Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Amen.

Thank you.

Good morning and welcome to the July 23rd, 2026 Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting. The meeting's starting at 7 o'clock, 7 AM. The public hearing on item 1, approval of the July 9, 2026 Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting minutes is now open. Mike, motion to approve. Do we have a second?

Second.

Eric? I can second it. Motion approved. Motion item.

Mr. Chair, you have to take a vote on the motion.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? And the motion is approved. Thank you. Item number two, 26VA016. And is now open.

Good morning, Chair, Zoning Board of Adjustment. Item number two before you is a variance to reduce the minimum required side yard setback from eight feet to three feet for a detached garage. This is property located at 2136 Janet Street. This property is zoned low density residential one with a future land use of low density neighborhood. Access to this property is off of Janet Street, which is classified as a local street. Um, as you can see up here on the site plan, what the applicant is proposing to do, they have removed storage sheds that, that previously existed behind the carport that is on their property. Um, what they are proposing to do is construct a 16 foot by 24 foot detached garage in that location, um, to allow for some additional. vehicle protection and also some storage. The only storage that exists on this property now that the sheds have been removed behind the carport is this shed right here. And then the only vehicle protection that exists on the property is this drive-through carport. So that is why they are proposing the addition of this structure. The north side yard setback would be the one that they are requesting a reduction for. As you can see in this depiction, the north property line does angle slightly, so it gets more narrow towards the back of the property. So as such, this back corner of the proposed garage would be at a three-foot setback. This front corner would be at a six-foot setback. neither one of those meet the required eight foot side yard setback. So that is why they are coming forward with this variance request. Um, based on the existing location of the house and the carport, it does limit, um, where a detached garage could be placed on this property to allow for reasonable access. The reason that they are putting it right here is to allow for access to the garage to be taken directly through the drive through carport into the garage. If they were to shift that detached garage, any further south or reconfigure it in a different orientation that would hinder them being able to access this garage, which would effectively make it not even able to be driven into with a vehicle or backed back out of. So there is this shed on the rear side of the property that I do want to point out, as you can see on this survey, this shed does encroach over the west property line there. This is actually city-owned property on the west side of this property. So that shed does encroach on there. So if this variance is approved, there is a stipulation in there that that shed does need to be pulled within the property boundaries to meet required setbacks, which on the rear yard is five feet. So they just have to pull it into the property line five feet from that rear setback. I do also want to point out that one of the things that we look at with reduced setbacks is fire protection. The fire department did note on this one that if the variance is approved, they do have some stipulations. The wall on the north side of the garage that is closest to the property line will need to be constructed with one hour fire rated materials. The interior of the garage does need to be sheet rocked on all the walls and the ceiling. The soffit on the north side needs to be closed and they will not allow any windows on that north side for fire protection. I did talk through that with the applicant. They are agreeable to those stipulations. And making those adjustments when the building permit for this comes in This property is also located in a neighborhood where there are several Detached garages that are of a similar layout to this that do not appear to meet the eight-foot side yard setback requirement This is kind of an older neighborhood. Some of those may be grandfathered others may have their own variants But this is not outside of the norm for this neighborhood. So that is another factor that we considered so This garage is designed with just a single stall. So as you can see this front elevation down there at the bottom, that will be what is seen through the carport from Janet Street. So just a residential garage maintaining the character of the neighborhood and the property. This is how that lot exists today. So you can see this carport structure right here. This is the structure that they are proposing to keep. And as you can see, this is the shed that was previously removed. So they would drive directly through this carport into the detached garage back here. This is the, excuse me, looking at that common lot line that shed existed in roughly the same location where that garage would be. So that gives you an idea of what that setback will look like, that separation between structures. This is Janet Street looking west and Janet Street looking east. So you can see right there, here's another garage that kind of has a similar layout, similar fashion. So ultimately staff is recommending approval of this variance request with the stipulations outlined in the staff report. As it does appear that the proposed location is the minimum adjustment necessary based on the existing development on the property and where feasible access could be taken. And it is residential in character, which harmonizes with the neighborhood. So it doesn't seem to be injurious to the neighborhood or impair the intent of the code. So staff is recommending approval. I'll stand for any questions.

And excuse me, but I'm going to read a couple of housekeeping items that I forgot to read before you started. So if any member of the audience wishes to speak to an item on the agenda, there are speaker request forms to the left of the dais. Please fill out the request with the agenda item number on it, and if you wish to speak, and hand it to the secretary. We do have one of the commissioners wants to speak. Chair recognizes Mike Quasney.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The garage will be a little bigger than the shed. Was the runoff off of the garage, is there a problem? I'm assuming they are taking care of making sure the neighbor doesn't get the water off that?

Correct. Maintaining that drainage and ensuring that it doesn't negatively impact the neighboring property, that would be their responsibility.

Okay, so that was kind of looked at, because it looks like that neighbor is a little bit lower, and so that water could become a problem for them as well. So it's just something that they should be looking at. Yes. Thank you.

Chair recognizes Eric Huygens.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We have a pretty busy agenda here today. It looks like this one, I'm going to cite some items here and make a motion. The site would be that this is not injurious to the neighborhood, and it's kind of fitting the general context of the neighborhood. So I'm going to move approval of this item. From the photos and the site plan, it looks generally, I mean, we're actually making the garage a little bit less of a setback than the previous sheds. So I think the context and character is consistent. With the stipulations? With stipulations. Thank you, Vince.

I do not have any speaker request forms for this item, and I do not see any other lights. So the public hearing on item 26VA016 is closed. Do we have all those? Well, I'm sorry. We have a motion to approve by Eric Heikes and a second by Pat. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Item approved. Next, we have item 26VA018.

Mr. Chair, this variance request is there's a rezone later on the Planning Commission agenda that's associated with it. That rezone application is being continued to your August 6th Planning Commission meeting. And we would request that this variance be continued similarly to your August 6th Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting.

We have a motion by Mike to approve to continue it. Do we have a second? Second. And a second by Karen. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Does the staff have any zoning board of adjustment items? Anything else? No. There being no further business on it, we have a motion from Karen to adjourn. Do we have a second? Second. Second by Mike. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Welcome to the July 23rd, 2026 Zoning Board of Adjustment Meeting. I'm sorry. Zoning Board. Excuse me. Welcome to the, the, we will now commence the city of rapid city planning commission meeting for July 23rd, 2026. And the meeting starting at 7 12 AM. Now, again, let me go over the housekeeping rules. And if any member of the audience wishes to speak to an item on the planning commission agenda, there are speaker request forms on the table along the left wall. Please fill out your request with the agenda number of the item you wish to speak to and hand it to the staff seated to the left of the days. Items 1 through 15 have been placed on the consent calendar 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. Now, 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, and the city council will make the final decision with the exception of the following items. Item 3, 2, 6, PD, 0, 1, 4. Item 4, 2, 6, PD, 0, 1, 2. Item 11, 2, 6, 0R, 0, 1, 0. Item 12, 2, 6, 0R, make that UR, 0, 1, 2. Item 13, 2, 6, UR, 0, 1, 3. The Planning Commission's 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 15 that the staff would like to remove from the consent calendar for separate consideration?

Item 13, please.

Item 13. Are there any items 1 through 15 that the Planning Commission would like to remove from the consent calendar for separate consideration? OK, the chair will entertain a motion. Oh, I'm sorry. We do have two speaker request forms for item 13. Are there any audience members that would like to remove or any other item? No. OK, no further motions or no further items to be removed. The chair would entertain a motion to approve the consent calendar items 1 through 15 in accordance with the staff recommendations with the exception of item 13. We have a motion from Pat and a second from Eric Heikes. All those in favor? Any opposed? Motion carries.

Mr. Chair.

And the chair recognizes Vicki.

Since we do have some public comment on item 13, we chose to remove it so that Kip Harrington could give a brief presentation, and then we'll take comment from the public if that's OK with you.

Yes, ma'am. That sounds good. Thank you.

Good morning, Planning Commission. Kip Harrington, Long Range Planning Manager, Rapid City Community Development. For today's item, item number 26UR013 is a conditional use permit to allow on sale alcohol in conjunction with a tap room for this property which is located at 420 St. Joseph Street, Suite 1 in the downtown area. The property is zoned Central Business District and on sale alcohol is a conditional use in the Central Business District and that's why this is before you today. The future land use category of this property is public quasi public and you may recall that this is a former city parking lot that was then purchased and for development and is currently undergoing development as you can see in this aerial photograph right here. Property is accessed by St. Joseph Street which is classified as a principal arterial street on the city's major street plan. And again, another aerial photograph of the property showing its location between Fifth and Fourth Street along St. Joseph Street, and the area is currently undergoing construction, and we'll have some pictures later of the building that is currently being erected on the site. So this building is a mixed use building. It's got commercial on the ground floor and a mix of residential and office on the second and third floors. And this proposed alcohol use will be located on the first floor in the front of the building in suite one. So you can see the outline of the mixed use building with a separate entry on the west for the second and third floor. There's also a patio proposed outside as well as some green space and then on to the East of the property there's a secondary building which is currently under development as an ice cream shop which has its own patio. I'd like to call your attention this red line here which is the proposed fencing area which will allow the on-sale alcohol use to be taken out onto the patio and therefore also into the green space. That fencing area is designated to be a four foot high decorative steel fence to separate that from the rest of the property and from the sidewalk. The tap room will be operated 11 a.m. to 10 p.m. seven days per week, and they will serve beer, wine, non-alcoholic beverages, and a limited food menu. Here's a proposed layout of the site. So you can see there is a controlled walk-in cooler with access for beer and wine. There's a bar area and seating area. There's an outdoor patio. They have an office space, they have restrooms, they have a small kitchen and storage room, and then at the back of the property, they have an event room with some additional seating that will be available for private events. This is looking at the building under construction. This is looking north across St. Joseph Street, and it's located next to the Stock Growers Building. This is a view of the proposed area where the green space and patio will be located. Again, that's still under construction, currently being used for staging of construction materials. And then also to the right of the picture, you can see the other secondary building that will house the ice cream shop is being constructed as well. This is looking across the street from the building at the Hardee's located downtown. And this is looking east along St. Joseph Street. The building to the east is again is the ice cream shop and immediately adjacent to that is the property milled office building. And then this is looking back west along next to the stock growers building back towards the downtown core. Once again, the on-sale alcohol use is a conditional use permit located in the downtown central business district. This property is located within 500 feet of a church. It's approximately 250 feet from First Presbyterian Church, however, it is separated by a building and a parking lot and the Trinity Eco Park, which is also located along St. Joseph Street. It is well over 900 feet from any residentially zoned district. And so with those considerations in mind, staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit for on sale alcohol in conjunction with the tap room located at 420 St. Joseph Street. We do have the applicant with the stipulations as outlined in the staff report. We do have the applicants available in the audience if there are any questions. And like Vicki said, we do have a couple speaker request forms and I will stand for any questions.

Having no lights up at this time. I we do have to a speaker request The first one we'll start with is a Doris lowing la uing if I mispronounce that please let me know and then when you get to the microphone Would you please identify yourself so that we can have it for the record?

Is it on? Yes, ma'am Thank You Planning Commission, my name is Doris allowing I am the executive director of the South Dakota stock growers and I appreciate the fact that you are tabling this and looking at this because I want to bring to your attention that we have been working on this. I see two very familiar faces up here for approximately, what, three years, almost four years now since it was a parking lot. We had gone through, as you know, the South Dakota Stock Growers Building has been there since 1957. The stairwell that is in the easement that sits on the east side, you've seen that in the pictures, is something that we had worked through with the new owners to take into consideration protection of liability because we knew there was a pub going in. There is certain language written within our easement agreement, and if you would not mind, I would like to recite that. This easement shall not prevent the grantor or its successors in interest from constructing or installing any improvements in this easement area as long as it's done in compliance and applicable with the city codes. This also says that the parties agree the grantor may restrict access to this easement with installation of gate stores and fencing. What we see here is a pub. We don't know, nobody has come to us to approach us, to discuss where the entrance to this pub is. You have someone that has a little too much alcohol, comes outside, and our stairwell is open access Nothing has been done to prevent that to to ease that We have constant use of it. It is a our fire escape That is why we have that the train of the Black Hills Railway Society is there that is their only access to the building and We just ask that you consider and take take the liability issues that is going to be at risk for both of us, and that you have the other parties agree to commence with us so we can come up with a plan and then come to you with something that will work so that they can open and receive their license. Thank you. I appreciate your time.

Thank you, Ms. Lowing. Our second request is from Mr. Tom Costello. And Mr. Costello, again, would you please identify yourself?

Yeah, thank you. I'm Tom Costello. I'm president of the South Dakota Stockyards. This is kind of a pretty big liability issue for us. We'd like to get it taken care of before they are issued the license for the alcohol. We really don't have a problem with them getting that. But when they first started this project, we were told that they would take care of and protect that stairwell for us. But in the planning part of it, we never saw anything that come into the plan. So we would like you guys to make sure that before the license is issued, that that stairwell is protected so somebody can't fall over the rail or fall down those steps. But like Doris told you, it is a fire escape, so it does need to be open and closed. It can't be completely sealed off. So thank you for hearing us and we'll wait for your decision. Thank you.

Mr. Chair, may I suggest that we have one of the owner representatives identify what their plan is for the stairwell? And Kip, if you could put the graphic up that shows the site plan with the building location and stairwell, that would be great.

If we could have the applicant step forward, please, and up to the microphone. And when you get there, would you please identify yourself? Again, so that we could have it for the record. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Chris Larvey. I'm one of the owners of Four Tracks Drafthouse, and we'll be leasing the space. We're not the owner of the building, but we are working with the building. And I understand your concerns with the stairwell, and I think that is something that we would love to be able to work with you guys on. And I haven't been addressed of any kind of issues with this before, so. This is the first I'm hearing about it, and I would like to find some kind of solution or a way to make this work.

Chair recognizes Eric Heikes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. There we go. So Vicki kind of stole my thunder. I was going to ask that we saw the site plan and the lower unit floor plan. I understand that UDA is the architects, and they have designed this to standards of Rapid City. Is this more of an issue with code with that facility? I mean, are we jumping the gun here with the alcohol permit with the assumption that that was already done? I'm wondering if we're talking about two different things here. the stairwell, the access, the safety aspect of it. And I mean, I'm making the assumption that that was all done by the architect. So no? OK. Maybe we should talk about this a little more then. Chair recognizes Vicki.

So we have a tenant that's here wanting to put in one use in this structure. The owner of the property is who we really need to be working with. We could add a stipulation that says access to the stairwell shall be designed in compliance with the building code so that before we issue a certificate of occupancy, we've ensured that that is addressed.

I'll make that motion then that we approve this liquor license, essentially, correct?

It is a conditional use permit. They will still need to secure an on-sale license from the city council.

Okay. My motion then is to approve the conditional use with the stipulation that the building owner and architect work to bring the stairwell and alliance and the safety aspect and that there's an assurance there. Fair?

May I suggest that it be that the access to the stairwell be designed in compliance with building code prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy? Well, I'll commit. Ditto works. That's all you have to say.

That's my motion.

Thank you. We have a motion from Eric. Do we have a second? Second. And Mr. Larvey, is there something else you wanted to add? No. Do we have any other questions or any other comments about the motion? Seeing no lights, all those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? And the motion passes. Yeah, we'll now consider each regular agenda item here in the public hearing on item 26 PD 011. I'm sorry, let me back up and let me do item 16 first. 26 PD 013 is hereby opened.

All right. Um, this item before you is a major amendment to a plan development overlay to allow a carport addition. Um, this property is located at 43 42 field stone drive. Um, this property is currently zoned low density residential two with a plan development overlay on it. Future land uses, urban neighborhood. And this property is accessed off of Fieldstone Drive, which is classified as a local street. So this property currently contains a single family dwelling with an attached two car garage. What the applicant is proposing to do here is to construct a 14 foot by 22 foot carport addition on the south side of the property. So you can see right here outlined in red. This would be the carport addition. It's on the south side of the existing garage This would be just a single stall carport that would add a third covered parking stall on the property So with that they are requesting an exception Through this major amendment to reduce the south side yard setback from eight feet to excuse me, from eight feet to five feet for this carport addition. So you can see in this rendering, um, this is what the carport addition will look like. It does have open sides, um, no enclosed walls. And it would be just a drive-through type style carport. Currently, the attached garage is located about 38 feet from the dwelling on the south abutting property. This proposed carport addition would shrink that separation to about 24 feet between the carport and the neighboring dwelling to the south. So in terms of what we're looking at for ensuring fire safety, it is just an open structure. So from a fire standpoint, they did not have any additional stipulations to put on this. I do want to point out that three car garages are dominant in this neighborhood. Carports are not necessarily something that is Seen in this neighborhood, but a third stall garage definitely is and this carport addition Would essentially act as a third garage stall. So this is not something that is out of character for the neighborhood Staff does recommend because I will show you in a picture here. So here's an AI rendering of I do want to point out that AI is amazing. This carport is not constructed, even though it looks like it in this picture. This carport is not yet constructed. But as you can see here, so this is the property as it exists today. Where that black car is parked on the side of the garage is where the carport would be, so it would... roof over an existing concrete pad that exists on the property. But as you can see in this picture, there is a slight elevation difference. So the property does slightly slope to the south. So again, as we talked about with the last garage with drainage, It is up to the property owner to ensure that this does not negatively impact this. We did put a stipulation on this one that the gutter system that they put on the south side of this be diverted so that it either puts the water to the front of the property or the rear of the property rather than have it come off directly onto the South. Um, so that is a stipulation on here, um, just for design of the gutter system. Um, other than that, it does not appear to be detrimental to the neighborhood or the public good. Um, so staff is recommending approval of this, um, with the granting of the exception to reduce the setback from eight feet to five feet. Um, and with the stipulation for the gutter design system. With that, I will stand for any questions. And the applicant is here as well if you have any questions.

Chair recognizes Eric. Could we see the AI image? Sorry. Oh, wow. It is fairly accurate, isn't it? Okay. Thank you.

We have a motion from Mike to approve with the stipulations. Do we have a second? And we have a second. Oh, I'm sorry. All those in favor of the motion, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? And the motion passes. Next we have item a two six PD zero one one.

Thank you chair. Good morning. Planning commission, Jessica Olson with current planning. This is a final plan development overlay for a medical office building. This is for Sanford health. Um, we are at Addison Avenue, just south of Jordan drive. Um, Note the existing zoning is general commercial for the majority of this property. There is a little piece of LDR1 there. I believe that is undergoing a rezone, but you'll see the majority of the development is on the general commercial. site as well. This area was placed in a planned development designation when it was rezoned and the applicant is requesting a few exceptions through the planned development as well that I'll go through. Mixed use commercial is our underlying future land use. You'll note that this is east of Mount Rushmore Road and south of Healing Way. So here's the site plan for, this is phase one of the future hospital kind of campus that they're proposing. It's near the existing hangar building that Sanford Health also has there. I'll note that this, the three properties, you can kind of see it in these where the property lines are. They are in a developmental lot agreement. So we're looking at it as one, they are going to come with a future plat, um, but they want to do phase one with the medical office building first. And then when they come in with the hospital campus, they'll be looking at platting the property. So there are a few parcels that are associated with this. So we're not looking at those parcel lines. We're looking at the outer parcel lines here. Um, they also are proposing to do some kind of combination of parking landscaping with the hanger building to the east there. So one of the stipulations of the plan development is to include that parcel in the developmental lot agreement as well. So I just wanted to note that. And then with future platting, one of the exceptions is related to that. The setback for the medical office building here shown as phase one MOB in the site plan has a proposed setback here as 29.7 feet. Once there's five feet of right away that will be needed in the future. And so we're planning ahead here and they're looking at it. So it'll be a 24.7. front setback for that building with a required of 25. So very, very minimal request to reduce the front setback after it's plotted. Also talk about there's a temporary generator that is 7.8 feet from the front property line in this area. Um, that generator will be removed with the future hospital. And so they're requesting an exception for that front setback to the temporary generator. Um, which since it is temporary staff is recommending approval on that as well. And then they do have a height exception. I'll kind of get to that in some later slides when we look at the elevations, but I'll just note it here. The general commercial district requires four stories or 45 feet. This building will be three stories, but it'll be 71 feet. And part of that is you'll see in the elevations, the mechanical structures and the height of the actual floors that are needed to have a medical office building. And so it'll be three stories or 71 feet. So I'll touch on parking here. Between the two buildings, they are required 304 spaces. They are proposing 334. So parking is adequate between the two, again, requiring that developmental lot agreement. Landscaping is also joined between all of the properties. they'll have landscaping throughout the future medical campus. This is just this portion of it. Again, meeting that requirement with 265, 119 required and providing 200,000 68 and 301. So they're, they're well above that between the two. We do have a stipulation in the staff report regarding that both sites are going to be need the landscaping installed prior to the CEO of the medical office building. Since that existing building is already there. Um, the CEO for the medical office building is based on all of the lots in the developmental lot agreement to have landscaping prior to that. So I'll just kind of take you through it. This is one of the ground floor plans. You just kind of see the breadth of the medical office building in relation to the site plan. You just saw most of the floors are similar to this with a lot of, um, smaller medical offices within them. Um, they do have, I believe it's an ambulatory surgery center on the top floor and a gastroenterology. procedure services as well in addition to the regular medical offices. So here's the elevation I was talking about with the 75 foot. So that upper area really is that mechanical screening for all the things that are needed to operate a large medical office building such as this. So it's the front elevation. This is your looking South. This is looking East and there's better pictures where you can get the idea of what this looks like on the ground. So these are just the general details of the elevations. Um, we'll also look at signage. So they have some wave, they have a monument sign and some wayfinding signs as well as wall signage. There's your monument sign and your wayfinding signs. Pretty typical. They will require sign permits. So they did provide us this kind of outlook of what it would look like from the roads. And here's just kind of a summary. I'm not gonna show the ones where you can't actually see it, but I'll note going south on 16, you can't really see, same thing from this. Eventually the hospital you would be able to see from here, but we're just showing the medical office building. So I'll go through the ones where it is visible. So this is going north, Mount Rushmore Road, Highway 16. This is at the end of Healing Way where it dead ends right now. Oh yeah, it's not working here. So this is the medical office building. This is, I believe that's that existing hangar building as well. And Healing Way will extend with the future hospital. This is looking west. Again, the hangar buildings here. The other medical office buildings were facing Mount Rushmore Road coming up from, if you turned on Addison, from Healing Way. There is residential to the south there. This is Bella Luna. This is off kind of the Moon Meadows area to the south looking north. Again, Healing Way. looking north, this is from the, so if you went up Healing Way south and had turned left, there's a neighborhood there. This is what the neighborhood would see looking to the west. And I will note, you'll see in some of these photos, there is some elevation differences that does help with the height of that building. Whereas, yeah, this is, they are at a higher elevation too, so it seems a little less prominent there. And this is what the site looks like yesterday. They did post their signage, so they're meeting their notification requirements. Again, that's where there'd be shared access here through the hangar building. Looking at that neighborhood to the east on the other side of Healing Way. This is looking west down Addison at some of the other medical offices and back at the property as it sits today. So I'll also note we have some stipulations for utilities and the traffic impact study and those are at building permit that we would need those items. There's also a need for a vacation at easement on the properties where some of the property land, there's some drainage easements and things that need to be vacated prior to the building permit. So that's also a stipulation of approval. Staff is recommending approval with the stipulations including granting the exceptions as noted And I will stand for any questions on this.

Thank you Chair recognizes Mike quasi Thank You mr.

Chair a While back we had a hotel that was gonna move out here in this area. What was the height of that? Do we remember Vicki? the top of my head Mike you've caught me flat-footed okay part of the purpose of protecting the height and the reason we put the height restriction is for the tourist industry to be able to as this is an entrance to the hills to the Rapid City they were able to see the hills and protect that view now this is on the other side but so is the hotel so I don't know if I'm a little concerned with the height there. Are we starting to get to where we're no longer going to protect? That view shed that we were trying to protect We had Black Hills energy. They they moved their their building was in a lower area So it didn't affect that a lot of the apartment buildings that we put in on long Mount Rushmore Road also they had provisions that protected that view and I guess that would be my concern is are we going to get to where we're no longer protecting the view of the hills for our tourist industry. So.

Chair recognizes Vicki.

Mike, those are great comments. And that's why we always encourage anyone requesting for a height exception to bring in photo simulation. And they did a great job. It shows that there is a point in time, if you are traveling down a road, a point in time that this structure would have an impact. The fact that it is on the east side of Mount Rushmore Road further limits its impact on those that, as you noted, traveling on Mount Rushmore would have views to the hills. One of the things that I think we need to consider when we are looking at height, and again, this is 2026 rapid city south dakota we still have a hype limit of 45 feet in general commercial and at the end of the day we are creating a significant amount of sprawl one of the things that we'll be looking at and potentially bringing to you and city council is should we be raising the hype in general for the general commercial zoning in this case because that top floor is a mechanical equipment that keeps it from taking up valuable area that otherwise would be used for parking drainage and landscaping puts it in an obscure location and then buffers it so that it has a lower impact with noise, vibration. They're absorbing that in the building than it would to the neighborhood itself. So we looked at this as a compromise. Yes, you are right. We have granted height exceptions. And I think Jessica pointed out that depending upon where you're looking at this, your property that you're looking from or your point of view might be higher. The great thing about this area is it's a rolling terrain. So looking at the immediate impact with all of those adjacent properties in this particular location being commercial, when development happens around it, it will really mute the height of this building as a whole. Wonderful conversation. We can't lose sight of protecting the view shed in Rapid City, but we thought this was an appropriate exception to grant. based on the need for this facility, the specific design Jessica had pointed out too, that because we also limit the number of stories in a hospital, those floor heights are taller because of all the equipment that's needed. And so that really pushes them to the limit where it's hard to stay under that 45 feet.

Well, I'm a supporter of what's going in here. I think that the heights in the city, I don't have a problem with heights being adjusted. And I think we're at the point where we need to look at that. And I think that's a great comment. My only concern still exists with the view shed to the east, or to the west, I'm sorry, to the hills. And I don't know if there's a way to continue to protect that, allowing this to go in. Does it open up the door for going on the other side of the road? And I don't know if there's a way to protect that.

Mr. Chair, in all those instances where it would be more than a 20% adjustment to the height, they're coming back to you. And with any of those requests, we tell the applicants, as we did these, bring in photo simulation. You are going to have to show the planning commission that you will have minimal impact on the view shed. And I think they did a pretty good job. While the building itself is 90,000 square feet in total. But again, it is a point in time, if you are traveling or walking, that there would be that impact. If we had another project in this area on the same side of the street that also wanted a similar height, we have to look at that accumulative impact because we're all interested in protecting the viewshed to the hills to the west.

That said, there is a hospital planned. And I'm assuming that that hospital will be a little larger than what this building is and attached right to it, it sounds like. So what you mentioned there is going to happen. i guess i just want to make sure that we're able to continue like you said it does come back to us and maybe the commission maybe we won't be on that commission but i guess to make note that the next commission 20 years from now hopefully continues to protect that shed that view shed for the the tourists that continue to come because we will have millions of people looking at that so i guess we're at that point where at some point we got to give up something the city of rapid city is growing and think thankfully it is so i'll stop my comments there mr chair if i could just to point a pin in this

for future reference. Those are such great comments, Mike. I think it's important to note that this is on the east side of Mount Rushmore Road. I think when we have that arterial street and we see development on the west side, we are a little more protective because that is the view shed that people are looking at when they're traveling, wanting to get their first glimpse of the hills as they're driving into them or coming out of them. This being on the east side, has less of an impact on that view shed. Because this is in a planned development, adjacent property owners did get noticed of the application. so that if you are a residential use down the street, and you can see in that one picture, the photo simulation shows the building way at the end of the street, and it appears to have the same roof line as other residential structures in the area, so they're not even gonna notice that that building sits higher. And again, that's why we asked the applicants, look at who might be looking out a window to see what they're going to see. And I think they did a really good job showing it where it is predominant on the horizon and showing where it will have minimal impact for those that will be looking at it that live, work in the area, as well as those traveling, whether they be tourists or locals along Mount Rushmore Road. Great conversation.

Thank you, Mister chair. A comment and a question. I am a big fan of the penthouse mechanical. I think that keeps the infrastructure from being sprawled out and in open site. So I do like that design. I've always been a fan of that. The question is, as Mike was saying, in the project brief, it says this will be connected to the future hospital as part of the next phase. So this is a 30,000 square foot footprint. Will the eventual hospital have a higher profile than this? Do we know, has the design pack been approved? I mean, I remember when regional was built in the 70s, it was massive. Like, look at this thing, you know, and now it's no big deal. You know, it's part of the skyline. So I'm curious, as maybe it was mentioned, I didn't catch it, but the ultimate height of the proposed hospital, does that exceed this building by a big margin or are we talking similar size? Vicki?

So the detailed elevations of that have not been submitted, nor is it required to be submitted. We do have representatives in the audience if one of you want to speak to that. But again, the application before you is just for phase one. It is important to note that, yes, there is another medical facility in Rapid City that got a height exception to allow 10 stories. And that sits in a predominantly residential area. And it, too, is zoned general commercial.

Thanks.

Thank you. I hope you don't mind if I speak on this for a minute. This is something very important that a lot of people have been working on for many years to bring to our community and i know you know really the only visual impact on this is going to be from the neighborhood to the east or maybe to the southeast uh... the majority of my clients that are looking for something in an area like that around the hospital would rather be close to a hospital than have a partial view of the hills or maybe no view of the hills. They would rather look at a four or five, 10 story hospital than, you know, and I think that this was very good planning by putting it on the east side of the road because it's not gonna have any visual impact for our visitors to the west. So I think that, I think it's a great location. I think that it's, you know, because cities happen to grow around hospitals like they grow around schools. So we're gonna see a lot of growth out in that area over the next 10 years. And I think that it's very important, because it's one of our few corridors where it's easy to get city utilities and services into that area, which, quote unquote, nothing's easy in Rapid City. So, you know, but I think it's fantastic. This has been huge, huge for me to get another medical provider into Rapid City because I think it's no hidden secret that I'm not a fan of Monument. I've never been a fan of Monument. So I love the fact you guys are coming here. I have huge, huge, I'm looking forward to it. I'm really looking forward to it. So anyway, thank you for what you've done and what you're gonna do to Rapid City.

And the chair recognizes Karen.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to note that I live in this neighborhood. And I think this hospital, when it comes to fruition, I think there's going to be a lot of things happening up on that side of the road. I mean, you're going to have extra buildings, extra commercial things. So it's going to change a lot of things up there. And I think there's a lot of people friends of mine who say, I don't want the city to grow. I like it when it has 35,000 people. Well, it's not going to go back that way. You're going to have to have things that are going forward. And I think no matter what goes in up there, whether it's a hospital or it's a hotel, I'd rather see it, I guess, as a hospital than A lot of more hotels and apartments. I mean, we've seen enough of those, in my opinion. So I just wanted to make that note. And I think people will get used to it once it's there. So I just wanted to add that.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Karen and I, my friends on the other side of the coin, don't want to have 35,000 people here anymore. They want to see some growth, so it's kind of exciting. And John, I'm kind of with you on that one, too. I don't share your... YOUR COMMENTS ON MONUMENT, BUT I THINK HAVING TWO COMPETING HOSPITALS WILL BENEFIT GENERAL DECISIONS AND THE QUALITY OF CARE WE'RE GETTING. SO FOR THAT REASON, I'M EXCITED, TOO. I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER ISSUES WITH THE HEIGHT. I REALLY APPRECIATE MIKE PUTTING THIS THROUGH THE RINGER ON THE CONSIDERATION OF THE WEST VIEW SHED. THAT'S IMPORTANT. Vicki I'm also with you on the fact that I think as in the general commercial that we are probably due for growing up a little bit as a community rather than you know, keep continuing to sprawl because That sprawl is of course putting a lot of strain on our infrastructure while the height is a little bit more manageable.

So Those are my thoughts See the chair recognizes Mike causing

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think that any time you get competition, it makes all things better. I think that we will become more regional in our health care. And I think it's a great addition to our community. I think our medical in general, whether it's Monument or the clinics, we're going to improve because we have competition. And I think all things will be good with the addition. So with that said, I would make a motion to approve with all stipulations.

We have a motion. Do we have a second? I'll second. And before we can move on, Alicia?

Thank you. My only comment was I think that the stipulations make sense, especially the setback and the height. Thinking about the neighborhood in the future and preserving density, I think it'll be good for future expansion also for the next hospital. So I think that's, even though we haven't seen the future elevations, I think it's good planning ahead to have this building set some kind of precedent for height and have some density and, you know, help create the future neighborhood. So thank you. And we'll continue with the vote.

OK, thank you, Alicia. Well, we have a motion from Mike, a second by Eric. All those in favor? Aye. Any other comments, concerns? Any opposed? Motion passes. Next, we have item 26RZ029.

Okay, this rezone should look similar. There was 26 RZ, excuse me, 011 previously. That one was withdrawn. In looking at the, deed for the properties and the state law, these properties were included and should have been identified as SDCL 11430 as the other ones were. So we've updated the zoning map here to reflect that. So they withdraw the original application and resubmitted this still as a rezone to mining and extraction. I'll note the underlying future land use for the property internal to the cement plant, again, is mining extraction supportive. of that rezone to mining and earth resources extraction district, the ME district. The one off Hidden Valley Road does have that underlying future land use as low density neighborhood. And there were concerns about rezoning that property to mining extraction or the ME district. And so staff's worked with GCC Dakota to recommend here that the property internal to the cement plant and mining operations, be zoned to ME district, while this one off Hidden Valley remains essentially referencing the SDCL, identifying that it's not consistent with the future land use, but also that they still have the rights that the state gave them in 2000 and 2001. So again, this is the property we've looked at previously. Looking down Sturgis Road. So the other side, um, if you're looking away from the property and then down Sturgis again, I think this is to the north down Sturgis road. So staff is recommending in the, the. Recommendation on it cites the actual legal description just for the property on the east side next to the railroad right away. It's addressed off Deadwood somehow, but it's this one right here and does not include the legal description for this property. So we would leave that one alone as it lies today. I'll stand for any questions. Thank you.

I don't have any lights. Do we have a motion? Actually, Chair recognizes Karen.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think this is something that we should do. So I'm going to make a motion to approve the rezoning of this property.

We have a motion from Karen. Do we have a second?

I would say, sorry, friendly moment, with the staff's recommendation, because it has the specifics on the parcel.

Thank you. Second, same thing, staff recommendations. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? And the motion passes. And that brings us to staff planning commission discussion items. Does staff have any?

Just one. We had reached out to you about a month ago to let you know that we're trying to put together a Planning 101, Subdivision 101 training with Planning Commission and city council members. Did a doodle poll, took a while for everyone to respond. It doesn't seem like you folks can align. So we're going to wait a little bit, get another doodle poll out quickly, push it more towards the end of August. Maybe once school starts back up, a lot of you will be available. But at this point, it's difficult to get all of you to commit or have availability at the same time. So we're going to try again and then lock and load on a date and get that going. We'll let you know. John, are you going to come? You could help teach the class. Maybe. Okay. I'll go feed you lunch. Oh, wow.

Yeah.

Stay tuned, I guess, is the message for today. Can you turn the mic on, please? Because I can't hear him. Start over, Mike.

Okay. On that doodle poll that you originally did, was it only one choice, or could you do multiple? Multiple.

Multiple.

Okay, so we can do multiple. If we do two or three that were available, then maybe that would open that up a little more. Okay.

You got it. Whole intent of a doodle poll. Yep, perfect. That's it, Mr. Chair.

Okay, well, you know, and again, I want to appreciate everyone's patience with me as I don't normally sit in this chair, but today is my birthday, so thank you for forgiving me. Okay. Do we have a motion to adjourn? We have a motion from Eric and a second from Pat. All those in favor? Any opposed? OK, we stand adjourned. Thank you. You know, last time I was going to. Do you? Oh, thank you.