Sioux Falls council schedules second reading for rezoning that would allow storage-unit expansion off East Grant Street

The Sioux Falls City Council voted to send a rezoning ordinance for 4801 and 4901 East Grant Street to a second reading on Jan. 21 after staff and the applicant presented site plans and engineering comments and residents urged the council to deny or delay the change.

The ordinance, introduced as a first reading at the Jan. 7 meeting, would rezone roughly 1.9 acres now zoned RD1 (twin-home duplex residential suburban district) to C2 (commercial neighborhood and streetcar district) to allow two additional storage-unit buildings north of existing storage facilities. The Planning Commission had recommended denial, failing the motion 0-4 at its December meeting.

City planning staff described the required transition standards under Shape Sioux Falls: a Level C buffer yard for this situation that requires a 30-foot setback from the residential property line, a six-foot screening fence and 40 landscaping units per 100 linear feet. Staff said the applicant proposes an additional 15 feet of green space plus a 20-foot asphalt area before the new buildings, putting the first new storage building roughly 65 feet from the front property line on Grama Street.

Public works engineering staff told the council the gravel section of Grama Street would be upgraded to an urban street section with 24-foot asphalt pavement, curb and gutter on both sides, sidewalk on one side, street lights, and connections to existing sewer and water. Staff said curb-and-gutter, added storm infrastructure and street lights address concerns about drainage and nighttime lighting raised during the planning hearing.

Residents across from the site, however, urged the council to deny rezoning or postpone action until the road improvements are completed. Neighbor Lynette Buck Miller said the area has longtime drainage problems and that a 30-foot buffer, a six-foot chain-link fence with slats and newly planted trees would not provide a realistic transition from commercial to single-family homes. "Please vote no on the rezone from RD1 to C2 Commercial," she told the council.

Chester DeYoung, who identified himself as associated with the applicant, acknowledged the rezoning is outside typical city standards but described the plan as the "best possible resolution" given the site history and previous staff oversights. Other neighbors said they learned of the proposal only through mailed notices and argued that storage units should be built on existing C2 property nearby rather than next to homes; one commenter said property values could drop as much as 8–20% based on realtor feedback.

Council members asked staff to clarify the link between the rezoning and the separate assessment hearing to construct the road. Staff said the council will consider the assessment resolution at a Jan. 21 hearing; the rezoning under consideration on Jan. 7 is a separate land-use decision. Staff explained that a majority of adjacent property owners’ support is typically sought for assessments and that the council could move forward with the road assessment even if less than 50% support is obtained, although an appeal process could require a two-thirds vote depending on formal neighborhood opposition.

After discussion, Councilor Spellerberg moved and Councilor Cole seconded sending the ordinance to a second reading. The council recorded an 8–0 vote in favor.

The second reading is scheduled for Tuesday, Jan. 21, when the council will consider the zoning map amendment ordinance and any additional public comments and conditions. If rezoning is approved on second reading, the applicant would still be subject to the buffer-yard, screening and landscaping requirements and to building- and development-permit review that addresses drainage and detention as shown in staff plans.

Votes and planning steps taken so far do not authorize construction; the transcript records discussion of required setbacks, fencing, landscaping units and proposed street improvements but does not show final engineering permits or building approvals.

—

Speakers quoted in this article are identified in the council transcript and were recorded during the Jan. 7 meeting. Direct quotations are attributed to those speakers.