Rapid City SD – A Rapid City Planning Commission meeting that opened with a routine consent calendar ended with commissioners defending themselves against members of the public who told them to shut up — and, in one case, a neighbor named Clayton Severson asked to leave the room by chair Erik Braun.
The Sept. 10 meeting ran two hours and twenty minutes — roughly three times the length of a typical Planning Commission meeting, which usually wraps in around 45 minutes (some considerably faster; one recent meeting ran under seven).
Public comment on a proposed triplex was a major reason why. The meeting’s agenda also included a data center ordinance; that debate will be covered in a companion piece.
The Proposal
The item was Case No. 26PD016, a request to amend the Planned Development Overlay governing 401 Hanover Drive — a vacant, roughly quarter-acre lot in the Robbinsdale Addition No. 10 subdivision — to allow a triplex where only a single-family home or duplex had been approved.
The applicant also requested an exception to reduce the minimum lot width from 100 feet to 76 feet.
It was filed on the meeting’s consent calendar, the block of items expected to pass on a single vote unless someone asks to pull it out for separate discussion. Someone did.
The lot itself isn’t new to multi-family housing. City planning staff’s report notes the adjacent lot to the west already holds a duplex, and that Winfield Street, one block over, has three duplexes and four fourplexes.
Staff recommended approval, noting the developer had volunteered six off-street parking spaces — one more than required — specifically to keep cars off the narrow street.
Planning Director Vicki Fisher defended the recommendation directly, citing the city’s comprehensive plan goal of bringing “additional housing opportunities” and “mixed-use development” to Rapid City rather than segregating housing types by area.
The applicant, Kaelem Brooks, is proposing a stock house plan — Multi-Family Plan 82844, sold through FamilyHomePlans.com for $1,295 — built to look, from the street, like a single large residential building rather than a traditional apartment structure: two stories, a shared roofline, and three separate front doors under one continuous exterior.
The applicant’s agent, Steve Anderson — who told commissioners he owns and lives in the duplex immediately next door — said soil conditions on the lot require an exceptionally deep foundation, and that spreading that cost across three units rather than two is what makes the project financially workable.
He pushed back on the idea that a triplex would create an unusual parking burden, arguing that even a duplex on the lot could put as many as eight vehicles on the property.
The Opposition
That didn’t land with the neighbors who wrote in. Four written comments came in ahead of the meeting, several of whom noted they’d gotten only six or seven days’ notice of the hearing rather than the 14 they expected:
- Wesley and Paula Habeger, who live within 250 feet of the lot, flagged that the applicant’s own plan specs list six full bathrooms and three half bathrooms across the building — more bathroom count than the “2-bedroom, 2-bath” per unit described in the project report — and argued the discrepancy pointed toward the units being built as rentals rather than owner-occupied homes.
- Peter and Kay Sweitzer, at 436 Hanover Drive, called it “stacked multi-family units” that would bring traffic, congestion and falling property values, and questioned why the city would allow it beyond letting “one individual” profit.
- Terry Harmon, minister of the Rapid City Church of Christ, which owns the home at 461 Hanover Drive, wrote that a triplex would be “oddly out of place” on the street and asked whether the applicant could “just build a home like all others.”
- Merrick Wagner, who with his boyfriend Jonah Kelly built a home directly next door — to the west — about a year ago, objected on similar grounds: falling property values, uncertain parking, and the possibility that “drive under” parking could put back porches overlooking their yard.
Live Testimony
Of the four, Wagner and Paula Habeger spoke during live public comment; Harmon and the Sweitzers appear to have let their letters stand.
Wagner told commissioners his notice letter was postmarked Sept. 3 — seven days before the hearing, short of the 14 days he expected — leaving little time to organize.
Paula, who described herself as a senior, told commissioners the two-story height would block sightlines up the hill worse than the neighboring story-and-a-half duplex, and argued the unit’s two-bedroom layout wasn’t built for anyone who’d want to age in place — meaning more move-in, move-out turnover than a single-family home or duplex.
Two more neighbors who hadn’t written in advance spoke as well. Clayton Severson argued the project simply doesn’t fit the street, regardless of what staff’s report says about “harmonizing” with the area:
“You know, ma’am, you had stated that this triplex being put on Hanover Drive fit the rest of the layout of that area. But really it doesn’t. It doesn’t fit our street. Winfield, I don’t have a problem with. Park View, those triplexes have been there for a long time. But you know, if you drive by there and look, there’s old motorcycles sitting there, there’s cars sitting there that don’t run, and it just looks horrible. Our street is mostly single-family dwelling, except for the duplex that Steve put in. And I don’t have a problem with the duplex, but six cars sitting off the street — if each of these folks have a child that is of driving age, there’s a potential that each one of those units could have three drivers. So now we’re looking at three cars sitting out on the street. It doesn’t look good at all.”
Daryl Bowden, who lives across the street from Severson, questioned the applicant’s identity outright: “Who was Kaelem Brooks? I have no idea who this person is… all my indications, it sounds like a kid that just graduated high school about a year and a half ago” filed the application — which, he said, “an adult” would normally handle, calling it “out of the norm.” He immediately qualified it: “I could be completely wrong on that.”
He also challenged Anderson’s deep-foundation justification, noting the brand-new house built on the adjacent lot the year before didn’t appear to have needed one.
The Commission’s Divide
Commissioner Eirik Heikis became the project’s most vocal defender, framing it as “missing middle” housing — the gap between single-family homes and larger apartment complexes — and argued it was a practical, efficient use of land given Rapid City’s housing shortage.
He repeatedly suggested the project was only in front of the commission at all because of the lot’s old Planned Development overlay — that absent the PD, the underlying Medium Density Residential zoning would allow a triplex as a matter of right. He ultimately made the motion to approve.
Ward 4 City Councilman John B. Roberts, the Council’s liaison to the Planning Commission, pushed back on that framing before the vote. Roberts, a Designated Broker with The Real Estate Group in his day job, corrected the record:
“So Vicki, even though there’s a PD on here, we would still be coming to the Planning Commission because in MDR it’s a minimum 100 feet on anything over a duplex. So I just wanted to make that point, because everybody’s saying this wouldn’t be coming here if it wasn’t for the PD. Yes it would, because they’re asking for a variance on lot size.”
The lot’s 76-foot width — 24 feet short of the 100-foot MDR standard — is exactly the variance the applicant had to request, meaning the commission had full discretion to deny the project on the lot-width exception alone, regardless of the PD.
Before the Vote
Severson was allowed back up before the vote to rebut Heikis directly:
“Again, Clayton Severson. And I wanted to address Eirik there. He talks about our housing problem in Rapid City. But the difference in between a duplex and a triplex — one unit — that’s going to solve it for us? Come on. There’s apartment complexes all over town, and on a lot of them, I see ‘for lease’ signs. Send them over there. That’s not going to solve anything, one unit.”
During deliberation, Commissioner Karen Bulman was speaking — using a neighbor’s reaction to a house painted an unusual color as an example of how differently people can feel about the same change — when Severson interrupted from the audience. Braun warned him that continued interruptions would get him removed, then asked him to leave.
Commissioner Pat Roseland sided with the neighbors, arguing that paving over the front yard for six parking spaces would hurt the neighborhood’s character. He noted he rarely votes against the planning department’s recommendation, but felt he had to on this one.
Outcome
The Major Amendment passed on a 5–3 vote. Bailey, Braun, Bulman, Heikis and Sabres voted in favor; Roseland, Stuck and Vidal voted against.
Under city code, the Planning Commission’s decision on a Major Amendment is final unless a written appeal is filed with the Department of Community Development by close of business on the seventh full calendar day after the vote — meaning any of the neighbors who opposed the project have until roughly Sept. 17 to formally challenge it to the City Council.
Sourcing
This piece draws on the Sept. 10, 2026 Zoning Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission agenda
The Planning Commission Project Report and Attachments for Case No. 26PD016;
Four public comment letters submitted for Case No. 26PD016 (Habeger, Sweitzer, Harmon, Wagner);
A review of the meeting’s transcript/recording.
Leave a Reply