Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Street Design And Rights Of Way topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rapid City committee sends Arrowhead street‑width exception to council without recommendation
Summary
The Rapid City Public Works Committee voted July 1 to forward an appeal seeking a reduced collector-street asphalt width for a subdivision near Arrowhead Country Club to the City Council without recommendation after brief discussion and a single public speaker.
The Rapid City Public Works Committee voted July 1 to forward an appeal requesting a waiver of the city's collector-street asphalt width requirement for a subdivision near Arrowhead Country Club to the City Council without a committee recommendation.
The appeal, identified as exception 25EX043, asks the city to allow a 26-foot asphalt width for an extension of Dunham Drive to Severson Drive instead of the 34-foot width called for in the city's major street plan. Mike Stetson of Advanced Design Engineering and Surveying, representing the project applicant, told the committee the proposed 26-foot width would more closely match the existing 24-foot segments of Dunham Drive and Severson Drive and that most lots in the development are large enough to provide off-street parking.
"The existing asphalt width on Dunham Drive on the North and Severson to the South is 24 feet. So our 26 feet will generally match the the width of what's out there," Stetson said.
Stetson described the site as southwest of Arrowhead Country Club and said the project would extend Dunham Drive to Severson Drive as a collector street. He said the developer's denied exception was for 26 feet, which the applicant believes meets local road standards given existing conditions and lot sizes.
After Stetson's remarks, a committee member moved to forward the appeal to the City Council without recommendation; the motion was seconded and passed on a voice vote. The committee did not record a roll-call tally on the appeal in the transcript; five committee members had been present at roll call earlier in the meeting.
The committee also approved consent items 1 through 14 earlier in the meeting and voted to add item 15 (exception 25EX043) to the agenda before hearing the appeal. With the committee's action, the City Council will receive the appeal and may schedule further hearings or take final action.
The meeting record shows no public speaker forms were submitted for general public comment, and the appeal hearing drew one public presenter, Stetson. The Public Works Committee adjourned following the vote.
