Good thing SON had Shape Places revoked, or the Whittier neighborhood couldn’t protest the homeless shelter

A couple of ‘special’ stories.

The first talks about a conditional use permit going before the planning commission concerning unhappy neighbors near The Banquet objecting to the proposed Catholic diocese homeless shelter. If SON had not referred Shape Places, these folks wouldn’t even have the opportunity to voice their current concerns to anyone. SON has said all along that if the city can do this in their neighborhood, they can do it in yours too.

The second story by Don Jorgensen demonstrates the complete lack of integrity by Sioux Falls City Planner Jeff Schmitt as he continues his “educational” crusade to convince people that somehow the Walmart at 85th and Minnesota is NOT related to Shape Places. In his words, they “just happened” to be before the city council at the same time. Sure Jeff.

Just like the story concerning the proposed homeless shelter above, had SON not referred Shape Places when they did, there would not be an opportunity for citizens to voice their concerns over the proposed Walmart, and the good folks at Henry Carlson Company like Meredith Larson, Diane Derry and Dawn Hass (or is it Haas?), would be rolling in the dough.

Meredith Larson, the vice president of preconstruction services for Henry Carlson Co., has been on the commission for 10 years. He was one of four commissioners this week to vote in favor of the rezoning on a 4-2 vote.

Henry Carlson has done millions of dollars of work for Walmart here and in the region over the past several years. But, Larson said, all of that work was earned through a competitive bidding process. And any work that Walmart awards in building two new stores in Sioux Falls — including the controversial store at 85th Street and Minnesota Avenue — also would be awarded through a competitive process.

Jeff, who serves at the pleasure of Mayor Huether, keeps telling people if Shape Places doesn’t pass, Sioux Falls is headed straight back to 1983. Nothing could be further from the truth. The current Sioux Falls zoning ordinances have been continuously improved and amended since 1983 hundreds of times. These are the same zoning ordinances that have served the city of Sioux Falls well through record growth for years now, (i.e. nearly $600 million in building permits last year).

Under the proposed Shape Places, the Conditional Use Permitting (CUP) process will be removed. The folks with SON realized last spring that if Shape Places passed they would no longer have any input under the CUP Process as it related to the proposed Walmart at 85th & Minnesota. Before referring Shape Places last spring, SON asked the city council to please keep the CUP process as part of the proposed Shape Places amendments to ensure continued citizen input as it relates to development near their property (see above story again concerning the homeless shelter if you forgot how important that is). The city council, Jeff Schmitt and other planning staff told the people with SONNO’ when Shape Places was passed. Not to be ignored, that decision was subsequently referred to a vote by SON.

The rest is history. So, for a short while at least, the citizens in Sioux Falls, like those living near The Banquet will still have the right to voice their concerns over proposed developments in their neighborhoods thanks to the efforts of SON. A vote No on April 8th against Shape Places will allow that long-standing input from our fellow citizens to remain a part of our city’s future for years to come.

And to further comment on the Whittier neighborhood situation. I do agree with the Diocese that there needs to be a ‘DAY’ warming facility. But a more appropriate place would be by the county shelter Downtown by the jail and courthouse. Or even a better idea would be to move the Diocese’s humble servant, the Bishop into a more appropriate living arrangement, like a one bedroom apartment and convert his home into a shelter 🙂

I have felt all along this is a political move, the downtown developers don’t like the Good Shepard facility only a few blocks from all of their luxury condos they are building, so why not move the shelter to the poorest neighborhood in the city, right next to the The Banquet? Let someone else (the working poor, who don’t already have enough problems in this crappy economy) deal with the homeless.

How dare the ‘Specials’ who live downtown or even the Cathedral neighborhood elites have to look at or deal with the homeless!

While I commend the Diocese for wanting to fill a void in our community, I also commend the Whittier neighborhood for standing up to it. We can do better, and find a more appropriate location, but it’s so easy to kick the little man when he is down? Isn’t it? Heck they even kick the bigger man (upper middle-class SON neighborhood) because while they are partially ‘Special’ they are not ‘Extra Special’ like the biggest ‘Specials’ of our community.

A South DaCola foot soldier contributed to this post.


#1 rufusx on 02.21.14 at 10:43 pm

“Under the proposed Shape Places, the Conditional Use Permitting (CUP) process will be removed.”

Bogus over-simplified argument. Take the proposed shelter- for example: Tell us how it is zoned under the current ordinance – which requires a conditional use to be used as a homeless shelter. Then look at the zoning under Shape Places and tell us if use as a homeless shelter would be allowed – AT ALL.

#2 rufusx on 02.21.14 at 10:55 pm

BTW – a quick read of the Shape Places ordinance reveals that there are IN FACT conditional uses included, and the process for obtaining a conditional use is not substantially different to the current one.

The language used by opponents to Shape Places is very misleading. It grows out of the same mindset that failed to do its due diligence when purchasing properties near an area designated for major commercial uses, and understanding that the developer those properties were purchased from had built single family homes in a multi-zone.

Don’t do the work up front to understand and be involved in governmental processes – just knee-jerk refer every thing after the fact.

#3 rufusx on 02.21.14 at 10:59 pm

Finally – Shape Places is NOT an “amendment” to the old zoning ordinances. It is a shift away from a use-based code to a form-based code. A lot of things that would require a conditional use in the use base process are either permitted – or prohibited by a MUCH STRICTER and more detailed for-based ordinance. But that doesn’t mean conditional uses are non-existent.

#4 LJL on 02.21.14 at 11:55 pm

“headed right back to 1983” Oh if it were only that easy. Those were the days.

#5 anonymous on 02.22.14 at 7:24 am

Shape Places limits public input.

Vote NO on April 8th.

#6 carhart605 on 02.22.14 at 7:50 am

Here is what I understand to be the facts at that intersection:

Nearly all but a hand-full of the homes near 85th & Minnesota were built prior to Dec. 7th, 2009. Why is that important? That’s the date the city affixed the green dot to the intersection of 85th & Minnesota. For those keeping score at home, that meant a “Sub-Regional Employment Center” could be built at that intersection. At the time, no one really knew what the heck that meant, including folks on the council and with planning.

Additionally, no one could have foreseen that could mean a Walmart could potentially be built right across the street from existing single-family residential homes. The people in that neighborhood all knew there would be commercial activity at that intersection and I am told expected there to be commercial there, but to have a building that is 185,000 square feet (twice the size of the Hy-Vee on Minnesota Ave.), well, no one could have predicted or expected that.

Quoting you from above, your argument appears to be: if you “don’t do the work upfront to understand and be involved in governmental processes” then this is what you get. Well, that doesn’t carry a lot water with me, because these folks built their single family residential homes before December 7th, 2009 and did do their homework. They will all tell you there was nothing on the books with the city saying the highest and most intense level of commercial activity would be allowed across the street from their homes prior to December 7th, 2009.

Despite the fact these homes were built in a multi-family residential area, let’s remember they were approved by the city and the area is now, I’ll repeat that for you Ruf, is now, meaning currently, as it stands today, zoned for single family residential, which is what this neighborhood has always been as there is not one multi-family residential structure there. As such, these homes are afforded the highest level of protections under the city’s zoning rules and regulations and under the law.

#7 OldSlewFoot on 02.22.14 at 10:05 am

carhart605 – Since Shape Places is not being used as an ordinance and the old zoning is in effect, the zoning on those homes is RD not RS as Shape Places would have made it.

Doesn’t matter WHEN they put the dot on the map. That area is specified for single or multi dwelling. The developers decided single luxurious homes was the way to go. Blame them.

There are single homes as close or closer to a “Sub-Regional Employment Center” all around town. And I am pretty sure the planning commission knew what that meant. If others did not so be it.

There are homes as close and closer to the east side Walmart, Menards and Dawley Farms stores than homes are to the proposed 85th and Minn Walmart.

As for zoning, right across the street to the east from Schwan, the zoning is multi use/duplex/business. Like offices on the main level and dwellings on the second level.

The three corners in the city limits were zoned commercial. The 4th corner now being disputed was not in the city so it was not zoned until it was annexed. But would not one think that it would be zoned C-4 like two of the other 3 corners.

#8 rufusx on 02.22.14 at 11:47 am

carhart – your narrative seems to imply that prior to the adoption of Shape Sioux Falls in 2009 – the city had NO PLAN in place for that area. That sir – is a fallacy. The City of Sioux Falls did indeed have a Comprehensive Plan in place prior to that. The most recent version adopted in 2003. And there were others before that as well. 1996, and 1979.

In the 2003 plan,

85th/Minnesota was seen as being in the city by 2015. Minnesota avenue was designated as the ONLY North/South Principal Arterial Highway between I-29 and SD 11. In addition, SD 100 was already in the planning stages (started in 2001), crossing Minnesota (SD 115) just south of 85th.

Think about this – two state highways intersect. One of them planned to be a 6-lane limited access belt-way highway. Just 1/4 mile from 85th/Minnesota. What would you think was going to be the nature of land use there?

The 2003 plan shows 85th/Minnesota as one of 11 “secondary arrival points” to the city from the surrounding areas (29/229. 29/90, and 90/229 being the three primary ones.) For comparison, other 2ndary arrival points are 229/Louise, 41st Sertoma, SD 100/SD42 on the East side (Dawley Farms, Walmart, Menards, etc.) and so on. ALL of them major commercial employment centers.

Again – LOOK at the 2003 plan – it is CLEAR what the future of 85th MN would look like in 2015. You SON supporters are STILL not doing very deep research. You only look so far as you need to, to find something you can use to support your preconceived opion. Then you quit. That’s not SMART – that’s self-deluding.

#9 Dan Daily on 02.22.14 at 12:02 pm

From experience, ordinances defeat each other. One ordinance is restated opposite but with a different number. What’s going to be built here is decided by the mayor from his bathroom throne at Diamond Lake. The council, a vote, & least of all the people have no say. It will happen with his noncompetitive bid contractors where and when he mandates.

Has anyone noticed the Embassy Suites atrium hotel being built south & a little west from I-90 & Marion Rd.?

Genius. It’s just outside city limits away from exorbitant city lodging & property taxes. No zoning grief or political bribes. It will compete and be away from congestion at Sanford Basketball, the EC, and arena. I foresee hotel packages with free remote airport/EC parking. What’s really a slam is it’s financed by Wells Fargo and not First Premier.

#10 Dan Daily on 02.22.14 at 12:15 pm

New hotel will be easy to find/access. Hourly hotel shuttles provide easy transport to/from congestion at the EC & airport. Two parking charge and overflow problems solved. Fly in and if you need to rent a car, do it at the hotel where county taxes are half.

Our mayor knows everything about credit cards but very little about business and gaining revenue.

#11 GregN on 02.22.14 at 2:36 pm

With all respect, this entire post is just wrong.

Here’s what will happen today vs. if Shape Places were in effect.

Both the current ordinance and Shape Places have the EXACT SAME definition for a “Temporary or Emergency Shelter” which this would be defined as. Both have the EXACT SAME standards for a conditional use permit being granted, there are 7 specific items the planning commission is required to consider before granting a permit. Exactly the same.

Today (current ordinance): 101 N. Indiana Ave. is zoned C-2 Commercial. C-2 allows a “Temporary or Emergency Shelter” (S-1 Institutional is the only other zone that allows it). In C-2 (and S-1) this use automatically requires a conditional use permit. So, there will be a planning commission hearing on this.

Shape Places: The zoning does not change for this parcel in Shape Places. It remains C-2. C-2 is not exactly the same in Shape Places, but its very similar.

In Shape Places, this “use” (temporary or emergency shelter) is included in two “forms” – the “BCF2: Business and Community Facilities – Community Service” form and the “RE6: Village Mixed-Use” form. Remeber Shape Places has one new layer, forms, so we have:
Districts which have one to N->Forms which allow for 1 to N->Uses.
Example RS district which allows the DD2 Single Family Suburban form which allows for -> single family use with a few accessory uses like family day care, home occupation, etc.

Once you determine what ‘form’ a use is, you look and see where it is allowed (in what districts, or, zones).

In Shape Places, a BCF2 form is allowed in these districts:
S-1 (Institutional – equivalent to the S-1 in the current ordinance), S-2 PUD (Institutional Campus PUD) which is where the hospital campuses will be for example, I-1 (Light Industrial), and I-2 (Heavy Industrial) (NOTE: The addition of Industrial is likely because Shape Places makes Industrial zones a bit more flexible so they can do more things like commercial etc).

The RE6 form is allowed in these districts:
V-PUD: Village PUD (this is a new district allowing for high density and high rise living, it doesn’t even really exist in Sioux Falls yet).
DT-PUD: Downtown PUD (Downtown – essentially what C-3 Central District is in the current ordinance).

If you notice, C-2 is NOT in that list. This “Form” is NOT allowed in C-2 in Shape Places. In other words, THIS WOULD NOT EVEN BE ALLOWED UNDER SHAPE PLACES AT THIS LOCATION.

If they wanted to do this here they would have to REZONE it to one of the allowed zones like S-1 or I-1.

That would require a planning commission and City Council hearing and approval – just to rezone – which would be step 1.

Now let’s say it was rezoned to S-1 or one of the other districts that allows the BCF2 form.

The Temporary Emergency Shelter regulations in the BCF2 form requires 1000 feet distance between it and any K-8 School, park, day care or RESIDENTIAL AREA (my emphasis). If you cannot meet that, you cannot get a permit and MUST get a CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
Remember if you cannot meet the special use permit regulations, you must get a conditional use permit!

Using the GIS Zoning Map, I can see that there is 400 or so feet from the north edge of this parcel to the nearest residential (RD) property. Therefore, it would require a CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT because it FAILS the 1000 ft test.

Now let’s say they wanted to rezone it to say the downtown district like the DTPUD so they could make use of the RE6 form. They’d first have to rezone the parcel, then follow the RE6 regulations. The RE6 regulations AUTOMATICALLY requires a CONDITIONAL USE permit NO MATTER WHAT.

So to restate, as it stands today if Shape Places were in effect, this parcel could not do this, PERIOD.

If they wanted to do this, they’d need a heck of a lot more than a conditional use permit, we’d be talking rezoning plus conditional use hearings.

There is a lot of misunderstanding and misinformation about conditional uses and Shape Places. They are NOT eliminated. They still are there. There are just a number of uses that now can be permitted if you can meet the special permit standards set forth that automatically require a whole host of requirements that typically would be added at a conditional use hearing anyway. In addition, there are a number of new protections like ‘sensitive use’ protection for residential, churches, schools that require various uses to be minimum distances away, buffer yards for added berming, fencing, landscaping, and distance from adjacent residential forms, and various other protections.
Another example would be a smaller commercial project like a Walgreens. If its sufficiently far away from residential and can meet other standards that are typically set anyway, they can build. If not, then its conditional use permit hearing time as before.

What Shape Places aims to do is learn from years of experience and frankly frustration from citizens. There were a lot of things, like a church in commercial that required a conditional use permit hearing. That’s unnecessary and additional cost for the church. There are a lot of conditional uses that are ‘eliminated’ because they just aren’t allowed anymore, period. Like twin homes in single family zones. Right now in RS-2 which pretty much all new residential neighborhoods are since about 2000-2005, you can get a conditional use permit to do a twin home. People would buy homes with empty lots next to them assuming they’d be a single family home, then someone would come in to get a conditional use permit for a twin home and the neighbhorhood would be up in arms. Now twin homes are eliminated, there is no conditional use permit for them in RS-2 because they aren’t allowed – PERIOD. They have to be put into a different zone allowing it.
Citizens often were frustrated to because once a parcel is zoned for say commercial, its almost impossible to get a project ‘killed’. By legal right they have the ability to do what they want to do if its a allowed with the stipulation that CONDITIONS can be attached to it. So people many times go to these hearings thinking they can kill a Walmart, but that’s just not how it works. They can do said project generally by right. The role of the Planning Commission and Council is to add conditions to mitigate any problems that the proposed use and other dissimilar uses may have, so that the new use doesn’t negatively affect the other uses.

Conditional uses and how they are treated in Shape Places are very misunderstood, and there is a lot of misinformation about them already. A lot of it is simply because it takes some time to understand the regulations.

#12 pathloss on 02.22.14 at 3:52 pm

Watching southeast SD grow around the perimeter of Sioux Falls will be very interesting. Predictions: Indoor shopping mall (its own zip code) northwest from I-90 & I-29. A water park hotel at the I-90 & Highway 38 exit.

#13 pathloss on 02.22.14 at 3:54 pm

And the end of every grand mistake being named Sanford.

#14 rufusx on 02.22.14 at 4:52 pm

Dan/pathloss, SF City limits extend 1/2 miles west of Marion Road, from 1/4 mile S of I-90. I don’t think you’re keeping up-to-date.

#15 anonymous2 on 02.22.14 at 8:19 pm

Ruf and OldSlewFoot:

Shape Places has some serious flaws and they need to be fixed. Limited CUP is one problem, but I can give you another example:

In regards to specifically C-4 zoning, Shape Places specifies that “traffic shall not be forced to travel through a residential AREA.” Read the darn document. There are over 60+home sites on 85th Street between Louise and Minnesota Avenue. It does not say residential street; it says AREA. There is no way in “H E double tooth picks” that any traffic to a C-4 commercial site at 85th and Minnesota Avenue location can arrive at that location without traveling through a residential AREA. And that is because, specifically, as the City has set up that street and SD DOT specifies, it would appear that any main entrance to a business at that location would have to access off of 85th Street. And to access the business off of 85th Street means you must travel through a residential area, especially if you come from the west.

Now you can argue all you want about how those home sites were zoned and what was what at this or that point in time, but the fact of the matter is it is a residential AREA where the proposed development entrance will be located.

And regarding as to the “nature of the land use” being so completely straightforward, obvious, and clear, to home purchasers in that area–that would be a big stretch. That is because there is a big stretch between C-4 and other commercial zoning THAT IS MUCH LESS INTENSE. SON has repeatedly “said” they do not have a problem with a less intense commercial zoning. And I am guessing here, but I think most anticipated commercial development but not C-4.

I, for one, think Shape Places is not ready for implementation. So I am going to vote NO.

#16 anonymous2 on 02.22.14 at 9:15 pm

The point being of my comment is that there appears to be big holes in Shape Places b/c the city is not even following their own stated requirements. Holes so big that you can drive a Mack truck through them–right down 85th Street.

#17 rufusx on 02.23.14 at 1:18 am

anon – except for2-3 houses (the perpetrators of SON’s BTW) all of the houses along 85th are separated from that street by a green space/buffer zone (slough). It’s at least 300 feet wide.

#18 rufusx on 02.23.14 at 1:20 am

All new zoning ordinance have an exception for a little condition known as “non-conforming uses”. I.E. it does not apply to situations that came into existence BEFORE it was adopted. Shape places has NOTHING to do with existing uses. NOTHING. It only comes into play when you want to build something NEW, or to change something to a NEW use.

#19 rufusx on 02.23.14 at 1:22 am

Most people coming from the WEST will be coming on SD 100 – not 85th.

#20 rufusx on 02.23.14 at 1:28 am

As Greg and I and slew foot are pointing out – with the ACTUAL facts – the whole controversy around anti-Walmart, anti-Shape SON activities stems from the UNINFORMED becoming the MISINFORMED and proceeding to spread DISINFORMATION. Pure, deliberate ignorance.

#21 anonymous on 02.23.14 at 4:10 am

Shape Places limits public input.

If you need clarification on the importance of public input, watch when the Whittier Neighborhood appears before the Planning Commission on Wednesday, March 5th. (Channel 16 and at

Vote NO on April 8th.

#22 rufusx on 02.23.14 at 10:43 am

anon – just because you have learned to knee jerk respond with a talking point/electioneering slogan – does not mean it’s the truth – or make you an honest, or wise person.

As was pointed out – under Shape Places there would be no need for public input because the shelter would not be allowed in their neighborhood – PERIOD. The REASON it would not be allowed is not to “limit pub;lic input”, but because over the years – the city has heard from the public that they don’t want these sorts of facilities “in their neighborhoods” and new ordinances have been written to assure that the expressed will of the people will NOT be violated.

BTW – on case you don’t understand how representative democracy and the legal system work – Ordinances (Laws) ARE the expressed “will of the people” written and codified by their representatives in government.

#23 anonymous2 on 02.23.14 at 12:01 pm

Ruf: Your information as to the number of houses that will be affected by this proposed development is TOTALLY INACCURATE. You need an education. I suggest you take Louise south to 85th and start driving east. Start counting the number of houses and home sites on 85th. Drive slowly b/c you will need to in order to count accurately. All of the homes on 85th will be affected by the route one must travel to get to the 85th and Minnesota destination if you are arriving there from Worthing, Tea, Beresford, etc. Traffic coming from that direction will be forced to travel through a residential area. I stand by my information.

#24 anonymous2 on 02.23.14 at 12:24 pm

Oh Ruf, anybody coming from Beresford, Tea, Worthing, Parker, Lennox, Chancellor, Viborg, Hurley, Marion, Freeman, is going to take I-29 to the 85th Street exit that is in the works. They are not going to take I-29 and exit onto a future hwy 11, and then again exit again at a goofy Minnesota Avenue exit, and then go north on Minnesota Avenue, and back onto 85th Street to get to the entrance. Get real. I can think of three towns that will come to that location from the south: Canton, Harrisburg, Inwood (maybe), maybe one other extremely small town like Fairview.

NO, most people coming from the south and west will not take the future hwy 100. They will come on I-29 to 85th Street. They will be driving through a residential AREA.

I am out to those towns very frequently and your assessment is completely inaccurate. Get a map.

#25 rufusx on 02.23.14 at 7:43 pm

Most people will drive PAST SD 100 exit to get off 29 @ 85th and drive @ 40 mph – 4 miles across town, and hit several stop signs vs. off at SD 100, drive @ 55 and no stopping? Because why? You say so?

And while you’re at it tell us again why there will be no entrance off MN Avenue?

Human nature/instinct is not set up to work that way. You’re clutching at straws anon, and they are none firmly attached to one another.

BTW – I live in one of those towns you mentioned, drive past 85th/MN almost every day and make numerous deliveries around SF all day long. Don’t assume you are the only person on the road that has an impression of how things work.

#26 anonymous on 02.24.14 at 6:17 am


You seem very invested in what happens in SF, why is it you choose not to live here?

#27 anonymous2 on 02.24.14 at 8:21 am


I can say so just like you. But I will offer you more.

You think–that if someone is going to take the future hwy 100–they will not have any stop signs/lights? Get real. To arrive on the proposed Hwy 100 from the numerous towns I mentioned: Likely to be a light on the exit ramp. (And Ruf, that would be a left turn to get to the development). Then, I cannot feature ANYTHING LESS than two more stop lights in what could be very a dense traffic area if that development comes to fruition. And then when the future arrives……….

Since those motorists will then be coming from the south/south west “so to speak”, be heading north/northeast, they will need to eventually make a left to get into the proposed development–either off of Minnesota Avenue (but with a divided median, I thought that had been ruled out by SD DOt, but maybe you know more than I on that score) OR that motorist must then make a left onto 85th–another left. (Those darned lefts!!) Sit at the stop light and wait for the “lefts” one must make to GET THERE to the proposed development.

OR RUF, take 85th exit ramp off of I-29 (think stop/right turn on red so you can head east) and a straightforward shot down 85th. And yes with the potential of two lights. Ahah, YOU my dear RUF will be able to make a right on RED –right into that proposed development. That is pretty nice–two right on reds. “You” just traveled right through a residential area. But of course, “you” didn’t read Shape Places so you didn’t know that you shouldn’t be forced to travel through a residential area. (Shame on you. You should have taken the other route, the lefty route.) I don’t think that sounds as if I am clutching at straws. I will take a route that has right on red any old day, rather than have to deal with congested traffic in a confined area with a bunch of left hand turns.

Please, RUF, use your noggin and figure out that area IF constructed as proposed, it will be congested like the 41st and Louise area. Especially, looking like the entrance to Walmart from the South on Louise–traffic stacked up because of left turning.

As for traveling 35/40 mph or 55 mph–that difference in time is going to be insignificant between those two east west points.

So lots of people may be trying to calculate the simplest travel route. That is what I do. But I am sure you are going to take the “new” Hwy 11 because it is new and wonderful. Even if it is a messy way to arrive there.

Don’t get me wrong about Hwy 11, it will be great for east-west traffic, but as to the people that will be arriving at the proposed development, from the towns I mentioned, it is not a very practical or logical way to arrive there.

NO, I didn’t arrive at my conclusion just because of “I say so”; I arrived there based on the most logical and straightforward way to arrive there given all factors.

#28 anonymous2 on 02.24.14 at 8:24 am

Ruf, Sorry but I forgot one of the lefts. The motorist is going to have to sit at the stoplight on 85th that “manages” the traffic at the entrance. THAT IS THREE LEFT TURNS!!

#29 OldSlewFoot on 02.24.14 at 8:34 am

85th street is by no means a residential street. It is an arterial road to get you to and from where you need to go. I drive it all the time to get to the west side of town. You are not driving through a neighborhood. The only new home facing 85th is the one on Audie. The 4 acreages on the south side between MN and Western have been there for awhile. This is very similar to what 57th looked like between Cliff and Southeastern 25 years ago. Is 57th a residential street?

The plan is right turn only off of MN Ave now. But that will probably change in the future. There will be a stoplight at Hwy 100 and MN Ave. Look for that to be an integrated entrance to that commercial area no matter what it is, Walmart or not.

#30 rufusx on 02.24.14 at 11:53 am

Hey Slew Foot – guess who lives in that ONE HOUSE that fronts 85th at Audie. As you said – the ONLY ONE in that two-mile stretch. Go ahead – it’s no surprise – or secret.

#31 rufusx on 02.24.14 at 11:59 am

Excuse me – it’s not the only one – it’s one of 8 – in 4 miles (from Tallgrass to Cliff). Average of one house every half/mile. That’s fewer than on a typical country gravel road.

#32 rufusx on 02.24.14 at 12:07 pm

anon – I try to take a different route to places I go to every day. I like variety. I even sometimes ignore my GPS directing me to the fastest or shortest route on my deliveries to avoid redundancy and situations I am aware of that I don’t want to deal with, with a truck or trailer on a city street.

My only dog in this fight is honest reasoning.

Most people will opt to take either the fastest – or the least congested route. Doesn’t sound like you do either.

But then when one starts inventing “logical systems” to support a predetermined outcome to a position they’re sticking with no matter what – sometimes it’s necessary to twist and complicate the “logic” into unrecognizable shapes to get it to fit that outcome.

#33 anonymous2 on 02.24.14 at 1:02 pm

1. Shape Places says: “traffic shall not be forced to travel through a RESIDENTIAL AREA.”

I NEVER said 85TH was a RESIDENTIAL STREET. I am saying it is a RESIDENTIAL AREA–which it is. Arterial or not–it is a Residential Area.

2. I encourage anyone who reads this blog to get out and drive the entire course of 85th Street from Louise to Minnesota Avenue.

THERE ARE 60+ HOMES AND HOME SITES ALONG 85TH STREET–on both sides of the street

“Honest reasoning”? Why are you deliberately misleading people that there is only one home site involved in this?

As for the best way to travel to a site, I, for one have figured out that right turns get you some place faster and with less “hecticness” than left hand turns. I guess you haven’t figured that out yet. By the sounds of your response and at the pace you are going, who knows if you ever will. If you think I am inventing some “logical system” so be it. I am very confident about what I am saying about the 85th Street issue. I have plenty, plenty years of driving experience to back that up.

As for me, I am signing off on this issue. Go ahead and kick it all around you want. Go ahead and lie. I don’t think people who read this blog will trust what you say.

#34 rufusx on 02.24.14 at 3:13 pm

But anon – SON has referred Shape Places – because they don’t like it 🙂 And so – it is NOT in effect. And this whole post is predicated on a POV that Shape Places is EVIL!

So why are you now referring to Shape Places as if it were EXACTLY what is wanted?

Twist and turn – twist and turn. OOps! Guess I’ll run and hide now.

#35 Craig on 02.24.14 at 6:08 pm

anon – I’m guessing you will have to seek the legal definition of what constitutes a “residential area”, because I’m quite certain 85th won’t meet the legal definition.

41st has many more homes along it, as does 57th, 69th and even 10th/12th thus I suspect what they consider to be a residential area is entirely different from what you do. If your interpretation is correct, it would pretty much mean an end to future retail/commercial building permits in Sioux Falls… so let’s just assume there is some misunderstanding at play here.

As to those 60+ houses on 85th, you need to be a bit more honest about the situation. The vast majority of those homes don’t face 85th and have no direct access to it. There are a couple on the South side of the road that do – probably less than 10. Far fewer than have direct access to 57th or even 41st.

The remainder that actually face 85th have separate access roads, and then of course there are several more in Twin Eagle that are buffered by the retention pond. Even the one house people like to focus on that is on the corner of 85th and Audie doesn’t actually have direct access to 85th as her driveway backs out into Audie, but I will concede her side property line does in fact meet with 85th so she is one of the few.

I know this is an emotional issue, but if we are honest we all have to acknowledge that 85th is one of the better designed roadways Sioux Falls has. It was planned well in advance to prevent so many of the problems we have had with 57th and 41st, and they did a good job of limiting access points.

That said, you’re being slightly disingenuous to suggest 85th will allow for faster access to the area of 85th and Minn than would SD100 when it is all said and done. By all means use a stop watch to compare the two in a decade after SD100 is up and running and the mythical 85th street exit is actually realized, but until then it is sort of a moot point. With or without Walmart 85th is bound to be a high speed road (due to the median which will limit access points and increase average speed) which is bound to upset those who choose to build in close proximity to it.

Sort of off topic though.

#36 Derby on 02.27.14 at 4:49 pm

Just a correction on your quote, “But a more appropriate place would be by the county shelter Downtown by the jail and courthouse.” The County shelter you are referring to is not a shelter, it is a permanent housing facility. Folks moving in sign a year lease and billed for rent monthly. I do agree that Shape Places has too many holes. The will of the people is different from culture to culture, generation to generation, etc. That is my main concern with this proposal.

Leave a Comment