Check out page 61 (which breaks down the scoring) and page 62 which is the city’s compatibility matrix. Â These documents are found in the city’s 2035 Comprehensive Plan (CLICK: Â SHAPE-TRAN) Â
As you can see, putting C-4 commercial adjacent to low density single-family residential will score a 1 and is labeled highly incompatible. Â This was even noted on the planning department’s staff report during an earlier council meeting on this subject. Â Why is this important? Â Well, the green dot allowing C-4 in this area was designated in December of 2009. Â This was long after most of the people in Twin Eagle had already built their homes. Â Many in the city, the media, and this blog have asked “What were these people thinking?” when they built their homes along 85th Street?
The answer, many of these people consulted city planning maps that showed this area wouldn’t be developed for another 10 years or more when they built. Â Not one single resident expects this intersection to be anything but commercial, however there was no green dot there when they consulted those maps. Â To expect a restaurant, office park, gas station etc…is one thing, but a big box store like WM, Menards, Home Depot, Lowes, etc…No one expected them either after the green dot came in because of these two documents. Not to mention, this will be the largest retailer in the city, if not the state (185,000 square feet) and will be open 24/7.
To the comments about the likes on FB, it shouldn’t matter if there are 2,000 people who “like” SON’s site or just 1, the fact that the city can ignore the property rights of one person, who was there first, who relied on these documents and the city’s adherence to them is enough. Â If the city can simply pick and choose how it will apply these rules then everyone in Sioux Falls should be concerned. And we should be.
I remember a few years back I used to take a walk on my break at work, all year long. There was a certain retailer that never scooped their sidewalks, ever! They would just let people smash the snow down, which by the end of the season was about a 6″ sheet of ice. The irony, #1 was that they sold snowblowers, #2 they sold ice melt and #3 the city never forced them to clean the walk, or came out and cleaned and charged them. I will clarify this, the store was owned by a local family and was on a BUSY corner lot with tons of foot traffic, they are still there. Yet the city goes around charging residential citizens for cleaning sidewalks. My point? It is who you know in this town. Nevermind our little report above, WM and Lloyd have gobbs of money, we will just change the rules for them.
Mr. E, it is indeed “who you know” and Sioux Falls seems to be more slackered in that sort of gravy than most towns in South Dakota.
On a side note, have you seen http://gantblog.com/? I wonder where he got that translated into French. That is French, right?
So – you’re relying on “SHAPE” for your ratings? I thought you were opposed to SHAPE – along with SON’s opposition to SHAPE.
The document you’re citing/linking to didn’t even exist until 2013 – and you claim it dictated what happened prior to 2009?
BTW – because of SON’s referral of SHAPE, the city cannot use it to rate anything.
Rufus – You are technically correct that Shape Places was referred and these documents relate to Shape Places.
But the city’s first proposal to the Planning Commission was under Shape Places with essentially the same layout…a one acre Office lot that acts a transition from residential to C-4.
For your reference, the plain language definition of the word “adjacent” requires an adjacent side in addition to an adjacent angle. Things that share only a vertex are generally not considered adjacent, although the misuse of this word has led to a whole array of legal discussion on the matter.
I’d assert, however, that just as with your faulty and yet oh-so-certain reading of state law last week which took a judge all of a couple hours to dismiss, you seem to enjoy substituting your own judgment for the judgment of those who craft laws and policies in terms of magically divining their intent. Personally, I would never read the word “adjacent” and take it to mean anything other than sharing a vertex and a side. But I’m not going to sit here and write a giant post about how everyone’s an idiot and breaking their own rules.
It would seem through the discussion of this matter on Planning Commission and on council regarding this development and how it falls on the compatibility matrix that their interpretation of “adjacent” is pretty clear – and it’s not your definition.
And also, given your lack of consistency on the issue, you’re really the last person to be lecturing anyone about property rights, since the one person whose rights you’re routinely willing to walk on in these discussions is almost always the rights of the landowner. You’ve casually asserted that the city should blow tens of millions of dollars to use eminent domain to seize the golf courses to build a road and a campground, you take positions in which people’s right to use property isn’t determined by ordinance but rather the arbitrary and capricious judgment of their neighbors, on and on. Believe it or not, the seller has rights here too, way more rights than you ever seem to want to afford him and legally speaking, way more than the schlubs who don’t maintain their sidewalks who you constantly assert are having their liberty crushed by the mayor.
Also, if your argument is that they are somehow changing (or ignoring) an originally established concept of what “adjacent” means, proof would be helpful. Maybe a link to meeting minutes or documents? I suspect for many, that would be more persuasive…
Ruf,
You’re wrong actually. I clicked on the link and did some more reading on the city’s web-page. It says plain as day The Shape Sioux Falls 2035 Comprehensive Plan was adopted by the Sioux Falls City Council on December 7, 2009. To say this document didn’t exist before 2013 is incorrect.
This is good stuff for SON. Wonder if the council will think so?
Amen! He is referencing the 2035 Sioux Falls Comprehensive Plan that was adopted Dec 7, 2009–well after OVER 80% of the homes in this neighborhood were permitted as single family.
I am not even going to argue with hornguy and his self serving interpretation of the word “adjacent” however I will suggest he consult a dictionary at his earliest convenience.
The city is not following their own rules and they need to be held accountable. There is a large established neighborhood already built in this location and according to the 2035 Comp Plan (and common sense) their rights come before the rights of any future proposals. This is not just about this individual neighborhood, this is about the entire city and setting a precedence of the planning department walking all over citizens rights anytime the city is seeing $ signs.
Isn’t it amazing all the comments made during this process from the ‘city official are always right’ crowd. As Ted Stevens and Anthony Weiner discovered several years ago, the internet tubes have data floating around seemingly unstoppable. The facts keep getting in the way of hypocrisies, greed, special interests and downright ignorance. Another report shows up from the history trove showing what the ‘experts’ recommend and the city officials accept as the ‘master’ plan. Now, because we have a mega corporation paying a well place developer to drop a store in a ‘green dotted’ spot, all rules the rest of us have to live by, go out the door.
The hypocrisies never end in this town.
The claim made above by DL was that the rules of comp plan 2035 dictated what would happen PRIOR to 2009. CLEARLY not the case.
A property owner’s “rights” (of occupancy and use) are restricted to THEIR OWN PROPERTY. If SON wants to control what happens on their neighbor’s property – as if it were their “right” to do so – perhaps they should purchase it.
In Sioux Falls there are rules for changing intended property called conditional use tied to zoning. The neighborhood conformed as the rules were applied, WM and Lloyd must now comply even if the process is now made to be a sham.
Funny how the city will be eating crow on Tuesday night, their favorite food besides bullshit.
The other part of the story, will a new WM make our retail options better? Nope.
There were conditional use hearings that occurred to “allow” (SON’s word) single family homes to be built in multi-family zoned “neighborhood”. Got records of those hearings testor? (You won’t, because no conditional use was required.) More made-up mumbo jumbo from the SON fringers.
Look – it doesn’t matter how much emotional/political support you throw their way; those sorority chicks are NOT gonna cozy up to you “indies”.
I’m by no means a fan of MMM, and I’m certainly not a fan of WM, but… This area has been ID’d as a potential commercial center for a long time coming (as early as 1994). Each subsequent comp plan since the 2015 Growth Plan has called this area out for commercial development. The residents of this area that are complaining should have done their due diligence before they built/bought. How is it so unfathomable that a big box store would want to locate in an area that has long been targeted for commercial development? That’s fine if folks don’t like WM, but don’t camp next to a latrine then act surprised when it starts smelling like the south end of a northbound mule.
Personally, I hope the proposal dies, but SON has to do a better job for their cause. They’ve posited a pretty weak argument thus far, IMHO. There are so many other, much better angles they could take at stopping WM, mostly from an econ-dev, quality of life, enviro impact POV.
Once again BP and all, this area was expected to hold small retail not a big box. There is a difference.
Testor- it’s not like it was zoned single family residential. My point stands–it’s long been targeted for commercial zoning. The degree of intensity of use has been in flux, just like how the rest of the City changed from one degree to another over the last 25 years and beyond.
We’re talking about a conditional use permit, which means a big box store was previously deemed an acceptable potential use. If it was a zoning variance, that’d be a different story, but as far as I know one has not been needed. Condition use permits have been around since the Great Depression; so tell me, how has the process changed? Sorry but the whole, “we’ve been hoodwinked!” argument is BS.
I think Ellis’ column on Sunday had some good points about the traffic issues in the area if WM is built, and the question I asked a few days ago, “Will the expense of the infrastructure by the taxpayers ever be paid back to us in econ development?”
Once again to, BP you are getting confused about what SON has asked for, and as I pointed out above, what the city thought was compatible with that area, LIGHT commercial development. That is all they have ever asked for, not a 185,000 square foot store (Imagine 3 HyVees hooked together -THAT IS THE SIZE!
I think the city of Sioux Falls can find a more suitable location for this development. They did that on the northwest side of town, but they stepped in it on the south side. Essentially, this is the same fight they had on their hands at 69th & Cliff. Issues of traffic, drainage, proximity to schools, safety, proximity to people’s homes, etc…were there as well.
BP and Hornguy are correct, the SON group could have done things better to get their points across, but they are normal citizens with jobs, families, etc…like all of us. They aren’t super-powered political operatives, but instead are a group of people trying to protect their neighborhood. I applaud their efforts and I hope the city council supports them on Tuesday night.
Compatibility is a 4, not a 1. The proposal has 1 acre of office as a transition between the (kitty-corner across the street) residential neighborhood (similar to the already-existing C-4 land on the east side of Audie) and the Walmart site. Transitions like this are not unique. A 1-acre Office transition was also used for the Hy-Vee at 69th & Cliff, when Hy-Vee got approval to go there.
“…To expect a restaurant, office park, gas station etc…is one thing, but a big box store like WM, Menards, Home Depot, Lowes, etc…No one expected them…”
You know what they say about assuming right? If they can do it, I can too. Therefore I assume not a single member of SON actually bothered to look at zoning in the area but instead took the word for a developer who oddly enough no longer develops due in no small part of the cluster that is Twin Eagle.
Even if they did look at zoning on the other side of 85th (which I’m still assuming they did not regardless of what they claim now), is now a good time to remind people that zoning uses are inclusive rather than exclusive?
If you zone something for C2 commercial it does NOT mean it is only allowed to be C2 commercial. It simply means that is one of the acceptable uses. It also does not mean it will always be zoned for that use or that the zoning will not change.
The ironic thing here is Shape Places would have simplified this process – but SON didn’t like it because it eliminated a hurdle or two before Walmart could start construction.
The area in question is also currently zoned agricultural – so tell me how many SON members would be ok with a dairy barn or hog confinement building being at that location? We all know they would complain about that as well… so this really isn’t about zoning or who was there first because the current landowner has owned his property far longer than any member of SON and yet they are telling him what he can or cannot do with his land.
Just like all the members of SON keep reminding us, their development was actually zoned to allow multi-family as well as single family homes. The area did eventually build some twin-homes along Audie, but in the early stages it seemed that Stencil felt the highest return on his investment was to sell single family lots.
So how many members of SON did their homework and realized since the area was zoned to allow multi-family yet because people were building single family there could be a problem in the future with a lack of a ‘buffer’?? Heck the problem was build right in with their development platting – and they never let it bother them because they made incorrect assumptions.
Should I even mention the fact that some members of SON didn’t purchase their homes until 2010? What excuse do they have exactly?
I know you don’t feel it is important DL, but I think the fact that SON filed a lawsuit with a whopping 11 people representing their group including three married couples (thus representing 8 homes), and the fact that citizen support is overwhelmingly in favor of another Walmart will go a long way towards convincing the City Council to proceed with the development.
Although I must admit… it will be an interesting Tuesday.
Yes, great for SON for organizing for the interest of their neighborhood. But again, this area was targeted for commercial development in the mid-90’s and identified as a sub-regional commercial center four years ago. It’s an area where two highways will soon intersect. It’s a far more suitable location than 69th and Cliff, according to long-range plans. (But those a-holes against that site were NIMBYs, according to some who now support SON. Funny.) People shouldn’t be so surprised that WM wants to locate there (85&MN).
If SON wants smaller scale development there…fine. I don’t have a problem with that. They should then lobby for an ordinance requiring annexed land to be zoned according to long-range land use plans. This would force WM to seek a zoning variance, requiring proof of a practical hardship (not an easy case for WM to make). The process, while perhaps flawed, hasn’t changed as far as I know.
Looks like the city is planning roads like this is a done deal;
http://www.keloland.com/newsdetail.cfm/city-hosts-open-house-for-eastside-corridor/?id=12953
Hwy 100 is a done deal.
http://www.argusleader.com/article/20130106/NEWS/301060018/State-ready-last-keep-highway-vow
But the Twin Eagle residents won’t be able to get to Hwy 100 by going east from Audie. Audie will be a right turn only out of their addition now that they did not want that stoplight. But they do get an office building across the street instead.
It isn’t like SD100 is news – it has been in various planning phases for what… at least a decade? Of course there will always be at least a few people upset about it no matter where it lands and it will be impossible to please everyone.
I suppose if we follow the SON playbook, then any landowner who lives near the proposed SD100 route should just file a lawsuit and say they were there first. Ha.
@OSF – Twin Eagle residents will be better off with a right turn only from Audie as it will eliminate any concerns they had with the pesky Walmart crowd. Grange will be a lighted intersection just a few blocks West, so they will still have quick and easy access. Of course then they will probably start complaining about what happens when Grange is extended to the South…. again you can’t please everyone.
SD 100 – the East side corridor project – was first announced in 1995 ( http://www.sddot.com/transportation/highways/planning/specialstudies/sd100/default.aspx ).
That makes it almost TWO decades in the making. The final alignment was selected in 2001. That means that its EXACT location as to the overall corridor was known a dozen years ago. There have been a few changes to the precise location of the roadbed within the corridor (between the fences). Arterial crossings/intersections will occur ONLY at one mile intervals.
SD 100 intersects with Minnesota Ave. 1/4 mile (3 blocks) south of 85th.
You know, this all really comes down to one base concept: Poor planning by City personnel. Jonathan Ellis really hit the nail on the head.
From my perspective, those City personnel have become pretty powerful. Hmmmmmm
All of this could have been avoided with the proper planning. There would be no debate if the people who were suppose to do their job had planned this area appropriately. If you have this much divisiveness, it cannot be optimum planning. ThAT is the core of the problem.
What strikes me is if you have City personnel advising the Planning Commission and City Council and the planning is faulty, how does one fix this? You can have your point of view; call SON people on this issue with this and that–whiners, faulty logic, etc., BUT IT REMAINS WHAT IT IS–POOR PLANNING. HOW CAN WE FIX IT?
By the way, we have all known there was going to be a highway looping around. A highway they call the “East Corridor Highway 100.” There you go–a perfect example of poor planning. So if they are talking about the East Corridor highway, are they just talking about that part running north and south on the east side of town or are they referring also to the southern loop? If I read a notice about an East Corridor highway meeting and I live in southern Sioux Falls, do you think I am on notice? Not.