[{"_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",6523315,"mediaKeyId","5033175-e576990246370b69d9ac57578641a5a0","parentId",5033175,"title","Planning commission withdraws interstate signage overlay from public hearing after questions about size, height and frontage formulas","audioSeconds",1396,"startMs",1177000,"endMs",2573000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5033175-e576990246370b69d9ac57578641a5a0&start=1177&end=2573","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5033175-e576990246370b69d9ac57578641a5a0/thumbnail_1177000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6523315/Brandon/Minnehaha-County/South-Dakota/Planning-commission-withdraws-interstate-signage-overlay-from-public-hearing-after-questions-about-size-height-and-frontage-formulas","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6523315-2ad61afe5938b4ae4023f6fa17be9cb2/orig.mp4?Expires=1776276940&Signature=U3d4OOsXX0u77A8o7L-OjuhJVrloMbxbSp10F18G7I5y~ZhWRjTbmCov3hGtaXlkqxt~Cn-zBC6jT9OEMuTw1Rw0hJ6hKcE9iYhWUwIGn3Oxk5ZClNXtiVAfXDYtvlPNP0Kc4RMmAaVJ-Iyyce6pZRYRa3nxPt3-IMPsNqjIJktg7QICjKW-snYGWwSuoG3pZnVq4uD2KTf-f8Zpm7gioB-T2C11QxPpq~ci4x4geZuJ-h-aFAnaiqB7frDZpAam8LVYTJBEBVoh9bSN3ZIsu~QGosawlevWAYQ5ewHyQj5dEgl5RebrUmEV4IVaU8sbSlEkjphh1goxJ2ArCRaK6A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Brandon, SD","date","2025-06-20T12:26:10Z","article","The Granite Planning and Zoning Commission voted on June 18 to withdraw the proposed Interstate Signage Overlay District from public hearing and re-advertise the item for further review, after commissioners raised questions about sign height, sign area and how the overlay would interact with a separate freestanding-sign amendment for the city’s General Business district.

Chair Alyssa (Planning and Zoning Commission) opened discussion by urging that the commission not finalize changes without input from the full six‑member panel: “I would suggest that we table any final vote. We can discuss it, but I think before anybody makes a motion, I would feel more comfortable if we get everybody’s input,” she said. The commission then voted to pull the overlay back from public hearing and re-advertise it later; the motion carried unanimously among those present.

Why it matters: commissioners said the proposed overlay could allow very large, visible signs intended for interstate motorists — potentially multiple 90‑foot signs on a single parcel — and they want clearer limits so one large property does not receive outsized signage compared with neighboring lots. Staff and members discussed several technical approaches, including limiting the overlay to a single freestanding sign per parcel, revising the formula that ties allowed sign area to linear frontage, and creating a distinct height/area rule for the overlay that differs from the city’s General Business (GB) standards.

Discussion highlights
- Commissioners repeatedly used the QuickStart/QuickStar parcel as an example of how current draft language could create permissive outcomes on large or multi‑frontage lots. Several commissioners said the frontage‑based formula used in the GB amendment could either penalize or overly benefit parcels with three frontages unless the overlay uses a different calculation.
- Commissioner input included proposals to limit the overlay to a single 90‑foot freestanding sign per parcel and to retain a frontage‑based calculation but change the step‑down method that applies after a specified frontage threshold.
- Staff (Patrick, city planner) explained procedural options: the commission could continue the public hearing (keeping the item noticed for future meetings) or withdraw it from public hearing and re‑advertise once the commission has drafted more specific language. Continuing the public hearing would avoid re‑advertising but could require repeated public attendance until the commission completes its review; withdrawing would require a new notice but would let staff coordinate the overlay and the GB freestanding‑sign amendment for simultaneous public notice.
- Commissioners also considered costs of re‑publication and fairness to interested citizens; staff noted re‑advertising fees are modest but would be required if the commission withdrew the item.

Outcome and next steps
The commission formally voted to pull the Interstate Signage Overlay District back from public hearing and to re‑advertise the proposal later so the full commission can review revised language. The freestanding‑sign amendment for the General Business district will remain on the work program and be considered in parallel with the overlay. Staff will return with revised draft language and consolidated materials for the next substantive discussion and public hearing schedule.

No formal numeric thresholds or final ordinance language were adopted at the June 18 meeting; commissioners directed staff to prepare revised drafts that address: (1) how sign area should be calculated for parcels with multiple frontages; (2) whether the overlay should allow more sign area or greater height than GB rules; and (3) whether the overlay should cap the number of freestanding signs per parcel (for example, one 90‑foot sign only).","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","June 18, 2025 Brandon Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting","oneSentenceSummary","The Granite Planning and Zoning Commission voted on June 18 to withdraw the proposed Interstate Signage Overlay District from public hearing and re-advertise the item for further review, after commissioners raised questions about sign height, sign area and how the overlay would interact with a separate freestanding-sign amendment for the city’s General Business district.","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},6523299,"Staff proposes clarifications to variance appeals process after council rehearing raises timing and documentation questions",296,4187000,4483000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5033175-e576990246370b69d9ac57578641a5a0&start=4187&end=4483","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5033175-e576990246370b69d9ac57578641a5a0/thumbnail_4187000.jpg","/articles/6523299/Brandon/Minnehaha-County/South-Dakota/Staff-proposes-clarifications-to-variance-appeals-process-after-council-rehearing-raises-timing-and-documentation-questions","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6523299-9759d9a4dbeb97ac3ac5397cbc7300a2/orig.mp4?Expires=1776276940&Signature=eix-MlBKfc9QH~ZxgxINvDBgm5Z6LvNH3g5ZkBkUrnftkSQFVERVsbSmXo0Umkl~mp22gm6gpuXt42qgy0Nbi3ED4KMsTRgm591XvWxE9Eu8GTwt3pjM85uIWk61x3f2xEAepXCbhGo5c1hGsuM7vw33e7-cHgGAaKM61XHhHXx4R~9XPsn--h5FjIw~5TVHJVQGp-X~PHxHq10tCzWN9QpuyfHa-q-2WRmIxATB8le-CDN6cVKxgkOzJgxTCfWovcXCHNCVmzKTrEUYJKP~TDF9lZS7FMhMrP91qTYL09NfFrRMr2DXeIuLXo8R~NUecvs6eh~h9LDXolgb1-Hpjw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","City planning staff presented proposed amendments to the variance appeals process intended to clarify timing and documentation requirements and to mirror language used for conditional use permits. The commission discussed procedural issues after a recent case in which the Planning & Zoning Commission did not approve a variance but the City Council later approved the same variance.

Staff (Patrick) said the draft changes tighten the timeline for filing an appeal and clarify that the board chair or staff can prepare written findings. He said existing language could create situations in which the council would need to call a special meeting to meet the current 10‑working‑day requirement and that mirroring conditional‑use timing language would avoid such conflicts.

Commissioners asked whether City Council must complete the same written finding of hardship when it rehears and overturns a denial by P&Z. Staff replied conceptually yes: council must find a hardship to overturn a P&Z decision, though staff could not confirm whether council staff completed the same form in the recent case. Commissioners requested clearer direction in the code so that whether a variance is granted or denied, a written record explaining the hardship or basis for denial exists in the minutes or formal documentation.

No vote was taken on code language at the June 18 meeting. Staff said it will redraft proposed text to make timing and documentation expectations explicit and return with clean language for the commission to consider at a future meeting.","Planning staff brought draft amendments to the city’s variance appeals process to ensure written findings and timing align with council and board schedules; commissioners discussed whether City Council must document hardship when it overturns a P&Z decision.",{"_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},6523305,"Commission continues Coughlin Nursery planned development discussion; staff to refine sidewalk, frontage and yard language",1043,2541000,3584000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5033175-e576990246370b69d9ac57578641a5a0&start=2541&end=3584","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5033175-e576990246370b69d9ac57578641a5a0/thumbnail_2541000.jpg","/articles/6523305/Brandon/Minnehaha-County/South-Dakota/Commission-continues-Coughlin-Nursery-planned-development-discussion-staff-to-refine-sidewalk-frontage-and-yard-language","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6523305-4a711f432962c5a837a39d428e7a5a2a/orig.mp4?Expires=1776276940&Signature=ciCBk6kRIfm63V8Bgdz1im7hpU4LmcLlY979xO~OijKMCXekMUm0pgkFNmMgyYtnf5CWuRpc2qtRM2OPoKNJq9JL5Hs3x1VdnBl7QGMpsF7P2qvmeQcwbIJIF-TAi9~MGJFOhycyzh3IMhsVtiXtqasGeJqR~K0I1BKtdGy2k0cGhNT3T06McdXT4Frf63EwsT0zEKfeKgw4Swx~8JHK4X-3ehqvekYwh717jJyqs0UILKY5YCYjHI1vlPtZQ2WJDlnGx4aZIgvhNaJ71m5YxWfhBi11lZTUCoHYp6Ae1hjQ2VCUNzxu~s9XO~1jkjgR2lQASLw-SCAtI6WpDetUbA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Commissioners reviewed a draft Planned Development (PD) for the Coughlin Nursery site and asked staff to refine several technical provisions before the scheduled public hearing on July 3. Staff said the PD would cover Lot 1 in the proposed Coughlin Second Addition (the larger parcel that includes the existing Oak Ridge nursery) and would list permitted uses, yard and lot standards and special area regulations.

Key points discussed
- Permitted uses: The draft PD would allow the existing landscaping/nursery retail business, a public event center for potential future use, and a single‑family detached dwelling on the same parcel. Staff recommended that where the PD is silent, the relevant standards from Chapter 15.15 (General Business) apply to the nursery uses and Chapter 15.15 standards for R‑1 apply to the single‑family portion.
- Sidewalks: Staff recommended using the city’s sidewalk exemption form rather than embedding a permanent sidewalk exemption in the ordinance. The exemption form allows council to grant or later require sidewalks without changing ordinance language; commissioners favored the exemption approach for flexibility.
- Lot and yard rules: Because Lot 1 will have multiple frontages and both business and residential uses, commissioners asked staff to clarify how front, side and rear yards will be defined and applied to future improvements. Staff proposed reproducing an exhibit that defines frontages by use and access, similar to a previous PD (Augusta Place) with a non‑rectangular lot.
- Existing structures and access: Commissioners noted several existing greenhouses and small buildings that are expected to be removed; staff said future platting and replatting will be required for any subdivision of Lot 1 and that the legal description must be corrected to reflect the pending plat.
- Access and right‑of‑way: Commissioners asked about access to Lot 3 and possible DOT constraints; staff said access along Split Rock Boulevard will be governed by DOT standards and that some future access points may be 600 feet from Split Rock per DOT guidelines.

Next steps
Staff said they will produce a revised PD draft and clarified exhibit defining frontages and setbacks and will circulate the draft to commissioners in advance of the July 3 meeting. The commission did not take a final vote on the PD on June 18 and discussed coordinating the PD and future platting steps to avoid procedural conflicts.","The commission reviewed a draft Planned Development (PD) for Lot 1 of the proposed Coughlin second addition and asked staff to clarify the legal description, sidewalk exemptions, frontage and front‑yard definitions before the July 3 public hearing.",{"_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},6523310,"Planning commission recommends rezoning half‑acre Pearson lot to R‑2 to allow two residences",896,293000,1189000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5033175-e576990246370b69d9ac57578641a5a0&start=293&end=1189","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5033175-e576990246370b69d9ac57578641a5a0/thumbnail_293000.jpg","/articles/6523310/Brandon/Minnehaha-County/South-Dakota/Planning-commission-recommends-rezoning-halfacre-Pearson-lot-to-R2-to-allow-two-residences","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6523310-45de4e1eff853f0fc93c111af7b10b9d/orig.mp4?Expires=1776276940&Signature=m4pYUj-TNO2TlE8bREQX4EysG4nkdpvyz6XNFHBuoyl19~CwKLhAaQilcfcwXXsmCrT3VdsDC27bUt-KlZouTJ-R6KYdp7NoipTULss8G~-be5WXwPRLHUYs1UleM--05-z936V5cyEEHjj3qYq5Tw0MWpEVmadKiguApNyxReKkXL8pNRDcIt5CX26yclCyzVN6W0O26FyWnpS6QFIdCbMgzkvzMZMHFktvIZERRa-5oExgEcguJsWWmCsz5vmm0WB7xZT7b8SeIQtwW8plViyPzAL7er-UfvAjlYJVx5CW6dx8H647lwR-Nv5QCktZxtzKj4ODvxM~nNPKU40DMA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Granite Planning and Zoning Commission voted on June 18 to recommend that City Council approve a rezoning application for a half‑acre lot in the Pearson Subdivision from NRC to R‑2, allowing two residences on a single building lot. The commission’s recommendation goes to City Council, which is scheduled to hear the matter on July 7.

Applicant James Westcott, who said he lives in Brandon at 817 South Sixth Avenue, told commissioners the parcel would let his son and daughter each occupy one residence in a duplex or similar two‑unit configuration, allowing the family to build equity while remaining in the area. “We are looking to purchase a piece of property for my son and for my daughter … to put a duplex or a split home concept on that,” Westcott said.

Staff (Patrick) explained the zoning constraints: the lot is approximately a half acre and is not served by city water or sewer, so any development would need well and septic systems. He said R‑1 (single‑family) zoning with a conditional use for a twin home is theoretically possible but the parcel’s frontage — roughly 70 feet — falls about 10 feet short of the R‑1 frontage requirement. R‑2 standards, he said, would meet the frontage requirement for the proposed configuration.

Commissioners discussed differences between duplexes and twin homes, subdivision implications, and utility access. Patrick noted that if subdividing into two separately platted units later, frontage minimums could prevent a split into separate lots without meeting R‑1 frontage standards; separate septic systems would likely be required if the units were sold independently.

Action and next steps
Noah moved to recommend approval to City Council and Bridal seconded. The motion passed; the commission will forward its recommendation to City Council, which will hold the final public hearing and decision on July 7. Staff advised the applicant on conditional‑use and subdivision constraints and the need to address utilities (well/septic) during permitting.

Provenance: The rezoning application and public hearing discussion began when the applicant introduced himself and explained plans, and concluded with the commission’s motion to recommend approval. No final city‑level approval occurred on June 18.","The commission voted to recommend R‑2 rezoning for a half‑acre lot in the Pearson Subdivision so the applicant can construct two separate residences on one building (duplex/attached), citing frontage and lot-size constraints that make R‑1 with subdivision less practical.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Planning commission withdraws interstate signage overlay from public hearing after questions about size, height and frontage formulas

Staff proposes clarifications to variance appeals process after council rehearing raises timing and documentation questions

Commission continues Coughlin Nursery planned development discussion; staff to refine sidewalk, frontage and yard language

Planning commission recommends rezoning half‑acre Pearson lot to R‑2 to allow two residences