[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-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],{"_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",6556978,"mediaKeyId","3339670-5418967ffd320e1f6971942ff307f657","parentId",3339670,"title","Commission agrees covered decks treated as rooms under building code; staff to enforce firewall and setback rules","audioSeconds",535,"startMs",3649000,"endMs",4184000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3339670-5418967ffd320e1f6971942ff307f657&start=3649&end=4184","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3339670-5418967ffd320e1f6971942ff307f657/thumbnail_3649000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6556978/Brandon/Minnehaha-County/South-Dakota/Commission-agrees-covered-decks-treated-as-rooms-under-building-code-staff-to-enforce-firewall-and-setback-rules","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6556978-3b72ecba12a0741b0964e0e9b5daf421/orig.mp4?Expires=1771153374&Signature=Grvfx3DRAMlazJjRM7cVw7hhfxYTKOCj4bVNEJ~e~5anNuVa1vy-sg4h-kjd88RgmLjvg5KKy0djdHPEwOs~juJS6KDeilQ2iQss9yFY1aMVmtXo1rAtfsavhY7dmEuQlRhZlqfQFUqfVcZBKIZOQfK1emm8x32enU4m-GnENUu0JFOAoH0lLDCzZRpB0d0ohIE7C0S2ZPGOCrX9oYjiZdOh4JViOGbKs02DH7fM5JbcJpQcoju56hKMujJB~cf15UJl8aNHZVQRKSmYJRS4-uGEH5U-AaxM1ionaQ9nI2EFrNaOFfELpnyiw7FviAQ7N8oGtTKi2iv9XD5yemTShg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Brandon, SD","date","2025-05-15T00:00:00Z","article","The Planning and Zoning Commission on May 15 directed staff to interpret covered decks as equivalent to enclosed rooms for zoning and building-code purposes, with the result that covered decks must meet setbacks and applicable fire-protection requirements.

The discussion focused on an applicant proposal for Chestnut Ridge (submitted by Mr. Van Overshield) asking to allow elevated, covered decks to extend between property lines on attached residential units. Staff and commissioners said that when a roofed, covered deck is not open and unenclosed it is treated like a room: it must meet setback requirements and may require a firewall, foundation and other protections under the International Building Code (IBC).

Planning staff reviewed guidance from the City of Sioux Falls’ plan reviewers and building inspectors. Under that guidance, commissioners were told, where two covered deck structures are within 3 feet of each other the connecting element must be non-combustible (aluminum or steel frame) or be protected by a one-hour-rated wall; where a wall comes within 18 inches of the dwelling it is treated as a firewall and must extend to the roof sheathing to provide the required separation. Staff noted these are building-code interpretations and that sprinklers or additional measures might be required for larger apartment buildings.

Commissioners said they had no objection in principle to covered decks being constructed up to the property line provided they do not encroach into rear-yard setbacks and comply with the IBC requirements, including firewall continuity through concealed spaces and extension above eaves where applicable. The commission also noted that duplex covered patios at grade that remain within setbacks would be handled under the same interpretation.

Paul (staff) and Patrick (staff) confirmed that zoning and building-code enforcement would align: covered decks that effectively create enclosed or roofed space will be treated as rooms for permitting and setback purposes. The commission agreed to continue applying existing building-code standards when evaluating covered-deck proposals and to allow staff to use the Sioux Falls interpretations as guidance when issuing permits.

The commission did not vote on a formal ordinance change at the meeting; staff flagged that the primary change is an interpretive alignment between zoning practice and building-code enforcement rather than a text amendment to the zoning ordinance.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","May 15, 2025 Brandon Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting","oneSentenceSummary","The Planning and Zoning Commission discussed a proposal to allow covered decks to extend to the property line between attached units if fire-protection measures are met. Commissioners directed staff to follow International Building Code interpretations used by Sioux Falls and require firewalls, foundations and sprinklering where applicable.","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},6556983,"Commission refines freestanding sign draft, favors straight-line spacing and exempts directional signs",515,3141000,3656000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3339670-5418967ffd320e1f6971942ff307f657&start=3141&end=3656","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3339670-5418967ffd320e1f6971942ff307f657/thumbnail_3141000.jpg","/articles/6556983/Brandon/Minnehaha-County/South-Dakota/Commission-refines-freestanding-sign-draft-favors-straight-line-spacing-and-exempts-directional-signs","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6556983-c0c06424acfad1f55cce8ec0a1f5ac97/orig.mp4?Expires=1771153374&Signature=cAYBkbJPVh51Gk8Sszz6Uvt5xjqEdV7F3tcdaQXAKsRfOp5W2NxpOVQjGpv4GfuP8AbZ-MbIEFG4NhgbRiNLUDRUi2fIoP4cgLVBig4L~vQMzBGMp3aX3lXbuEA7EdTGiGk~BTI0mqQrk3QIHFi1sfRF5SIvvbTLVfylucYcyfM2VNS63ifqLK4kHJw7w-0pYg5JyhHVxfG7GZa1bBZBsxg8aWeYp2ximmc6dp7uak01c9ypucFUIlT5aWxA-00GkXGFVxH2wBgIhH0UOfE-rBSEbMUfrInhU8ag9z2-oewwC2UKOBzvTrgCDPL5SM2tnQN4NzwmmRLZpx~-DajmoA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Planning staff brought a revised draft on freestanding signage to the Planning and Zoning Commission on May 15, and commissioners asked staff to simplify how separation between freestanding signs is measured and to exclude directional signs from the sign allotment calculation.

Staff said the draft starts with one square foot of freestanding sign per linear foot of frontage up to 200 feet and would allow additional sign area for lots exceeding that frontage. Commissioners raised editing suggestions: replace “measured along the frontage” with a straight-line measurement between sign points and remove wording that could double the intended separation distance.

One commissioner noted a practical problem: counting small directional or entrance signs against the freestanding-sign allotment could produce absurd results, such as requiring a 200-foot separation for a small 4-square-foot directional marker. Patrick (planning staff) confirmed the commission’s prior practice of exempting directional signs from the allotment and said staff would preserve that exemption in the draft.

Commissioners asked staff to remove the highlighted language that referenced linear frontage measurement, keep the existing separation-distance calculation in the draft, and return a revised draft clarifying that distance is a straight line between sign locations. They also asked staff to correct phrasing such as “200 square feet of frontage” to read “200 feet of frontage” or “200 linear feet of frontage.”

The commission did not vote on an ordinance at the meeting; members asked staff to return with a cleaned-up draft for further review and left the item as an ongoing discussion item on the agenda.","Planning staff presented a revised freestanding sign draft May 15. Commissioners told staff to simplify measurement of separation to straight-line distances between signs and to exclude small directional signs from the spacing calculations.",{"_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},6556990,"Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously recommends council reject River Park rezoning",2966,147000,3113000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3339670-5418967ffd320e1f6971942ff307f657&start=147&end=3113","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3339670-5418967ffd320e1f6971942ff307f657/thumbnail_147000.jpg","/articles/6556990/Brandon/Minnehaha-County/South-Dakota/Planning-and-Zoning-Commission-unanimously-recommends-council-reject-River-Park-rezoning","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6556990-3f0029ca1c5d5557d50ffd70a059f3dd/orig.mp4?Expires=1771153374&Signature=fHexvzqZyyePRMU79XTsAsPVa~uVIoFq~WUHcUj4ed6Hus5bJFmIjV8K7kSah9bwTIVAU-YwZZ4O7KnBnrQz6D-SMCkSFjZ9Zzl4sh0vOb8WX8ft65k2wIf6LsQfyXLV6-udaFI1DZ-Q~xER94vLHBDYSTPpObB1AgeinHSJ8LQUg2AO6784hHaK3dh1Z0X2QuOd8hj5jsr0bexDxVgkWMy67WXxp3KEHePcOrfsJ~rwWebKFUK4PNwuSKdkKi5arbRbvbKUf78YmxaCFGDDWgLbiskuF4T9EH-jDmU3PWPBrbiFJ3xMBIthz6nhKb1VBKYDNB3hTGrOxCHsLldcaQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Planning and Zoning Commission voted unanimously May 15 to recommend the City Council deny a request to rezone four parcels in the River Park development from General Business to R-2, saying the proposal raised unresolved traffic and access concerns.

The vote was 6-0, with Commissioners Megan, Brian, Brooks, Rob, Alyssa and Michael recorded as voting in favor of the motion to recommend denial. The item will be on the City Council agenda Monday as a recommendation only.

Commissioners said their primary concern was that the proposed residential buildings would force commercial traffic — including delivery vehicles and service trucks — to use Riverstone, a street that would be flanked by residential development on both sides under the applicant’s plan. Commissioners also noted the parcel layout leaves the commercial lots to the north dependent on future, separate purchases or agreements to combine parking and driveways; there are currently no recorded easements guaranteeing shared access across the commercial lots.

Jordan Heffner, representing Van Buskirk and identified as the home-building division lead who said he would build the four units, described the proposal as four townhome/fourplex buildings (a total of 16 rental units) sited behind the Holly Boulevard commercial lots and facing south. Heffner said the developer’s intent is that the commercial parking areas along Holly would eventually be combined and provide multiple access points, but he acknowledged there are no signed contracts or recorded easements guaranteeing that outcome.

Staff member Patrick said the change before the commission is a rezone request and not a preliminary plat or final site plan; rezoning would only assign R-2 zoning to the four tracts and would not require the developer to build the plan shown to the commission. Patrick also explained that tabling would require renoticing a public hearing before the City Council.

Commissioners pressed for specifics including driveway locations, whether the businesses would be fronting Holly Boulevard, and whether the 40-foot access between two of the R-2 lots provided sufficient maneuvering room for commercial vehicles. One commissioner cited a section of the municipal code that prohibits parking within setbacks (quoted in the meeting as 15153.2), noting that the net usable width for access could be constrained after applying required setbacks.

Heffner said his division’s timeline called for starting construction July 1 with the aim of occupying the units between late 2025 and mid-February 2026, but he said the commercial lots to the north remain for sale and that intended shared parking and multiple driveways could not be guaranteed absent future agreements or consolidated development. He also said Van Buskirk has used similar arrangements in other communities, citing an example in Harrisburg where cross-parking between commercial parcels ties into residential roads, but he acknowledged that River Park’s layout differs and could present conflicts.

The commission’s motion, seconded during the meeting, directed staff to forward a recommendation against the rezone to the City Council. The record shows the commission’s action is advisory; the council retains final authority to approve or overturn the recommendation.

The commission did not adopt site-specific conditions because a rezoning cannot be conditioned on design elements, staff reminded commissioners.

The commission’s recommendation will go to the City Council with the record from this hearing. The council meeting is the next step in the process and could approve, modify or reject the rezone despite the planning commission’s recommendation.","The Planning and Zoning Commission voted 6-0 on May 15 to recommend the City Council not approve a request to rezone four parcels in River Park from General Business to R-2 to allow four residential buildings (fourplexes). Commissioners cited traffic access, single access drive concerns and uncertainty about future commercial lot development.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Commission agrees covered decks treated as rooms under building code; staff to enforce firewall and setback rules

Commission refines freestanding sign draft, favors straight-line spacing and exempts directional signs

Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously recommends council reject River Park rezoning