Rapid City SD – The Zoning Board of Adjustment on Thursday continued Block 8 LLC’s sign variance request for the seven-story building at 440 Mount Rushmore Road to Oct. 22.
The board took no vote on the merits and asked the applicant to revise the proposal.
What Block 8 wants
Case 26VA028 asks to raise the property’s wall signage cap from 420 square feet to 1,400, and its electronic message sign cap from 60 square feet to 850.
City staff recommended denial. Their report describes the requests as increases of 233% and 1,316% and says the signs would add to visual clutter downtown.
Rapid City deliberately caps downtown signage below what it allows elsewhere, a limit the staff report says is meant “to protect the historic fabric of the downtown area.”
The biggest single piece is a 14-by-40-foot panel, 560 square feet, at the top of the building’s north wall. The plan also shows five 100-square-foot tenant signs on the south side, plus 126.75-square-foot panels on the south and east sides. The three large panels can be built as digital or static at the applicant’s option.
A Short-Handed board
Before the hearing began, Community Development Director Vicki Fisher noted that only eight of the board’s nine voting members were present, with Commissioner Eirik Heikes absent.
Approving the variance would take six yes votes. “If you have nine, your odds are better that you might get an affirmative vote,” Fisher said, offering the applicant the option to wait two weeks for a full board.
Billi Raker, Block 8’s authorized representative, chose to go ahead.
Raker argued that a frontage-based formula shortchanges a tall building, and referred to a 2019 variance that she said allowed a 600% increase, without naming the property.
In the application, Block 8 says five of its seven leasable spaces are full floors with no street-level frontage.
As of the hearing, four of the tower’s six office floors were listed for lease, according to a commercial listing updated Oct. 8, and the sign renderings in the application use placeholder tenant names.
What Commissioners Said
Commissioner Karen Bulman called the plan “overkill,” noting the building is “more of a destination place” than a store that depends on passing shoppers.
Commissioner Vince Vidal said, “I got to be careful how I use this word. I want to call it clutter.”
Commissioner Pat Rosland opposed the request, saying the brick building would end up looking like “one big billboard” to people driving into town.
Commissioner Kelly Arguello said the building is “under represented now for signage” but called the south-side rendering “a little too much.” He floated one rotating digital sign in place of the static signs, then added that he is “not a humongous fan of digital signage.”
The Railroad Question
Commissioner Mike Quasney objected to the digital idea. The largest proposed panel sits atop the north wall, which faces the railroad; the tracks cross Mount Rushmore Road just yards from the building’s rear parking lot.
“I actually don’t have a big problem with the static signs. I have more of a problem with the digital, only because of the flashing,” Quasney said. “The one on the north side is really big, and it’s actually not very far away from the railroad tracks.
I think there’s restrictions near railroad crossings with digital signs that we actually missed the ball on one that we have downtown right now. And I don’t think we need any more near the railroad crossings.”
Raker responded that the building’s newly installed digital sign at the east entrance does not flash, and that the company is keeping it. According to the staff report, that 46-square-foot sign was converted under a separate permit. Quasney did not say which downtown sign he meant.
Later, offering suggestions for the redesign, Quasney returned to that entrance sign. “They already have digital that it probably exceeds what we need in downtown,” he said. “So just something to consider as they redesign.”
Neither the staff report nor the application mentions the railroad.
Rapid City’s sign code bans flashing lights and signs that block the view of traffic signals, but it makes no mention of railroad crossings.
A state law that bars displays creating a hazard at railroad crossings exempts signs inside city limits.
A Way to Fit Without a Variance
Staff noted that alternatives need no variance. Fisher relayed a staff calculation that shrinking the south-side signs from 5-by-20 feet to 3-by-20 feet would fit seven tenant signs at exactly 420 square feet.
The Precedent Argument
Commissioner Haven Stuck asked about Turnac Tower, 909 St. Joseph Street, which staff said received a variance for about 1,000 square feet of wall signage.
Before the vote, board chair Erik Braun asked staff to bring that comparison back. “I think on that building we’ve had, you know, it’s death by a thousand cuts versus having one chance to look at it,” he said. “If we have a series of variances over there that has resulted in what we see, we shouldn’t treat that any differently than what we’re seeing in one application.”
Block 8 itself has received four sign variances since 1985, according to the staff report.
Staff also said it will bring data on Block 5, the 10-story Hyatt Place development at 525 Saint Joseph Street.
In 2025 the Planning Commission approved Block 5’s request to raise its wall signage from 425 to 619 square feet, about 46% more, with no digital signs.
According to its developer’s petition, that project was developed through a request for proposals administered by the city and Elevate Rapid City, and it has tax increment financing.
What’s Still Unanswered
- Which downtown digital sign did Quasney mean when he said the city “missed the ball”?
- Does any city office review digital signs near rail crossings, since neither the city code nor state law addresses them inside city limits?
- Are Block 8’s four past sign variances still in effect, and how much signage do they already allow?
- Which property was Raker referring to when she cited a 2019 variance?
What’s Next
On a motion by Rosland, seconded by Commissioner Gary Sabres, the board voted unanimously to continue the request to its Oct. 22 meeting at 7 a.m. in the City Council Chambers at City Hall.
Staff will bring comparison data on Turnac Tower and Block 5.
Sourcing
Oct. 8 Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting recording; staff report and application for case 26VA028; Planning Commission file 25PD001 (Block 5); Rapid City Municipal Code 17.50.080; SDCL 31-29-2; KW Commercial leasing packet and LoopNet listing for 440 Mount Rushmore Road; Sentinel site visits Oct. 7 and 9.
Leave a Reply