A South DaCola foot soldier sent me this today, and I found it interesting (sorry, I cannot link video to the city website right now, because it is down);
At the planning commission meeting on Dec 7, 2011, a zoning change was approved that is up for first reading tonight (12/19 city council meeting) as the council has to approve any rezone or major amendment (change to a zone). It is in regards to the Sioux Falls Plaza planned development district. This is the arena/baseball stadium/Howard wood, CC/EC property. This property is in a PD, which I assume you might know some about zoning, but is a custom zoning district.
As it stands today, parking at that site is simply as required by the parking section of 15.55 of the zoning ordinance. Â Section 15.55 lays out required parking for various land uses. Â One of them is arenas/stadiums which requires 1 space per 4 seats, which would be 3,000 required spaces presumably for a 12,000 seat event center. This would seem sensible, 4 people per car.
The proposal up for first reading tonight makes two big changes worthy of notice:
1. In this PD, the parking requirement is amended so that the required parking is based on a study done by the city and approved by the planning director.
2. The language that requires a 10 foot landscape setback between lots, buildings, and the street, is stricken, the ’10 foot minimum’ is stricken and it just says ‘landscape required’. No mention of a minimum. Again based on the cities decision.
I’m thinking this is a case of the fox guarding the henhouse and the study will magically show that whatever parking they provide is enough.
I can’t remember how much they proposed, but I don’t think it was near 3,000 new spaces. I think it was 700 or something (???) and was only by tearing out grass landscapes and cramming it in, and going across the street to the ballfield. Â If that is right, that would be 17 people per car. Â I remember back at the location debate Steve Metli made reference to the proposal and some number around nine per car…
CLOWN CAR ANYONE?
The other concern is if this is a case of the city doing something they would never allow a private developer to do (way too little parking and no landscaping, just a sea of asphalt).
THINK ABOUT THE NEW ISLAMIC CENTER, WHICH A BUNCH OF ‘GOOD CHRISTIANS’ WERE PETITIONING THE COUNCIL TO NOT ALLOW IT DUE TO INADEQUATE PARKING.
I’m withholding a little bit of judgement until I hear some commentary from the planning director tonight and any discussion, but lets just say it has me concerned. Maybe there is something I haven’t heard yet that will answer some questions, elliviate my concerns, but I doubt it. Â Will be interesting to see what might come out tonight.
I happen to think it probably will be approved at by least 5 or 6 yes votes, and they’ll say its enough parking and then later of course they’ll say oh, its not enough, we have to spend millions on the ramp or viaduct.
I think its worthy of paying attention too. It at least deserves scrutiny I think from the public.
Here is a portion of what I sent to some city councilors last week:
Hello,
Item #3 at the 12/7 Planning Commission that will be coming to the city council for final approval is very interesting.
It’s a major amendment to the Sioux Falls Plaza PD which is the zoning district for the Arena/Conv Center/EC/Pheasants Stadium property.
Among the most interesting of changes to the zone, it adds the following to the parking regulations:
PARKING REGULATIONS. Parking shall be regulated in conformance with the
provisions of Chapter 15.55, Appendix B of the City Code (Zoning Ordinance).
**Exception: Parking shall be based upon the results of a parking study conducted
for the area, including landscape parking lot standards and setbacks.**
The text with ** ** around it is the new language.
Also added is:
** Parking and parking lot landscaping shall be permitted in accordance with
the Sioux Falls Plaza Parking Master Plan approved by the Planning
Director. **
And also all references to a 10 foot minimum landscape setback around parking lots and structures is stricken and it just says landscape setback with no minimum.
At the risk of sounding conspiratorial, I would guess the parking study is going to say whatever they need it to say, which is whatever plan is in place is adequate. By adding this language, they probably get around having to provide the required parking as set forth in Chapter 15.55. And there will be a sea of parking lots with most of the green space and landscaping removed to cram as much parking in there as they can.
I sure hope this isn’t a case of the city going forward with a site plan that they would never approve a private developer to execute if it were just on some project that wasn’t the event center. I have my doubts though.
I’m sure it will pass handily, but it might be interesting if it is at least questioned.