Planning commission approves Phase 3 of Tallgrass Apartments with setback exception and infrastructure stipulations
November 07, 2025 | Rapid City, Pennington County, South Dakota
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
The Rapid City Planning Commission on Nov. 6 approved a major amendment to the Tallgrass Apartments planned development overlay to permit Phase 3: a four‑story apartment building with 99 dwelling units on a new 4.51‑acre parcel.
Staff said the initial planned development had approved a four‑phase buildout totaling 607 units. Phase 3 will be platted as a separate parcel in line with earlier phases and will follow the previously‑granted exception allowing a 56‑foot/4‑story building; the proposed building is 49 feet 6 inches tall. Staff recommended approval of the current major amendment and an additional exception to reduce a required 35‑foot front‑yard setback for a southern detached garage to 20 feet, noting the reduction still provides more than 100 feet of separation from an existing pool house on the adjacent Phase 1 parcel.
Staff identified several stipulations tied to the amendment: the developer must either configure water and sewer so services do not cross property lines at building permit submittal or obtain an exception from Public Works for crossing services; sidewalks are required along abutting frontages at the time of building permit submittal (if the parcel is platted before building permit submission, sidewalk requirements may phase with future development); and the applicant must meet design and open‑space standards, including access to common amenities developed in Phase 1 (clubhouse, pool, dog park, and shared outdoor space).
A neighboring resident, Brian Ball, testified about existing visibility and turning difficulties at the Philadelphia/Anamosa intersection and asked that the city consider signalization. Staff and commissioners responded that a traffic study prepared for the development found signal warrants are not met today and that a signal may be warranted by 2045; the Planning Commission does not itself have authority to install signals and noted further study and coordination with traffic engineers would be required.
Commissioner Karen moved to approve the amendment with staff stipulations; Haven seconded. The motion carried unanimously.
Staff said the initial planned development had approved a four‑phase buildout totaling 607 units. Phase 3 will be platted as a separate parcel in line with earlier phases and will follow the previously‑granted exception allowing a 56‑foot/4‑story building; the proposed building is 49 feet 6 inches tall. Staff recommended approval of the current major amendment and an additional exception to reduce a required 35‑foot front‑yard setback for a southern detached garage to 20 feet, noting the reduction still provides more than 100 feet of separation from an existing pool house on the adjacent Phase 1 parcel.
Staff identified several stipulations tied to the amendment: the developer must either configure water and sewer so services do not cross property lines at building permit submittal or obtain an exception from Public Works for crossing services; sidewalks are required along abutting frontages at the time of building permit submittal (if the parcel is platted before building permit submission, sidewalk requirements may phase with future development); and the applicant must meet design and open‑space standards, including access to common amenities developed in Phase 1 (clubhouse, pool, dog park, and shared outdoor space).
A neighboring resident, Brian Ball, testified about existing visibility and turning difficulties at the Philadelphia/Anamosa intersection and asked that the city consider signalization. Staff and commissioners responded that a traffic study prepared for the development found signal warrants are not met today and that a signal may be warranted by 2045; the Planning Commission does not itself have authority to install signals and noted further study and coordination with traffic engineers would be required.
Commissioner Karen moved to approve the amendment with staff stipulations; Haven seconded. The motion carried unanimously.
View full meeting
This article is based on a recent meeting—watch the full video and explore the complete transcript for deeper insights into the discussion.
View full meeting