[{"_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",6503048,"mediaKeyId","5664107-a4185af55b3ada95236b6099b241543d","parentId",5664107,"title","Commission begins cleanup of zoning definitions; flagpole lots and front-yard rules flagged for clarification","audioSeconds",495,"startMs",2891000,"endMs",3386000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5664107-a4185af55b3ada95236b6099b241543d&start=2891&end=3386","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5664107-a4185af55b3ada95236b6099b241543d/thumbnail_2891000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6503048/Brandon/Minnehaha-County/South-Dakota/Commission-begins-cleanup-of-zoning-definitions-flagpole-lots-and-front-yard-rules-flagged-for-clarification","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6503048-ef0b0ad0d34e3774de17386e6543b0bf/orig.mp4?Expires=1771126731&Signature=IKu7uWOzodATFKutKGX7-KZlSmeQkSqr61r6RxR1umKCbYQUcslbTI3gPGaLmVXViAGVH5eYysmr1xOcNEEWnjOSo3fS~lE06YiMZwFArCKUBe95smn~xQtdl2n648043Ekxft~yYk-e1D3MlbSznHrtHvDeTEn56C5nWiKcfO4e28mbiT1HxWnwnaf-k~KRbluH-bnHTX9X5JBCRvoh-Jt8H25zF4DU9bOruIj14VXRWqq3p-pDUf7fZcG2QNtmsHBo~Zj6ThOCeyK24rTq09Q0O~HN7~OrG0f72ZuHcBs-Jtex2KTjypBGO2DBU6KtNjVMlsZhfqPPAHsB9uP8ow__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Brandon, SD","date","2025-08-22T12:22:29.61Z","article","The Planning and Zoning Commission discussed a broader cleanup of zoning definitions on Aug. 6, with staff urging commissioners to point out the definitions that cause the most permit delays or confusion.

Planning staff said the code currently defines a front yard as the yard across the full width of the lot extending from the front line of the main building to the front line of the lot, but that phrasing is ambiguous for irregular or \"funky\" lots. Staff recommended treating the front yard as the building's \"ebb and flow\"—that is, the portion of the lot forward of the building face where most people would consider their front yard. The commission asked staff to provide graphics showing common problem lot shapes and suggested staff start with the highest-priority definitions that cause administrative back-and-forth.

Another specific item flagged was the \"flagpole lot\"—a lot connected to the street by a narrow driveway or access strip that then opens into a larger buildable area. Staff said the city has many such lots in older neighborhoods (for example, along Sioux Boulevard and Redwood) and that the current code does not explicitly address when the narrow access is treated as frontage or when the broader area should be considered the front yard. Commissioners suggested examples and thresholds used by other jurisdictions might help but asked staff to return with recommended language and illustrative graphics.

No ordinances were adopted; staff will prepare a prioritized list of problematic definitions, draft clearer wording (potentially with diagrams), and bring the first batch back to the commission for review. Commissioners said clearer, illustrated definitions would reduce permit-processing time and increase predictability for property owners and builders.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","August 21, 2025 Brandon Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting","oneSentenceSummary","Staff asked the Planning and Zoning Commission to identify ambiguous definitions (for example, front yard, flagpole lots) and prioritize which to revise; commissioners asked for graphics and a prioritized list to guide staff edits.","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},6503053,"Commission discusses mutual-access easements, sidewalks and appeals for shared parking",1961,993000,2954000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5664107-a4185af55b3ada95236b6099b241543d&start=993&end=2954","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5664107-a4185af55b3ada95236b6099b241543d/thumbnail_993000.jpg","/articles/6503053/Brandon/Minnehaha-County/South-Dakota/Commission-discusses-mutual-access-easements-sidewalks-and-appeals-for-shared-parking","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6503053-f385671cb219311ba48a1ddd5d0cb640/orig.mp4?Expires=1771126731&Signature=MVEYL08vVtgnzO6wY9E4-z0GnlJ~dUVO01CURfBwSRATGMuQoVL-geKlinNbDw4SLV-dd~8lL-C6eDcyLfln2JdlI2m52lpepku-yhCdwgeS2~GJKCh12GNv8W37nFoMedZIa8gr133wT4OH1S-SFQptn21tV-NoJusQvHHxAQ~Edr7t55nyV5tXzkhKehNCehFuKg3JA1tqg~JGr02bn9VBWyeSkF9vPNR~4zuwjQwPrSyo7pS9kMC4lJ5ZDh2rqNlGZdpOpDHblNkKiVNd2rsGtp3hZTbEv8acIfX8kRd4SXhK0Ali~sbjkM~HEcvX9jh0qif3hT3FSn1xQxg7oQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Planning staff asked the commission on Aug. 6 to clarify how the municipal code should treat different types of mutual-access easements so staff and future engineers apply consistent requirements for sidewalks, setbacks and appeals.

The discussion identified three common mutual-access types: private-street-style easements that function like a road with sidewalks and setbacks; driveway-style easements that serve one or two properties; and parking-lot easements that allow vehicular circulation through contiguous commercial lots. Staff said current code language spreads related rules across several sections (for example, a provision leaving parking-lot mutual-access decisions to the city engineer and a conditional-use chapter that suggests a different approval path).

Tammy, the city engineer, described recent increases in proposals that share parking between businesses and said such easements raise recurring questions about when sidewalks and curb treatments should be required. Tammy said, \"I don't think we should require sidewalks through a parking lot type of thing,\" explaining the difference between an access that serves as a street and an easement that merely allows circulation inside a parking field.

Commissioners and staff used local examples to probe how the rules should work: projects named River Park and Brandon 90 Plaza include parking-lot connections and internal garages; Split Rock was cited for a sidewalk that connects across a lawn into a parking area; Coughlin's and other private drives were discussed as cases where staff typically would not require a full sidewalk. Commissioners emphasized that ADA access to buildings must be preserved regardless of whether a dedicated sidewalk is required through a parking lot.

Several commissioners expressed concern that leaving decisions to a future city engineer without an appeal route could create inconsistency. Staff noted that the city engineer currently makes certain determinations but that the code does not clearly specify an appeal path to the board of adjustment for those engineer-level decisions. Commissioners urged staff to define categories of mutual access in the code and specify when an easement should be treated like a street (with sidewalks and setbacks) versus a driveway or internal parking circulation (with different standards).

Staff said they will prepare proposed language and standards—potentially distinguishing \"mutual access street,\" \"mutual access driveway,\" and \"parking-lot mutual access\" in definitions and design standards—and return to the commission for additional direction. No vote was taken; commissioners asked staff to draft objective criteria so future applicants and staff have predictable, consistent requirements.","Staff asked the Planning and Zoning Commission to clarify mutual-access easement types (private street, driveway, parking-lot access), sidewalk and setback requirements, and appeal routes when the city engineer makes determinations; staff will draft standards to reduce inconsistent staff-level decisions.",{"_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},6503058,"Planning and Zoning Commission reviews municipal-code changes to allow reasonable housing accommodations under federal law",872,113000,985000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5664107-a4185af55b3ada95236b6099b241543d&start=113&end=985","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5664107-a4185af55b3ada95236b6099b241543d/thumbnail_113000.jpg","/articles/6503058/Brandon/Minnehaha-County/South-Dakota/Planning-and-Zoning-Commission-reviews-municipal-code-changes-to-allow-reasonable-housing-accommodations-under-federal-law","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6503058-8e3c4271c2521f4070da5dc48fdd46bd/orig.mp4?Expires=1771126731&Signature=c0A-pWEqJCUBxoxM44QUclet9VxA2F0Pz6OjQK7VQuTJFLubl3b9lACXs-8Fw5FNwFEQ6NBVJ~qP8kGipCiH57MxAhxLQ3xOlfiH8NMU6odoQ4a0LvqJNpi5s~tH5UXj-A2znOXWs-5-DKbbC5TldfPH-u0K81~xrOk1U9kVNppzin4HG8skiQu9aPhWYX6sKF5WtM8KQEAHClp6n6qMxdWG5qXUvmksdTTYDh-UkVZEv1sw2BZOljYXjjKs5v0ICD3qNzQFcRCWEtC5jevjSv-ZK6nR8Czr4aPtpFvTkbI-AERNiwlRDb-2AHpBJ0Nq99oC0sAV7YHMJFU26cO1MA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","City planning staff brought draft municipal-code amendments to the Planning and Zoning Commission on Aug. 6 that would create a process for granting \"reasonable accommodations or modifications\" for housing as required by the Fair Housing Act amendments of 1988.

The proposal would give staff the authority to decide requests first, with appeals handled through the normal appeals process (the board of adjustment), unless the commission directs otherwise. Patrick, a planning staff member presenting the amendments, said the changes are meant to provide an alternative to the higher variance standard and to help the city comply with federal law.

The change matters because the variance standard is typically difficult for applicants to meet; the proposed reasonable-accommodation process would allow exceptions to zoning when a qualifying disability and a demonstrated need exist. Patrick said, \"necessary is the keyword,\" explaining that a finding of necessity would be central to determining whether an accommodation is granted.

Commissioners raised questions about scope and safeguards. One commissioner asked whether the amendment applies only to housing and not to commercial structures; staff answered that the primary focus is housing, because the 1988 amendments to the Fair Housing Act address housing accommodations. Commissioners also asked how the rule might be applied to developer requests—examples discussed included elevators for multistory buildings and adding exterior elements in setback areas. Staff said the proposal is most likely to apply to modifying existing buildings, where alternatives may be limited, and that the required findings (including necessity) would shape decisions.

Related code edits were presented alongside the municipal-code amendment so commissioners could see the package together. One is an administrative-and-enforcement change that cross-references the reasonable-accommodation language so staff determinations and appeals are consistent. The other would add reasonable-accommodation language to the city's replat requirement that normally forces adjacent lots to be replatted when improvements cross lot lines; the amendment would permit an exception in some accommodation cases so owners need not pursue a costly replat solely to install an accessibility feature.

Staff emphasized that requests would generally require an identifiable individual or group with a disability as the basis for the accommodation, and that applicants often include property managers or developers working on behalf of an owner. Patrick said the city would likely consult the city attorney on individual requests. Commissioners and staff agreed they do not intend to create a loophole that lets developers avoid normal construction obligations, but they also said the city needs a clear, lawful procedure to consider accommodation requests.

The commission did not take a final vote on the ordinance package at the Aug. 6 meeting. Staff said it will research and return with clarified language on scope (housing vs. commercial) and strengthen any necessary findings for the next meeting when the items move toward public hearings and formal action.

For now, the changes remain draft code language with staff direction to refine the text and bring a revised packet to a future meeting.","Staff asked the Planning and Zoning Commission whether determinations on reasonable accommodations required by the 1988 Fair Housing Act amendments should be handled by staff or elevated to the commission; commissioners discussed scope (housing vs. commercial), tests for necessity, and two related code edits on administration and lot replatting.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Commission begins cleanup of zoning definitions; flagpole lots and front-yard rules flagged for clarification

Commission discusses mutual-access easements, sidewalks and appeals for shared parking

Planning and Zoning Commission reviews municipal-code changes to allow reasonable housing accommodations under federal law