HomeMy WebLinkAboutBHPCMinutes_2007_02_01
Brookings Historic Preservation Commission
February 1, 2007
A meeting of the Brookings Historic Preservation Commission was held on Thursday, February 1, 2007
at 4:00 p.m. in City Hall. Members present: Mary Bibby, Carrie Van Buren, Wayne Hexem, Jerry
McCollough, and Alice Pittman. Stephen Van Buren was absent. Shari Thornes, City Clerk, was also
present.
Chairman McCollough called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m.
Agenda. A motion was made by Bibby, seconded by Van Buren, approve the agenda. All present
voted yes, motion carried.
Next monthly meeting. Wednesday, February 28, 2007 at 4:00 p.m.
Boever House (7th Avenue & 6th Street). The BHPC met with First United Methodist Church
representatives regarding the Church's proposed expansion plans to the north (Boever House). Pastor
Teri Johnson, First United Senior Pastor, and Bethany Meyer, Chair of the Trustees, were present.
Johnson said on March 4th the Church congregation was scheduled to vote on whether to sell the
house or not. The church had an unexpected opportunity to buy the property and it was purchased
with the intent to move it.
McCollough noted that the BHPC supported the Church's previous plans to remove three adjacent
properties because the structures had little historical value; however, the "Boever" house is extremely
significant. He also reminded them that they had previously stated that the Church had no intention
of purchasing the Boever house or ever removing it for the expansion plans.
Johnson said she never thought the Church would ever have the opportunity to own it. However, the
home owner became ill and approached the Church about a purchase. The Church then reviewed and
revised their Master Plan.
McCollough said the other homes were not historically significant. He questioned why the Church
would buy an extremely significant house for the purpose of removing it. He suggested the Church
incorporate the historic structure into their master plan. He noted the church is integrated into the
entire neighborhood and each house supports the other in the context of the neighborhood. The
Boever house supports the neighborhood and is an anchor on the western end of Sixth Street.
He asked if it would be possible for the Church to revisit their plan and look at other options such as
selling the house to remain at that location or retaining it to be used by the church.
McCollough noted that the original plans didn't include that house and that was the only reason the
BHPC supported the removal of the other three structures. He said the Commission appreciates the
value of retaining the church in the neighborhood and near downtown. He also complimented the
Church on the integrity of the recent addition. However, the Boever house is a very unique property
in a unique location. He asked if the architect could develop a plan to include the house into the
expansion.
Hexem asked if the house could be moved to the west. No, they weren't interested in that option.
They also weren't interested in being in the landlord/rental business.
Johnson agreed to bring the idea back to the architect for consideration and return to the BHPC's next
meeting on February 28th.
Request to sponsor workshop at Doors Open on April 28th.
Doris Roden, DBI, has asked if the BHPC would be willing to co-sponsor a workshop during the
Doors Open event on April 27th & 28th. Hexem commented that only six attended last year's event
on historic frame restoration. The group discussed doing a workshop on a different topic this year
such as historic landscape design. A motion was made by C. Van Buren, seconded by Pittman, to
sponsor a workshop for the 2007 Doors Open event for a historically appropriate landscape design and
the financial support be earmarked for the presenter's stipend, with emphasis on a historic district
setting. Discussion: Using a property as a test case was suggested if there was a willing home owner. Martin Maca
was suggested as the presenter. This could be done as a two part workshop with next year's specific to the house.
Pittman will visit with Roden about the Commission's request. On the motion, all present voted yes; motion
carried.
Update on Animated Sign Committee.
McCollough reported that he attended another subcommittee meeting on January 22nd. He said his
comments regarding the Daktronics sign presentation were not well received. He said he received a
summary dismissal of the recommendations - no discussion, no further acknowledgement that they'd
been made. Dan Hanson, City staff, said the recommendations were too complicated, would cause the
committee to have to meet for over a year, and that they couldn't be done. McCollough said the rest
of the committee remained silent and no one made further references to the relationship of the signs to
the conditions of the surrounding areas in which they might be proposed.
Mike Cameron, Planning Commission member, said that he'd seen the First Lutheran Sign and didn't
think it was a problem. He said that animated signs are here to stay and we should get used to them.
He also said that he'd rather not see them as a Conditional Use because it would give the Planning
Commission one more item to deal with.
When discussing whether such signs might be considered as "conditional uses" the Planning
Administrator raised the question of potential lawsuits regarding freedom of speech because of the
length of the review procedure, and said the process could be too complicated. McCollough said when
he asked if a review could be made to see which way the courts have ruled on freedom of speech
relative to the conditional use process, Hanson said that it would be too complicated. McCollough said
he got the impression that fear of potential lawsuits may prevent the staff from drafting what is
reasonable and then letting the lawyers fight it out in the (rare) instance it may go to court. He also
sensed that many of the nationally accepted methods that are routine for most City Planning staffs are
too complicated to attempt here.
The options open to the committee seem to be: approve animated signs in residential districts and the
CBD; approve them with performance standards; deny them in residential districts and the CBD.
In a poll of the members, Jonnie Einspahr said that she'd vote to deny these signs in residential districts
and the CBD. Matthew James (a downtown representative) said the same thing. McCollough said he
stated that if performance standards addressing such things as he'd presented in his report can't be
used, he, too, would vote to deny animated signs in those two areas. Steve Kirky (downtown) said
most people downtown probably can't afford them now anyway. The others either seemed to approve
of the signs, or be interested in having them subject to performance standards.
The Daktronics representatives were asked to draft potential performance standards for the
committee's review at the next meeting, 5:00 Monday, Feb. 5.
After seeing the First Lutheran sign after dark (prior to 9:00 when the animation stops) McCollough
said he feels that these signs are inconsistent with the character of the city, especially within residential
neighborhoods. Since the city apparently has no Transportation Plan as part of its Comprehensive Plan
classifying streets according to their present and future functions, the typical solution to this issue can
not be called upon. Without this normal adjunct to any Land Use Plan the Planning Board is left
with few guidelines by which to establish performance standards that would protect the character of
existing neighborhoods.
If there is a reluctance to classify animated signs in residential neighborhoods and the CBD as
"conditional uses" so that there is a public review of the specific properties of the proposed sign,
then McCollough recommended the Planning Board should return to the way the sign ordinance read
prior to 1997 when animated signs for institutional and religious uses were prohibited in residential
areas.
The alternative is to accept the "Casino" appearance of these signs in the midst of our quiet, dark
evenings where we live, and in the downtown, thus changing what has been the historical appearance of
our town, and what has contributed to the intrinsic value of the city.
Update on Preserve America Project. Thornes, Pittman, McCollough and S. Van Buren will
schedule a meeting in February to develop a plan of action and report back to the full group.
Photographic historic survey project. Tabled until next meeting.
Commercial District –National Register District
DBI Report. Pittman reported that there was not a January meeting. The Board did hold a planning
retreat but ex-officios were not invited. She will not be available to attend the February 15th meeting.
McCollough volunteered to attend for her. He questioned if the BHPC representative was an ex-
officio or liaison.
Calendar/Announcements/Correspondence/Communications
Website - Creating a BHPC website on the city's site is a 2006/2007 project that must be completed
by this summer.
City Manager Visit - Thornes reported that the City Manager plans to meet with each of the city's
14 volunteer boards, committees and commissions sometime this year.
624 3rd Street - Thornes reported that this property across from the courthouse had been
purchased by the Community Development Corporation for renovation purposes. This property
had previously been identified as threatened due to its proximity to the county.
Grant - The 2007/2008 grant application will come out in March and be due by March 31st.
Bandshell - The Summer Arts Festival Committee has expressed interest in doing work to the
bandshell.
Meeting adjourned at 5:15 p.m.
Submitted by Shari Thornes