Planning Commission

Sioux Falls Building Permits need Clarity

The horns are a tootin’ and the noisy makers are out;

Sioux Falls set a record by surpassing $1 billion in building activity last year, setting the mark in late November. This year, the city hit $1 billion in less than seven months.

I have argued for years that I while this is a good thing, we really need a realistic breakdown.

I would first start with a simple breakdown;

• 100% Private investment vs. Institutional & Public

I couldn’t even guess what that would be, but I think private is probably the bigger percentage

I would also like to see this breakdown;

• Density vs. New development

In other words what percentage is building and rebuilding in our core and established neighborhoods and what is new land acquisition?

A more detailed breakdown would be;

• Public (city, state, county, school, federal, military, etc.)

• Institutional (Hospitals, non-profits, churches, etc.)

• Multi-Housing (Apartments, duplexes, etc.)

• Single family residential

• Commercial (100% private investment)

• Commercial (partial public investment like tax rebates and TIFs)

I think this data is important because it gives us a big picture of how we are breaking these records. I have asked for this data for years and never get anywhere. I did download the building permit spreadsheet from 2021 and tried to break it down but it was nearly impossible since many developers have multiple mysterious LLCs they are using for the permitting.

If the Planning Department wants to really boast about the permits, why not give us a picture of what that looks like.

Another Bunker Ramp update. Let me guess, we have winner!

It has only been a couple of weeks since we were told they were going put lipstick on that gigantic concrete pig, now we are getting another update;

• Downtown Parking Ramp Update by Erica Beck, Chief of Staff

More than likely this is an update with the mural selection process, but you never know, they may have an interested party. A few months ago I heard a rumor that Councilor Neitzert was telling some constituents he wanted to do an investigation into how the Bunker Ramp got so messed up. I almost died laughing. I told this person we could save a lot of time if we just handed Greg a mirror.

They will also be amending the Shape Places;

• Shape Places Ordinance & Proposed Amendments by Jason Bieber, Senior Planner

I find the expedited timeline of getting these changes in place interesting. This means many of them have been in the works for months without the knowledge of the public or council.

Sioux Falls Planning Commission Member admits to conflict and votes on the item

(FF 9:00) Item 5A.

Larry Luetke admits he has a conflict with item 5a and still remains in his seat (A.K.A. no recusal and) votes on the item. He admitted working with a developer to place 4 duplexes on property. One of the reasons I think the Planning Commission started doing most of the agenda on consent was because of the multiple conflicts the board members have. Item 5A was placed on the regular agenda, but that didn’t stop Luetke, he remained in his chair, admitted to helping the developer to develop the land and voted on the item.

While former councilor Brekke had a great suggestion to put city staff, councilors and board members thru ethics training, It seems they need something more simple like what the three words ‘Conflict of Interest’ mean.

Was the City of Sioux Falls planning an affordable housing project without Neighborhood input?

It appears that the city was working behind the scenes with the Sioux Falls School District to build around 14 single family affordable houses on this empty lot owned by the school district. The Pettigrew Heights Neighborhood association got wind of the back door negotiations (they were NOT included in the discussions) and put out a survey to the neighborhood (it is closed now) to see what the neighbors think.

Let’s just say they are NOT happy about how this was being planned (in the dark). While I certainly would support a project like this, I don’t live near it or in that neighborhood so I can’t speak for the people who live there, but it seems they would like to keep it as is and add a park instead.

No matter who is involved with this backdoor plan, I will say this is NOT how you go about it. You have to engage the citizens in the neighborhood in a public meeting setting and work with them on shaping the project.

THE WAR ON TRANSPARENCY IN THIS CITY MUST END!

I think a mixed use of townhomes, apartments and homes with a park and urban garden in the center would be a good way to go. But we NEED the public’s input first and foremost.

They are having a meeting Monday to address the issue. I think some city staff from the planning office are going to be in attendance.

Sioux Falls City Council Agenda, May 4-5, 2022

The meetings are on Wednesday and Thursday this week because today was supposed to be the runoff election.

EVENTS CALENDAR LINK

Informational Meeting • 4 PM • Wednesday May 4

Presentation on 2022-23 Sculpture Walk Review by Brandon Hanson, Director of Museums, WPAS & Sculpture Walk

Regular Meeting • 6 PM • Wednesday May 4

Item #6, Approval of Contracts, Sub Item #4, Leadership Training. The pricing is attached to the agenda item. As I have discussed before, I do support ongoing training of city employees, but what I find astounding is training people who should already be able to fill the rolls. It is also very expensive.

Item #60, 2nd Reading, Sidewalk ordnance changes. As I have said previously, I find it strange we would be making significant changes in the middle of 2,600 violations handed out in the core neighborhoods. What I find ironic is if you look at sidewalks on city property (adjacent to city buildings) the sidewalks are in dire shape. But instead of focusing on that they go after private homeowners to deflect.

Item #61, giving more money out for the ice ribbon. Shocker.

Planning Meeting • 6 PM • Thursday May 5

Item #2B, Wants to change from regular suburban residential to historic preservation. I just think this one is interesting because it is on the 21st St Blvd in McKennan Park and if you drive past the home you can see a lot of work done. But why switch it? Well, if you can get your home designated as historic preservation you can get tax incentives and even grants. I would be curious if they are requesting this change because of the love of historic preservation or for the tax incentives? Probably both.

Item #2N, Changes to Annexation ordinances. I find it interesting that these changes are pushed into the consent agenda without discussion, and this part was added;

§ 153.004 ANNEXATION AGREEMENT.
Upon receipt of a request from property owner(s) to annex property into city limits, the petitioner, the public works department, and city attorney’s office have the authority through SDCL 9-4-1.1 to enter into an agreement specifying the conditions under which the landowner’s property may be annexed into the municipal boundaries.

Not sure what that means, but anytime you add an entire section, it probably doesn’t mean the government is giving you more rights, probably the contrary.

Item #5A, Ordinance changes to Concept Plans.

Item #5B, Ordinance changes to Shared Paths.

Item #5C, Amending 2040 Comprehensive Plan.