Rapid City SD – Case 26RZ029 goes before the Rapid City Planning Commission July 23, 2026.
What is 26RZ029
Case 26RZ029 asks the Planning Commission to rezone two parcels currently sitting under South Dakota Codified Law § 11-4-30 — the state statute, enacted via a 2000 special legislative session, that froze the cement plant’s land into whatever use it had “as of December 28, 2000,” exempt from municipal zoning altogether.[^1]
Staff is recommending the request be approved for one of the two parcels only.[^2]
The property at 2211 Deadwood Avenue — legal description Lot 1 of the SW¼ of the NE¼ and Lot 1 of the SE¼ of the NE¼, Section 28, T2N, R7E — would move into the Mining and Earth Resources Extraction (ME) District.[^3]
Staff’s write-up says this lets the City “apply area, dust, and noise regulations to the cement plant in conjunction with the uses that are allowed by SDCL § 11-4-30.”[^4] It’s used as part of the active mining operation, and its Future Land Use designation is already Mining/Extraction, so the request lines up cleanly with the city’s own plan.[^5
The second parcel — legal description Lot 1 of the NE¼ of the NE¼ less Lot A of Lot 1, Section 29, T2N, R7E, addressed in the city’s own filing as 4245 Hidden Valley Road — stays exactly where it is: zoned under SDCL § 11-4-30, outside municipal reach.[^6]
Staff’s stated reason: the Comprehensive Plan’s Future Land Use designation for that parcel is Low Density Neighborhood (LDN) — residential — not Mining and Extraction. Rezoning it to ME, staff says, would conflict with the city’s own land use plan.[^7]
The “Future Use” Tricky Part
Here’s the tension the report doesn’t resolve: the same table that lists the Hidden Valley parcel’s Future Land Use as residential also lists its existing land use as “Vacant; mining.”[^8]
That’s not an oversight buried in a footnote — it’s in the Subject Property and Adjacent Property Designations table on page 2 of the Project Report, describing the subject property (both parcels together) as a whole.
So the parcel is, by the city’s own document, being used for mining right now — while sitting on land planned for a low-density neighborhood.
Rather than forcing a resolution one way or the other, the recommendation leaves that specific contradiction parked under the 2000 state carve-out indefinitely.
Staff’s own findings, addressing Rezoning Criterion 3, acknowledge SDCL § 11-4-30 “would allow for mining and earth resources extraction and related processing operations, and the manufacture and sale of several types of cement… including internal trucking, rail and other transportation operations” on that parcel regardless of what the city decides to do with the other one.[^9] The state law’s permissions don’t shrink just because the city declines to touch it.
Practically, that means: the plant’s expansion side gets brought under municipal dust, noise, and area regulations. The mining-adjacent parcel next to residential land use does not, and continues operating under whatever the state authorized a quarter-century ago — indefinitely, by design.
What the Documents Say
What the documents say
Total acreage claimed: 20.54 acres (894,775 sq ft) across both parcels, per the Project Report.[^10]
Pennington County Assessor records for the two matching parcel IDs (2028200005 and 2029200004) show 15.58 acres and 7.33 acres respectively — a combined 22.91 acres, roughly 2.4 acres more than the city’s filing states.[^11]
Not yet reconciled; also subject to the records-access caveat below.
Address discrepancy: The city’s rezoning filing calls the residential-adjacent parcel “4245 Hidden Valley Road.”[^6] The Pennington County Assessor record matching that legal description (Lot 1 of NE¼NE¼ less Lot A of Lot 1, Section 29) lists the property address as “4525 Hidden Valley Rd.”[^12] It may be a simple transposition in one document or the other, or it may indicate the filing and the assessor are referencing different parcels.
Editor’s note: Pennington County’s online property records system is currently down and may not be restored before this hearing or publication. This discrepancy has not been independently verified against the live parcel viewer and is reported here as it appears in the documents on hand. Readers should treat it as an open question, not a confirmed error, until records access is restored and this can be checked directly.
History Repeating a Pattern
This isn’t the first time these parcels’ zoning status has been mishandled on paper — the same Project Report notes the properties were “previously misidentified as Low Density Residential District 1 on the Zoning Map in a previous Rezoning request (File #26RZ011).”[^13]
Origin of the underlying exemption
A 2001 resolution from the South Dakota State Cement Plant Commission, signed by chairman David Bozied, certifies that as of December 28, 2000, the state was using all its Pennington County cement-plant-related real property “for mining and earth resources extraction and related processing operations, and for the manufacture and sale of several types of cement… including internal trucking, rail and other transportation operations.”[^14]
That resolution is what SDCL § 11-4-30 still points to today. The underlying state legislation, Senate Bill No. 1 from the 75th Session Special Session, was passed to enable the sale of the cement plant to a private company while preserving its zoning-exempt status.[^15]
The 2001 Sale
A warranty deed dated March 2001 shows the State of South Dakota, acting through the Cement Plant Commission, conveying the plant and associated properties to GCC Dacotah, Inc. for $1 “and other good and valuable consideration,” with the state retaining all mineral rights.[^16]
Left Unanswered
Is “4245 Hidden Valley Road” (city filing) and “4525 Hidden Valley Rd” (assessor record) the same parcel, a typo, or two different properties?
Why does the acreage in the city’s Project Report (20.54 acres) not match the combined assessor acreage (22.91 acres) for the two parcels?
If the Hidden Valley parcel is confirmed as currently being mined — as the city’s own existing-land-use table states — while its Future Land Use designation is residential, what enforcement mechanism, if any, applies to that use conflict as long as it remains under SDCL § 11-4-30?
Does the City have a timeline for ever bringing that parcel under municipal zoning, or is indefinite deferral to the state exemption the intended long-term posture?
City Council first reading is scheduled for August 3, 2026; second reading August 17, 2026.[^17]
Sourcing
[^1]: SDCL § 11-4-30, as referenced in 26RZ029 Planning Commission Project Report, July 23, 2026, p. 1; underlying enactment in Senate Bill No. 1, 75th Session Special Session, South Dakota Legislature, 2000.
[^2]: 26RZ029 Planning Commission Project Report, p. 1, “Development Review Team Recommendation(s).”
[^3]: 26RZ029 Planning Commission Project Report, p. 1, Applicant Request(s) and Recommendation.
[^4]: 26RZ029 Planning Commission Project Report / Attachments packet, p. 3, Rezoning Criteria and Findings, Criterion 1.
[^5]: 26RZ029 Attachments, p. 2–3, Subject Property and Adjacent Property Designations table; Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use map.
[^6]: 26RZ029 Attachments, p. 1 (agenda item summary) and p. 2 (Subject Property Information table), listing address as “4245 Hidden Valley Road.”
[^7]: 26RZ029 Planning Commission Project Report, p. 1, Project Summary Brief, final paragraph; p. 4–5, Rezoning Criteria Findings 2–4.
[^8]: 26RZ029 Attachments, p. 2, Subject Property and Adjacent Property Designations table, “Existing Land Use(s)” column.
[^9]: 26RZ029 Planning Commission Project Report / Attachments, p. 4–5, Rezoning Criteria and Findings, Criterion 3.
[^10]: 26RZ029 Planning Commission Project Report, p. 1–2, Project Summary Brief and Subject Property Information table.
[^11]: Pennington County-Rapid City Parcel Reports, Parcel ID 2028200005 (15.58 acres, generated 6/30/2026) and Parcel ID 2029200004 (7.33 acres, generated 6/5/2026), attached to Warranty Deed record, Book 88, Page 8575.
[^12]: Pennington County-Rapid City Parcel Report, Parcel ID 2029200004, “Property Address: 4525 Hidden Valley Rd,” generated 6/5/2026.
[^13]: 26RZ029 Planning Commission Project Report, p. 1, Project Summary Brief, referencing File #26RZ011.
[^14]: Resolution of the South Dakota State Cement Plant Commission, dated February 23, 2001, signed by David Bozied, Chairman, and Jerome Lammers, Secretary-Treasurer; attached to 26RZ029 Attachments packet.
[^15]: Senate Bill No. 1, 75th Session Special Session, South Dakota Legislature Assembly, 2000, “An Act … to zone South Dakota Cement Plant property, and to declare an emergency.”
[^16]: Warranty Deed, State of South Dakota (by and through the South Dakota State Cement Plant Commission) to GCC Dacotah, Inc., dated March 2001, recorded Book 88, Page 8575, Pennington County Register of Deeds.
[^17]: 26RZ029 Rapid City Agenda Item Summary, posted July 23, 2026, City Council First Reading Date 08/03/2026, Second Reading Date 08/17/2026.
Leave a Reply