Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Hey, Roland here.

Martin, why don't you roll call for me?

Genslinger. Gunkel. Culloway. Here. Osterloh. Here. Schmitz.

Here.

Schurz. Here. Sonny. Bathke. Here. We have a quorum.

Okay, do we have any conflicts of interest to discuss? Hearing none, we need an approval of the agenda. Move to approve.

Second.

Move to second. All in favor say aye. Aye. We will schedule the next meeting, or we propose that we schedule the next meeting on June 22, 2026. Minutes. Oh, let's back up. We need approval of the previous minutes from May 11, 2026. Move to approve. A MOTION TO APPROVE IN A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. NEW SPEAKER. NEW SPEAKER. NEW SPEAKER. NEW SPEAKER. NEW SPEAKER. NEW SPEAKER. NEW SPEAKER. NEW SPEAKER. NEW SPEAKER.

NEW SPEAKER. NEW SPEAKER.

NEW SPEAKER. NEW SPEAKER. NEW SPEAKER. NEW SPEAKER. NEW SPEAKER. NEW SPEAKER. NEW SPEAKER. NEW SPEAKER. NEW SPEAKER. NEW SPEAKER. NEW SPEAKER. NEW SPEAKER. NEW SPEAKER. NEW SPEAKER. NEW SPEAKER. NEW SPEAKER. THIS SHOULD LOOK FAMILIAR TO YOU. THIS IS OFF OF SOUTH OLMAN STREET. BACK IN MAY OF 2025, THE PLAN WAS APPROVED FOR THE BUILDING PERMITS FOR THIS, SO NOW THEY ARE PLATTING OUT EACH INDIVIDUAL BUILDING SO THAT WAY THEY CAN SELL THEM TO

whoever's going to own the buildings. There is drainage easement along, utility easement along the backside. Lot six is essentially their drainage pond, which will be here. They'll have an HOA for the road crumbling across in the middle of it. They have a signage easement as well on it. It fits within our zoning code for the plaque. I can't answer any questions you have. Applicants here, if you have any questions for him as well.

Does the committee have any questions? Can you? Your mic did not come in through on YouTube. Thank you.

How's that?

You just have to have it right in front of you. Yeah. Sorry.

Are there any questions from the committee?

Not to know.

Would the owner like to address the committee?

My name is Jeremy Jensen, owner of Jensen Capital and Development, and through our construction division of Jensen Design Build. This is our newest business center. We call it the Mitchell Business Center, just off the bypass in Interstate 90. Just a project that we're doing. We are bringing a lot of new businesses to Mitchell, and we've had great success in that. Currently working with three new businesses in Mitchell, and We are, I think, three out of the five lots already committed. So we've seen great success in that, bringing business to Mitchell, and we continue to do that.

Thank you, Jeremy. Thank you. Any other questions or comments from the audience? Seeing none, we're looking for a motion to approve the plan, as read. motion approved we have a motion and a second all in favor say aye aye motion approved Number eight, rezoning hearing and recommendation for the Harris Properties, LLC, southwest corner of Elm Avenue and Iowa Street. Harris Properties, LLC, is requesting the following properties legally described as lot 1A, a subdivision of a portion of a previously platted irregular track 1 in the southeast quarter of section 21, township 103 north, range west of the 5th PM, city of Mitchell, Davidson County, South Dakota, to be changed from highway density residential to district to highway-oriented business district, and the official zoning map be changed to reflect the same.

Mark? Notices were sent out to the neighbors, published in the paper, signs posted. There were five responses in your packet that were opposed to it. In front of you, you have three that were also returned that were in favor of it. I have those three on the screen as well. They had some comments with some of them. And then also there were three that did make the packet that were opposed as well from some of the neighbors there with comments on some of those. But you have all six of the ones that did not make the packet in front of you for you to read as well. Yeah, the applicant would like to rezone it to highway business. They would like to essentially mirror what is to the south. That building up onto this property to the north here, that's the reason for the reason, although reason is for, I would business not specifically to that building itself. It would open it up to the whole code itself. The applicants here can be questions for him. I can answer any questions that you have for me as well. Any questions from the committee.

Is that alley vacated there then?

It is not vacated, no.

So that's still not vacated?

That's still public right.

I just saw that yellow line there that went up to that, so that's what, okay.

Yep. Would the applicant like to address the committee?

Dave Harris with Harris Rock, please. What we're looking to do, we worked with Ethan Lumber to design the building to fit the code, be six more units plus a garage on the end with the garage doors facing the east. So we did get a little pushback from some of the neighbors. We had other neighbors come up and just ask us what we were doing, and they were fine with it. But yeah, I guess if you have any questions, let me know. Any questions?

Yeah. Are you planning on coming back later to vacate that little chunk of out?

No. Okay. No. I think it runs all the way through the way you're saying it.

But I'm just curious since you got the property. Yeah. I'll leave that part alone.

That alley does dead end to the west further. Right. Anybody to the west of him would have to sign off on the vacation as well.

Well, I was just kind of curious if he's going to try to get the neighbors and all that stuff.

Is there any other input from the audience? Hearing none, we are looking for a motion to approve. Move to approve. Is there a second?

I'll go ahead and second it. I'm not in favor of it, but I'll second it to bring it to a vote.

So we have a motion and a second. Mark, would you like to do this one by roll call? I think you should. Let's do that.

Hello.

Yes.

Oscar Lou.

No.

schmitz no jurors no motion failed but will be heard by council for the first screening next monday okay moving on to item nine a variance permit submitted by corey hauser corey hauser has applied for a variance permit for a combination of accessory buildings of 2380 square feet versus the 2 000 square feet This is located at 1420 East Birch Avenue, legally described as Lot 11 and 12, Block 6, Fairview Edition, City of Mitchell, Davidson County, South Dakota. The property is zoned R2, single-family residential district. Mark.

Notices are sent out to neighbors, published in the paper, signs posted. There weren't any responses that were in your packet. There was one that did not make your packet, though. That was in favor of it. I'll scroll to that one. right here from one of the neighbors. The applicant would like to tear down their existing shed or garage that they have and then build a bigger garage that would be 38 by 50 for the roof overhang. He does have a variance for the carport that's 24 by 20. So with the carport and the new garage, that's where you get over the 2000 square feet. I can't answer any questions that you have. I believe the applicant is here. So the carport would remain? Carport would remain and still have the variance attached with it because that's not getting taken down at all. It's just the existing garage that will go away and build a new garage and the carport next to it then.

Was there any conditions on that carport we had like attached to the, we had no conditions?

There were no conditions attached with that, no. Okay.

So what's the total square footage of the new garage done, the 38 by 50? 38 by 50.

It's under 2,000.

It's under 2,000, yeah. But with the carport. Yeah, but add the carport, that's 24 by 20. Gets you over the 2,000 combined.

Any more questions from the committee?

So this is all one lot here. Yeah. And he's got two houses on that lot.

The GIS is not correct on this. They have combined the two lots into one lot.

Otherwise, you wouldn't be able to build on that.

Right, because you'd be going across the property lines and you'd have to get variances to go with the zero.

So that variance, was that just... That wasn't for the side yard setback, right?

It was for the side yard setback, yes.

So is he going to make this even with this carport then?

Well, it'd be side corner yard setback that he got the bearings for, not to the north. It'd be to the east. Oh, okay. That's where the carport bearings was for.

Okay. I thought maybe it was to the north of it. No. Okay. Go ahead.

He meets a setback on the alley side.

Yeah, he meets a setback on the north side. That's right. And that's the 50-foot length. The 50-foot is at the alley side.

Yes, 50 runs east-west.

And he still has room there for those cars to park in the back. Obviously, that must be some kind of rental or something.

John, what is required to set back off the alley?

Three feet.

Any input from the audience? Hearing none, we're looking for a motion to approve. I move to approve. We have a motion. Is there a second?

Second.

We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. All opposed?

Aye. Motion approved. Yes. Okay. It's served by Board of Adjustment next Monday at 6 p.m.

Okay. Item 10, plat for Brian and Cynthia Dixon. Plat of lots 1 and 2, a subdivision of lot B in the northwest quarter of section 25, township 103, north range 61 west of the 5th DM, Davidson County, South Dakota.

This plat is located outside city limits and the ETJ, but within three miles of city limits. Therefore, it is Davidson County zoning authority for these parcels, and there are some variances that go with it. Um, for the county portion of it, Davis county planning commission recommended approval of the plot and the variances board of adjustment and county commission will hear tomorrow at their meeting. An applicant is subdividing their existing lot into 2. they're going to build on the. Could be the East slot, which is this slot right here. They built a shed. They're going to build a new residence. They're going to sell their existing house to their son then. They are using the same access on here. So there will not be another access off of the road, off of Cemetery Road there. There's an easement for that. I can answer any questions that you have. Any questions from the committee?

Audience?

Any input? OK, we need a motion to approve. Oh, it's approved.

Second. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion approved. Item 11, variance permit, Muller Lumber Company on behalf of Dennis and Diane Hartman. Muller Lumber Company, on behalf of Dennis and Diane Hartman, have applied for a variance permit for east and west side yard setbacks of four foot versus eight foot. This is located at 605 West Pine Avenue, legally described as lot two, block two, MLC addition. A subdivision of block three, Morning View, addition to the city of Mitchell-Davidson County, South Dakota, the property is zoned Muller Lumber Morning View Subdivision Plan Unit Development District.

Notices were sent out to neighbors, published in the paper, signs posted. There was one response that was opposed to it that made your packet. There was also another one that was opposed that did not make your packet. You have that in front of you. It's also up on the board right there that had some comments with it. Applicant would like to build a dwelling unit. This is a PUD for molar lumber. Um, there's states that it's 8 foot. This would be a 4 foot instead. Um, there are no easements on the east or west side for utility or drainage easements with this plan. I checked into that to make sure. Go along with that. Um, you can see the layout of the overall, uh, view of this lot. Um. See, it's north is up, not down like it shows on the plan itself, but can answer any questions you have applicants here. If you have any questions for them, you can see the comments from the neighbors that are disapprove of it.

Mark, I'm assuming the surrounding houses have met the criteria of the eight-foot setback? That's correct.

For kind of a new area, didn't you want to do a variance already? How many variances have been done in this area that we, you know?

I believe there were a couple for front or for rear yard. I don't know about side yard setbacks. There haven't been any since I started five years ago.

All right.

Applicant might have a better answer for you than myself.

Before we do the applicant, any other committee questions? Is this a slab home or a basement?

Slab. There's no basement underneath.

There hasn't been any variances through that whole subdivision, other than one because the lot wasn't deep enough. The previous owner had sold part of a lot on the north side, but this is on the south side. Muller Lumber owns the property to the south. And there's an existing residence that we built on the east side and west side. I don't know if you have any information from the neighbors. Have you received anything? Yeah.

Yeah. 607 and I believe 601, both were the ones that responded with the opposition about they had to follow the rules, so they feel like this one should as well. Which one was that? Both neighbors, east and west side. Really? Okay.

Hey, Bob, do you know, have you read this about the description of the hardship? What did you say now? I said, did you read the description of the hardship for this? Very good.

Probably, I guess I can't recall right now. I didn't read it this morning, but I received it a few days ago.

It says the residence is set to its dimension as such to fulfill the owner's desired vision for the residence. Now, you think that's a hardship?

I don't know how to describe that. It's basically not hardship. The owners have designed a nice residence to go there.

Well, very nice residence, but maybe it's not the spot for this residence. Maybe you should find a lot that this would fit on.

I don't know how to answer that. I guess we can go back to the owner.

I guess what is the square footage of this house?

It's about 1950. 1950. Yeah, I think 1976 and there's about 1,100 square foot garage attached to it.

So did the owners already purchase this lot?

Yes, they have.

So were they aware when they purchased it of the setback that they need it or not?

They had all of the requirements. This is what the owner decided they wanted to build. The owner is here, but I don't know how to answer that beyond that point. No, that answers it for me.

Any other further questions for Bob? Do we have some additional input from the audience?

That's it. Thank you.

Sir, do you wish to approach?

I didn't hear you.

Do you have something to add to this?

Yes. Your name? My name is... My name is Larry Mathis. I live on the east side of this and I'm also representing Sam who lives on the west side. We don't feel it's fair that we should lose four foot of easement or whatever setback for something like this. A zoning Regarding this variance, to get a variance required is a hardship requirement caused by physical features. The variance for this personal variance is not what should be in order to get a bigger home on a smaller lot. Each lot for myself and Sam is giving up four feet of setback. adjoining this mall lot. Once this is finalized, we can't do anything about it. It's my understanding that this is just a personal preference thing. And my definition from research, a zoning variance is an official waiver that allows a property owner to bypass specific zoning codes. Variances are not granted for personal reasons. Only local boards, when strict rules create an unnecessary hardship due to physical restraints on the land, then it's the owner's wish. To me, it's a real... reflection on us and losing our rights as far as, actually it's in property rights, unless there's a very good reason for doing this. That's all I have. Anything else? Thank you.

Any further input from the audience? Committee? Hearing none, we will go to vote. We don't have a motion yet. We need a motion. So, is there a motion to approve?

Well, in order to keep it going, I'm not in favor, but I'll move to approve it.

Is there a second? I'll second it. Very good. We have a motion and a second. Mark, let's do the roll call.

Osterloo. No. Schurz.

No.

Elloy.

No.

Schmitz. No. Motion failed. It will be heard by Board of Adjustment Monday at 6 o'clock.

Okay. Item number 12. Platt Mitchell Concrete Products Company. Platt of Lot 1 of Daily Edition in the southwest quarter of Section 11, Township 103 North, Range 60 West of the 5th PM, Davidson County, South Dakota. Mark.

This is located outside city limits but within the ETJ. It is city's zoning jurisdiction. However, county also has to hear this. County Planning Commission approved it at their meeting. County Commission will hear it at their meeting tomorrow. It's on GIS lot one, which will be 7.38 acres. There is a 33-foot wide access easement that would come off of the road to the south, which is scenic court. And then there is also a 10-foot waterline easement that goes east-west to North Foster Street. So he does have access to his lot from scenic court with that easement. Can answer any questions that you have. The future buyers here, if you have any questions for him as well. Questions from the committee.

It looks to me like, am I right to say there's a shed in the way of that easement?

There is some buildings on the right-of-way that we are working through to get rid of.

I saw that. I see that to the west, too. Yeah, on Scenic Court, not the flat itself. Yeah, to the south. So we got a 33. How big is that? East 1 3rd to the west? So the other side of the road, if they ever develop that to the west of this one here, that'd be another.

Yeah, there could be another lot to the west of where the easement is for the ingress egress. And it is a big enough lot that it does fit within our zoning ordinance for having to be, if there's no real water, or excuse me, if there's no public water, it has to be an acre. And I believe that's about 2.4 acres. So there's still enough room for a lot there if they wanted to in the future. but for now they want to keep it as ag land and still continue to farm it.

Is there a representative from the applicant present? Do you wish to speak?

If you have any questions, I'll answer them.

Questions from the committee? Okay, hearing none, we are looking to have a motion to approve

Move to approve. Second.

We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion is approved. Item 13, plan approval, move elected corporate office 1717 North Sanborn Boulevard zoned highway oriented business district. Mark.

Because this is zoned highway oriented business district, any building permits or change of use needs to come in front of this board. Applicant would like to build on to the north side of their existing building and also the grassy area to the north will become some new parking space for that. We have reviewed the plans for civil. Public Works has approved those for the parking lot area for drainage reasons. As you can see, I have to zoom out so you can see the expansion that they will do from the north of the building. They've got some 3D renderings in here, the existing site layout, and then with the new parking lot that they'll create, where some of the utilities are, and then the office spaces for the interior of the building that they'll have as well for that. Pretty big expansion for them. Can I answer any questions you have? The applicants here, if you have any questions for them as well.

Questions? Any questions from the audience? Hearing none, we're looking for a motion to approve the plan. Motion to approve. Second. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. The plan is approved as submitted. Item 14, hearing and action on the establishment of the boundaries and approval of the project plan for tax increment financing district number 47.

As you see on GIS, this would be for 123 North Main Street. Notice it was in the paper. It got sent out to the taxing agencies as well. They received a notice saying that we will be having this hearing today. I'm going to switch over to a different document. Same document, it's just in Word, and I have stuff highlighted so I can remember what I want to say. So this TIF is for economic development at 123 North Main. Consists of basement and three floors, approximately 3,000 square feet. It'll be renovated to consist of approximately five phases with the goal of stabilizing the entire building, reinventing it for commercial use. It shows the five different phases that they'll be doing for this whole project. They'll be adding business opportunities in the form of five to six Airbnb breakfast rental units for the second and third floors with commercial space on the first floor. The developer will be John Adamo. The legal is as stated, lot one, block 13, original town, now city of Mitchell, Davis County, South Dakota. It'll be obviously TIF number 47. You can see the outline area in orange for the location of it. The taxable value, current full and true, is $36,250. Per state law right now, you cannot have more than 10% of your total value being, and ours right now is at $1.7 billion, I believe. So we are only at 1.5%. New state law, starting July 1, is down to 7.5%. Is that correct? So we're still underneath that number. This will be a grant pass-through from the city, and they are requesting discretionary costs and grants of $190,787. There will be no interest with this TIP at all. TIP will not exceed a 20-year calendar year of creation, and they are waiving their right to the discretionary tax abatement. And should the state of South Dakota not classify a TIF as economic development, the TIF would not be finalized and will cease to exist. Grant pass through city will have no obligation to committing city funds. We are just the grant pass through for this. The developer shall certify their costs with the city, the eligible project costs in sufficient detail to determine that the payment of grant funds solely for the eligible costs. we'll have a developer's agreement with this like i said john adama will be the developer these are our standard bullet points we have for developers agreement we did include one that was done after this board do we have it for planning permission last time it's if in state law they might in the future have this the county be able to assess an amount to the city? Justin, you wanna explain that real quick?

Yeah, I can jump in there. So it'd be the second to the last bullet point that you see there. Basically reserves are right in the future to charge an additional fee in case the state authorizes the county to be paid an administrative fee to basically handle the tax side of the TIF. So this would just be a way to tax that future fee that the county would be getting. AND HAVE THAT COME OUT OF THE TIF PROCEEDS.

IT WOULD STILL NOT BE THE CITY PAYING ANY OF IT. IT WOULD STILL COME FROM THE TIF ITSELF. SO CITY'S STILL NOT ON THE HOOK FOR ANY DOLLARS ON THIS. THANK YOU, JUSTIN. THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S MASTER PLAN, ZONING CODE, BUILDING CODES, AND ORDINANCES. NOTHING WILL HAVE TO BE CHANGED THERE. TOTAL NONPROFIT PROJECT IS $1.7 MILLION. Again, it's discretionary costs and grants of $190,787, which here's their total expenses and responsible. Total project is $2,526,855.30. Non-project costs are $1.74, and then TIF eligible are $785. They're only requesting the $190, because if you look at their breakdowns for the years, the projected is $190,787, but they could have the $700,000 for TIF eligible expenses. You have your mill levies that are still the same as the last time. Those were the people that were sent out notice for this TIF. They're breaking down what the project will be used for. Total building is 13,172 square foot. for design costs roof panels wall panels insulation framing walls walk doors also plumbing in there the legal again here's their gis the outline area in orange for the location then they have some drawings of the building itself for the and then it's still in central business what they're Uh, requesting does the within central business district and then a few pictures of the exterior of the building and then the interior of the building had roof damage at 1 point in time. Water came through and they've had some. Damages on the interior that they're looking to fix and mitigate with this. Um, and then the last page of this does have the self go to the Department of revenue. Um. their preliminary as economic development for this TIF. I can answer any questions that you have. Applicants here, if you have any questions for them. We did do a staff internal review, add questions to the applicants. They in turn redid their project plan and then this is what you have in front of you now. Or Justin, if you have anything else to add.

Committee questions? Don?

I can answer any questions you want.

Applicant?

Yeah. Don Dahl. I'm Don Peterson, attorney, and I represent the developer. He's a contractor for him, and Don Dahl is here, who's been working on it. John, I think John has kind of saved downtown Mitchell, or saved a lot of buildings anyway, and this would be about the 7th. building that he's bought and trying to bring it back to life. He's putting about $2 million into it. The tip is only $190,000 of it, but it will bring back a really cool building back into use. So we hope that you guys approve it. If you have any questions, I said Don's here. I can answer kind of what's going on.

Thank you. Any further questions?

For this, there's two motions that need to be made. One to set the boundary for TIF District 47 to include Lot 1, Block 13, original town, now city of Mitchell-Davis County, South Dakota. That would be your first motion if you so chose.

So, what Mark said, is there a motion to approve? Yeah. Or set the boundaries? We'll set the boundaries. A second. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye.

Okay, the second motion is to approve the project plan and recommend approval of TIF district number 47.

I move to approve. We have a motion. Second. And a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. The hearing and action on establishing the boundaries and approval of project plan for tax increment financing district 47 is approved. Item 15, is there any other business to come before the committee? Hearing none, item 16, public input. If you need to address the board on an item that was not on the agenda excluding personal items, please come forward to the podium and state your name and your concern. Presentations are limited to three minutes. Items will be considered, but no action will be taken at this time. Seeing and hearing none, is there a motion to adjourn?

We don't need a motion. Oh, we're adjourned.