Beresford holds first reading on rezoning 10–12 West Elm for five rental townhomes amid neighborhood concerns

Beresford City Council opened a public hearing March 3 and conducted the first reading of Ordinance 2025-04, a request to rezone Lots 10, 11 and 12, Block 24, Original Beresford City (111 West Elm Street) from single-family residential (R‑1) to multifamily residential (R‑2).

The proposal, presented by the project team, calls for five attached townhouses — each a two‑story, three‑bedroom, three‑bath unit with a single attached garage — intended to be rented rather than sold. The developer said the units are intended for “starting rental” in the mid range, with rents estimated at about $1,600 to $2,000 a month. “It’d be starting rental — mid range where most people can afford, but not low end,” Skyler, the project applicant, said during the hearing.

The nut of neighbors’ objections centered on safety, drainage and neighborhood fit. Several residents said the site sits near the main entrance to Beresford Elementary School on Fourth Street and that adding five driveways would increase pedestrian and vehicle interactions at student drop‑off and pick‑up times. “This is a high traffic area and is in close proximity to the main entrance of the Beresford Elementary School,” Mary Ellen Solgstad, a nearby resident who submitted a written petition, said. Solgstad said the petition opposing rezoning includes about 18 signatures.

Residents also pressed the developer on stormwater and foundation elevation. The applicant acknowledged the lot is lower than adjacent properties and said the plan would bring fill to raise one side by about 40 inches, an amount he estimated would require “400 tons of dirt.” He said that work would move runoff toward the street and away from neighbors’ foundations but acknowledged one low backyard shed could remain at risk of increased water. The developer said the project would keep parking in private garages and not rely on on‑street parking.

Another concern raised during the hearing was neighborhood character and precedent. Neighbors noted the surrounding blocks are primarily single‑family homes and questioned why the city would rezone a long‑established residential lot when other R‑2 sites exist in town. Some speakers raised the possibility that, once rezoned, future buyers could build a different multifamily structure than the one currently proposed.

The council and speakers clarified ownership and process questions. The Beresford Housing Redevelopment Commission (BHRC) — not the city council — purchased and demolished the previous house on the site; the BHRC has operated independently though council appoints its board members. Councilmembers read that the BHRC financed prior projects by taking loans and repaying them after sales; one council member said the city had not directly expended general fund dollars on BHRC projects. The applicant said the commission paid roughly $60,000 for the property and sold an associated garage for $9,123, and that the BHRC intends to recover funds by making the land developable.

Mayor Sealy explained the procedural limits of the evening. “If we decide to go forward tonight, the only thing that would happen after the discussion would be a first reading,” the mayor said; the first reading does not enact the rezoning. The council’s clerk read Ordinance 2025‑04 into the record, and the council held the statutory first reading. The council member present moved to advance the item to first reading; no final adoption occurred. The council scheduled a second reading and formal vote for the next regular meeting on March 17; if adopted, the ordinance would be published and be subject to a 20‑day referral period for potential petition referendum.

Speakers on both sides urged the council to weigh local needs for rentals against neighborhood impacts. Supporters said Beresford lacks mid‑range rental inventory and that new units could help retain teachers and other workers who cannot currently find housing in town. Opponents emphasized safety, stormwater and the long‑term implications of rezoning a single‑family block.

Council members indicated they would review more technical information before a final vote, including drainage plans, parking plans, and written clarifications about the number of residents allowed per unit. The applicant agreed to provide additional engineering details and to answer questions about the project’s site grading and snow‑removal plan before the council’s next meeting.

The matter will return to the council for a second reading and final consideration at 7 p.m. March 17 in council chambers. Publication and a subsequent 20‑day referral window would follow any adoption.

Notes on procedure: a first reading was conducted March 3; the council may not take final action until after the second reading and publication period.