[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6511724,"mediaKeyId","5134150-96c80a9a06f705185f69f713b64cd1d7","parentId",5134150,"title","Commission discusses larger interstate signage; directs staff to draft overlay standards","audioSeconds",158,"startMs",2075755,"endMs",2234000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5134150-96c80a9a06f705185f69f713b64cd1d7&start=2075&end=2234","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5134150-96c80a9a06f705185f69f713b64cd1d7/thumbnail_2075755.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6511724/Brandon/Minnehaha-County/South-Dakota/Commission-discusses-larger-interstate-signage-directs-staff-to-draft-overlay-standards","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6511724-9c2b452c557fcf35039d4a27b2f7c2c0/orig.mp4?Expires=1771183309&Signature=HIaA4xg7lti0UEHDDgX3xfCjFB8MlFWdRzoWW4~VFvQkTEA2b5TPzFbrKt-h8AD~~z-V72Kae2FCp6IaA1VEEuGRwQjt2RdqG3tTybroI8d4c2eB1-sAEXi-nE7tQImy7f1pV~Pym-6ZaBqp0VMmdn4bR3rhc3uO9xCx6sAqMM8zKndMpiP22DcBTt5r8seoSS2Ngdyglu5E2Dfx3UUDGf9dBq0IgvbNObAP2TwhhW-qDMLh1R22nLX~jFWJIAMSzwP~f3fYuyWvJyk1mShRp2R~Vo5ZTUnah9145s2AXZ2KEZqGYOltWS01Prr99bafp1pd3s73jTh7SHU210Z7Vw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Brandon, SD","date","2025-07-04T01:07:02Z","article","The Planning and Zoning Commission spent the longest single block of Tuesday’s meeting reviewing proposed standards for the I‑90 interstate signage overlay and related general business (GB) freestanding sign rules.

Commissioners began from a factual point: City Council recently approved a large, high‑mounted sign — roughly 600 square feet up to 90 feet tall — for a site in the interstate corridor. Commissioners debated whether to codify similar allowances in the overlay district and, if so, how to limit ground‑level visual impact and how to calculate multiple signs for large parcels. One commissioner proposed a tiered approach tying maximum sign area to height: smaller maximums at 30 feet, larger at 50 feet, up to a 600‑square‑foot allowance at 70–90 feet, with the bulk of sign area required to be mounted higher to reduce street‑level visual impact.

A recurring technical proposal was to treat very large high‑mounted signs differently for spacing calculations: instead of counting a 600‑square‑foot high sign at full size when computing separation distances for a second sign, treat it as 200 square feet for that multiplicity calculation because most of the visual impact of a tall sign is not at street level. Commissioners discussed a 1:1 frontage calculation on frontage up to a threshold (e.g., 1 sq ft of sign per 1 linear ft of frontage up to 200 sq ft), with a graduated approach after the threshold in the general business district, and simpler 1:1 treatment inside the interstate overlay to allow larger cornerstone signs.

Commissioners also debated whether the interstate itself should count as frontage for the purpose of calculating allowed freestanding sign area. Some commissioners favored treating the interstate as a lot frontage; others cautioned that doing so could allow very large signage for lots with multiple frontages and might need cap provisions. Staff noted the ordinance language currently treats frontage as the side of a lot abutting a street and that the definition does not explicitly exclude an interstate.

No formal ordinance vote was taken. Commissioners asked staff to return with a written draft that would: (1) incorporate a height/area tier (examples discussed were 30/50/70/90 feet with 200/400/600 sq ft thresholds), (2) calculate multiple‑sign separation using a reduced linear calculation for tall signs (for example count tall sign as 200 sq ft for separation purposes), (3) propose whether interstate should be treated as frontage or propose alternate frontage rules for the overlay, and (4) limit the number of tall signs on a single lot (suggestion: one sign above 30 feet per lot).

Staff said they will draft language for a future meeting. Commissioners indicated they wanted the overlay to permit the Council‑approved high sign in appropriate locations without opening the entire corridor to uncontrolled ground‑level large signage.

Background: The discussion referenced an existing approval for a 600‑square‑foot sign up to 90 feet and the QuickStar/Quick Start development as an example of a parcel with large frontage.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","July 3, 2025 Brandon Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting","oneSentenceSummary","Commissioners debated allowing large, tall signs in the I‑90 overlay district after City Council approved a single, very large high‑mounted sign. The commission asked staff to draft language that permits greater area at higher elevations while limiting ground‑level impacts and clarifying frontage rules; no formal vote was taken.","taxTitle","Brandon , Minnehaha County, South Dakota","taxId",53925,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6511729,"Commission recommends code text amendment to resolve nonconformity and allow Coughlin/Nursery lot house construction",455,1599745,2055000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5134150-96c80a9a06f705185f69f713b64cd1d7&start=1599&end=2055","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5134150-96c80a9a06f705185f69f713b64cd1d7/thumbnail_1599745.jpg","/articles/6511729/Brandon/Minnehaha-County/South-Dakota/Commission-recommends-code-text-amendment-to-resolve-nonconformity-and-allow-CoughlinNursery-lot-house-construction","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6511729-59d3525cda5cdb8c94674d29adb60ff9/orig.mp4?Expires=1771183309&Signature=BEHeXw0bi60t11TwTyO10jwXyi6HD5-DboeAJQBEKIDjEo1aZlZY2jnlQCycgpqodhr9N6Y11dBogsg5KDFO6DOxDgE-n2of9wPpuHkGPLgVBhevR~P7Cxuhc~DNBQnDKf8JWo~guxGy8syQkdq3XK54Vkjt5Rzhj2FjB0r9JkttOZFo2FMi2~bQvcka1nNByM6jpks2JNDDBC~RDFw4WN4VX5hRxAqqPoNiUw4bHHt3ajmn4pelcluFH1T59tPSj2tA42mw2zKiSDAc932KO72m3x631DrLvsPEWmnLds31erI7FJOGRTfO3LnMS6bf0pksU5O0x34IFuKqvB-LYA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","At its July 3 meeting the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that City Council approve a proposed text amendment to Chapter 15 of the zoning code to enable a specific platting solution for a lot called Oak Ridge Nursery (Coughlin Nursery). Staff said the change is needed so that the proposed platting and a new house would not create zoning nonconformities related to hoop structures that cross lot lines.

Staff described the amendment as a targeted change that would apply to the lot currently occupied by Oak Ridge Nursery and would set front‑yard setbacks based on frontage along Split Rock Boulevard, Sioux Boulevard and an access easement. The text change also adjusted lot area to permit future platting of the existing house if the owner chooses.

Staff noted related administrative details: sidewalks on the mutual access easement or adjacent boulevards would ordinarily be required; exemptions would need to be requested from City Council if the developer seeks to avoid sidewalk construction. Staff and commissioners also reviewed internal cross‑references to other sections of Chapter 15 and agreed to remove redundant citations before forwarding the amendment to Council. A planning commissioner identified a typographical error in the off‑street parking paragraph and staff agreed to correct it for the City Council version.

Commissioners voted to recommend the text amendment to City Council. Commissioner Shoneman announced a recusal prior to the vote; the record shows Shoneman recused himself. Staff explained the text amendment is the first step; after the code change is adopted the rezone for the lot would be scheduled (staff projected the earliest practical rezone hearing would be August 7, 2025, due to noticing timelines).

Background: The proposed code language is a site‑specific special area regulation intended to allow the house to be built and to enable the owner to plat off the existing house later. Because of existing hoop structures and the way lot lines are drawn, the code change is necessary to avoid creating new nonconformities when a plat is approved.","The commission recommended a text amendment to Chapter 15 to allow a platting approach that would enable construction of a house adjacent to Oak Ridge Nursery; the rezone that follows is a separate, two‑step process. Commissioner Shoneman recused from the vote.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6511733,"Commission backs rezoning Christianson Park to institutional to allow splash pad, restrooms",129,1434740,1564000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5134150-96c80a9a06f705185f69f713b64cd1d7&start=1434&end=1564","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5134150-96c80a9a06f705185f69f713b64cd1d7/thumbnail_1434740.jpg","/articles/6511733/Brandon/Minnehaha-County/South-Dakota/Commission-backs-rezoning-Christianson-Park-to-institutional-to-allow-splash-pad-restrooms","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6511733-f58cf84b06c5de069333f84040c074d5/orig.mp4?Expires=1771183309&Signature=ZT-vZVaBEhQveneGUlhcl6xHwEjVGtSPzldmKc4fAj1DZV54fmKec9JHv0S1rLunWzxIIkfrCJpqDzheYdQFlOw~N88h7WtxtHx0vMuMh~chqiM4kioRlAdkI-9HU~-~mdCHBCHTpHX1-HB8OVpvnLhHdskUPb5mEZtonT5oCi7JTX7oSr0Ttm6sFV~jW5iNMNvlIXR9H~Oa4-BybxISjCPtxOfMAaXz6KU5RZZdj7y8aRKNlOfl6a7DOqZMtVS-Yc~IGPplb-fMq8csEUt3gtS21o9VJsiPvnOgw47xwJ1d5F6~xoMWatesoySjhFr~F5IRd6eVt3ws9Vuo6zdRDw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","On July 3, 2025, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted to recommend that City Council rezone the Christianson Park parcel from NRC (neighborhood residential/park) to Institutional. Staff and commissioners said the change is intended to allow park amenities — such as a splash pad and restroom structure — to be developed with fewer conditional‑use permits.

Staff explained that within the NRC district many accessory structures require conditional‑use approvals; changing the zoning to Institutional would allow a specified number of accessory buildings based on lot size by right. Staff said the parcel is roughly 3-plus acres and Institutional zoning would permit accessory buildings appropriate for parks without repeated conditional‑use requests.

A commissioner summarized the planning rationale: NRC’s accessory‑use rules can make building the kinds of facilities a public park needs — restrooms, splash pads, covered structures — more procedurally difficult. “Institutional allows a certain amount of accessory buildings by right based on the size of the lot,” staff said; commissioners agreed that rezoning would better align the parcel’s future park improvements with city expectations.

The commission moved and seconded a recommendation of approval. The motion passed with no recorded opposition; the rezoning recommendation will go to City Council at its next meeting for final action.

The commission noted that design details and any conditional‑use aspects not covered by the Institutional designation would be resolved during subsequent permitting.

Background: Christianson Park currently contains pickleball courts and is in the process of adding a splash pad; the rezoning is intended to simplify the regulatory path for park facility construction.","The Planning and Zoning Commission voted to recommend rezoning Christianson Park from NRC to Institutional to allow accessory park structures — including a splash pad and restroom facilities — to be installed with fewer conditional‑use hurdles.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6511738,"Planning and Zoning Commission recommends council deny Aspen Ridge rezoning request",1357,64120,1422000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5134150-96c80a9a06f705185f69f713b64cd1d7&start=64&end=1422","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5134150-96c80a9a06f705185f69f713b64cd1d7/thumbnail_64120.jpg","/articles/6511738/Brandon/Minnehaha-County/South-Dakota/Planning-and-Zoning-Commission-recommends-council-deny-Aspen-Ridge-rezoning-request","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6511738-ea59cccc893aebfc0d3259cac686519a/orig.mp4?Expires=1771183309&Signature=MV0~eiII8CGZ3ZE-ueplVapr2-DgZSz9HnQA32--HA69UazHxLq1DMHXqjLepHfbTdiw23XrH2j2eSAnS1bpKRhs4uXABhHognWykJKrbLx0KdcKpB2KydAFQtkjTJnbenO0vnYPyqK0CoowLKME10we5Gh2aoaueZqQZJaKZYsZYgqOgTGGZb0WTRmfkwCh2-RPFxkPIRR6tJ9K6d7zEXfr8iPNnQKGSaKNvfboakcBvDcLphTcZQ8TzFrZl5mY4-xuS-hEcRzV3Y~bYy7ZEA2Kfg1x49Nd7~w98QeldLPLihAjilFnAbje2o09rrJeA6kiS~OTXpKKG9wORoCjPA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","On July 3, 2025, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted to recommend that City Council not approve a request to rezone a portion of the Aspen Ridge Addition from R‑1 (single‑family) to R‑2 (higher density single‑family). The applicant was not present at the public hearing.

Commissioners said the applicant’s stated purpose — to reduce the required frontage from 80 feet (R‑1) to 50 feet (R‑2) so more lots can be created — raises questions about neighborhood character, later variance requests and safety. “It kinda feels like bait and switch,” one commissioner said during the discussion about developers first proposing larger lots and later seeking higher density.

The application describes reducing seven lots to nine lots in the subject area; staff said that change would allow more buildable frontage under R‑2 rules. Staff also noted infrastructure implications: moving from R‑1 to R‑2 would likely require revised development engineering plans (DEPs) and additional water and sewer work, which could affect streets and require additional utility cuts.

Commissioners raised several concerns: whether the proposed R‑2 would be consistent with the preliminary plan already approved for the development, whether plats and lot dimensions when recorded would limit uses the developer might later request, and whether additional driveways on the curve where lots would be added would create safety issues. One commissioner observed that R‑1 requires 80 feet of frontage while R‑2 requires 50 feet, and asked, “Why do we need to go from R‑1 to R‑2 if they’re still going to be single‑family homes?” Staff replied that the rezoning is the applicant’s mechanism to create smaller lots and that any final details would appear at platting.

After discussion the commission made and seconded a motion to send a recommendation of “do not approve” on the rezoning request to the City Council. The motion carried. The item will appear on the City Council agenda the following Monday.

Because the applicant was not present, commissioners discussed two administrative paths the applicant could take if Council upholds the commission’s recommendation: proceed with R‑1 lot sizes (80‑foot frontage) or return with supplemental materials and seek Council consideration. Staff said a denial of the rezoning would not itself prohibit the applicant from making a new application or presenting additional information to Council.

Votes at a glance: the commission voted to recommend City Council not approve the Aspen Ridge rezone from R‑1 to R‑2; the applicant was not present and the commission’s recommendation is advisory to Council.

Background: R‑1 and R‑2 are local residential zoning districts. The applicant’s packet described the change as contiguous with existing R‑2 zones adjacent to the site and said the purpose was to allow smaller single‑family detached homes by reducing frontage requirements.","The Planning and Zoning Commission voted to recommend that City Council not approve a developer request to rezone a portion of Aspen Ridge Addition from R-1 to R-2, citing concerns about lot sizes, increased density and potential later variances; the applicant was not present.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Commission discusses larger interstate signage; directs staff to draft overlay standards

Commission recommends code text amendment to resolve nonconformity and allow Coughlin/Nursery lot house construction

Commission backs rezoning Christianson Park to institutional to allow splash pad, restrooms

Planning and Zoning Commission recommends council deny Aspen Ridge rezoning request