Planning Commission

Major City Director Retirement Announcement

If I had to guess, it would be director of Planning, Mike Cooper, but it could also be SFFD Chief, Jim Sidearis. Either or, I think a lot of directors will be jumping ship over the next 13 months instead of waiting for their official pink slip in May of 2018 from the new mayor. There is only two directors I think will be safe, Library, Jodi Fick and Mark Cotter, Public Works from the next mayor’s axe, unless of course Diamond Jim wins (Huether Part II)

Mayor Mike Huether will announce a significant retirement in the leadership ranks of Sioux Falls City government.

Tuesday, April 11, 2017
2 p.m.

Annexation Task Force meetings set

The task force created to establish criteria to use with any future City-initiated annexation in Sioux Falls has set its meeting schedule.

The task force includes three City Council members as well as four members of the community who are potentially impacted by proposed annexations. City employees from Planning, Project Management, Engineering, the City Attorney’s Office, and Finance will provide information and be resources for the task force members. The task force will convene for five sessions with a goal of developing recommendations that will provide a consistent way forward for future annexations. The public is welcome to attend.

The meetings will take place from 2 to 3:30 p.m. in Meeting Room B of the Downtown Library, 200 North Dakota Avenue, on the following dates:
• Tuesday, April 11, 2017
• Tuesday, April 25, 2017
• Tuesday, May 9, 2017
• Tuesday, May 23, 2017
• A final meeting date that will be determined by the task force

“Since Sioux Falls was founded more than 130 years ago, all growth has occurred through the process of annexation. It is a rather simple process when a property owner has an interest in being annexed but can quickly turn complex when the city grows into areas where the property owner is not interested in annexation. Additional challenges occur when the city boundary begins to surround a large, rural subdivision. In a growing city like ours, we need a consistent process to move forward with needed annexations,” says Mike Cooper, Director of Planning and Building Services.

The task force will be given information on the many state laws regarding annexations, some historical information to illustrate how annexations have occurred in the past, an update on the current Engineering Design Standards, and discuss the financial impact of an annexation on both the property owner and the City, along with other topics. The group will then make recommendations regarding how to move forward with annexations in the future.

As updates and more information become available, it will be posted at www.siouxfalls.org/annexation.

The City of Sioux Falls Planning Office has formed a Task Force to address various issues surrounding annexation. When the city’s boundaries begin to engulf a property that is not annexed, and does not plan to annex, there are challenges that result from that.

The goal of the Annexation Task Force is to make recommendations regarding the following questions.

  • Under what circumstances should the City move forward with a city-initiated annexation?
  • What criteria will be used to prioritize the annexation of those properties deemed to be annexed under the city-initiated process?
  • Will the City move forward with a petitioned annexation request if the annexation requested creates a pocket of unannexed land within the city limits?
  • What infrastructure design standards will be required as annexation occurs?
  • What financial contribution will the city make towards any required infrastructure improvements due to a city-initiated annexation?

ANNEXATION TASK FORCE MEMBERS

Councilor Rick Kiley
Councilor Marshall Selberg
Councilor Greg Neitzert
Matt Metzger – Citizen of Lincoln County
Tena Haraldson – Citizen of Sioux Falls
Greg Starnes – Citizen of Sioux Falls
Jeff Davis – Citizen of Minnehaha County
Support/Resource members:
Mike Cooper, Director of Planning and Building Services
Albert Schmidt, Urban Planner
Debra Gaikowski, Project Manager
Chad Huwe, City Engineer
Tracy Turbak, Director of Finance
Danny Brown, City Attorney

ANNEXATION TASK FORCE MEETING TOPICS

Topic #1 – Annexation law and the requirements and limitations imposed by those laws.
Topic #2 – The history of city-initiated annexations including the design standards the property owners were held to.
Topic #3 – A review of all unannexed property within the city that is currently completely surround by annexed land and the amount of development that exists on the surrounding land.
Topic #4 – A review of all recently completed CIP projects or CIP projects programmed in the near future that are adjacent to unannexed property or directly impact unannexed property.
Topic #5 – Assessment law, the rights of the city, and the rights of the property owners.
Topic #6 – The financial impact of annexation on a property owner including property tax changes, financial benefits, and the cost of infrastructure improvements.
Topic #7 – The impact on the property owners and the community if Engineering Design Standards are lowered in order in an effort to get unannexed property annexed. Review current ADA requirements.
Topic #8 – The impact on development if limitations are imposed on property owners wanting to annex land but a pocket of unannexed property is created by that annexation. Examples to be provided.
Topic #9 – How often should the established annexation criteria be reevaluated and by whom?
Topic #10 – Notification and Communication Process

Lacey Neighborhood Re-Zone back at the Planning Commission

Interesting that they haven’t shown what they intend to do with the property (Item#14);

Live-Work District

The applicant has provided information on the type of uses that will be encouraged as part of the Live Work zoning classification to include:

• Mixed-Use Projects (retail/office on the main level, with lofts above)

• Office

• Medical Offices/Clinics

• Senior Housing, including medium-density family housing

• Non-Profit Center

• Community Center

• Small Retail

• Church

• Schools, Education Facility

• Public Park

• Twin Homes/Townhomes

At this time, a specific development plan has not been provided by the applicant, however staff has prepared a concept plan based on discussions with the applicant and neighborhood representatives.

I guess we will wait and see what they plan to do with the land.

Sioux Falls Planning Commission approves housing project with traffic issues

Under the direction of a Planning Department employee that must remain unnamed (Jeffrey), the planning commission kicked the can down the road to the city council without putting traffic conditions on the project. (Item #9, FF: 17:00 )The neighbors requested a deferral so the traffic could be looked at before Planning Commission approval, but for some strange reason, Jeffrey popped up from his seat in the audience and pretty much said all of that was taken care of and it was up to the city council to address those issues no matter what the commission did. The commission approved it 5-0. So now it is up to the Council to once again deal with the mess that is dealt to them by the planning commission and mostly planning staff, and mostly Mr. Schmidt.

In reality, the Planning Staff should have had all of this taken care of before even presenting it to the Commission and the Council, and now it will be an 11th hour pissing match at the council meeting, once again.

More bullying by the city

Don’t want to annex, we will get you another way;

That’s the month their sewer bills will jump from $100 to $235 a month.

The price is connected to unpaid pumping charges incurred by the Prairie Meadows Sanitary District in the area, which has long been a target for city annexation.

The Feb. 16 letter announcing the hike said the money would also cover “engineering and other legal costs” and to create a maintenance fund.

 “It’s just unreal,” said Lance Grasma, who called Argus Leader Media about the letter. “That’s like a car payment.”

Some neighbors see the price hike as a pressure tactic to push annexation, which could cost homeowners in the rural residential island on the city’s western edge tens of thousands of dollars in curb and gutter.

While I can see why the city wants to annex the island, the price tag is way to high. I think they should charge them all $1000 a year for the next 20 years and leave it at that. Anything else, the city should just absorb. If I have to pay a mortgage on a building I will never step foot in so the masses can be entertained by another doofus in a cowboy hat, I certainly don’t have a problem with footing the bill for some curb and gutter.