Mitchell Zoning Commission approves conditional use permit for two‑family dwelling at 408 North Foster over neighbor objections

The Mitchell Zoning Commission voted 3‑1 to approve a conditional use permit that allows a second dwelling at 408 North Foster, the commission decided after public comment and commissioner discussion. The applicant, Mike Larson of 408 North Foster, told the commission he intends to use the secondary unit as a small efficiency for traveling nurses; Larson said the proposed structure would meet setback and height requirements and that he would address drainage.

The decision followed extended public comment from neighbors Laurie and Dave Kent, who said they did not receive mailed notice of the application and raised concerns about incorrect plan graphics, potential view obstruction, drainage, fire access and space for utility crews to service poles behind the properties. City staff acknowledged one neighbor had not received a mailed notice and said a legal notice was published; staff also said recent ordinance requirements had been met.

Why it matters: the property is in an R‑2 single‑family district, and the permit would allow what neighbors called an exception to single‑family character. The commission’s approval permits the owner to pursue a two‑family principal use subject to normal building permit and setback requirements and does not eliminate later city review where required.

Details and debate

City staff introduced the application and noted notice was published, a sign was posted and some mailed notices were returned. Staff reported three returned letters were in the packet (two in favor, one with drainage and setback comments) and three additional letters were placed before the commission (two opposed, one in favor). Commissioner questions and public comments focused on notification procedures after one household reported the mailed notice arrived late or not at all. The Kent household said the legal notice in the Daily Republic did not include building specifics and that they would have preferred certified or hand delivery in this instance.

Laurie Kent said the drawing she saw showed a three‑foot side yard rather than the 25‑foot rear setback required for a principal two‑family use; she also said the proposed three‑stall garage with living quarters above would block her view to the west and reduce access for utility equipment near existing poles. Staff and the applicant clarified that because the use would be a principal two‑family dwelling it must meet the 25‑foot rear yard setback; the proposed building height is 23 feet (the R‑2 maximum is two‑and‑a‑half stories or 35 feet).

Applicant Mike Larson said the additional unit is intended as a small efficiency to house traveling nurses who work at the nearby hospital; he said tenants typically stay for work cycles and would be long‑term leasing rather than short‑term rentals. Larson acknowledged a five‑foot easement on the east side of the lot but said that the 25‑foot setback governs the current proposal. He said he had cleared tall trees from the rear yard over recent years and that he intends to comply with required setbacks and to address drainage.

Commissioners discussed design, fire department access and whether subdividing the lot could produce a different regulatory path (commission staff said a subdivision meeting minimum lot width and setbacks could avoid a conditional‑use review). Commissioner comments included recollections that accessory dwelling‑type arrangements have existed historically in Mitchell and a request that the final structure be compatible in materials and setbacks.

Vote and next steps

A motion to approve the conditional use permit carried on roll call 3‑1: Pavlich, Jerza and Schmitz voted yes; Genslinger voted no. The commission recorded the outcome as approved. Staff told the commission the project must meet standard building permit and setback requirements and that plan review would be handled administratively; the item is scheduled for the Mitchell City Council work session on April 7 at 6:00 p.m.

What wasn’t decided

The commission’s approval grants the conditional use permit but does not approve construction drawings. Several neighbors pressed for more time to research the proposal and for improved notice procedures; the commission and staff noted those procedural concerns but moved forward with the hearing. Drainage, exact final grading and utility access will be addressed during permit review rather than in the conditional‑use vote.

Ending

The commission approved the permit with the understanding that the proposal must meet all applicable setbacks, height limits and permitting requirements before construction. The item will be heard by the city council as scheduled on April 7.