Council approves rezoning for storage expansion at 4801–4901 E. Grant St.; defers decision on related street assessment

Sioux Falls — The Sioux Falls City Council on Jan. 21 approved rezoning two parcels at 4801 and 4901 East Grant Street from RD1 (twin-home/duplex residential) to C2 (commercial-neighborhood) to allow the construction of two additional storage unit buildings, and added a mandatory wood privacy fence in the buffer yard as a condition of rezoning. The motion to approve passed 6-0. Council members later deferred a linked resolution of necessity to design and assess urban improvements on Grant Street until the council’s Feb. 3 meeting.

Why it matters: The decision clears the way for a commercial expansion next to an existing single-family neighborhood and for a narrower public street alternative that engineering says will lower assessed costs for adjacent property owners. Neighbors raised concerns about property values, tree removal, security and whether the land is in probate. Engineers and planning staff said buffering, setbacks and curb-and-gutter improvements should limit traffic and drainage impacts.

Planning staff said the site is roughly 1.9 acres and that the applicant, Jeff DeYoung, proposes single-story storage buildings to the north of existing units. Jason Bieber, representing Planning and Development Services, told the council the rezoning includes a required buffer yard: a 30-foot setback, a six-foot screen fence and the equivalent of about 40 units of landscaping per 100 linear feet (about one shade tree every ~20 feet, or an equivalent mix including evergreens). He said the nearest proposed building would be roughly 65 feet from the Grant Street property line and about 150 feet from the closest existing single-family house.

“Those can be remedied by traffic and parking directed away from the single-family residential uses as well as landscaping, buffering and height,” Bieber said, and he described the applicant’s proposal to restrict access from Grant Street and to place new traffic to the south.

Several neighbors urged councilors to reject the rezoning. Lynette Buck Miller said, “Please vote no on this rezone,” and Elizabeth Archer said she was “adamantly opposed to the rezoning of the 2 lots along Grand Street to commercial,” citing noise, headlights, and a lowered tree buffer. Chad Michaelson, speaking for his grandparents Virgil and Dolores Benz who live at 4900 E. Grant St., said the neighbors need an explanation of “what has changed” since prior votes against rezoning.

The applicant spoke at the meeting. “I’m doing my best to try and make everything work out for you,” Jeff DeYoung told the council.

City engineering staff described options and estimated costs tied to the street design that is linked to the rezoning decision. Andy Berg of Public Works explained that, if the area is rezoned and developed as proposed, engineering would support a 24-foot asphalt urban street section with curb and gutter, sidewalk on one side and street lighting. Berg said the assessment estimate for such an urban section would range roughly from $20,500 to $51,000 per parcel based on frontage. If the site stayed RD1 and were developed as up to 14 twin homes, engineering said the street section would need to be wider to accommodate on-street parking; estimated per-parcel costs would rise an estimated 25%–33% to roughly $27,000–$68,000 per frontage.

Wes Phillips, Public Works engineering, described the schedule for the street if the council approves a resolution of necessity: design in 2025, construction in 2026 and a resolution of assessment in 2027. Phillips said property owners would be allowed to pay an assessment in full within 30 days of that assessment or in annual installments over at least five years; the council sets final payment terms at the resolution of assessment stage.

Legal and process questions surfaced at the meeting. Councilor McCorris asked about reports that the land might be in probate. The city attorney said whether an applicant acting on behalf of an estate has authority to petition the council depends on who is acting for the estate and is primarily a private civil issue, not a bar to the council’s consideration; the attorney warned that an applicant acting outside the scope of authority could face liability from other heirs.

Council debate and outcomes: Councilor Spellerberg said the rezoning offered a larger setback than residential development, curb and gutter to address drainage and a reduced (24-foot) street width to limit the cost to neighbors; he said he would support the rezoning. Councilor McCorris said he remained concerned about the probate question and said he would support the rezoning now so he could be on the prevailing side and move to reconsider in two weeks if needed.

Councilor McCorris moved — and Councilor Bassey seconded — an amendment to require an agreed-upon wood privacy fence in the buffer yard. The amendment passed 6-0. The main motion to rezone as amended also passed 6-0; the council’s roll call recorded Councilors Barranco, Bassey, Cole, McCorris, Spellerberg and Thomason voting yes.

On the companion item, a resolution of necessity to design, bid and construct Grant Street urban improvements and to assess costs to abutting property owners, the council initially discussed a motion to approve but then voted 6-0 to defer the resolution to the Feb. 3 meeting to allow more time for neighbor engagement and to collect outstanding information (including traffic details and drainage clarifications). Wes Phillips told the council staff estimates that property-owner support by frontage was about 64% in favor and 36% opposed as of his outreach, and he flagged that final assessment amounts and payment terms will be set when a resolution of assessment is brought forward.

What’s next: The rezoning was approved with the wood privacy fence condition; permits and plan submittals will follow and staff said they will verify the fence when permits are submitted. The resolution of necessity for Grant Street — which would be the procedural step to design, bid and ultimately assess property owners — was postponed to Feb. 3 so councilors and staff can follow up with neighbors and review outstanding technical details.

Votes at a glance: - Item 24 (rezoning 4801 & 4901 E. Grant St. from RD1 to C2) — Motion to approve by Councilor Spellerberg, second Cole. Amendment (require wood privacy fence) moved by Councilor McCorris, seconded by Councilor Bassey. Amendment vote: 6-0. Main motion as amended: approved 6-0 (Barranco, Bassey, Cole, McCorris, Spellerberg, Thomason). - Item 31 (resolution of necessity to construct Grant Street improvements and assess costs) — Motion to approve initially made, but Councilor McCorris moved to defer to Feb. 3 (seconded by Councilor Thomason). Motion to defer passed 6-0.

Reporting notes: The council’s action does not itself build the street; the resolution of necessity, if approved later, would start design and bidding and the council would adopt a separate resolution of assessment setting final costs and payment terms. Neighbors and the city attorney raised an unresolved probate question that the council may revisit; staff said that question concerns private authority and possible civil liability rather than a legal bar to the council’s zoning decision.

— End —