HomeMy WebLinkAboutBHPCMinutes_2010_01_07Brookings Historic Preservation Commission
January 7, 2010
A meeting of the Brookings Historic Preservation Commission was held on Thursday, January 7,
2010 at 4:00 p.m. in City Hall. Members present: Pam Merchant, Mary Bibby, Janet Gritzner,
Dennis Willert and Joanita Kant. Pat Powers was absent. Shari Thornes, City Clerk, was also
present.
Chairperson Willert called the meeting to order at 4:10 p.m. Motion was made by Bibby,
seconded by Merchant, to approve the December 3rd minutes. All present voted yes; motion
carried. A motion was made by Merchant, seconded by Bibby, to approve the agenda as
printed. All present voted yes; motion carried.
Schedule next monthly meeting - Thursday, February 4th at 4:30 p.m.
Nominating Committee Report. The Committee had not had a chance to meet yet. A motion
was made by Bibby, seconded by Merchant, to move that the nominating committee hold a
discussion now. All present voted yes; motion carried. The nominating committee of Merchant
and Gritzner nominated the current slate of officers to remain for the 2010 year: Willert at chair
and Bibby as vice chair. A motion was made by Merchant, seconded by Gritzner, to nominate
the current slate. All present voted yes; motion carried.
Preserve America Sign Selection. A motion was made by Merchant, seconded by Bibby, to
approve Preserve America signage for the following location subject to conditions listed in the
motion:
1. Pioneer Park Bandshell
2. Hillcrest Park Tree Claim
3. McCrory Gardens
4. Government Center – Carnegie, Courthouse, 1921 Building and Central Elementary
5. Sexauer Seed District
6. SDSU – Historic Stock Judging Pavilion (current Ag Heritage Museum)
7. SDSU – Administration
8. SDSU – Sylvan Theatre & Campanile
9. SDSU – Horse Barn
10. Downtown
Approval contingent upon the following conditions:
BHPC approval on text, narrative, design, colors, contrast variation*, and pictures
required prior to production. **BHPC specifically requests taupe or brown colors to
match residential district signage.
Design format subject to new city government branding color formats/schemes.
ADA compliant hard surface accessible path must be provided to all free standing
signage.
BHPC will work with Allyn Frerichs, City Park/Recreation/Forestry Superintendent, on all
in-city locations to determine appropriate landscaping and softening design appropriate
for each location.
SHPO staff should coordinate with SDSU officials regarding signs located on the South
Dakota State University campus in order to coordinate with the University’s new signage
program.
The BHPC is very concerned about appropriateness of scale and number of signs in the
new government center and a careful and deliberate discussion regarding these issues
will be needed.
All present voted yes; motion carried.
University Week for Women Porch Tour. The University needs a commitment whether or not
the BHPC would be willing to offer a tour during the 2010 University Week for Women this
summer. Kant volunteered to conduct the tour if she can obtain Jerry McCollough’s script.
Merchant, Bibby and Gritzner offered to help.
National Register Nomination – 202 5th Street. Thornes reported that the National Register of
Historic Places nomination for 202 5th Street was approved by the South Dakota State Board of
Trustees and had been forwarded to the National Park Service for review and possible action.
Annual Reports (City & National Park Service). Thornes reminded the Commission that the
State and City annual reports for 2009 will be due on February 15th.
Vacancy. Thornes reported that the BHPC member vacancy had been advertised and the Mayor
was reviewing applications for consideration.
Central Residential Historic District—National Register District:
City/County Expansion Plans – Thornes reviewed the state 11.1 review process regarding the
proposed city/county project that would be located in the Central Residential District and
require the removal of several residential properties.
South Dakota Codified Law 1-19-A-11.1: Preservation of Historic Property – Procedures. “The
state or any political subdivision of the state, or any instrumentality thereof, may not undertake
any project which will encroach upon, damage or destroy any historic property included in the
National Register of Historic Places or the State Register of Historic Places until the Office of
History has been given notice and an opportunity to investigate and comment on the proposed
project. The office may solicit the advice and recommendations of the board with respect to
such project and may direct a public hearing be held thereon. If the office determines that the
proposed project will encroach upon, damage or destroy any historic property which is included
in the National Register of Historic Places or the State Register of Historic Places or the environs
of such property, the project may not proceed until:
1) The Governor, in the case of a project of the state or an instrumentality thereof or the
governing body of the political subdivision has made a written determination, based upon
the consideration of all relevant factors, that there is no feasible and prudent alternative to
the proposal and that the program includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the
historic property, resulting from such use; and
2) Ten day’s notice of the determination has been given, by certified mail, to the office of
history. A complete record of factors considered shall be included with such notice.
Any person aggrieved by the determination of the Governor or governing body may appeal
the decision pursuant to the provisions of chapter 1-26.
The failure of the office to initiate an investigation of any proposed project within 30 days
from the date of receipt of notice thereof is approval of the project.
Any project subject to a federal historic preservation review need not be reviewed
pursuant to this section.”
Opinions of the Attorney General: A city government must comply with this section even when
its only involvement with the demolition of a private historical structure is the issuance of a
demolition permit, Opinion No. 89-41.Given the absence of other legislative or judicial guidance
on this subject, the provisions of this section shall apply to the issuance of a permit by a city
affecting a designated historic district, Opinion No. 89-41.
She also informed the Commission regarding additional comments made by SHPO staff during a
conference call on this project.
When is the soonest the review can be initiated? Can the review be initiated before
actually owning the property (i.e. purchase agreements in place)? SHPO has no problem
with initiating the review now with purchase agreements only. However, they will strongly
encourage the City/County to conduct the 11.1 review as one project for both demo and
construction. This will take longer because the review couldn’t be completed until the
construction plans are firmed up. Two full separate reviews are possible – one for demo and
another for construction. Their concern is that when only a demo review is done there is the
potential that the site is cleared for an empty lot and then the project falls through.
The site and facility will be owned by a joint powers arrangement between the City and
County governments. Can this be done with one review or are two needed – one by
County and one by City? SHPO will recognize the joint powers arrangements as one
entity or in the case of two organizations, they would name one as a the lead agency,
which would probably be the City since they have the most experience with 11.1
Reviews.
What is estimate timeline for review process? This response is under the assumption of
two reviews (1st – Demo, 2nd – Construction). Also reference City’s internal review
process and procedures that provides additional details (attached).
o City submits written notification to SHPO
o SHPO responds or requests for information (up to 30 days)
o Case report required (however long the city takes to write it)
o BHPC review and official comment on case report and could include public
hearing requirement (up to 180 days)
o City submits final case report & BHPC comments to SHPO
SHPO may find the case report is not complete and requests more info
Or, SHPO completes final review
What level of detail will be required in the construction review? SHPO will need enough
detail to determine if the new building will adversely effect the district. Most often, this
requires architectural plans and elevation drawings. Conceptual drawings are also
helpful.
Will a Federal Section 106 review be required? What is that process? If either the city or
the county will be using any type of federal funds or require a federal permit, Section 106
will apply. If not, only 11.1 will apply. If Section 106 applies, state law says 11.1 does not
apply.
City of Brookings
SDCL 1-19A-11.1 Internal Notification and Review Process
1. Building plans or a permit request are submitted to the City Engineer’s Office (i.e. Building
Officials, Board of Adjustment request and Planning Commission action).
2. Determine Location.
The City Clerk is contacted to determine if the project or action is located within or adjacent to
the following properties or areas. The Brookings Historic Preservation Commission will provide
an updated listing of Brookings sites.
A. National Register of Historic Places District.
B. National Register of Historic Places individually listed property.
C. State Register of Historic Places individually listed property.
D. Local Register individually listed property.
E. Local District listed property.
3 Determine if project/action requires review process.
According to the State Historic Preservation Office, the following projects and/or action would
require an 11.1 review. When in doubt about project impact the State Historic Preservation
Office will offer advice prior to official notification.
A. Rezoning
B. Moving permit
C. Demolition permit
D. Building permit
E. Major alteration of structure owned by state or local government to include school
districts (ie. building permits)
F. Municipally funded activity (ie. street widening, park, street lights)
4. Notify State Historic Preservation Office.
The City Manager notifies the State Historic Preservation Office of the proposed project or
action. The City Clerk is responsible to meet with the owner to obtain the following information
for the notification.
A. Basic description of the action and/or project.
B. Perceived impact on the historic district or structure (adverse or no effect).
C. If the impact is recognized as potentially adverse explain why this action is necessary.
D. Provide all alternatives considered and rejected.
E. Photographs of the site and surrounding historic resources.
F. Any plans, drawings, etc.
5. Notify Brookings Historic Preservation Commission.
The City Manager’s Office will provide a copy of the state notification to the Brookings Historic
Preservation Commission. To expedite the process, the Manager will request official comment
from the Brookings Historic Preservation Commission at their next regularly scheduled meeting
provided the State requests comment.
6. State Response (within 30 days).
The State Historic Preservation Office is required to respond within 30 days of notification with
the following response options.
1. No effect – review is completed.
2. No response – review is completed.
3. Request for additional information.
4. Adverse effect.
7. Determination of Adverse Effect/Case Report (time dependent on applicant).
The City will be obligated to file a full or abbreviated Case Report with State Office. The City
Manager’s Office, working with all appropriate departments, will complete the Case Report.
Please refer to the “Guidelines for the Preparation of Historic Preservation Case Reports” to
prepare the Case Report.
8. Case Report review & comment by Brookings Historic Preservation Commission (up to 180 days).
Please note the local Preservation Commission’s official comment is required in the case report.
A public hearing may be required. The Office of History shall specify periods of time not to
exceed 180 days to be given local historical preservation commissions to examine plans and may
specify such periods for each set of revised plans submitted for a project.
9. State Response (within 10 days).
State issues determination on Case Report.
A. State considers all factors to be addressed, the project may proceed as described in the
Case Report. review completed
B. State considers all factors have not been addressed and requires the Case Report be
revised and resubmitted.
10. Review Completed.
The City may take action on the proposed project or action at the completion of the review
process.
A. Send State letter of final action.
B. Take action on building permit application.
C. Place item on Planning Commission agenda (rezoning). Present review information to
Planning Commission
D. Place item on City Council agenda for moving permits.
Commercial District –National Register District
DBI Report – Willert reported that he is in charge of DBI’s Garden and History Festival this
spring. Kris Struwe is the new incoming DBI President. He informed the commission that
DBI has inquired if funds would still be available for the 3D architectural design project that
was discussed last year.
Plaques – Thornes reported that Allyn Frerichs plans to assign some of his staff to installing
the plaques this year.
Calendar
July28-Aug 1, 2010 National Alliance of Preservation Commissions – Forum 2010, Grand Rapids, MI
Oct. 26-30, 2010 National Trust for Historic Preservation Annual Conf – Austin, TX
Meeting adjourned at 6:20 p.m.
Submitted by Shari Thornes