2026-11-05 - Zoning Board of Adjustment and Planning Commission

Mhm.

>> Mhm.

>> Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the November 5th, 2026 Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting starting at 7:00 a.m. in the morning. If any member of the audience wishes to speak to an item on the

Zoning Board agenda, there are speaker request forms on the left side of the room. Please fill out the request with the agenda number of the item you wish to speak to and hand it to the staff seated

on that side of the room. Each speaker will be allotted 3 minutes to speak. Please be aware of your time. The time will show up on the screen and I'll interrupt if I need to. Public hearing on item

number one, the approval of the October 22nd, 2026 Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting minutes is hereby opened.

>> Move to approve.

>> Second.

>> All right. [name] made the motion to approve those minutes and [name] seconded that motion. Any discussion on the motion? All those in favor, please say aye.

>> Aye.

>> Aye.

>> Are there any opposed? Motion carries. Item number two.

>> Microphone. There we go. All right. Good morning. Item number two before you is the um yearly variance request. This is a variance to reduce the south side yard setback from 8 ft to 3 ft for a

carport. We are at property located at Cruise Drive. This property is owned low density residential district one with a future land use of low density neighborhood. And it takes access off of Cruise

Drive, which is classified as a local street. Um so, what they are proposing to do, this property currently contains a single-family dwelling with an attached garage built into the lower level of it.

What they are proposing to do here is to add a 10-ft by 18-ft carport that you can see here in the drawing on the south side of the dwelling. There is currently an uh leveled out pad area that they

are wanting to put that carport over. Um, due to the slight angle of the south property line, the carport would sit 3 ft from the south side yard property line um at its front corner, and it would sit

over 8 ft from the property line at its rear corner. So, by code, this carport must meet an 8-ft side yard setback. So, what they are requesting is to reduce that down to 3 ft. Um, this property was

built in the early 1960s. This property does slope downhill um to the south, and it also on the back side of the property slopes downhill to the west as well. Um, so, there is some topography on this

property. The gas line and air conditioner compressor are also located on the south side of the house um which prevents the carport from being snuggled up right to the house. So, that's for the reason

that there is that slight gap um as you can see on the site plan. Um, the existing single-stall attached garage on the property can provide um vehicle protection um which is typical for a neighborhood

that was developed in the 1960s. So, you can see this is the single car attached garage that exists right now. This is pretty standard for this neighborhood. Um, single-stall garages with vehicles

parked outside are a predominant characteristic in this surrounding area. Um, and that single-stall garage is what existed at the time that the property owner purchased this property. Um, so,

reasonable use of the property does exist without this carport addition. I do want to point out that there are some houses in this neighborhood that do have larger garages like two-stall garages, um

but those also are incorporated into the lower level of the dwelling like this one is. Carports um are not present in this area. Um in fact, I didn't really see one um driving through the few

surrounding um uh roads. I did not see another carport in this area. Um the purpose and intent of setback requirements is to maintain that neighborhood character and then adequate separation between

structures. So, um another thing that staff looked at is the elevation difference. As you can see, that property that's to the south um here in this picture sits at a lower elevation um than the

subject property. So, a carport um 3 ft from that property line could look a lot taller to that property um in their backyard and could obstruct their views and also um the enjoyment of that property.

So, those are the things that staff looked at when we were looking at this carport review. This is looking south on Cruise Drive. You can see here is another single-stall garage um single-stall garage

single-stall garage. Um oops. This is looking north on Cruise Drive. So, you can see that elevation difference. The applicant has indicated that the reason for the carport addition is to be able to

get their vehicle that is currently parked on the street to be able to get it off the street um and to provide some weather protection for that vehicle as well. Um however, ultimately staff is

recommending denial of this variance um based on the fact that reasonable use of the property already exists with the single-stall garage that is there and this variance is not the minimum adjustment

necessary and that single-stall garages are the dominant feature. Um carports are not a dominant feature in this area. So, it is not in harmony with the surrounding development. Um I'll stand for any

questions. I believe the applicant is here as well.

>> I do have a speaker request form from [name]. I hope I got your last name right. If you'd like to come up and speak. And once you're up at the microphone, just identify yourself for our records,

please.

>> Hello, my name is [name]. I'm basically representing my son there cuz he's at work. I'm asking you to approve the variance so that we can put up a detached carport to protect our vehicle. This

would have been an administrative variance had we not lost 3 ft of our side yard. If you noticed in that picture, there's a lot more of a gap than 3 ft. What we thought was just our yard, the

neighbor's backyard has a concrete retaining wall with a fence on top of it with bushes. And we found out when we did the local survey that the actual property line is not retaining wall. We lost 3

ft, a little over 3 ft, of our side yard, which we did not know was the property line. So, originally, there was 6.7 ft from the front corner of the pad and over 7 ft in the back corner. So, it would

have been about a 2-ft administrative variance turned into a 5-ft full variance. The planning department's statement that the house is built in the '60s with single-car garage is correct. However,

their statement that in the immediate neighborhood, there are no carports or either scarce or non-existent is false. Okay. Within 1 to 1 and 1/2 block distance, there are several added on carports and

or garages. In fact, right across the street is a single-car detached garage built in the side yard. There are 12 carports and three added on garages. I have pictures on a flash drive if you want

them. A house on Cruise has a carport recently enclosed when new people bought the house. A house on Cruise added on a two-car garage next to attached to the one-car garage. A house on Cruise added on

a detached one car garage in the side yard. Several houses on Lance added on attached carports. Houses on Mountain View added on an attached carport. And a house on Rio added on an attached carport. A

house on Mesa added on a three-car garage and a two-story addition to their house a few years ago. And also there were other few other carports that I could not tell if they were added on after or

during construction. However, with the standard build at the time, I suspect they were added on. Our carport is basically seen from the front yard. The neighbor's backyard that would enjoy the view of

the side of our house uh has a fence and bushes with the fence and a very large tree with canopy that diffuses or blocks the majority of the vision of that carport. And I've talked to the gentleman

living there. He said, "I don't think it's a problem." With the department uh stresses that financial loss is not

>> Mr. [name], I'm sorry. We ran up against the 3 minutes.

>> Well, I have the sheet if anybody wants it.

>> We'll call you back up if there's questions for you.

>> Thank you.

>> Thank you. All right. Um [name].

>> Oops.

>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Could we see the photograph that shows the thickened slab and the There it is. So, is the It's I have a question about that particular. Is that going to be the dimension of

where the carport will be or will there be further will the wall be moved or Are you understanding what I'm asking?

>> Yep, I understand what you're saying. So, it's my understanding that that pad is a little bit larger than what the carport will be.

>> Okay.

>> Um so, the carport will actually be just a little bit smaller than that. Mr. [name], correct me if I'm wrong.

>> Correct. That answers my question. Thank you.

>> I'll dive in since there aren't any other lights up. The um area between the house, the is there any sort of drainage easement or utility easement in there or is it just a a property line common

property line?

>> Yep, just a common property line. This property was platted long ago um in the 50s. So, there is no utility or minor drainage easement in there.

>> Okay.

>> [name].

>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um so, this concrete pad was put in and it's legal. There's no problem with it, right?

>> Correct.

>> Okay. He has So, have we had anybody come forward and say this is a problem? It sounds like he talked to the neighbor and the neighbor says this is not a problem. Okay. It also sounds like maybe

there's more carports in this area than maybe we're led to believe.

>> When I was looking, I was looking specifically at carports like open-sided carports like this. Um Mr. [name] referenced um a lot of detached and attached garages. That's not necessarily what I was

looking for when I was out there. I was looking at carports specifically. So, non-enclosed coverings.

>> I guess with the concrete pad there and and and it's basically already been established as a parking spot. I don't have a big problem with the carport. And I guess I would make a motion to approve

the carport. Uh and I don't know what what I need to put on that motion, Vicki?

>> Uh Mr. Chair.

>> Yeah, Vicki.

>> Um [name], I think what you're saying is you do not believe it will be injurious to the neighborhood and it is a use otherwise allowed in the district.

>> That would make sense. Yes, please.

>> And just to clarify the motion, it's to approve the variance request to reduce the south yard setback from 8 to 3 ft for the reasons stated.

>> Correct.

>> Okay. And that works for [name] on the second. Okay. Thanks, [name]. Anything else to add? All right, [name].

>> Thank you, Chair. Um the applicant mentioned that there were some issues when the property was designed or that and I'm trying to understand he said that they lost a few feet based on some kind of

uh project that was taking place. I Do you know what he was talking about?

>> Mr. Chair.

>> Yeah, Vicki.

>> Maybe we could get [name] to come back up.

>> Basically, what happened is when I came up for the permit uh [name] looked at the property lines and said, "Well, they're not very clear, so we want to get a location survey." And as you can see by

the picture, it looks like we had a lot of space. When they did the location survey, the retaining wall that you see on the left side over there isn't the property line that we thought it was and the

neighbor thought it was. It moved 3 ft into our yard on the side, about 3 and 1/2 ft actually, and that's what caused this to be a problem.

>> So, where you was the retaining wall um who put the up the retaining wall? Let me clarify.

>> It's been there for 20 years.

>> Oh, okay.

>> And like I said we didn't know that wasn't property line originally because normally where the fence is is a property line.

>> So

>> I talked to the neighbor, he said, "Yeah, that's where I go." cuz he's got his bushes and we got our stuff on the other side.

>> So is is the retaining wall in in your property or

>> His his It's in his

>> Here's here's the property line. Here's his retaining wall.

>> Right.

>> And we lost into our yard about 3 and 1/2 ft.

>> Okay.

>> is the real property line.

>> All right.

>> Obviously, we didn't know when we started this.

>> Okay, thank you, sir. I appreciate that. Thank you. [name]

>> This does not condition my second. Just for the record. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

>> Okay.

>> Possibly a location for a nice hedge in there as as as you defined it as because it's 3-ft difference between where the property line is and where the and the fence is. So maybe you and the

neighbor could work out a screening hedge or something in there. Again, this doesn't condition my comment, so thanks.

>> [name]

>> Thanks. Maybe I missed it, but was the concrete pad permitted and approved by the buildings department?

>> Vicki

>> [clears throat]

>> I don't know if um it was permitted, but just remember that parking spaces, you can create hard surface parking spaces without a permit. And uh there is no setback to a parking space.

>> Okay. I mean, I tend to agree with [name] and [name] on this one just because it's in my eyes it's a temporary structure. I mean, if it [clears throat] was attached to the building and a hard

structure, I might have, you know, second thoughts. But if a new owner came in down the road and wanted that thing gone, it's a it's a piece of cake to remove it and retain that open look. So I agree

with these guys. I think it's a good move.

>> I'm going to hop in again. This might be for Mr. [name]. I apologize for having you come up, but I I thought I saw in the application that the carport is intended to be metal or steel construction.

>> Uh yes, sir.

>> Is that correct? Okay.

>> from

>> it's a upgraded one for snow level and wind problems, but it is a corrugated rounded roof with the metal uh

>> Okay.

>> support poles.

>> I'm more I'm

>> Basically like what you see on the picture now.

>> Mostly thinking just for fire safety. I That That thing won't burn.

>> metal and it's been upgraded. It's not the cheap ones from Menards or Lowe's or Amazon.

>> All right. Thank you. I appreciate it. Anything else from the Zoning Board? Uh Ma'am, [clears throat] I apologize. Ma'am. All right. Uh The motion is to approve the variance. Any further comment?

All those in favor, please say I. I. Are there any opposed? Motion carries. That's our last item on Zoning Board of Adjustment. I'd look for a motion to adjourn this.

>> adjourn.

>> All right. [name] made the motion. [name] seconded that motion. All those in favor, please say I. I. All right. We are adjourned at 7:17. Now we will move to the Rapid City Planning Commission

meeting for November 5th, 2026. Again, if any member of the audience wishes to speak to an item on the Planning Commission agenda, please grab a speaker request form on the left side of the room, fill

it out with the agenda number of the item you wish to speak to and hand it to the staff seated on that side of the room. There will be a general public comment period at the end of the agenda. This is

a time for members of the public to discuss or express concerns on any issue that's not on the agenda. If you wish to speak at that time, please fill out a speaker request form as well and indicate

that you desire to provide a general public comment and hand it to the staff again seated on the left side of the room.

>> Left side of the Items 1 through 7 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 recommendation by a

single vote. Any item may be removed from the consent calendar by any planning commissioner, staff member, or audience member for separate consideration at this time. The findings of this planning

commission are recommendations to the city council. The city council will make the final decision with the exception of the following items. Item 5 26 PD022 and item 6 26 PD023. The Rapid City

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 7 that the staff would like removed for separate

consideration?

>> No, thank you.

>> All right. Any items 1 through 7 that any planning commissioner would like removed for separate consideration? And then I I do have a speaker request on item number 5 from [name]. Um we'll I'll

call you up when we get to that item. Sorry. Thank you. Uh but I'm going to pull item 5. All right, the chair would then entertain a motion to approve items 1 2 3 4 6 and 7 in accordance with staff's

recommendation.

>> Motion to approve items 1 2 3 4 6 and 7 in accordance with the staff's recommendation.

>> All right, [name] made the motion. [name] seconded that motion. Any discussion on the motion? All those in favor, please say I.

>> I.

>> Are there any opposed? Motion carries. All right, item number five. Mr. [name], if you'd like to address the commission.

>> Hi. So, this this request is mine. Um uh the um the item that I'm requesting is just the use of the garage so that I can do repairs on small engines. Now, the the report recommended approving uh

approving the request um and I I I hope I'm not jeopardizing that because I do want it approved. I just had a question about the um conditions on the uh on the report. Um that said that the garage

under conditional use permit criteria page seven under findings uh number 11. The effects of noise, odor, smoke, dust, air, and water pollution and the degree of control through the use of clarifier

screening setbacks and orientation. Um it says the to mitigate the potential impacts of noise, odor, smoke, dust, or air pollution, the garage door must remain closed while repairs are taking place

>> [clears throat]

>> and no activities of the home occupation can occur um etc. Um so uh I am asking if we can possibly amend or remove [clears throat] the stipulation of not being able to have the garage door open. I

do need it ventilated when I uh when I test the engines um so I don't die of um CO2. Um I can keep the garage closed, of course, as I'm doing repairs. There's really not a lot of noise. It's just

basically battery-operated tools. Um if if if okay, but I would need some sort of ventilation, which I could if I really needed to figure out, um, my fixing maybe a a fan or something to a window,

but, um, that's really all I'm asking is is maybe allow me to open the garage door when when needed.

>> Okay.

>> That's it.

>> Thank you. Vicki, may

>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Great conversation. Uh, so to allow this kind of work on a residential lot, the reason it's not just an administrative home occupation approval is because of the potential

impact to the neighborhood. Uh, we have um, a similar use in a commercial area and the adjacent office building is calling us constantly complaining, "Can't we make them keep the door shut?" Uh, cuz

it impacts their enjoyment of their property during the day. Of course, they're all closed down at night. So, now we're moving this into a residential area. Um, I There is ways that you can ventilate

and keep that big garage door shut using a window and some other apparatuses that can remove that. But, again, this is a stretch to allow this kind of work in a residential area. We want to make sure

it's successful for him to have the best use of his property, but that it's not impactful to the neighborhood. So, uh, the stipulation is actually limiting the hours of work being done in the garage

and ensuring that that garage door is shut, but only when repairs are being made.

>> Thank you. Um, got a speaker [clears throat] request from [name]. Go for it.

>> I would I wouldn't worry too much about this. I think that as long as he follows the conditional use permit, This house is about a block from mine, so my wife will keep a very close eye on this.

So, I'm sure that you know, if there's any issues um it'll be dealt with right away. Yeah, thank you.

>> [name]. Thank you, Mr. Chair. [name], it's not the CO2 you need to worry about, it's the CO, carbon monoxide. This CO2 is just latent like Uh I'd move approval. Sorry we can't amend this per your

request, but as as stated I would I would or as written and recommended I would make this motion to approve.

>> Okay, [name] made the motion to approve as the stipulations currently exist. And [name] seconded that motion.

>> Mr. Chair.

>> Vicki.

>> Just for clarification, um the planning commission does have the authority to add stipulations, revise stipulations, um but I believe that your motion is to approve as recommended by staff.

>> Yes. Yes, sorry.

>> All right, same with the second. [name].

>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I was going to second that as well. And you know, something that happens is is there's a probably a chance that you could have an engine that might be a race car engine

that you're working on. And we used to have in our neighborhood a problem with somebody roaring the engine quite loud and with a garage door open. And so, I understand the need for for that as a to be

in place. So, um I will be voting as [name] has mentioned. So,

>> All right, uh motion is to approve with stipulations as listed. Uh I tend to trust people to be good neighbors. I'm going to vote no because I think he should be able to open his garage door, but

just wanted to explain that. It's not that I don't believe in the home occupation. Any other comments? All those in favor, please say I.

>> I.

>> Opposed? No. Just me. So, the motion carries with me voting no. All right, that takes us to item number eight. Item number eight is 2608006 ordinance 6746. Vicki?

>> Um thank you, Mr. Chair. So, you saw this item at one of your September Planning Commission meetings. And um we were surprised by the lack of attendance in the audience and participation from the

community at that time. So, with your assistance, the uh ordinance was continued for 2 months. And since then, we hosted an open house, which is not a public meeting, but an open house. Our goal is

this. There is a current ordinance adopted by the city that permits data centers with a building permit. Very little restrictions on what that looks like. Um we've seen data centers across the nation

create issues for communities. And so, our intent is to revise the data center ordinance to bring in safeguards and restrictions so that we protect our resources and our neighborhoods. Um at the open

house, we posted an online survey and provided the public with our email address. And we have received probably close to 1,000 comments. And we kept that survey open through Monday. We've gotten some

great comments. We are now going through those. We see where there's revisions needed, clarification within the language, and so we do believe that we need to bring you a finished document when we do

discuss this. So, at today's meeting we our recommendation is the item be continued. On the agenda it says to to continue to December 10th. Unfortunately, that's going to put it before the city

council right during the holiday season. And I don't think that's fair to the community either. That's a time we all should all be spending with our our friends and family. So, it is our

recommendation that we continue this to the January 21st city council meeting. I'm sorry, planning commission meeting. And it will also allow us to then post the revised document and secure additional

>> Hang on.

>> Sweet sweet [name]. We will, [name]. Thank you. Um I've known that gal for a lot of years. Um So, I think that just to be good stewards of this project and ensure that the voice of the public is

included and to allow you and the city council to see the finished product before we get to the meeting, it would be our recommendation to continue to the January 21st planning commission meeting. And

every opportunity we get, we will state that this is not creating an allowance for data centers. This is to further restrict data centers. There's a large misconception in the community that this is

opening the doors for data centers.

>> I would move that we continue this item to the January 21st commission meeting.

>> Okay, [name] made the motion to continue. Can you turn your mic on. Before he even makes his motion, I'm just going to say we have some speaker requests that I will recognize even if there's a

motion on the floor.

>> I yeah, I would move that we continue this item to the January 21st uh Planning Commission meeting.

>> I'll second it.

>> Okay. Uh [name] made the motion to continue and [name] seconded that motion. Uh as stated, we're going to get through the uh speaker requests. [name], if you'd like to address the commission.

>> Mr. Chairman,

>> Gentlemen,

>> Yeah, the white one.

>> Yep. Go. Before I begin, let the record reflect that my testimony is explicitly protected under South Dakota's anti-slap statutes. Any attempt to use restrictive agenda maneuvers or claims of

defamation to chill or penalize my public participation will be treated as a direct violation of state law protecting citizen oversight. We are looking at an official staff recommendation to push

ordinance 6746 out of out 35 days to December 10th, but now till January. Um This pause is proof that the public scrutiny has stalled your pipeline. During the 35-day delay, you must completely

overhaul this ordinance using the absolute authority granted by the Data Center Bill of Rights Senate Bill 135. Under Section 4, the state explicitly dictates that nothing limits the authority of this

municipality to regulate, limit, or prohibit data center development. Do not claim your hands are tied by zoning technique technicalities. You have the ultimate statutory power to deny these corporate

footprints entirely. Under Section 3, the law strictly prohibits utilities from shifting infrastructure costs onto residential rate payers to subsidize data centers. Black Hills Energy is trying to

hide its blockchain interruptive service contract with CleanSpark on Deadwood Avenue. Um you cannot verify compliance with a state consumer protection law if the terms are kept hidden. This commission

must demand full utility disclosure before any zoning framework is approved. Finally, look at the water loopholes. Ordinance 6746 attempts to fro- attempts to exempt microcenters using under 4,000

gallons of daily water from public hearing hearings. I'm asking direct engineering question, is that 4,000 gallon limit calculating total evaporated water loss on peak July day or is it a deceptive

baseline average? If facilities like Secador Edge on the Highway 79 or CleanSpark on Deadwood Avenue utilize cooling towers that evaporate thousands of gallons of water table daily during summer

droughts, they threaten the community priorities protected under South Dakota codified law title 46. And furthermore, section 7 of SB 135 mandates that data center water usage reports must be made

fully transparent and available to the public. Use this a lot of time continuance to clean this up, strip out the 4,000 gallon exemption loophole, unseal the secret utility dockets, and uphold your

fiduciary duty. Well, you are I got it wrong last time. You corrected me and you're right. I got a lot of milk behind my ears, but I'm fighting for our people. So, thank y'all so much for y'all time

and appreciate y'all.

>> Thank you. [name].

>> Thank you and good morning. Um I have a I I my initial comment on this ordinance uh is that it just simply doesn't go far enough. And I think instead of us arguing whether uh 1,000 ft is a

sufficient uh buffer zone between someone's home and a data center, we should be arguing about what is an appropriate moratorium on the construction of these data centers. The uh I encourage you folks

to take a look at the comments um that occurred during the open house uh a couple of weeks ago. Overwhelmingly, the public responded to a set of what appeared to be very carefully scripted questions

that were posed to them. And they stated pretty clearly that there is no set of restrictions that were uh proposed to them that would make them feel comfortable about a data center in their community.

And they spoke pretty clear clearly and definitively. I'm looking at a 70 to 80% and sometimes higher disapproval rate uh in terms of the people who were present uh at that public hearing. Since then,

there's been 1,000 comments, almost 1,000 comments, most of them overwhelmingly against data centers, period. The concept of a uh closed-loop data center being completely safe is also a fallacy. Uh

the gentleman before me just spoke about it um to some extent. There is a a constant need to refill these things, to replenish the water. They They also have to purge their systems periodically

because it's not just glycol that we're worried about in this coolant. It is picking up toxins and heavy metals from the very pipes that it circulates through. These are These are Some of these

selenium, this sort of thing has to go somewhere. It's see discharged into the back into the aquifer or it goes into the municipal water treatment system. No water treatment system is is equipped to

handle it. Look at what happened in um uh not Casper. Uh maybe it was Casper. Cheyenne. Yeps, thank you. Uh Cheyenne, the meta data center uh was allowed to discharge their uh their coolant into a

municipal uh treatment center and it killed that treatment center with a metal-eating bacteria. That's interesting. I'm asking that you folks look at this with in a different light. Um I'm asking that

you look at this issue of data centers in terms of should we have a moratorium on them? And this would be consistent with the overwhelming support of this this community and this country. 70 to 80% of

the people in this country oppose data centers in their community.

>> Okay.

>> Thank you.

>> Thank you. Appreciate your comments. Uh [name].

>> Um can you hear me? I managed to come down here without my hearing aids, so I don't know what you're saying. But um I was on the city council for 10 years in years past and I'm kind of like Rapid

City and care about its health. And these data centers have me quite concerned. Um if you live close to one, it's going to affect your property values. And I know it's been said that that's you don't

have to live by them, you can move somewhere else. Well, that's good as long as it's not you. And um the water restrictions, uh I understand that the communities close by are short on water, not to

mention the fact that Rapid City, you folks had put a year-round um uh water restriction, not just for the summer. And if you know anything about these data centers, uh they use enormous amounts of

water, and uh regularly, there's information across the country of the shortage of water. So, if we're short now, what is going to come down the road? Um if you live close to one, it's going to affect

your value of your property. And uh I was here, I don't know if it was the last meeting you folks had on this one day. And uh they showed a picture of the Rapid City, like a map, and I didn't get the

point of what that was, but it to me, it was saying we have places in Rapid City where we can put a data center. It's beyond my comprehension with the noise that they make, the area that they take, uh

there's nothing attractive about them being anywhere close to many things. And uh I've seen the places where they've uh have these or putting them, put it trying to get them through. They say people

can move if they don't like it. And as far as being in the city, I can't imagine a space big enough to get them uh back from the data center so that the noise and the heat from it isn't bothering. And

I think the value of Rapid City, the the beauty of Rapid City is not having data centers in there a selling point for the city. For the people who own them, they don't live here, I don't think,

anywhere around.

>> Mrs. [name], we hit the end of the 3 minutes. I don't know if I'll be able to get through the

>> as you are all of you're undoubtedly aware.

>> Your time is up, honey.

>> What?

>> Your time is up.

>> I can't hear you.

>> Your time is up.

>> Oh, she says my time is up. So, I'd appreciate your consideration. Thank you for talking. She was here when I left.

>> Thank you, Mrs. [name]. All right, [name]. Thank you, Mr. Chair. What What's What's her name again? [name]. [name].

>> [clears throat]

>> [name]. I know you can't hear me, but I heard you. I heard you. Yeah. Um every one of your points are salient and meaningful, and I want to go on record that I really appreciated your comments

there. And I and I'm listening, and then I don't know about the rest of my planning commission colleagues, but uh I also agree with uh uh Mr. [name]'s comments about our concern for our our wastewater

and our water. So, uh and on a bigger picture, uh for the years I've been a landscape architect and meeting my colleagues from the rest of the the country, this area that I live in, which I'm very

proud of, uh has always been kind of referred to them and pooh-poohed by them as sort of fly over country, right? And and I don't feel that way whatsoever. I I cherish this place. It's beautiful, and

with the advent of uh the three H's, hospitality, health care, and higher education, paired with technology and innovation, I think we're going places as a community. Um I would see a lesser

consideration for these data centers in the in the prescriptive we have in building our community. And and I'm going to be opposing uh data centers in our future. Uh I don't just They're just not a

fit for us uh in my perspective. And I know that we're here not here to talk about that in general, but we are going to talk about restricting them in the future. And I I I sure This is music to my

ears, and believe me, um you I think the the icing on the cake was um the one who can't hear me right now. Um I wish she could, but anyway, that's that's what I have to say about it. Thank you.

>> Thanks, [name]. Anything else from the commission? The motion on the floor is to continue until January 21st, 2027. I don't see any other comments. Don't have any other requests, so we'll go to the

vote. All those in favor of continuance, please say I.

>> I.

>> Are there any opposed?

>> No.

>> That was [name]? Okay. All right, that takes us to the end of our agenda. Any uh general public comment? I don't have any request forms. Comment from the planning commission? [name]?

>> Thank you, Chair. No, I I do appreciate uh I do appreciate you showing up today. Thank you for being here. Thank you for bringing this information that you have, that you share, and that you've

researched, and and sharing it with us and with the city. I do I I I do appreciate the city when the when [name] uh presented the the this project the first time. And of course, since then there has

been additions and there's been some changes. So, you're effective. Keep it up. Thank you.

>> [name].

>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Vicki, I guess the communication of all that you all the communication that you've got, how will that be given to us? Well, it won't be just before the meeting.

>> Mr. Chair.

>> Thank you.

>> So, all of the comments and the results of the survey are linked to this item online right now so the public can see it, you can see it, City Council can see it. And if we continue to get comments,

when we bring this item back forward, we'll have those linked as well. And our goal is then to incorporate comments into the data center ordinance and get it back out to the public to review and for

you and the City Council to look at before January 21st.

>> Okay. I have spent a lot of time pulling up different information on data centers and so I think it's important that we have the knowledge and we appreciate anybody coming forward with their

knowledge so that we can have a solid discussion about these data centers. Now, one of my concerns and and it's been brought up that maybe there's a communities close by us that they have no controls

and we could end up with a data center without control. So, I think it's important that we also understand that we need to make sure that we go through the proper process to know what we're dealing

with. And and like I said, I appreciate anybody that comes forward and gives us the information that that is available. And whether it's state laws or whatever. So, we will look at that and I hope I

think all of us are eager to know the facts and not go on the basis of just jumping to conclusions. I appreciate [name] his comments there and all the comments made today. So, I think it's great that

we have this going forward. [name]. Thank Thank you. [clears throat] Um there's some indication that there's data centers that exist in the community right now. Um I'm not I guess I I'm not aware that

or have any information on that. Is that that something that should be relevant in the discussion? Vicki.

>> Today, the city has not issued a building permit for a standalone data center. There are many companies um that have small data centers to do the business of that company that exists within Rapid

City right now. But they're very small.

>> And I guess um I guess I'm not sure what that means. They're very small and so I guess the question I would have uh uh how do they differ from what would be regulated under this ordinance?

>> Mr. Chair.

>> Vicki.

>> If the Planning Commission would allow us, we'll we'll put together information specific to that and answer those types of questions when we make our presentation in January.

>> Excellent. Excellent. And I I guess I would seem from my uh knowledge then there was some discussion about a moratorium and a moratorium could be could exist whether or not this ordinance was in

place. Isn't that correct? I mean, the City Council could determine that they're going to do a a moratorium on any any further uh permits for a data center whether or not this ordinance is in ex- is

in existence.

>> Mr. Chair.

>> Vicki.

>> Creating a moratorium is in fact creating a new ordinance for data centers. So, that would have to go through the same process that this potential this ordinance is going through right now, but um

the city council could take that topic up at their desire.

>> Yeah, I would think that they would need to direct us to take it up. Um all right. [name]?

>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just for the record and for our use, what's the link to the survey? What's that Is that on the website? That's on the city's website, correct?

>> It's on the agenda item

>> under this item.

>> Oh.

>> We we try to make it easy for you to find.

>> Sorry, it was right under my Okay, thank you.

>> [clears throat]

>> [name]?

>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I I think one of the other things that I want to make sure that people know I the state law allows certain data centers, if I understand it correctly, isn't that right, Vicki?

Okay. And I think that when we're talking about uh private businesses having their own data center, it's not the same it's not the same data center as you think of. It's something within their own

house and and nobody would even know it's there and it's not like you have to have all the water and all the electricity. It's just something to control their their own equipment that they have within

their business. So, just wanted to make those two clear.

>> [name]?

>> Thank you, Chair. You know, correct, [name]. Uh you know, the the point is is that uh in 1975, I I joined the Navy and I was in a naval communication area master station. They had a fleet master on

it uh because our communication we were in a computer room the size of this room and it was full of computers. So, that week and and of course when I joined the Navy, we talked about communicating, I

thought we were going to use flags and signals and hand signals from ship to ship and of course no, life has changed. We know that. And because of that, that same power in that room is here. It's in

this. And that's where we're at. We have to deal with that. And the caution that we're taking is extremely important and that's why I think thank the staff deeply for investigating, for looking into

it. I think all of you who have come to this meeting today, who may be listening to this online, I thank you for paying attention and thank you.

>> Yeah, I can I'll recognize you if you want to come up for general comment. I got to get your mic on. The booth is going to do it.

>> Okay.

>> Got it.

>> Mr. Chair, I wanted to address [name]. I've heard that as well from [name]. He said if it's closed down here, we'll follow the I-90 corridor. They'll follow the fiber optics. Well, I'd like to let

you know in Piedmont, I helped write the ordinance and educated the government on the three-tier safety ordinance. And we're going to be following this all the way up the I-90 corridor. I'm already in

the works of it and also down south as well because we have to protect our water and that's the best business that we could do. Thank you.

>> Thank you. Wonderful to hear. Anything else from the commission today? [name].

>> So, just curiosity. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Curiosity, at some point a large server becomes a data center, is that correct? At what what small very small data center is a their own personal server or

server system and then at some point there's a tipping location and that becomes now we are now a data center, correct? Is that a fair comment and interpretation?

>> That's a fair comment. We'll get with the IT experts and make sure that we've got that clearly spelled out so that we all are on the same page when we discuss it January 21st.

>> you. [name].

>> Thank you, Chair. My reason for voting no is it's basically two months is a long time to wait. And I understand all the work you go do it going through and I appreciate what the staff is going

through. They're like over a thousand probably more by the time uh January comes around that uh comments will be made. Uh I just appreciate all you who came out visited today and talked about your

concerns. My concern is I just uh I just hate kicking the can down the road and maybe in this case we have to but I just feel like that uh uh three two months is a long time to wait. Appreciate that.

Thank you very much.

>> Thanks, [name]. All right, anything else? Maybe a motion?

>> I'll make a motion to adjourn.

>> Okay. [name] made the motion to adjourn.

>> I'll second.

>> Uh [name] seconded that. All those in favor, please say I. I.

>> I. Any opposed?

>> No. I take no opposition on that.

>> [laughter]

>> I never ask I adjourn men.