Lacey Park gets rezoned, and citizens fear a modern building

by

The Planning Commission had to hear some very strange opposition testimony this past Thursday about the above proposed building (Item #17). The building will sit on a very large lot on the far southeastern part of the city (77th and Minnesota Ave). While such a design would probably stick out in Downtown, I don’t think the design will look out of place in this part of town. It’s a modern design with a 60-70’s throwback look. But some in the neighborhood were not happy about it. One guy suggested it needed a pitched asphalt roof and some brick on the exterior so it would ‘fit in’ the neighborhood.

Yeah, that wouldn’t make it stick out at all . . .

The planning commission approved it 6-0.

(Item #13) The Lacey Park property got approved for re-zoning (5-1). This time they changed the designation to Live/Work so a future buyer (there are none currently) could have options with the land besides just housing. Some in the Oakview Neighborhood wanted to have conditions put on the re-zoning, but since the land has no potential buyer currently, the Planning Commission said those conditions could be put on after it is sold and a development plan comes forward. I agree with the Planning Commission on this one, it is kind of hard to place conditions on a project that doesn’t exist.

But I disagree with some of the audience testimony.

Some felt that the Browns (who own the property and I think have lived there for 50 years) were being discriminated against because they are struggling to sell the property. I found it ironic that the Browns were happy as pie living there for decades as an agriculture property in the city, but now that they want to sell and move on they are asking for a re-zone, than wonder why there is opposition. I don’t feel sorry for the Browns. Having any investment, like property, requires taking a risk. The Browns risked waiting until they wanted to sell to change the zoning, so now they are getting scrutiny. That’s how the free market system works, winners and losers.

I also questioned people who felt that due to property rights afforded in our US Constitution that the Browns should be able to do what they want with the property including rezoning and building whatever they want to on the property. While I agree to some extent, you are allowed to do most things on your property that are reasonable and legal AS LONG as it doesn’t have a negative impact on your neighbors property due to things like density, traffic congestion and drainage. You have property rights, but it doesn’t give you the right to be a jerk to your neighbors.

We’ll see if the Planning Commission sticks to their commitment to put conditions on the future developer.

Downtown Parking Ramp hammer about to drop?

by

Rumor has it that Sioux Falls city council has been put on notice; contract negotiations between the city and the parking ramp developer (Legacy) is almost complete, and they are going to ask the council to approve that contract this month, but will they?

Only two councilors so far have been vocal about a NO vote, Stehly and Starr. Stehly takes issue with Legacy’s close relationship with Hultgren Construction and the lack of transparency when it comes to investors (rumor is that Legacy doesn’t have any yet) and Starr takes issue with the corporate welfare aspect, handing over $17 million to a private developer who will provide us very little in return.

Really, anyway you look at it, the deal stinks, really bad. Even on a really windy day when JM’s is in full kill, the stink isn’t as bad as this deal. So what baffles me and many others in the community, why would possibly 6 councilors be on board with this? I don’t know. As one city official said to me today, “Where is the outrage from the public?” or more importantly what do we have to do to get the outrage?

This has to be possibly the WORST deal the city has ever cut since they gave $27 million for about $2 million dollars worth of land to the Railroad, and the trains are still running through downtown. A Boondoggle that didn’t solve the original problem, train traffic downtown.

Maybe that is why this deal will probably be struck, because the citizens really don’t care. They proved this with the RR deal, the indoor pool and the administration building (at least the public took a stab at that one).

I’m hoping the other 6 councilors wake up, or at least 4 of them to make the deal veto proof. I’m not holding my breath.

Great idea for a database I thought already existed

by

At first glance, I thought, WOW! What a fantastic idea and tool for our community;

A new database, OpenSiouxFalls, will become a central repository for data reflecting the metro area’s workforce, economy, social services, education and quality of life.

Like I said, great idea. But one wonders why the Chamber, the City or the Development Foundation weren’t already using such a database? Maybe they have been, but by the sounds of the development of this site, you wonder how comprehensive it is?

Beta testing for the first phase of the project is planned for this summer.

So has this information been used in the past by organizations? And if so, who was the gatekeeper? Like the affordable housing study by Thrive, one wonders if anyone has been compiling such essential information or just flying by the seat of their pants?

I applaud the efforts to make this public, let’s hope they pull it off smoothly and actually make something public that seems to have been either stored in a safe for a very long time or didn’t exist at all.

I would have done something different with the Copper Lounge space

by

Surprised they are being so short-sighted on such a great spot downtown. I would have built at least a 3-story structure with underground parking.

Below are some different designs that could be tweaked to fit the area.

I would probably have underground parking strictly for apartment tenants on 2nd and 3rd floors. I would do retail on main level and ALL studio apartments on 2nd and 3rd floors with a rooftop patio and garden for the tenants.

Waterford at All Saints gets it right

by

The expansion at Waterford is pretty snazzy, and old looking.

I never really understood all the resistance to the expansion of Waterford in the All Saints Neighborhood. Besides the fact that they are providing more assistant living in Sioux Falls that is needed, they were able to put many other services under one roof in stead of carting residents around to other facilities.

One of the biggest arguments against the expansion was the elimination of a grove of trees, on private property, that no one ever frequented. It wasn’t a park. It was a dark empty lot full of trees.

As Waterford promised they saved as many trees as they could and added shrubbery. But the landscaping isn’t what makes this project a gem. It is the historic nature of the new construction. Waterford went all out to match the current facility, and make what is new look old.

I wish all the development downtown took this kind of time and effort into being more historically correct. They have been doing it DT Minneapolis, and it looks fantastic. Giant, pre-poured slabs of pink colored concrete isn’t quartzite, it’s just pink concrete.

We are starting to see the slap together construction creep into downtown that we have seen in all the urban sprawl areas. The apartments on Phillips to the Falls and the condos by Sunshine come to mind.

I think moving forward, the planning department needs to set an example of Waterford and push for more historically correct construction downtown. Now if we can just convince them to get a permit before they take out any load bearing walls.