Sioux Falls Parks and Rec

Is Spellerberg Park big enough for an indoor pool?

l3wis July 13, 2012 23Comments

(Click on image to enlarge)

I had a foot soldier send me this today;

The City has held two public meetings regarding the future of Spellerberg Park.

The Spellerberg MasterPlan includes:

Existing features that would be RETAINED:  Open Field, Playground, Shelter, Trees, Sledding Hill.

Existing features that would be RELOCATED:  Tennis Courts, Basketball Court, and Volleyball Area.

The question for the City from Day One has been……is the physical footprint of Spellerberg Park large enough to support the addition of an indoor aquatic center?

At the first public meeting (May 9^th), the facilitators explained that the tentative plans drawn up by TSP include a lap/swimming pool, a separate leisure pool and a splash pad.  They went on to explain that there would be parking directly to the south of the aquatic center, AND that they were working with the VA on securing an agreement for additional “shared” parking. (See Masterplan Flyer)

At the second meeting (July 12^th), the flyer that was handed out still indicated that a site advantage was secondary parking nearby (VA).  When questioned about this, Director Kearney said  secondary parking would not be included in the Masterplan.  I have it from a reliable source that the reason there will be no shared parking is because the VA has refused to sign the proposed agreement.

The fact that there was a need from the beginning of the planning process for “shared” parking is a “RED FLAG”!

If the physical “footprint” of the park is large enough to support an indoor aquatic center, why would you need a “shared” parking agreement with the VA?

At both public meetings, Director of Parks and Rec, Don Kearney, has emphazied no plans have been drawn up, that the City is only seeking public input at this point.  When in fact, indoor pool proponents and  representatives of the swim teams have met with the architect, TSP, to view tentative plans for an eight lane 50 meter olympic-size pool, a separate leisure pool, and a splash pad.  There will be a total of 203 parking spaces provided south of the facility.

As a point of reference, Drakes Springs Aquatic Center includes a four lane 25 meter pool, a current channel, and a spray park.  It is less than half the size of what is being proposed at Spellerberg.  There are 137 parking spaces adjacent to the pool with an additional 55 “shared” spaces across Fairfax Avenue next to the SkatePark, for a total of 192 spaces.

Does the City really believe that 203 parking spaces is going to support an indoor aquatic center at least twice the size of Drake Springs?

In addition, REMEMBER, this is a facility that will be open year round.  The MasterPlan does not even begin to address the parking needs for the sledding hill, tennis courts, basketball court, volleyball pits, playground, picnic shelter and ball field.

Residents in the surrounding neighborhoods (esp. to the North and East), business owners at Park Ridge, and the VA need to be paying close attention to this issue.  This is where park users will be looking to park when the 203 spaces in the the Park are already in use!!

I believe the City will either have to take more “green space” from the park  for parking needs, or abandon plans for an indoor aquatic center at Spellerberg.

The “physical footprint” of Spellerberg Park is not large enough to accommodate what is in the proposed MasterPlan and also provide adequate parking.

Let’s get wet

l3wis July 12, 2012 10Comments

If you want, or do not want an indoor pool in SF, make your opinion known tonight;

Sioux Falls Parks and Recreation will be holding a public meeting to discuss the Master Plan for Spellerberg Park from 5:30 to 7 p.m. today at Oyate Community Center.

This plan will address the possibility of a new indoor aquatic facility and other park renovations. Those in attendance will have the opportunity to ask questions and share their vision of what Spellerberg Park should be.

Oyate Community Center is at 2421 W. 15th St., attached to Garfield Elementary School.

If you have questions regarding this meeting, call the Park Office at 367-8222.

Phase II of the River Greenway Project started today?

l3wis July 4, 2012 11Comments

They must have heard my Independence Day speech last night at the city council meeting and got inspired (FF: 4:20 ) BTW, it was nice meeting another foot soldier at the meeting last night

This email and these photos were sent to me today (awaiting some video);

I was downtown at around 7:30 this morning and came across something very interesting! Soukup is very busy today working on the east bank of the river (Phase II of the River Greenway Project). Also, it appears that they are dumping contaminated soil from the east bank directly into the river. Not sure if this is permissible, but I was at the Park Board meeting when Jon Jacobson of Confluence (the landscape architect on the River Greenway Project, Phases I and II) told the Board that the soils on the East Bank Phase II are even more contaminated than in Phase I. Someone needs to alert the EPA and the Dept. of Natural Resources. They are the agencies that permitted this job and it appears that there is no oversight taking place.

UPDATED: According to the SF City Attorney’s office they are Ledges not Steps

l3wis December 15, 2011 18Comments

UPDATED:greenway

Recently some citizen advocates voiced concerns to the city attorney that the STEPS at the river greenway site could be dangerous, and people could slip and fall into the river. The city attorney sent them a letter that stated that they were NOT STEPS, but LEDGES meant for sitting on (I have yet to get a copy of the letter, but have read it). The letter also goes on to remind them that there is a slip plate on the last LEDGE, similar to the orange slip plates that are on the end of sidewalks (you know, things you walk and step onto).

Why would you need a slip plate for something you are sitting on? Obviously this is some kind of legal mumbo jumbo they cooked up. It reminds of the time my artist friend hung a mural on the Horse Barn at Falls Park, and then Parks director Mike Cooper said it wasn’t a ‘mural’ but a large ‘painting’ because it was free standing and not actually painted on the structure, so it didn’t need council approval.

Either way, STEPS or LEDGES someone is going to eventually fall into the river at that site.

Eight million dollars later and no safety precautions, imagine that!

Ellis hits another homer with his story about the River Greenway Project cost overruns

l3wis December 4, 2011 3Comments

Of course we have batted this around on South DaCola for awhile, and you can reread everything we already know;

The city negotiated a contract with Scherschligt to buy an option for land at the Zip site. As part of that contract, Scherschligt asked the city to begin work on the river greenway.

This meeting of course was held in the middle of the night in Munson’s coat closet.

But this part of the column stood out like a sore thumb;

The Argus Leader requested change orders and documents related to the project last week, but that information had not been provided as of Friday afternoon.

Gee, I wonder why?