HomeMy WebLinkAboutBHPCMinutes_2014_12_05Brookings Historic Preservation Commission
December 5, 2014 Minutes (amended)
A meeting of the Brookings Historic Preservation Commission was held on Friday, December 5, 2014 at
9:00 a.m. in City Hall. Members present: Leah Brink, Mary Bibby, Dennis Willert, Les Rowland, Janet
Gritzner and Tom Agostini. Janet Merriman was absent. Shari Thornes, City Clerk, was also present.
Chairperson Rowland called the meeting to order. A motion was made by Bibby, seconded by Willert,
to approve the agenda. All present voted yes, motion carried. A motion was made by Bibby, seconded
by Brink, to approve the minutes. All present voted yes; motion carried.
Next meeting was scheduled for Thursday, January 22nd at 4:00 p.m.
11.1 REVIEW APPLICATIONS:
GENERAL DIRECTIONS: SDCL 1-19A-11.1 requires local governments to extend certain protections to
historic properties listed on national, state or local registers. Local governments are not to issue a
permit for any project that would encroach upon, damage or destroy a designated property if there is a
feasible and prudent alternative that would prevent such encroachment, damage or destruction. Cities
have both the authority and duty to deny a permit for any project adversely affecting an historic
property if there is a feasible and prudent alternative that will eliminate or mitigate the adverse impact.
The applicant bears burden of proving that the conditions for the permit have been met. They must
show absence of feasible and prudent alternatives and appropriate planning to minimize harm.
The Brookings Historic Preservation Commission reviews and considers all of the following sources when
making its recommendations: Applicant Case Report, Staff Reports, Commission Members’ Research,
Case Report Standards, Secretary of Interior Standards for Design
http://www.nps.gov/tps/standards.htm), Attorney General’s Opinion, dated December 17, 2013, State’s
Administrative Rules and Other alternatives and supporting facts.
Discussion and possible action on an 11.1 Review Case Report for 9th Street Vacation between Medary
and 9th Avenues, South Dakota State University, applicant.
Summary: South Dakota State University has applied to vacate a portion of two streets in or adjacent to
the Brookings University Residential Historic District. SDSU wishes to vacate one full block of Harvey
Dunn Street, which is adjacent to the District, from Medary Avenue to 9th Street. They also have
applied to vacate the east half of 9th Street, which is located in the District, from Medary Avenue to 9th
Street. SDSU property is located in the proposed vacated portion of 9th Street and the remaining half
block would consist of SDSU parking to the north and contributing District residential property to the
south.
The Brookings Historic Preservation Commission expressed concern at a previous meeting that the 9th
Street vacation could negatively impact two historic structures, 902 and 912 9th Street. There is concern
that the elimination of a through street could reduce the future usability of both structures for
residential, commercial or public uses.
Steve Erpenbach, President & CEO of the South Dakota State University Foundation, spoke on behalf of
this application.
Commission members expressed concern if the alleyway between 9th and 8th would become a quasi-
through street. Drop-offs will be done in the alley and it will be widened to accommodate vehicular
traffic.
Erpenbach was asked why there is a need to vacate the street and change the green space. He
responded that the proposed “University House” would be the President’s primary residence and
historic Woodbine Cottage would serve for hosting functions. Events of the same nature will be held at
the new Alumni Center and the intent of the proposed design is to create a synergy, movement and
functionality between all the locations. The proposed circular sidewalks have been replaced with
straight sidewalks in the updated plan.
Erpenbach was asked if vacating Medary Avenue considered as an option. No, it was not considered an
option due to the heavy amount of traffic on Medary.
Routing of traffic for the parking lot and its impact on the District is a concern of the BHPC. SDSU
officials said no traffic study has been done.
Questions were raised regarding the proposed parking lot lighting and impact on the neighborhood.
What is the negative impact on SDSU’s proposed plan by keeping 9th Street open? Erpenbach said there
will be many people walking in that area. In their opinion, leaving it open would create safety concerns
and be less aesthetically appealing. BHPC members noted that the events would primarily be evenings
and weekends. Students would be out of class in the evenings and weekends, so traffic through that
area should be minimal. Streets are used at early day and afternoon.
The BHPC said it’s important for the project to pay respect to neighborhood by providing a buffer and to
maintain the current conditions of the neighborhood rather than increasing traffic.
In summary, the BHPC’s concerns are increased traffic due to closed streets, altered traffic circulation
pattern, and limiting access to the neighborhood. The case report will need to list alternative options to
address these concerns.
The applicants were asked if they would consider leaving Harvey Dunn open. They said yes, this was a
possible compromise.
More classrooms will never be built on that side of campus and they have looked at different uses for
this area to build more connectivity. Scobey Hall was built as a WPA project and Scobey and West Halls
provide a strong historic connection to that side of campus.
The Commission reiterated concerns that the alley between 9th and 8th Streets would become more of a
through street with closing half of 9th Street.
A motion was made by Brink, seconded by Willert, stating the BHPC has determined there is insufficient
information in the case report to provide comment and this item was tabled until the applicant could
provide the following information: the applicant is asked to provide information on traffic counts for
the proposed plan (with and without closing Harvey Dunn), the lighting plan adjacent to the District, a
landscaping plan to buffer the parking lot from the District, consideration to leave Harvey Dunn open,
and revise the case report to include a complete narrative of all feasible and prudent alternatives that
have been explored. All present voted yes, motion carried.
Discussion and possible action on an 11.1 Review Case Report for 502 9th Avenue, Matthew and Janet
Miller, applicants.
Summary: The owners have applied to construct a 4’ x 11’ 1 ½ story addition on the front façade of the
house for a kitchen expansion. The addition will be incorporated to the left of the front entry. The
height and pitch of the entry dormer will be altered by raising it to the level of the roof ridge. All
original siding will be removed and replaced with LP engineered wood siding.
Their original plan called for all windows to be removed and replaced with vinyl windows. The existing
window opening size in the kitchen addition area, on the front façade, will be reduced. The majority of
the windows in the house are original, six-over-six pane in design. The windows on the front (west)
façade and one window on the north façade are not original. They have since withdrawn window
replacement from the application.
Staff Report: The “Ethel Van Cleve House,” built 1943, is a contributing structure in the Central
Residential Historic District. The house is currently a small minimal traditional home with a centered,
gable-roofed entry projecting from the front façade. The proposed addition will bump out the kitchen
wall to be flush with the existing projected entryway, and the gable roof will be reconstructed to extend
across both the entrance and the new kitchen addition. In effect, the projecting gable-roof section will
extend across roughly two-thirds of the front façade after the addition is completed, and approximately
one-third of the front façade will remain at its current depth. The proposal would essentially remove all
character defining features, which are the windows, entrance roof pitch, siding and façade. The
perceived impact is that it would damage or destroy the historic significance of the structure.
Rowland and Thornes met with the applicant at their property on 9/30/14 to review the project and to
recommend alternatives that would meet the Standards, eliminate the need for a full review and case
report and enable the owners to start the project this fall. Those recommendations included window
restoration rather than replacement, paint preparation and paint rather than removal and installation of
LP siding, and modification to the addition design to retain the center entrance.
• Addition. The home is typical of minimal post-depression design in that it is 1 ½ stories,
rectangular in design, side gables, with a projecting centered front door, multi-pane, double-hung
windows, exposed decorative chimney and wood clapboard siding.
“Standard #1: A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires
minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships.
“Standard #9: New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy
historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work
will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size,
scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.”
“Standard #10: New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a
manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its
environment would be unimpaired.”
• Paint/Siding: Rowland and Thornes found the original siding to be in good shape, without rot. The
owner has been told by a city official and painting contractors that the siding won’t hold paint due
to the lack of a vapor barrier. One individual said, “houses built in the 1940s and 1950s didn’t have
vapor barriers and, therefore, won’t hold paint.”
Standard #1: A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires
minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships.
Standard #2: The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of
distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a
property will be avoided.
Standard #5: Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of
craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.
Standard #6: Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity
of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in
design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be
substantiated by documentary and physical evidence.
Kate Nelson, State Restoration Specialist, provided a number of materials and documents to dispel
this myth. One in particular is National Park Service Preservation Brief #3: “…Vapor Retarders
(Barriers): Vapor retardants are commonly used in modern construction to manage the diffusion of
moisture into wall cavities and attics. For vapor retardants to work properly, however, they must be
continuous, which makes their installation difficult in existing buildings, and therefore generally not
recommended. Even in new construction, installation of vapor retardants is not always indicated.
Formerly, the recommended treatment was to install a vapor retardant toward the heated side of
the wall (toward the interior space in cold climates and toward the exterior in hot climates). DOE
now recommends that if moisture moves both to the interior and exterior of a building for
significant parts of the year, it is better not to use a vapor retarder at all.”
• Windows. Mr. Miller has indicated in his latest communication that he does not plan to address the
windows at this time. Thornes recommends that the Commission clarify in its motion that any
future changes to the original windows are subject to review, citing Standards #1, 2, 5 & 6. The
Commission was provided with information from Larry Johnson, Fresh Air WindowWorks, a regional
window restoration consultant.
Mr. Miller said he’s been told that the siding won’t hold paint without a vapor barrier. Rowland advised
that the siding is in good condition and without rot. If properly treated and maintained, it should retain
paint. Miller said painters won’t give him a multi-year warranty on a paint job. His proposal would be
to remove the wood siding and install LP siding to retain the look of wood without any future peeling or
chipping.
Miller was reminded that he, as the applicant, bears the burden of proving that the conditions for the
permit have been met. He must show in the case report that all feasible and prudent alternatives have
been pursued and documented and all appropriate planning has been done to minimize harm. He was
advised that his case report was insufficient.
A motion was made by Bibby, seconded by Agostini, that the BHPC has determined there is insufficient
information in case report to provide comment and requested additional information from the applicant
on alternatives to the addition and siding, and table action. All present voted yes, motion carried.
PROJECT/ ISSUE UPDATES & FINAL REPORTS:
Update on 6th Street Main to Medary Project. The Transportation Steering Committee met on
December 1st and made a final recommendation on the Medary to Main project . Rowland said the
Committee is recommending a five-lane option and to purchase frontage from property owners in order to
maintain the current boulevard width.
December 4th Festival of Lights & Historic Trolley in Central District. Horse drawn trolley rides of the
Central Residential District were held from 5-7 p.m. on Thursday, December 5th, prior to the Festival of
Lights parade. Dennis Willert served as the step-on-guide after Jerry McCollough had to withdraw. The
event was well attended.
Proposed Legislation. Bibby and Thornes met with SD Representative Scott Munsterman regarding the
proposed legislative change to 1-19B-3, pertaining to the composition of preservation commissions. He
will submit the information the Legislative Research Council to draft a bill. He asked that the
Commission line up individuals across the state to provide testimony at the committee level.
Mayor Reed also supports the proposal and has requested the South Dakota Municipal League’s
backing. Mayor Reed serves on the SDML Board and this proposed bill has been added to their
December board meeting for discussion.
Preserve America Signs. Mayor Reed met with the SDSU Planning and Design Committee on
November 17th to request the installation of the five Preserve America signs on campus. The Committee
requested additional information including photos of currently installed signs, warranty guarantees and
a formal request. A formal request was submitted by Mayor Reed on November 24th. A copy of the
Mayor’s letter was provided to the Commission.
Proposed University Community Coalition. The Brookings City Council is considering creating a new
committee called the University Community Coalition. The proposed purpose of the new group would
be to identify, investigate, propose and advocate practices and policies that will improve the well-being
of the university-community relationship and the quality of life in Brookings. In addition, the University
Community Coalition will create a platform for effective communication between the Brookings
community and South Dakota State University.
The focused objectives in the draft ordinance include neighborhood issues. Per the request of the BHPC
from its November meeting, Thornes has requested the Mayor include historic preservation
considerations in the enabling legislation: “C. Focused objectives: Develop policies and, as applicable,
practices to address: Events that affect the entire community. (ie: pub crawl, football games, etc.);
Campus neighborhood issues (parking, noise...); Historic resources on campus and historic districts
adjacent to campus; Overall public safety awareness of students; Brookings and SDSU joint marketing
and promotion opportunities; Integration of students into the community and the community into the
campus; and Opportunities for students who choose to stay in Brookings upon graduation.”
Public Education Committee Report. The committee is comprised of Brink, Gritzner and Merriman.
Brink reported that the group feels that public education about the 11.1 review process is the highest
priority and recommends a mailing to all the property owners in the districts. They recommended
creating one map with all 4 districts and individually listed properties.
They are also reviewing the existing brochures.
They would like to develop questions for the Engage Brookings online site. Suggested questions
included: Define the identity of Brookings? What does historic preservation mean to you? How should
Brookings respect its historical architecture? Do you think Brookings architecture is worthy of future
generations?
G. 11.1 Review Process. At the last meeting, the Commission discussed the pros and cons of entering
into a MOU with the State of South Dakota to perform 11.1 reviews. Final action is tentatively
scheduled for the January meeting. Issues to consider include:
• Benefits and cons of a MOU verses continuing with the current process.
• Number of potential projects. 2012 & 213 permits in the district:
o 2012 – 13 Building Permits
o 2012 – 1 demolition permit
o 2013 – 6 Building Permits
• Standard meeting dates and times will be required
• Time of meetings would have to be at 4 p.m. or later to accommodate applicants.
• Frequency of meetings
• City Clerk staff time and availability.
• Subcommittees were discussed to review projects and meet with applicants; however, since the last
meeting Thornes has gotten feedback from other preservation staff strongly advising against this
practice.
• Adoption of a strict meeting protocols and process would be necessary and consistency in applying
the standards when making the decisions.
• A streamlined application process that could be handled by anyone providing a building permit.
• Determining which projects types to review (draft list of projects was provided).
• Defining an appeal process.
• Defining the final decision maker.
• Authorizing city staff to determine if projects are reviewable.
• Develop a training process and schedule with SHPO.
2015 Public Education Workshop. The BHPC has received $1000 to host a series of workshops on the
Federal Income Tax Credit, State Property Tax Moratorium and Secretary’s Standards for Rehabilitation
during spring and early summer 2015. The date, schedule, promotion and other details still need to be
addressed.
Hosting 2015 Statewide CLG Meeting. A statewide CLG meeting was held in Pierre last May. It was
the first statewide meeting held in a long time. Brookings offered to host the 2015 meeting. This item
wasn’t discussed. Discussion is needed on possible dates, venue, and agenda format.
PRESERVATION PARTNERS:
State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). The SDSHS Board of Trustees will have its quarterly meeting in
Pierre on Dec. 12. They recently released Pioneer Girl http://www.sdshspress.com/index.php?&id=288&action=912.
Downtown Brookings Inc. (DBI). Rowland said DBI is currently advertising the executive director
position. They are also considering the creation of a BID district.
NOMINATING COMMITTEE REPORT AND ELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR 2015. Bibby and Merriman served on the
nominating committee. Bibby reported the nominating committee recommended the following slate of
officers for the 2015 term: Rowland for Chair and Brink for Vice Chair and both have accepted. A
motion was made by Bibby, seconded by Merriman, that nominations close and to unanimously approve
the nominations. All present voted yes, motion carried.
ANNOUNCEMENTS/CORRESPONDENCE/COMMUNICATIONS/CALENDAR.
Dec 18 Brookings Holiday Celebration, Swiftel Center, 5-7 pm
Meeting adjourned at 11:32 a.m.
Submitted by Shari Thornes