City to present development proposal for part of downtown rail yard
Oct. 11, 2019
The city of Sioux Falls has a plan to move forward with the first phase of redevelopment on the downtown rail yard.
City officials have been negotiating with Cherapa Place developer Jeff Scherschligt on part of the 10-acre property after opening up the opportunity to any developer earlier this year.
“This past spring and summer have been very active with interest in that area,” said Jeff Eckhoff, the city’s director of planning and development services.
“We’ve had some developers that have come to us — some local and some are new to the area — that have heard about Sioux Falls and want to take a look, that have explored different sites downtown and on the rail yard.”
Scherschligt’s plan involves the land called parcels B and C on this map, which is marked “under negotiation” on the city’s website. The land between Sixth and Eighth streets totals about 4 acres.
“We’re looking forward to being able to present this to the council for consideration,” Eckhoff said. “We’re very excited that this hopefully is the beginning of continued interest, as activity generates more interest in that area.”
More than a decade ago, Scherschligt developed Cherapa Place to the west of the rail yard on the former Zip Feed Mill property. The building has since been almost always filled with office tenants and a restaurant and served as a catalyst for the first phase of the river greenway development.
His plan for the rail yard land will be detailed next week, but Scherschligt called it “phase one of the Cherapa II vision.”
“It’s a nice start,” he said. “It fills in the gap on Eighth Street, it leverages the remodel of the East Bank Depot and ties in traffic flow through Cherapa out onto Eighth Street and really bookends the whole 8th & Railroad East Bank development.”
Details of the proposal are scheduled to be presented to the Sioux Falls City Council at its 4:30 p.m. informational meeting Tuesday.
A plan brought forward under Mayor Mike Huether’s administration that would have developed the 4-acre parcels “D and E” never materialized as the developers and the city ultimately decided not to move forward with it.
