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.
This, too, caught my attention for two reasons:
1. There is NO WAY the city would make this accommodation for any private development. Ratio of parking spaces to employees and landscaping (down to the number and species of required trees) is anally regulated and enforced.
2. The Resolution has the WRONG ADDRESS. 300 block of North West Avenue is the corner of 6th & West. Arena complex is more like the 1000 block. We’ll see who at City Hall reads this blog and goes before the Council in a couple weeks to make the necessary amendment!
I think the city should abolish minimum parking requirements and replace them with maximum parking spot limits. Huge parking lots blight this city from one side to the other. Let a property owner decide how much parking is needed. If they don’t put enough, their customers will complain and they’ll lose business. Minimum parking laws essentially force subsidies on free parking and create a greater parking supply than demand would require.
Abundant free parking is the enemy of an urban landscape.
Could it be that the reason they want to make an exception to the number of parking spaces is because they will be able to utilize the existing spaces for the Arena, Convention Center, Howard Wood, and Baseball Stadium?
Because it is doubtful all of these facilities will ever be in use at the same time it would be more efficient to consider all parking spaces as a whole and then determine needs based anticipated facilty usage.
Think of it this way – if you have a medical clinic next to a nightclub, you don’t build a parking lot to support both businesses at full capacity, because the clinic only needs parking during the day, and the nightclub only needs parking at night. There is a balance between the two and it is met based upon schedules. I’m sure some ‘consultant’ has a formula, but the basic idea is they won’t need a full 3,000 new spaces since there is overlap with existing spaces.
Now as far as the setback rules, those are modified all the time. I know Billion auto has requested and received several exceptions as did Williams when he built that facility at 49th and Louise (before he went broke). USF also has been granted setback exemptions as has Sanford.
I’m sure there are hundreds of examples, and I don’t even follow it that closely… but this isn’t exactly setting a new precedent here.
Precedent or not, it is an interesting point.
The City has made another “exception” regarding parking.
Drive by 11th and Duluth in Pettigrew Heights….
A large apartment building is being built (Costello) on the southwest corner…..take a look at how many parking spaces are being provided for the tenants.
When asked about this, Mike Cooper, Director of Planning and Building Services, responded that the number of spaces is adequate because a lot of seniors don’t drive!! WHAT………………………………….!!!!!!!
The outcome is predictable……those tenants that cannot find a space will spill over into the adjoining neighborhoods……
Not only inconveniencing those property owners….but, during South Dakota winters they will have to deal with moving their cars to stay ahead of the snowplows!!
Great Planning Director Cooper!
Wait until those old folks start complaining about the traffic on the loop.
I didn’t know that was designated as “elderly” housing. I thought it was “low income”.
A city official told me today, after I asked about this topic that pretty much the voters made their bed (approved EC) and have to sleep in it. And I agreed. He told me that may sound harsh, but that is the way it is. I also agreed. The repercussions of the EC will not be fully realized for years. I also told him that when the EC/Pavilion decision was being the discussed that many people supported a DT CC, and for Metli to say now it was a bad decision at the time and not to realize it until now is complete bullshit. Make no mistake the city (directors) makes decisions based on job security. Truly sad.
cr – Cooper is right. Go by Waterford on 18th street and start counting parking spaces. They do have some underground parking, but if you look at surface spaces you will soon find there really aren’t that many in comparison to a traditional apartment complex. In fact they added a small surface lot a few years ago not because of the residents but because of the employees who work there.
Now look at Dow Rummel – same story. Go look at Sunnycrest – again a lot fewer spaces than you would find at a complex designed for younger ages.
Senior housing doesn’t use the same formula, because the older people get the less they rely upon cars. That is a good thing, so we should all be happy about it.
Costner, I don’t know about you, but I’m planning on driving until they take my license from me……!!!!
By the time I’m an elderly citizen, I expect that $10 or $20 per gallon gas prices will have pretty much put an end to my driving habits.
Costner, I don’t know about you, but I’m planning on driving until they take my license from me……!!!!
Well cr, many elderly drivers find themselves in the same situation. It is the eye exam that typically prevents them from renewing, but many just choose to give it up either because they find it starts to get scary, or because concerned family members talk them out of their cars (most times for their own good).
It doesn’t really matter why – the fact is the elderly do in fact drive less and are much less likely to own cars. That explains the parking situation for such facilities.
This is the same reason a parking lot at a high school has to be so much larger than an elementary school. If we based it upon the number of students we would need to add a couple hundred spaces to every elementary school, but logic tells us 10 year olds don’t drive (off the farm anyway), so we don’t need the spaces. Same is true for 90 year olds… for every one of them who has a car, I bet there are at least 10 that don’t.
I’m gettin’ me a donkeywhen I can’t drive. Viva Ecuador!
I recommend one of these: http://www.thescooterstore.com/