district. We need to site criteria. I will accept the amendment. Okay, Alicia, does that work for you on the second? All right. Any comments, questions on the motion? All those in favor, please say I.

I. Any opposed? The motion carries with Eric Hikis abstaining. That's our last item on zoning board of adjustment. I'd look for a motion to adjurnn to move to planning. All right. Mike Quasnney made the motion. Second. Vince seconded his motion. All those in favor of adjournment, please say I. I. I.

And that brings us to planning commission for January 8th, 2026. If anybody has a wish to speak on an item on planning commission agenda, please grab a speaker request form from the left side of the room and hand it to the staff seated over there and we'll make sure that you're able to do so. Items 1 through 10 have been placed on the consent calendar today and may be approved as a group. Action will be taken on all consent items in accordance with staff's recommendations 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 make the final decision with the exception of the following items. Item two, 25 URUR037. Item six, 25 PD037. And item 725 UR038. Rapid City Planning Commission. The actions on these items are 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 1 through 10 that staff would like removed from the consent calendar?

Number five, please. Okay. Are there any items uh that any planning commissioner would like removed from the consent calendar for separate consideration? 10. Okay. What's that? Eric. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don't know if we have to remove it from the consent consent calendar, but I will be abstaining on item seven. Seven. Okay, [clears throat] we'll just remove it so we we're clear on that.

And then any items uh that any audience member would like removed for separate consideration, we're going to remove items five, seven, and 10 at this point. Motion to approve the consent calendar with the exception of items five, seven, and 10. All right. Second. Vince made the motion to approve the consent calendar with the exception of items five, seven, and 10. And Kelly, oh, Mike seconded that motion. Mike Quasnney was the second. Any discussion on the motion to approve those items? All those in favor, please say I. I.

Any opposed? Motion. I can't help it. Haven's giving me grief because I had to identify mics for a long time and now we only have one. All right. Item number five. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, you have a speaker request form on this. We thought it would be helpful if Cassie just gave a brief presentation and then we can take comment from the audience member.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, item five before you, this is a major amendment to a plan development overlay to allow a child care center. We are at property located at 4024 Sheridan Lake Road. Um, this property is currently a church. what they are proposing to do here. This property is zoned medium density residential within the Fairway Hills plan development overlay. Um future land use of this property is urban neighborhood and access um that exists right now there are two access points off of Sheridan Lake Road which is classified as a principal arterial street on the city's major street plan. Like I said what they are proposing to do here is to add a child care center within the existing church. So there's no change to the church use with this request. This is an addition of a child care center. They are proposing to provide care for up to 80 children ranging in age from infant to preschool. Um they're going to have they anticipate 14 full-time teachers. Um two to three part-time caregivers that float and then also one director. And all of that will be based on state required staffing um ratios. And the center will operate Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. They are proposing to use both levels of the church um for this. So as you can see here on this on these floor plans, [clears throat] so this is the lower level of the church, this top area here. So the lower level would be used for the 2-year-old through preschool age kiddos. And then also this is where their indoor play space is at. And then this is the upper level of the church. This would be used for the infants and the one-year-old ageed children. Um, they are proposing an outdoor play area. Whoops. Let's go back this way. An outdoor play area here. As you can see depicted in the red, this is behind the church. This area will be required by

code to be fenced entirely enclosed by a fence at least 4 feet in height. Um, this child care center is also required to be licensed by the state of South Dakota prior to operation. So they have to meet all of the state's requirements as well. So when we were looking at this um we look at whether or not the outdoor and indoor play space ratios are met and also we look at the surrounding neighborhood. So this neighborhood is like I said in the Fairway Hills plan development so largely residential in this area. However along Sheridan Lake Road there are those commercial uses, those office commercial uses. to give you a frame of reference, Arrowhead Golf Course is right here. So, Arrowhead Golf Course is directly north of this property. Um, so this that is something that we take into consideration. Um, the other thing that we take into consideration is parking on this property. So, currently this property um provides for 105 parking spaces. So, when we're looking at calculating parking on this property, we look at all of the uses together. So we calculated it based on the church use and in addition the child care center use. Even with both of those uses, they still exceed the minimum parking requirement. Um also KIP did run um trip generation calculations for this child care center with 80 kiddos. Um the peak hour is about 65 trips per peak hour. Again, Sheridan Lake Road is a major arterial street, so we took that into consideration as well. I'll show you a few pictures of this property. So this is the church as it exists today. This is looking north up Sheridan Lake Road here. So you can see this is the c the curve of Sheridan Lake Road. So this the front entrance uh the main entrance of the church um would likely be the main entrance to the child care center as well as the classrooms and such are kind of over on this side of the church.

[clears throat] Here's the church looking south. Um, this is the area back here where that fenced play area would be. Here again is Sheridan Lake Road. This is the church property showing that they did meet the notification requirement. So ultimately staff is recommending approval of this major amendment with stipulations noted in the staff report. I'll stand for any questions. Thank you. Uh, Eric Hikus.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is not a question, it's a comment. Um, always believe that churches are underutilized. U, they're they're large. They have large parking lots. They [clears throat] they take a lot of power and maybe not so much water, but their peak loads are intensified during large attendances. So having a child care facility or other use during the you know the week is I think is a is a solid u consideration. I'll be supporting this. Thank you Mr. Chair. Yeah Vicki.

Um this was pulled because there's an audience member that wants to speak to it. Uh I I I think that those comments are important to be heard. Um just noting too that child care is one of the uses that this town is in desperate need of. Uh, and so that was taken into consideration as well. All right, we'll move uh to the speaker request form. I I hope I'm getting it right. Larry Converse or Lanny. Um, if you'd like to come up to the mic and if I got your name wrong, please identify yourself, how you prove it be called.

I'd just like to echo echo what was just said. I am not here opposed to this child care center. I am here to express a concern and uh that concern is that this is going to have an impact and I understand that I'm told that this audience does not address this issue. But I will let you know that I would hold you all guilty if you didn't consider this. Sheridan Lake Road has turned into something that ought to be renamed. It ought to be Sheridan Lake Speedway, Sheridan Lake Dragstrip, Sheridan Lake Heavy Traffic that is going out to the south uh down Sheridan Lake Road. We now have all kinds of double dumpster trucks that go through there. And if you look at the speed limit that starts at Jackson Boulevard, it's 35 miles an hour. At the Arrowhead Country Club, it turns to 40. When you get out to uh Katherine Boulevard, it's 45 up the hill. Those are just suggestions. The other day I pulled out onto Sheridan Lake Road heading towards Arrowhead Country Club. Not a car in sight to the south. But as I pulled out, two cars came around that corner. I looked at them and man, they're coming fast. And I said, "Well, I better get out of the way." So, I started speeding

up and I went by the church and was accilerating up the hill by Arrowhead Country Club. And all of a sudden, I realized the two cars that were coming behind me were going to pass me. And I looked down to see how fast I was going because I was accelerating to get out of their way or to to merge with them. And they passed me. And my readout said I was going 62 miles an hour. Now, here's the hammer on this. Two people have died right there at Arrowhead Country Club. They accelerate in that corner and they can't handle the corner. They If you go out there now, you can find a cross by Arrowhead Country Club. uh the tennis court and you can see one across the street at the other uh facility. It used to be a funeral home but now it's a exercise place that is a heavily craveled road and now that you put in five lanes where the business part was uh I I I can't imagine what the speed limits are. Well, I can because they pass me when I go go the speed limit. Why is that area that is residential has a elementary school and a a junior high school and the kids go right down that busy road. They ride bicycles. they ride those little scooters and uh there's just no no safety for them.

Now, my my point would be I understand you don't address this, so I'll go to the police. But those speed limits are just suggestions. I mean, nobody complies with them. Five five miles an hour over the speed limit is the accepted speed. So that ups it to 35 uh plus the point that I would like to make is that this is not stopped. They put a police sub substation out there. The police didn't even get to move in and a car went through uh speeding out of control, knocked in the side of the building. It's uh so things are out of control.

Mr. Converse, your point on the speed on the road's well taken. Um for sure. U do you have anything to add on our the child care center for today? Uh, the only thing I would add is is in considering approving it, do you take into consideration the traffic that will be impeded entering and exiting? My church has a child care center. Uh, a lot of traffic going in there at 7 o'clock in the morning, but it starts at six o'clock for the people that are going to work and going by there.

And there those speeds are going to be impeded by the parking lot and the people going in and out at 7 o'clock and at five o'clock to 5:30 in the evening. U, what is my next step? I don't I don't I don't make any bones about it that I think this is a crisis type of thing because our child care center at our church is full all the time and I have certain people that I know that are having family problems because they can't get child care center that's all

thank you sir haven stuck

thank Thank you. Uh I I'll echo that, you know, this is the type of facility that that the community really needs and and churches are uh a good uh location for this type of facility. I was going to address the same issue that the speaker just did and that is the traffic on uh Sheron Lake Road. So, this property is one of the few then along that area that does enter and exit off Sharon Lake Road. And um I am familiar with that traffic. It is a real problem. I guess my question then would be what if I'm not mistaken that's a four lane at this point. And so what I would be concerned mostly about is then people coming south and making a lefthand turn into this property. What uh what what thought has been given to that that issue?

Mr. Chair

Vicki Sharon Lake Road is an arterial street. That's as big a rating as they get and it's designed accordingly. This is going to generate at peak when the parents are primarily dropping their kids off 65 trips um at that uh during that that hour. Uh so when we look at this we look at the speed of that Sharon Lake Road is is assigned. We look at the clearance distance of the access points to ensure that people that can get safely in and out and it meets all of those minimum standards. Now, like the gentleman from the neighborhood stated, uh there are many many many people in our community that do not drive the speed limit and that just really becomes a policing issue. The streets are designed for the speed that they're posted for the most part. Uh so in looking at this child care and with the church activity in addition, there were no additional improvements, turn lanes needed with Sharon Lake Road and it did not trigger thankfully a traffic impact study because that would have shut the whole project down.

Thank you. I I guess I would note that, you know, I can see this this could certainly be a problem and something that uh I think the city needs to be aware of and hopefully uh maybe uh doing more policing on that portion of Sharon Lake Road. Uh Mike Cosnney.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh Haven, I think you made a great point. Looking at the picture that you have up right now, is there a road that goes along um the would be the south side of this property? There is not a road there, is there? And what I was going alluding to is if there is an option to I I see what our problem is. Um, I was hoping there was an option to put an additional drive down a a corridor there, but that's not an option. So, um, that might alleviate some of the problems, people getting on and off. Um, I wasn't going to bring this up, but when I looked at this, uh, curious question, are they going to take kids after school because it's real close to the school and that's sometimes a need. Uh I I looked at that you gave the age that they were the kids that were going to be taken care of.

Did they have school kids that were going to be after school? They did not indicate that they're going to do any sort of afterchool care. They only indicated infant through um a preschool. Okay. So they did not indicate any after school care. So if they did add that they would have to uh do another amendment to to add those additional kids. Right now they're allowed 80 in that um age range the infant to preschool.

Okay. So it would it would require and you answered the next question I had then it would require another application to change that because I foresee being this close to the school that there would be parents that would see that as an opportunity. So Okay. Thank you

Vince. Um thank you chair Vicki already cleared up one of the points that I wanted to make. It's an arterial street and that does that does uh have the highest impact of that we can make and um you know and I couldn't agree more with the the gentleman this morning when it comes to speeding it isn't just Sheridan Lake Road it's throughout the city. I mean, I live at the bottom of a hill and folks, you you would think that they're trying to save on the brakes and I get it and and I really worry about the kid up the street that once in a while a ball is going to end up out in the street because it does. I know I found it a couple of times, but so we are concerned and I thank you, you know, that he brought it up again that that we need to make sure that all of us need to make sure that that speed limit shouldn't be a suggestion. It it it needs to be followed. And again, I realize that we're not always perfect. But uh and rather than turn it into a law enforcement safety issue, maybe we need to run a public service campaign, again reminding people, you know, it is our responsibility to make sure that we adhere to the speed limits because there are lives at stake. Thank you,

Eric. Thank you, Mr. Chair. [clears throat] I'll make a suggestion and then I'll make a motion if that's okay. So the suggestion would be the right exit could be turn only. Right exit only in the in the greater good of this uh to maybe help with that crossing a left turn as slowing traffic and being impactful. However, all that said, I'd make a motion [clears throat] to approve the major amendment to a plan designation, sorry, planned development overlay uh considering stipulations. Thank you.

All right, Eric made the motion as stated. Uh there was a tie on the second. We're giving that to Jeff. Any further discussion on the motion to approve this major amendment? All those in favor, please say I. I. I. I. Any opposed? All right. Motion carries. Item number seven. We pulled this so Eric Hikus could abstain from it. Any of item. All right. Just to let Eric abstain. Yep.

Karen made the motion to approve item number seven. I'll second it. and Vince seconded that motion. Any discussion on the motion to approve with the three stipulations? All those in favor, please say I. I. Any [snorts] opposed? Motion carries with Eric abstaining. Item number 10. All right, Karen. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Hi, Kip.

Morning, Karen. I [snorts] uh I pulled this just because I had a question and the question is does this now go to the public works and as all studies and all you know this is a huge thing. I actually went through the whole thing and um I wanted to know a lot of it depends on finances obviously of making some changes. What would be the first thing that you would do or we the city would do to follow up?

That's a great question Karen. Yes, this will go through all the standard committees, public works, legal and finance and city council for approval and uh then after that we will start implementing some of the recommendations and actually we already received a additional safe streets and roads for all grant. We just received word within the last month or two that we received this grant and the majority of that grant will be used to update our ADA transition plan. But a portion of that grant will also look at signal preeemption technology, which is how when the fire the emergency vehicles go through a traffic signal and make sure that they're all read, we're looking at updating some of our technology on that. And then another component of that grant is to do some more safety audits of the locations that are recommended within this report here. So we'll take we'll prioritize some locations, do a much deeper safety analysis of those locations and then come up with some recommended improvements to those locations that we can implement at a later date once the funding be we then we can apply for more funding to implement those because the safe streets and roads for all program has a lot of funding not only for planning grants like we use for this study but then also for implementation to actually put those ideas on the ground.

Perfect. I I you know you you see a lot of studies and then they kind of sit there for a while. I just wanted to see you know if you guys if you are thinking of what to do next and it sounds like you are. Yeah. This is the first step in in a many step process. So this is basically getting our foot in the door. Once we have this report done and approved then that allows us to apply for additional funding for different types of projects. Great. Thank you Kip. Thank you Karen. Thank you. I'm assuming one of the priorities will be to address the the traffic issues that have been discussed here in the [laughter] last few minutes.

Uh that may be one we'll have to look at the report. The report did a lot of deep analysis as well looking at crash records and you know things like that. So we will try to address not only reactive areas where we know there's a problem but proactively address areas before there is a problem. So this will be on the list. Yes. [clears throat] Good question. have them. All right. Thank you. Uh I move approval of item number 10. Second. All right. Karen moved approval. Vince seconded that. Any discussion on the motion to approve the action plan final report? All those in favor, please say I. I.

I.

Any opposed? Motion carries. Item number 11. So item item number 11 is to allow a tire shredder at the Rapid City landfill. The landfill currently does store and disposes tires offsite. So this application will allow for the shredding of tires uh on site. So the property is zoned public district. The city has applied to reszone this property to heavy industrial district. Once reszone to heavy industrial district, the tire shredder will be allowed as a conditional use. So the future land use is public. The property is accessed off Highway 79 which is classified as a principal arterial street on the city's major street plan. All the inbound of whole scrap tires and the outbound of the finished product are going to be within DOT weight limits and they'll be using approved trucking route trucking routes which is primarily coming off uh highway 79. So, the applicant has entered into a lease to use the northern portion of the uh co-composting facility up here. So, that lease was approved by city council in August of 2025 and that is contingent on the approval of this application and on the associated reszone application. So, that's that least area as you can see is blacked out right here. So, um the shredded tires will be used for tire derived fuel. in tire derived aggregates. The fuel will be used at the cement plant and those the tire derived aggregates will be sold to outside consumers. There's not going to be any tires that are going to be burnt uh or burned at the landfill as a part of this proposed development. So, the public works staff uh has indicated that there's going to be a uh dust control measures that are implemented over the tire shredding

area. The water that's going to be used for the grinding is going to be contained and then recirculated. Um, and the tire shredder will operate during normal business hours of the landfill, which is 7:00 a.m. to 400 p.m. uh Monday through Saturday. And then this is just the elevation of what that that lease area, that bay looks like. It's a partially enclosed structure. It's got 12t concrete walls on the north and west end. Uh the east end is open. Uh their trailer parking is going to be in the back uh behind the bay and the employee parking is going to be out uh up in front in front of the bay. and it's going to be seven employee uh spaces that they're proposing. So, public notice was posted on the property this uh on the property. Uh this is right uh at the entrance of the landfill. This is what that bay looks like. You can see those concrete walls. This looking at the front of the bay. Uh this is where the tire shredding operation uh will be operated. I just took a close-up picture. There's already some of the equipment that they have located inside the bay. And then this is looking at the back side of the bay. This is where they're going to have their trailer parking. Um, so staff is recommending that the tire shredder conditional use permit for the tire shredder be approved uh with a stipulation noted in the report. The applicant is in the audience and public works staff is in the audience as well to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Mike Quasnney. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a couple questions on this and uh is there a savings to the public because we have this going in place with the rising costs of everything it seems like whether uh garbage pickup etc. Um I I hope there's a savings. Yes. So right now does take Can you identify yourself?

I'm Eddie Lopez with the city with the city. I'm an engineer assisting GCC as well. Uh Mark Chel is here with GCC. He's they're the individuals that'll be leasing the the property from us. Uh but currently right now the landfill does take uh tires. Uh they store them on site and then they're transported offsite at a cost to the landfill by allowing the tire shredding operations. It does bring a savings to the landfill. We're looking around $30 to $50,000 a year. Plus there might be additional revenue as well from from the lease uh as well.

Okay. So, how how will that reflect back to the the general public? I I I guess because it'll cost less at the landfill. Uh we might not have an increase in sanitary pickups, etc. I I I don't I wouldn't want to say that at this time, but uh overall in the bigger picture, those those those revenues get rolled into the whole operation of the landfill. And is there still a cost to drop off tires? Yes.

Okay. Um and I guess this is a question that goes further. Is there any future recycling uh other than tires that could possibly go onto the site to uh make this where the public saves again? And currently we're looking at just tire shredding operations. Uh I know they explored other revenues for uh fuel. I don't know if you want to look into that.

I'm Mark Trudale with GCC, Colorado Energy Recyclers. Uh yes, we have been exploring other items that uh we could essentially divert from landfill uh for use as alternate fuel. Uh the scrap tires are just kind of in the forefront at this point. Okay, thank you. If I could just ask you guys to kind of stay close, there's probably going to be more questions.

Eric Hikis. Thank you, Mr. Chair. He's right. [laughter] For a warning, I'm going to put you on the hot seat a little bit here. All right. Okay. So, uh, first question. Will there be burning of tires in the vicinity of our community as a result of this? Will we have these shredded tires burned in the Rapid City area within 20 mile radius of their landfill? Is that is that a consideration? The expectation is that these tires once they're chipped will go to the cement plant uh right here in Rapid City uh that has been here in Rapid City for probably close to a hundred years.

Mr. Chair, Vicki, the burning of uh shredded tires is already taking place at that site and DNR regulates that. Uh so they're not going to be adding additional facilities to do that. they're just going to be taking the material there for that use.

Okay, that's a deal breaker for me. Um, also I'm hearing some disappointing things that we are downgrading recycling at the at the landfill. I know that's not part and parcel to this item, but um I'm hearing we're not doing glass and not doing some aluminum and not and some of the co-mingled is being just put into waste. I'm disappointed to hear that and I know that's come up quite a bit. So, I will be voting no on this one as it stands. Thank you. [clears throat]

Can I follow up on the current burning of tires? Do you purchase tire derived fuel from other sources currently and that's what is burned? The GCC plant that uses the tires right now is permitted by DNR. Uh we have uh sent those tires uh from outside sources. Yes. Uh I have brought tires in so that they could uh use that as an alternate fuel that that has been going on for over a year.

Okay. quantity plus minus like what is this is this facility the least facility intended to increase the quantity of tires burned at the cement plant? Yes.

Okay. Uh, can you explain just for when this came up? I I just did what everybody does and went online and uh looked into this and it seems like u this is a I would just call it a possibly a common practice in power plants, heavy industrial areas that have large um power generation needs. Can you explain a little bit like how long have maybe where else is this done? How long has it been done? That sort of a thing.

U virtually every cement plant on the globe uh has used scrap tires as an alternate fuel. Uh this has been a common practice in industry. Uh myself personally, I've have dealt with scrap tires in a cement plan for over 25 years. uh and it's been going on much much longer than that. Uh it is a excellent outlet for materials that are extremely difficult to get rid of. And Vicki mentioned that DNR is the one that does the permitting for that. Um, I would basically call it you the off product or whatever you want to call, you know, after burning. And so DNR is the one that inspects that for you. And maybe explain a little bit about what that regulation is like.

Correct. Uh, DNR uh has issued the permit. Uh, they also regulate all of the emissions. They regulate everything that goes into the that our cement plant.

Okay. Now, this is the like part where it gets uncomfortable and I apologize for that, but I've lived in Rapid City virtually my whole life and everybody has the between the quaries and the cement plant, we have quite a bit of particulate matter that comes from the northwest side of Rapid City through our city. In your opinion, does this adding more material to the kiln, does that increase the amount of, let's just call it, I don't know what to call it. It's not smoke, but does that increase the amount of emissions from the cement plant that then travel through our airspace? As far as if you're referring to a fugitive dust uh from cement plant operations, uh I would uh expect no. This this would not increase uh shredding tires or consuming tires does not increase any type of fugitive dust. Uh with regards to any emissions, uh that's all regulated by DNR. Um, all that information is available publicly uh at their website. Uh, you can go in and look at all of our annual reports to see exactly what that is. Uh, what you I believe may be referring to is incomplete combustion because that is what would create uh those extra emissions.

Okay. Uh, got a few other people with questions here, so I'll step back. Vince,

thank you, Chair. No. Yes, sir. I I I guess uh I mean, it's obvious that you face these type of questions, and they're not easy, and I realize that. Has your company ever done anything to alleviate these type of questions for you in the future? Have you done anything to improve the recycling efforts and the the emission efforts? I I am challenged to to speak directly to the emissions for any one of the cement plants. Uh I am responsible on the supply side, uh the development side, marketing side, uh for our five US division cement plants. Um, and I I I think the the best answer there is it's already in writing and documented on the DNR website. Uh, and it that explains, I guess, the the answers that you're looking for. I I I don't have that information. Well, let me try to clarify a little bit more of what I'm trying to find out because I don't work at your company. I'm not there, but you are. You get memos, you get emails, you get letters. Uh you mentioned 100 years of uh of occupation for this for the for for this type of effort be being recycling and using fuel to give us what we need. So, has the company have you seen the company do anything to work towards improving these efforts to for emissions? And I know you didn't want to address that specifically, but but I'm just talking about what has your company done anything different.

Mr. Chair, thank you. I think this is a a great conversation. Uh DNR does have stringent emission standards for this use. Perhaps the better question would be uh in the last year were you issued any violation notices that you exceeded the emission allowances? Right. Well, I mean you could answer that if if you want to. That is a good question and that is something I'm trying to get because I I think I think you know better than we do that that your company has concerns and I want to hear and I want to hear that if that's true.

I have no concerns. I am not aware of any concerns uh as far as any environmental issues. Uh yeah, we take we take a lot of materials, we divert them from landfill and that's what we do. That's what our division does. Colorado energy recyclers. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. Thank you,

Mr. Chair. Just a gentle reminder, um the application before us today is a conditional use permit for tire shredding, not for the activity that they are doing at the cement plant property. whether they get material from here or out of state or wherever that activity at the cement plant has been received the permit from DNR and is uh uh regularly monitored for that emission control. So getting back to the application before us um unfortunately the reason second item on the last item on the agenda should have been before this one. Uh so uh if we are going to act on the conditional use permit first, I'm going to have you add a step that is contingent upon uh this property being reszoned to heavy industrial. That's nice.

All right. Uh thanks Vicki Kelly. Uh thank you Mr. Chair. This question for Mr. Trudale portion of the end product gets sold uh not to cement plant but to consumers. Is that is that true? It goes out to sale for you know public use public fuel. Uh we do anticipate uh creating a tire drive aggregate. Uh we don't have uh you know many outlets for that product. Uh they're they're pretty specific because I was curious if it does, you know, the cement plant is regulated by DNR. I'm just curious, this is unknown to me.

If these pellets go out to sale to the public, who regulates that? What oversight is given? How is that used? Can I just burn that in my plet stove? Can I burn it in my backyard? Like where does how does that work? This is all new to me. No, sir. No. Uh none of the products uh would leave our facility to be consumed uh or combusted anywhere else. Just all industrial. Yeah, they're used uh in almost all cases as alternative daily cover at the landfill or sometimes as a engineered fill. Oh, they also use it as fill and cover. Okay, good question, Kelly. Alicia.

Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. I think this question might be for Tanner or for Vicki. I'm um wanting a little clarification. And I might not just totally understand part of the project brief. So the public district is intended to provide facilities serving the general public operated by a public entity or a nonprofit organization and the tire shredding facility will be operated for a for-profit private entity. So, I guess I'm wondering if the intent serving the general public and operated by a public entity or nonprofit organization, if that's the intent, um, sort of what's the justification of it being a for-profit organization that ends up operating it? I guess I'm trying to Yeah, just understand the language in there.

It's an explanation as to why it's being reszoned to heavy industrial. If this were being done by the city for the city, then we could have left it zone public. But as you know, the landfill has got uh high overhead costs. It's very expensive to get done what needs to get done at the landfill. And this is a revenue source for the city. So in order to let GCC come in and operate on our property, then that area needs to be reszoned to heavy industrial because they are not a government andor nonprofit company. Uh in addition when we look at uh the bulk of the uh landfill, it is primarily zoned heavy industrial already. So that does make it contiguous. Uh so uh hence the reason why that was included and why the reszone should have been on the agenda and that's um our error for not getting those put on the agenda correctly. Thank you,

Mike Quasnney. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, that brought up several questions this whole conversation. Um, so the tires could be used in place of, for example, gravel. We had an as something we could have that in place of gravel to where we would solve a problem with our um the dust caused by the gravel for a commercial yard, so to speak. Uh, that's an option. I caught you saying something to that effect.

None of the products that we'll produce, I think, would be applicable uh in situations like you're describing. Uh the only two alternative outlets other than the alternate fuel uh to the best of my knowledge for the tire shreds or tire chips are going to be as a alternative daily cover for the landfill, a replacement for using their own soil. Uh as well as a engineered fill. uh think of something that you would lay down underneath a rail line in order to reduce vibration and noise. Uh the products I think you may be referring to sir are generally created from crumb rubber which is size reduced into the you know millimeter size. The products it will produce are going to be a 2-in nominal size chip or a 4 to 6 in nominal size aggregate.

Okay. If we don't do this, where what is being done with tires right now? They're being burned at the landfill. No sir, there is there is no combustion of uh tires at the landfill to the best of my knowledge. Uh so currently right now we take them on site. So we charge a fee for them. We store them and then we ship them out to be disposed of elsewhere. So we're pretty much just a holding yard for the time being. They probably go to another company.

Another company. They process them. They do something else. I know it's part of something that we're looking at too is there'll be some salvaging of tires as well. So we'll be picking through tires what comes through. If there's a secondary market for them, we'll be recycling those. They'll they'll get a second life and other tires that are past their age will be shredded. So, it's a way of bringing like we were talking about recycling, we're adding a little bit of recycling back. Uh, by recycling those tires that still have some lifespan in them.

Now, what I caught also was that there's an attraction to bring other tires from other places, we become then a yard for bringing those tires in to recycle. Is that correct? as as the as we kickstart this uh as we start the process and we're approved uh with time. Yes, we will be uh collecting tires from the surrounding communities in order to continue to provide a product for GCC. Yeah, our our group CER will be doing collection of scrap tires from your local car dealerships, uh tire shops, uh Sam's Club, where you know, wherever you buy tires basically.

So then the cement plant, no matter whether they get them from you right now and you you develop this and you sell to the cement plant, they're going to get tires from someplace. no matter what we do here, right? In essence, yes. So, right now, it's an opportunity for us to gain some revenue from from this venture. So, either way, we're really not by us saying no, we're not uh defeating or taking away what the cement plant is using. We're just making it easier for them to get.

Yes, I would say so. I I would say timing wise, uh, yeah, we would be able to begin collecting and shredding the tires sooner.

I alluded earlier that you are looking at other things that you would also recycle. What things would those be? Because you had mentioned that there there were other things. Um, what would that be? as a as a group cer we will evaluate different types of industrial scrap. You don't have a tremendous amount of industrial uh waste byproducts out here. Uh the original discussion with the city and and the council which uh initiated that original memorandum of understanding was I was looking at taking about a third of what goes into the landfill and using that as an alternate fuel which would be primarily paper plastic and rubber.

Okay. So there's a a benefit even more than just the tires to putting this in place.

I I would say absolutely. Uh we expect that cement plant to be there for at least another hundred years. And if we can reduce our consumption of fossil fuels, uh as well as take these resources away from being buried in the landfill, that's exactly our job. I guess with that said, I would make the motion to approve this with the thought that we are actually going forward and we're developing towards a I don't think we reduced anything that the cement plant by not doing this I or or whoever burns the tires. I don't think we've reduced that by not accepting this. But I think we have the opportunity to change some of the recycling that we have in place. And I think Eric alluded to it that he's heard that and and I heard the same things that some of the recycling may be falling by the wayside and not being done as we would hope it would be. So, this gives us an option to hopefully bring that back and create a better recycling opportunity. With that, I would make a motion to uh accept this.

So, Mike, there's three stipulations listed and then Vicki requested a fourth that contingent upon the property being reszoned to Heavy Industrial. Does that work for your motion? That does work for my motion. Okay. Is there a second to Mike's motion? Second. That was Jeff. All right. Can I say something? Oh, of course. Yes. Uh, that motion on the floor from Mike Quasnney, uh, seconded by Jeff is to approve this conditional use permit with the additional stipulation. Uh, comments on the motion, Vince.

Thank you, chair. I just wanted to clarify that I may have conflated my concerns and my question and Vicki tried to help me with that. Uh, and let's make it clear. GCC said the the representative said today that he is aware of no violations from the company and that he's he's proud of the service that the cement plant has provided over the past 100 years. So, I just wanted to make sure that he did answer that and that he is not aware of any violations. Thank you, sir. Uh Jeff,

sorry, turned you on.

There we go. Okay, thank you. Uh, quick question. You know, back in the farm, we always had a problem with tires and they usually ended up in a ditch and that's how you got a a hold of them. Or you could hang them on a fence post and put no trespassing or no hunting or those type of things. Whenever I go out the landfill, I notice the big stacks of tires and I always think, you know, during the spring and summer, what a tremendous breeding area for mosquitoes and other type of vermin that might come into the area. Vicki, quick question. If uh uh GCC had decided to go to the, let's say, to the cement plant and say, "Hey, do you got some area that we can lease to shred tires uh on site over there?" Would they have gone had to go through the conditional use and the the reszoning and everything, all of those efforts in order to do so? that would have been accessory to the entire burning and no, they would have um uh not had to go through a a public hearing for it.

Okay. So, through the memorandum of understanding, we're trying to work with the city to not only reduce what we're putting into the landfill, but what we're stacking up waiting to be hauled off somewhere else to be processed and maybe making a little bit of revenue on the part of the the the savings that's being incurred due to the the to the relationship that's being developed. Okay. Thank you for that clarification. I'll be voting in support of uh the application. Eric Hikus.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is a great discussion. I appreciate the cander and honesty of both the representatives standing here in front of us. I appreciate the process. I have a singular issue with this item and that's the burning of tires in our community and I'm sorry that this has to be borne on the back of this item. So, um, but I sure do appreciate this discussion and and volumes of thank you for the clarity and the and the process. Thank you. So, that's it for me.

I'm going to chime in with one more question just I've been staring at the shredder on the screen. The the managing the air quality around that, Mr. Trudale, that would be GCC's responsibility. you'd have the employees that worked closest to it. Um, and you've done this before. Do you I I guess my question is I I'm 100% sure that you will follow OSHA guidelines because that's what companies like yours does. Is there any do you have any concerns about the landfill personnel that would be working around this who you know may not have the same um I don't know training whatnot. Um and maybe same question to you Mr. Lopez.

I guess I could speak to that. uh when we were citing the area to to uh lease uh this is outside of the landfill operations so it' be easily uh delineated delineated so that our city workers wouldn't be in that area. Uh so we have a dividing wall as well that will divide the structure so that is something that we've considered the safety of our employees and ensuring that uh there's strict boundaries between their operations and landfill operations. And then I guess for you Mr. Trudale the the air quality around that type of machine. Is there any other guidelines besides General OSHA that you would have to monitor, provide reports, that kind of thing?

Not not really, sir. Uh cutting a a tire generally doesn't create a tremendous amount of dust. Uh we do we will have uh you know water spray over the top to try and mitigate any dust that could be created. Uh but for the most part we are not size reducing the tires to a point that would be dusty. Gotcha. Okay. Thank you. Uh so motion on the floor is to approve. Other questions, comments from the commission with the four stipulations. Yeah. Yep. With the four stipulations. Uh all right. All those in favor please say I. I.

I. Opposed? No.

All right. The motion carries with Eric Hikis and Alicia voting no. Did I miss anybody on that? All right. Item number 12. So item number 12 is a reszone request um to reszone the northern portion of the landfill from public district to heavy industrial district. This item was continued at the last planning commission meeting. Um this property contains the material recovery facility which is right here, co-composting facility and then some small accessory buildings as well. Um, same thing as last time, the reszone area is going to be 104 acres in size. Uh, the leased out areas, the Army National Guard, Community Corrections, Inc., which is shown in blue, are going to be excluded uh from the reszone request. So, the property is currently zoned public district. Uh, southern portion of the landfill is zoned heavy industrial district and then properties south of Elkale Road uh between Old Fulsome Road and Highway 79 primarily zoned heavy industrial district as well. So it does appear if you know the northern portion of landfill is zoned heavy industrial district it'd be a continuation of that existing land use patterns out there. Um it's also within close proximity of the Black Hills Industrial Center which is right here on the screen. Uh so the future land use is public. Uh this future land use does not allow the heavy industrial district. Uh however, the city's comprehensive plan allows for flexibility when you're achieving the overarching vision for Rapid City and the solid [clears throat] waste division has indicated this is necessary for the future land uses of the landfill and one of them that we just heard before was uh the tire shredder. So it's also part of

that application as well. So the property is again access off Highway 79. public notice the resoning side was signed was posted on the property. This is looking at that existing co-composting facility looking north towards Highway 79 and looking south towards 79. So staff is recommending that this item be approved because it's an extension of the existing land use patterns. Comprehensive plan supports it or allows it and it's necessary for the future land uses of the landfill. So I'll stand by for any questions. Thank you. Eric Hikis.

The last um Thank you, Mr. Chair. The last time we heard this um my position was approval and it's remains approval. This is an olive branch motion on my part. Um I recommend the approval of the uh resoning request. This is a process item and I think it's a good thing. It it streamlines some things there. Makes the landfill more effective. Please, you know, note my previous comments about the recycling aspect and and and making sure our our worldclass recycling and landfill facility stays that. Um, so um and also u I very much appreciate this this discussion. Thank you.

All right. Uh Eric Hikis made the motion to approve the resoning request and if I heard correctly, Alicia seconded that motion. comments on the motion. Haven. Yeah, thank you. This request includes it appears to be 133 acres. So that's a lot more than was involved with the uh tire shredding. So why uh yeah um why the additional acreage and uh why is that being done now uh in in conjunction with the the u proposal that we just heard?

Mr. chair

if I could point out for Haven um the uh massive acreage south of the area where the arrow well it's the arrow is over the gray area that is currently heavy industrial out at the landfill and as Tanner noted in his presentation reszoning it to heavy industrial does create a consistent zoning designation it lets the neighborhood know that the landfill is a heavy industrial use. Public is typically where you would see this building or a library or a park. And so getting the landfill zoned to heavy industrial is something that we've been meaning to do for years. If you're a speculator and you're looking at current zoning uh and you're not familiar with our community, you think public, oh great, there's a park right here in this area. I might buy this 40 acres and put in a residential development. Uh granted, you might uh notice it once you drove out there, but the intent is to make it consistent with the heavy industrial designation to open up the different uses that the landfill needs to do, including the recycling that Eric is so pleased with. In addition, HEVY allows us to potentially down the road lease other areas to uh uh profit companies uh not just a municipality or a nonprofit uh in order to create additional revenue. The cost of the landfill is just such a huge overhead cost for the city and I and I really applaud them in trying to find ways to recover some of that expense. So, it appears that the uh the uh application that we previously approved kind of was the impetus for doing something that the city had thought about before.

Mike Quasnney. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I think that this is uh an opportunity then to build on the recycling. I I hope that this and it saves um the future for the landfill. I I I you know is the landfill at some point does it have to be moved because the city is moving.

We're not moving like uh to another county or anything. [laughter] So right now the idea I've seen that in Sou Falls, Mr. Lopez. Yeah. Eddie Lopez of the city. So right now the idea is to stay in our in our v in our area. We have approximately another 20 years of lifespan in that area. Uh there's additional property that we're looking at as well. Uh but the intent is to stay there. Uh one of the reasons that we're also looking for the resoning. We're also looking at renewable natural gas and that will allow us an option to to do that as well in that area.

Okay. Well, I I think this is a good option to as we grow and as we develop uh to use the recycle materials and keep it out of the the ground. I I hope that that's what happens. And then with that said, uh I hope that our city is good in negotiating so that the community is uh able to be saved some expenses, the community, the public at large because the city is actually the public um that we are able to help our community, the people inside of our community with this, not only with the air quality, but also the uh expenses as this goes forward.

Yeah. One of the things I'd like to add is having the ability to have a landfill being owned by the city. It's a big win for the community uh where we're able to control some of those costs versus if it goes out privatiz is uh we would still need the need for you know for our trash to go. So you would invite a private company to come in and we would have no control over those prices. Point well taken. Yeah. Thank you.

I can't help but ask one final question. I'm sure that during well I shouldn't say I think during the lease process this would have been answered but there's two other lesies in this area the um community corrections and the national guard there's no issue with the GCC lease or the reszone affecting those leases or the entities leasing them being interested in continuing leasing is there that can continue Okay. All right. Motion on the floor is to approve the resoning. Any further comments, questions. All those in favor, please say I. I. I.

Any opposed? Motion carries. That's our last regular agenda item. Any um staff items or discussion items today, Vicki? I I think uh that about does it for us today. All right. Anything from the commission? Karen? I just have one comment since we have somebody from the landfill that the city is planning to do recycling every other week or something like that twice a month instead of every week. Man, you walked into it, Mr. Lopez. [laughter] Yeah. So, right now I'm not privy of the information. I know that all options are being explored right now and that's something that public works and landfill is looking at, but not not that I know of that any decision has been made right now.

Okay, good. I just didn't know whether I should put my recycling out, you know, Friday or wait. Question. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Uh Eric Hikus.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a [clears throat] challenge for Mr. Lopez. Uh the amount of glass that we have. I'm just sorry we're I'm putting you on the hot seat. I'm really appreciate you. uh the amount of glass that we recycle, you know, and then it the cost for shipping it out and it just doesn't pencil, etc. Can we think about more creative ways of using that glass here in the community? One example being uh tumbled and and then put into concrete as a as an aggregate. I mean, is there I think we need to start thinking a little bit more creatively about just instead of saying market rate is shipping it out of here, is there other ways to be using those those renewables in ways that we can pencil and also um benefit as a community. So,

yeah, I know it's my understanding that sometimes we'll use glass as well for daily ground cover. Uh but as we as we explore our options out of the landfill, we'll look to see what other renewables we can use. Appreciate you. Yep. Mike Cosny. Okay. I just will make a personal request that you guys all come bowling. Uh I have a tournament this Saturday. We're raising money for kids, coats for kids. We're uh asking for as many bowlers as possible. So, get it out in the public. And uh we're going to have some fun and we're going to raise money so we can put coats on kids during the winter. So, where at and what time? at 1:00 Meadowwood Lanes.

All right. Uh come out, have some fun, enjoy the fun. Uh raise, like I said, money so that we can put coats on kids. Okay. Thanks, Mike. Vince. Oh, and to the city staff that sits in the back of the room, we recognize you, too. So, yes. All right. Anything else? Adjournment possibly. Oh, yeah. Motion to adjurnn. Yeah, Vince made the motion. Uh Mike seconded it. All those in favor, please say I. I.