The Mitchell Historic Preservation Commission spent roughly 30 minutes discussing a proposed revision to the Mitchell Historic Commercial District that would reduce the district boundary around portions of East First Street, reclassify several buildings and add a later addition to the First United Methodist Church to the district map. Commissioners provided early feedback but did not take formal action.

The proposal, presented by a state review office staff member who has been working with the city, would remove a small block segment where multiple buildings were demolished in 2021 and 2023 and flip three remodeled buildings from "contributing" to "noncontributing." The same proposal would add a nonhistoric 1970s addition on the north corner of First United Methodist Church to the district boundary so that the entire church parcel is shown as part of the National Register listing.

Commissioners said the suggested cleanup made sense in principle but differed on one property—identified in the discussion as "201"—which currently is listed as contributing but would become an isolated remnant if adjacent properties are removed. Property owner Boyd told the commission, "I have no desire whatsoever for that building to be in this sort of, period. I don't I don't see what benefit there would be in the city in any way, shape, or form for that to be considered a historical building." Other commissioners said the building still appeared historic from the street and could reasonably remain in the district; several suggested trying the boundary change and letting the state review board or the National Park Service weigh in if it appears gerrymandered.

State staff described the next steps: staff will prepare a formal draft nomination update, send notifications to property owners (the presenter said 11 businesses have already received an initial letter), and aim to present the proposal to the state review board in April before forwarding an updated nomination to the National Park Service. The presenter stressed that "we're not taking any official actions tonight; it's more of just discussion/comment so [the state reviewer] can take it back, put it more together, and then come out with an actual proposed draft that would be moving forward at that time." The commission agreed to provide early input and to expect additional notifications and an opportunity for owners to comment.

Commissioners and staff also discussed map edits to reduce thin, awkward appendages on the district boundary. One practical suggestion supported by the group was to expand the boundary slightly to include an adjacent depot parking lot (a city-owned lot) so that the map does not show a narrow, isolated finger of protected area. The presenter noted that owners of newly added areas would retain the statutory right to object to additions; if a majority of private owners in a newly added area object, that addition cannot be listed.

Members asked about incentives and eligibility. State staff noted the standard National Register guideline that buildings generally must be at least 50 years old to meet the age criterion unless they have special significance; staff also described potential benefits of listing such as federal historic tax credits for qualifying commercial rehabilitations and state tax moratorium programs. The presenter said the city is a certified local government and could apply for CLG grants to support preparation of nominations or documentation.

No formal motions or votes were taken on the boundary itself. Instead, the commission provided advisory feedback: accept the proposed removals of demolished properties, consider whether to retain property 201 within the boundary or remove it depending on how the final map appears, explore including the depot parking lot to smooth the boundary, and invite the presenter to consult the historical society for older photos that could be used in the nomination. Staff said they would return with a formal draft and owner notices.

The discussion closed with the presenter reiterating that the state and the National Park Service would make the final determinations during the review process. If the National Park Service or the state review board rejects the draft, staff will revise the nomination and return for further comment.