Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning 51100 E26th topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council defers controversial rezoning at East 26th Street after residents raise parking, notice concerns
Summary
After more than an hour of public comment and back‑and‑forth with developers, Sioux Falls City Council voted unanimously to defer a rezoning request for property at 51100 East 26th Street to Oct. 1 to allow more neighborhood outreach and detail on parking and site design.
Sioux Falls — The City Council on Sept. 3 unanimously voted to defer a proposed rezoning for a 3.31‑acre site at 51100 East 26th Street after extensive resident concerns about parking, notice and neighborhood fit.
Planning staff described the rezoning as a land‑use change to allow mixed residential and commercial uses, including a proposed 30‑unit apartment building. Jason Bieber of Planning and Development Services said the planning commission recommended approval and outlined buffering and setback measures intended to reduce neighborhood impacts.
Luke Jessen of Lloyd Companies, the applicant, said Lloyd was working on the site on behalf of Affordable Housing Solutions and that the development is being submitted for low‑income housing tax credits. "There is a range between 30 and 60 percent AMI affordability," Jessen said, referring to area median income.
Nearby residents voiced repeated objections at the council meeting. Randy Gilbert of the Dolly Farms Homeowners Association questioned the parking plan, saying the site showed 44 spaces while a bedroom‑based count under the joint county/city ordinance would require roughly 54 spaces. "I think 44 parking spots isn't adequate," Gilbert told the council. Several neighbors said mailed notices did not reach many households, attendance at the neighborhood meeting was low and developers did not sufficiently engage the broader community.
Other commentators, including Jim Kenny and Laurie Carson, said they wanted more detail on building design, unit types, exterior materials, storage, and how the development would be maintained. John Verick asked the council to order a traffic study and to require more detailed site plans before rezoning.
City staff and the applicant emphasized process limits: Bieber reminded the council that a rezoning is a land‑use decision, not final site‑plan review. "This is a rezoning plan, not the end site plan that gets reviewed in the building permit process," he said, noting that many technical details are examined later in permit review.
Councilor Thomason moved to defer the second reading to Oct. 1 to allow additional neighborhood engagement; the motion was seconded and passed 7‑0. Councilors and staff said they expect follow‑up meetings between neighbors, the applicant and planning staff before the next hearing.
