HomeMy WebLinkAboutBHPCMinutes_2017_04_13Brookings Historic Preservation Commission
April 13, 2017 Minutes
A meeting of the Brookings Historic Preservation Commission was held on Thursday, April 13, 2017 at
5:00 p.m. in City Hall. Members present: Leah Brink, Angie Boersma, Virginia James, Jessica Garcia Fritz,
Janet Merriman, Dennis Willert, Greg Heiberger, and Janet Gritzner. Others present: Shari Thornes, Steve
Britzman and Laurie Carruthers.
Chairperson Boersma called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. A motion was made by Brink, seconded by
Merriman, to approve the agenda. All present voted yes, motion carried. A motion was made by Willert,
seconded by Brink, to approve the corrected March 9, 2017 minutes. All present voted yes; motion
carried.
SDCL 1-19A-11.1 Historic Reviews: Demolition of 221 Main Avenue, Brookings Park & Recreation Center,
Historic National Guard Armory.
Project Location: The project is located at 221 Main Avenue and is designated as a contributing property in the
Brookings Commercial Historic National Register District.
Project Description:
On December 6, 2016, the City of Brookings submitted a letter of notification to the State Historic Preservation
Office (SHPO) of the City’s intent to demolish the Municipal Armory/Auditorium Building at 221 Main Avenue in
Brookings. As a contributing resource in the Brookings Commercial Historic District, SDCL 1-19A-11.1 outlines
a specific process which must be followed prior to any governmental action that may harm any historic
property that is included in the National or State Register of Historic Places.
Based on the information provided, the proposed project has the potential to encroach upon, damage or
destroy historic property that is included in the National Register of Historic Places or the State Register of
Historic Places. SHPO requested a full case report consistent with the "Standards for Case Report" as outlined
in ARSD 24:52:07:03, which is enclosed in the packet. SHPO requested the Brookings Historic Preservation
Commission (BHPC) review and comment on the case report within 180 days of receipt. SHPO advised that
their office has received inquiries about the proposed demolition project from several concerned citizens in
Brookings. Given the extent of public concern about this project, the SHPO strongly recommends that the city
conduct a public hearing on this issue in accordance with SDCL 1-19A-11.1. After the BHPC has reviewed and
commented on the case report, the case report along with BHPC comments must be submitted to SHPO.
Built as a Works Progress Administration (WPA) project in 1937, the Brookings Armory housed Company B,
109th Engineers and Motor Transport until the new Armory was built in 1976. The City took over the facility
adapting it into the Park and Recreation Center until 2012.
The enclosed “Commercial District National Register Nomination” and “Request for Statement of Interest”
provide detail regarding the building’s interior and exterior features, scale, and historical context.
Materials Enclosed:
1) Case Report, 3/1/2017
2) SHPO Response and request for case report and public hearing, 12/15/2016
3) City’s notification to SHPO of proposed project, 12/2/2016
4) City Council Agenda Packet Materials, 11/08/2016
5) City Council Agenda Packet Materials, 9/20/2016
6) City Council Agenda Packet Materials, 4/26/2016
7) City Council Agenda Packet Materials, 03/22/2016
8) Brian Gatzke Proposal excerpts
9) designArc/David Kneip/Hitch proposal excerpts
10) Press Release, Statements of Interest for Armory Adaptive Reuse Opportunity, 9/22/2015
11) Request for Statements of Interest, Historic Former Armory Building, Adaptive Reuse, 9/11/2015
Project Review: It has been determined the project, as proposed, will damage, destroy, or encroach upon the
historic property.
The BHPC has been asked by the SHPO to provide official comment on the case report. The
Commission may:
1) Determine insufficient information in case report to provide comment, request additional
information from the applicant and table action;
2) Determine further review of options is needed and table action;
3) Agree with the findings of the case report and provide additional comments,
4) Disagree with the findings of the case report and provide additional comments; or
5) Decline to comment on the findings of the case report.
The Commission reviewed the case report dated March 1, 2017 and identified additional information was
needed in the following sections.
On Sections (1) and (2), Brink asked for clarification on ‘active and passive uses’ of the proposed public
outdoor space. The Commission requested photographs with more dimensional information, interior
photos of the damage/rot/decay including basement (some included in ASCHE report) and roof photos.
On Section (3), please provide a schedule for the project including timeline from 2014 forward. Garcia
Fritz questioned what proposed renditions for the future use of the parcel is the City considering.
On Section (4), Heiberger requested quantifiable data (who, what, when, where) for the statement
“…community-wide desire, interest, and need to provide open space in the downtown district…” Was
there a survey, a representative sample? Garcia Fritz advised that there was community outreach at the
City Council Meetings against the demolition. A poll was referenced in Exhibit C, which addresses
community space, rather than specifically the armory. Additionally, Kate Nelson’s letter referenced that
her “office has received inquiries about the proposed demolition project from several concerned citizens
in Brookings.”
Merriman noted that at one point the adaptive reuse proposals were tabled because the city needed to
wait for the Comprehensive Master Plan to determine if there is a need for open space. The
Comprehensive Master Plan has not been done. Why has this demolition project gone forward?
Garcia Fritz noted an ad hoc committee conducted the “comprehensive site analysis of potential
downtown locations.” This is not a professional opinion. The Downtown Open Space Task Force’s
conclusion, still wanted an opinion from SHPO, which is not conclusive. Of the three representatives, only
the Chamber of Commerce and Convention & Visitors Bureau provided letters of support to explore
realistic and feasible options for green space, not specifically the Armory site.
Boersma pointed out there is an inherent conflict of interest in that all three boards who were consulted
to serve on the ad hoc committee receive substantial funding from the City of Brookings.
Garcia Fritz has certain concerns with the report the ad hoc committee submitted determining
boundaries of the site and active/passive uses; there were several questions with the report itself. Garcia
Fritz asked if the City could provide the past report in their response.
James requested a list of other possible locations for green spaces including dimensions. Additionally,
how does fulfilling this greenspace need for the city achieve active and passive uses?
In terms of the seasonality, Gritzner noted that an open space is a seasonal use and the Armory can be
used year round.
Merriam would like to see the Comprehensive Master Plan identify if indoor or outdoor community space
is more important.
Heiberger questioned if other venues in the city have been considered for greenspace and identify why
they could or could not be used for this purpose.
On Section (5), Merriman questioned the statement, “there is no feasible manner in which to achieve full
compliance with regard to accessibility standards.” Both adaptive reuse proposals had accessibility
addressed and she requested further information on why the city cannot comply with accessibility.
Brink questioned the statement, “The owner realizes this building generates little or no economic activity
for the district, downtown, and the community.” The city is the owner; therefore, it would be up to them
to generate the economic activity. Boersma added there are several other city-owned properties in close
proximity, which serve similar recreational purposes (5th Street Gym, Brookings Activity Center, Public
Library). How do these facilities generate economic activity that somehow the Armory is not capable of
generating? Garcia Fritz added that in terms of the 11.1 review process, economic activity is not a valid
reason for demolition. Willert asked how a greenspace would generate economic activity. What is the
revenue model for the greenspace, and how is it comparable to other greenspaces? Boersma added that
if other places are not able to achieve that level of economic return because of proximity to downtown,
do not have an impact on tourism or utilizing downtown businesses, this needs to be substantiated.
Willert requested a comparative event/activity historic from historic armories in the last year or two and
the potential income streams for tax revenue dollars compared to the potential of a greenspace revenue.
Heiberger raised the issue of input costs over time. As a city owns a building, there is a percentage of a
building’s value allocated each year for maintenance and repairs. What is the city’s input costs on
maintenance and repairs over the last ten years on the Armory compared to other buildings?
Willert questioned the timeline of chronic mechanical failure for accessibility. What is the timeline? What
were those efforts? What failed? Has it the system been replaced?
Merriman added that this also applies to the roof. The city does not have standards. However, there are
known standards, specifically the International Property Maintenance Code, which states that the roof
should not have defects that emit rain. The Armory roof obviously does. A property owner should replace
a roof every 30-50 years. When was the Armory’s roof last replaced?
Gritzner asked how specifically is accessibility compromised by design. Boersma added that the current
split foyer chair lift is one way to solve this issue, but certainly not the only way. If the city is claiming that
accessibility is not achievable, there are professionals, including architects and the Brookings Committee
for People who have Disabilities, who can assist and come up with an accessible plan for the Armory.
On Section (6), Boersma noted that removal of a historic property, especially this particular Armory, is
significant to more than just that immediate district. It is one of the only examples of an Art Deco Armory
and a WPA project in the city of Brookings. A cast in place structure is one of the most substantially pieces
of built architecture in all of Brookings. It further affects the district because instead of it being built
space, it becomes void space.
On Section (7), Boersma explained that the burden of proof to find all feasible and prudent alternatives
lies on the applicant. The challenge of Section (7) in the case of a homeowner who wants to replace a
window will be very different from this case in particular because it is not an expense of public funds and
a demolition of a structure. The Historic Preservation Commission is tasked with the review to make
certain all feasible and prudent alternatives have been explored, fully vetted and the applicant provides
criteria for why they were eliminated as options in order to move to the last option of demolition.
On Section (7) Recent history of the issue, Merriman explained that she developed a timeline as follows,
based on City Council documents. However, it has holes in it and questions are noted in italic.
The investor proposals for the adaptive reuse of the Armory were received as noted in the Case
Report, in March 2016.
City Council minutes of March 22, 2016 indicate that the proposals were reviewed and tabled to
allow public comment.
o When were the investor proposals on the adaptive reuse of the Armory forwarded/reviewed
by other city organizations/commissions (state those organizations) and/or public comment
solicited?
o What actions were taken to encourage/request organization feedback and public comment?
City Council minutes of April 22, 2016 indicate that the investor proposals on the adaptive reuse
of the Armory were reviewed and tabled to evaluate financial implications of the budget season
and allow the Comprehensive Master Plan Committee to evaluate the need for downtown green
space, gathering space and housing. The Council also directed the city manager to form an ad hoc
committee with the Convention & Visitors Bureau, Chamber of Commerce and Downtown
Brookings, Inc. to explore options for downtown green space (Open Space Task Force).
On July 21, 2016, the Mayor and City Manager visited BHPC with proposed plans to build an open
space/park on the site of the Armory.
The Case Report indicates the donor for the demolition of the armory and creation of open/green
space came forward in August.
o What prompted the green space design that was presented to BHPC in July if the Open Space
task force committee had not issued their report and the investor did not come forward until
August, as implied in the case report?
o In what forums and when did community members express an interest for open/green space
downtown?
According to the Case Report, one investor proposal for the adaptive reuse of the Armory was
withdrawn in August.
Open Space Task Force report is dated August 2016.
BHPC letter of concern to City Council is dated September 13, 2016.
City Council minutes of the September 20, 2016 City Council meeting indicate that the Council
reviewed the Open Space Task Force report and instructed the City Manager to prepare cost
estimates for reuse, remediation and stabilization of the armory as well as costs for the
demolition of the Armory for a proposed park.
Staff Report with cost estimate for rehabilitation dated November 3, 2016 is included in the case
report.
City Council Meeting minutes dated November 8, 2016 state that the City Council voted to
demolish the Armory and develop a park on the site.
Brink noted that the language of the original RFP talked about the historic nature of the building and how
important that was for the community. It is interesting that the tone shifted.
Garcia Fritz commented that it is important to note within the timeline the people involved in the
decision making process and moving forward. It was mentioned that the some of the thoughts were
supposed to be forwarded to the Comprehensive Master Plan Committee, which was not mentioned in
the case report that came from the Council Meetings.
Boersma noted that neither of the two adaptive reuse proposals were ever explored beyond being
tabled. What were the terms of the sale? What would be the timeline for completion? What are the
estimated costs? What is the proposer willing to put in? What is the proposer’s expectations from the city
or taxpayer dollars?
Garcia Fritz requested that all the other alternatives be listed: 1) List out the two proposals in the RFP
process; 2) demolition with small kiosk of the emblem; 3) Rehabilitation or renovation – bring it up to
code and repair the roof.
Brink questioned the statement, “The City Council directed City staff to provide an estimate of probable
construction costs to repair the basic building systems of the Armory.” The standards indicate that
consideration needs to be based on professional and lay preservation advice. How can the City staff be
considered preservation advice in that regard and for those estimates?
Boersma noted that Section (7) (a) should be based on factual reports, research, tried methods and
professional and lay preservation advice. Some of the items that are missing are documentation,
substantiation of claims, evidence, proven research methods and references.
On Section (7) cost estimates for renovation, Garcia Fritz advised that typically when a cost estimate is
put forward, a letter usually accompanies it. This letter states it is a preliminary estimate and this is the
percentage that the contractor is certain, which is typical in construction and architecture. Most of these
estimates were coming from two primary vendors, ASHE Engineering from Alexandria and Great Plains
Roofing. The statements that are missing from these estimates are the percentage that the vendor is sure
of the estimate and whether or not it was a competitive bid.
Boersma added that a scope document is typically goes along with an estimate. For example, if you are
asking for replacing in kind on a roof, making sure the estimate you receive is actually the same material
that is being removed from the roof.
Merriman noted that there is redundancy within the estimate. ASHE Engineering’s rehabilitation estimate
includes a new standing seam metal roof, which is not a replace in kind. In addition, there is a roof
estimate from Great Plains Roofing, which is an EPDM (rubber membrane roof). ASHE Engineering also
includes removal of roofing, plywood, purlins and the full replacement. In the City Council agenda text, it
also states “removal and replacement of roof system (if necessary),” which appears to be included in
ASHE Engineering. That is three separate estimates of one roof.
Boersma noted the cost of ASHE Engineering estimate includes the cost of the repairs, plus the new roof.
The Great Plains Roofing number is twice that amount and it is only the roof. Additionally, the ASHE
Engineering report had contingency estimates as well as the city’s memorandum. With renovation
projects, it is common to have a contingency estimate. However, it is not common to compound
contingency estimates with the renovator as well as the city.
Garcia Fritz mentioned that DePuy Military Hall on campus is a very similar renovation project and a
resource for numbers.
Boersma stated that there is a $25,000 State Historic Preservation Office cost in the estimate. However,
there are no fees associated with the State Historic Preservation Office or the Historic Preservation
Commission review. Another unexplained cost is the environmental permitting fee. If there is asbestos
abatement or lead abatement, the cost of the permit is included in the estimate from the abatement
company. Without a scope document, it is difficult to quantify this number.
Merriman estimated that when the redundancies are removed from the renovation proposal, the
estimate is approximately $1,031, 809, which is less than the cost of both park proposals.
Heiberger noted the HVAC estimate is not clear. More documentation needs to be produced to
substantiate this estimate. If an investor adaptively reuses the space, the current owner does not need to
replace the HVAC system, as this will be redone to accommodate the new space.
On Section (7) efforts to maintain the structure, Merriman questioned if the roof has been replaced in the
last 30 years, what is the warranty and what actions have been taken under the warranty? James
requested documentation on where the mold is located and how pervasive is it. Boersma added that in a
typical mold mitigation, all organic products (wood and paper) are removed from the space. The photos
from the project have shown desks, chairs, paper, filing cabinets, etc. It is difficult to remove mold from
the space if organic products are still present. Heiberger noted that a source needs to be cited as to why
demolition is the mold mitigation strategy. Heiberger also asked that in reference to the chair lift fixes,
‘repeatedly’ needs to be quantified. Who is repairing the chair lift? How often is it being repaired? What
amount has been spent? Willert is concerned because many of these issues are typical repairs on a
historic building and should be made to maintain the structure.
On Section (7) alternative options for preservation, Brink noted that the case report had binary
suggestions - either a significant amount of money needs to be spent or it needs to be demolished. There
is always room in the middle. Has the city considered donating the property, market it for selling, moving
the structure, making a parking garage out of the structure? What other options were considered for this
space? What criteria was use to evaluate them? Why were those options eliminated? The only criteria
represented is the cost effectiveness. One of the RFP responses was housing, and it was explained that
would not work because of district standards. However, it was never brought before the Historic
Preservation Commission for comment nor explored. How does the priority for green space trump the
need for a downtown event facility and downtown parking?
On Section (7) usage and community benefit, the case report identifies two usable amenities (meeting
room on second floor and single-court basketball gymnasium). These amenities are based on the current
status of the building and not basic renovation and maintenance of the building. How is that different
from 5 or 10 years ago? How has it changed over time? The gymnasium is used for several different
purposes. Willert obtained a usage report for the last month. In March 2017, excluding open gym, the
Armory was used 30 out of 31 days. As a downtown business owner, if this building were removed, it
would extremely affect the economic impact of downtown.
Heiberger noted all measurable verbiage should be based on factual data, and the usage should be
specific, verifiable and quantifiable. The number of hours used are from 2015. What was 2016? The
public may not be aware that the Armory is an option for events. In reference to the $14,000 utility bill,
how does this compare to maintaining a park (seed, water, mowing, snow removal, etc.)? Proximity to the
railroad track is a factor for noise pollution. The Armory provides a noise mitigator to the rest of
downtown. If it were turned into a greenspace, how would this affect downtown? The economic impact
of a greenspace needs to factor the cost of maintenance. Garcia Fritz noted the ad hoc committee’s
letters were language specific and a letter from DBI was not present. Boersma asked that the verbal
testimony from City Council meetings be quantified as to proponent and opponent testimony.
On Section (7) cost-benefit analysis conclusion, Merriman noted that a spreadsheet outlining the costs of
both projects – future costs, maintenance, utilities, etc. were not produced. Boersma stated that “the
costs to undertake a meaningful restoration with little or no appreciable increase or improvement in the
usability of the building” is an odd assumption. If you spend a significant amount of money on a building,
and do not see appreciable usage, there is something wrong.
On Section (7) re-development plan to include acknowledgement of site history, this response in the case
report only addresses the park plan. There are other options from the responses to the RFP or
rehabilitating the structure. How much did it cost to retain Confluence? Is the financial contribution from
the donor only if, or is it an extended gift to use at the city’s benefit? Merriman noted the historic kiosk
was not included in Confluence’s drawing. She asked for a concept drawing to honor the building.
Sections (7) b. and c. were not addressed in the case report. Garcia Fritz requested the response needs to
be organized in order to match the document.
Brink left at 6:20 pm.
On Section (8), “the owner determined there is no feasible manner to achieve accessibility” needs to be
defined. Under what criteria? The question asks for documentation of consultation with the Office of
History. What professionals were consulted? In reference to, “By altering the structure, the owner risks
and threatens the historical integrity, character and structure of the building,” Garcia Fritz noted that
accessibility is certainly a consideration in historic preservation. However, the National Park Service,
Department of Interior notes that accessibility is not always within the purview of historic preservation.
That is when certain acts need to be considered – Architectural Barriers Act of 1968, the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973 as well as the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Additionally, demolition would alter the
historic preservation of the structure. This statement needs to be clarified. Documentation of
consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office prior to the March 1, 2017 letter is requested.
On Section (9), there were questions raised in the timeline referenced above. Transcripts from the public
testimony at the previous City Council Meetings is requested.
On Section (10), upon receipt of the responses to all the requests, the Historic Preservation Commission
may, if there is not adequate time to review, identify a requested timeframe needed and notify the State
Historic Preservation Office.
On Section (11), there were several items that were not produced with the case report and those
documents need to be produced with the response (CVB Letter, Chamber letter, estimates, Task Force
Final Report, etc.).
Public Testimony:
Cory Ann Ellis, opponent of demolition:
Are there any conflicts of interest with taking funds from an anonymous donor? Can the Historic
Preservation Commission ask for the identity of the anonymous donor, so it can look into any conflicts of
interest? Britzman responded there is not much guidance with respect to anonymous donors, and it is
not defined in state law. Historically, the city has respected donors who prefer to remain anonymous. The
city can respond whether there is any duty to provide the name of the donor. Ellis asked the city to define
‘cost effective.’ Multiple entities within the City of Brookings do not make money (e.g., the Hillcrest
Aquatic Center). When the Armory is being used 30 out of 31 days, where is that comparison to other
nonprofitable entities? As a parent, she is less likely to drop her kids off at an outdoor greenspace with
the convergence of several streets and a railroad, rather than an indoor facility. It will be a lot harder to
keep younger participants safe with an outdoor facility compared to an indoor facility. She has worked in
the event industry for 15 years and never thought of the Armory as an event space until this meeting. She
thought it was only for city events. How is this being advertised? The Farmer’s Market could extend their
season by switching to indoors, and there are many uses beyond a basketball court. A video in support of
repurposing the space has been circulated and DBI members are in the video. Examples of repurposing a
building is Baker Creek Seed Bank in Petaluma, CA. There is always a need for retail space downtown, and
this building is a prime and versatile space. How has this building been promoted for tourism? Many tours
offer art deco architecture and the Convention & Visitors Bureau could use the Armory for promotion of
the city.
Nick Schmeichel, opponent of demolition:
Demolishing this building would definitely set a precedent for the city and historic preservation. How
many professionals did the city confer with for the $2.8 million estimate? Were there multiple bids? The
state fair is required to obtain three bids. The basis for consumerism is finding the best product for the
best price. Other downtown business owners have water coming through the roof and their buildings are
not being maintained. He is concerned that the city may set a dangerous precedent for other property
owners to tear down their buildings due to neglect.
Public comment closed.
A motion was made by Heiberger, seconded by James, to table discussion of the 11.1 Historic Review of
the Demolition of 221 Main Avenue, Brookings Park & Recreation Center, Historic National Guard Armory,
until the city provides the supplemental information to the case report as requested throughout the
minutes of the April 13, 2017 Historic Preservation Commission Meeting and identified in a letter from
the Historic Preservation Commission to the City Manager to be written by Merriman and reviewed by
the Executive Committee. All present voted yes; motion carried.
Heiberger noted the core of these requests returns to 11.1 Review. 11.1 identifies the property owner
needs to provide information that there were no feasible and prudent alternatives to the proposal, and
they have performed all planning to minimize harm. This is the core work for the Historic Preservation
Commission to review. The meeting schedule deadlines will be referenced in the letter. The City Attorney
will research the timeline.
Heiberger left at 6:57 pm.
Project/Issue Updates & Reports:
2017 Mayor’s Awards Nominations.
The following were selected for 2017 Mayor’s Awards Nominations:
817 3rd Street (SCORY LLC) – Excellence in Rehabilitation
908 5th Street (Laine & Caleb Evenson) – Excellence in Restoration
521 8th Street (Christopher & Kelsey Stoltenberg) – Excellence in Rehabilitation
825 6th Avenue (Gail & Rosemary Robertson) – Excellence in Rehabilitation
405 7th Avenue (First United Presbyterian Church) – Ongoing Excellence in Restoration
719 8th Street (Brennen & Lorraine Sullivan) – Stewardship
Prairie Cemetery (Master Gardeners) – Preservation Service Award
Patricia Fishback – “Mary McClure Bibby” Lifetime Achievement Award
Honorable mention letters will be sent to:
404 12th Avenue (Jill Thorngren & Greg Holdeman)
824 9th Street (First Bank & Trust Community Development Corporation)
A motion was made by Willert, seconded by Gritzner, to approved the 2017 Mayor’s Awards
Nominations. All present voted yes; motion carried.
Boersma will draft questions and identify a maximum word count. Members will be assigned to interview
winners, draft a press release and take photographs.
Liaisons.
1) Comprehensive Master Planning Advisory Committee – Boersma and Garcia Fritz advised
that the official Kickoff will be held April 18 at the Brookings Activity Center. A robust public
engagement process will take place from April – October. Business organizations will be the
first stakeholder meetings with specific representatives selected. City boards would be logical
stakeholders – when are their stakeholder meetings scheduled? Identified representatives
should participate from the boards and report any and all engagement activities.
2) Downtown Brookings Inc. – Garcia Fritz advised that DBI has moved out of the downtown
space. Larry Fuller has been conducting a survey. Historic preservation is a part of DBI’s
mission. Elliot Johnson performed a lot of work for very little money. Garcia Fritz will be
stepping down from the DBI Board in August. Would another HPC member be interested in
filling this spot?
3) Public Arts Commission – Artist Patrick Dougherty will provide an Artist Talk on May 18 from
5-6:30 pm at the Children’s Museum of South Dakota. With a grant opportunity – Sideline
Productions is producing a video on the Stickwork project. The PAC is securing a consultant to
review materials and processes, make suggestions for guideline adoption.
State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
The 2017 Statewide CLG conference registration and schedule was emailed earlier this
week.
March 31st - CLG applications are due.
April 27th SDSHS State Board of Trustees meeting in Sioux Falls. Kate, Liz and Jennifer
will be presenting NR nominations and Deadwood Fund grants Thursday afternoon.
April 28-29 – SDSHS Annual History Conference in Sioux Falls.
April 30th – CLG progress reports for the 2016-2017 cycle are due. Let SHPO know as
soon as possible what amendments Brookings would need.
May 31 (+) – Submit reimbursement requests for the 16-17 CLG grant.
Jennifer will be relocating to Raleigh. She has accepted the National Register Coordinator
position starting May 22nd. Her last day in the office will probably be sometime in early
May. Ted is working to put together the paperwork for the State to advertise the soon-
vacant position. SHPO will work together on a plan for a seamless transition and will let
our CLGs know who their interim point of contact will be. She will provide more detail
when plans become more firm.
Staff
1) District Plaques; property owner contact and contractor/installation process
Property owners received a mailing that included reminders about the 11.1 review
process and an update about plaque installation.
Dave Miller, Willert, and Thornes met to discuss the plan for notification, owner
approval, determining plaque location and final installation.
City staff has finalized the property owner/address list to provide to the committee.
Installation will begin in the Central District.
2) SD Annual History Conference attendance
The South Dakota Annual History Conference will be April 28th – 29th in Sioux Falls. It is
hosted by SDSHS Press and the topic is “Laura Ingalls Wilder: A 150-Year Legacy”
http://history.sd.gov/aboutus/HistoryConference/default.aspx. No BHPC members
registered for this conference.
3) May Preservation Month Activities
The BHPC has agreed to do the following activities for Preservation Month:
Brookings Register Column - Groups presenting at Green Drinks are also asked to provide
a 600 word corresponding column for the Brookings Register. James will write article.
o Deadline to submit content is May 1.
Green Drinks - The BHPC has agreed to participate in the Sustainability Council’s monthly
speaking and educational event called “Green Drinks.” Speakers provide a 10-minute
presentation on sustainability issues with questions and answers. The BHPC is scheduled for
Thursday, May 25 @ 6 p.m. Garcia Fritz will speak.
o Deadline to submit content & picture is May 1.
Historic Sites on Bikes; route and promotion – In addition to being historic preservation
month, May is also biking month. The BHPC will collaborate again with the Brookings Bicycle
Advisory Committee and Critical Mass, a group of local riders, do a one themed hour ride on
Friday, May 26 @ 5:30 p.m. Boersma plans to alter the route from last year.
4) Statewide CLG meeting attendance
The statewide Certified Local Government (Historic Preservation Commission) meeting will be
held June 7-9 in Pierre, SD. The conference will be of similar format to last year with an
evening social event on June 7th, all day session on the 8th, and a morning session ending at
noon on the 9th. Grant funds are available to reimbursement for registration and travel
expenses.
Final commitment is required by April 13th for budgeting and scheduling purposes.
5) Strategic planning retreat
The day-long strategic planning retreat has been scheduled for Friday, June 23rd. The
facilitator will arrive in Brookings one to two days ahead of time to meet with executive
committee and staff to plan for the event and tour the town. Staff recommends a conference
call with executive committee in mid April to discuss the plan. The retreat location has not
been selected. Options could include McCrory Gardens Visitor Center, Larson Nature Park,
City & County Government Center, or Library.
6) Ordinance revisions regarding window sash replacement
Replacing just the sashes and leaving the
existing frame is often referred to as a
“pocket replacement window.”
The City of Brookings does not currently
require a building permit for sash
replacement if the existing frames are not
altered. The 11.1 review process is triggered
by city action, such as the issuance of a
building permit. Without a permit or some
other type of city action, the BHPC cannot required a review under the 11.1 state law.
Last month a Brookings historic commercial structure’s second floor windows were replaced.
The window company had advised city building officials that the project was a “pocket
replacement” and no frames would be altered. However, it was later learned that frames
were altered.
Following this action, Thornes conducted a brief survey of other cities in South Dakota to
determine if their local ordinances required permits for window sash “pocket” replacement.
Thornes contacted the cities after the March BHPC to clarify if permits were required for
historic properties only or all properties. All those responding indicated that all properties
must obtain a permit for sash replacement.
City Require permit
for pocket
replacement
Require for all
properties, not just
historic
Notes
Aberdeen Yes Yes
Sioux Falls Yes Yes The City of Sioux Falls does require
a permit for window sash
replacement. It is a flat fee of $20
for the permit. This is one way
that inspectors can check for
changes when it should be safety
glazing. At the time of the permit
review, if the property is identified
to be in a historic district or an
individually listed property, staff
will review the project and
determine if it needs to go to the
BOHP for review.
Huron Yes Yes The City of Huron requires a
building permit to replace
windows, install window inserts or
install new sashes. Since a
building permit is required, a
review is required.
Rapid City Yes The City of Rapid City requires a
building permit (and historic
review) for window replacements
on property listed on the National
Register of Historic Places.
Pierre Yes Yes Yes, a building permit is required
Watertown Yes* Yes Permits are required for if the
value of the work and labor
exceed $2000
Spearfish No Spearfish does not require a
permit for window replacement
unless the rough opening is
altered.
Deadwood Yes Yes Deadwood requires both building
permit and HP review.
Staff is consulting with the City Engineer to determine which section of the City Code would
be appropriate to modify and hopes to have additional information at the time of the
meeting. Thornes will also confirm proposed language with the City Attorney.
This Old House: https://www.thisoldhouse.com/how-to/how-to-install-replacement-windows
Windows: Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings, Secretary of the Interior Standards for
Rehabilitation: https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/rehabilitation/rehab/windows01.htm
Preservation Brief 9 – The Repair of Historic Wooden Windows, National Park Service: Technical Preservation
Services https://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/9-wooden-windows.htm
Historic Windows - Green Preservation Charleston:
https://www.preservationsociety.org/green/Windows1.php
7) 2017/2018 Funding Application. Staff has submitted the 2017/2018 funding request based
on the BHPC’s adopted 2017/2018 goals. Projects will include at least one public workshop,
attendance of the annual state meeting, participation in the National Alliance of Preservation
Commissions Conference in Des Moines, the annual Mayor’s Award, and Central District
Tours. The annual funding application to the State Historic Preservation Office was due
March 31st.
8) 2016/2017 Amendment. Staff will need to prepare a grant amendment to reallocate funds
from the Passive Floor Restoration Workshop by Bob Yapp to a strategic planning event. Staff
will be working with the executive committee to determine additional projects to be
completed with remaining grant funds.
9) Carnegie Renovations. Issued addressed since last BHPC meeting:
a. Final flooring selection: Boersma, Garcia Fritz, and Thornes met onsite to discuss
flooring stain. No samples were provided at that time. The contractor will prepare a
few samples for review in the next week. BHPC and staff are to select wood tone that
is complimentary to the existing wood and would be historically appropriate.
b. Clay Tile Roof: It has been determined that there is no roof underlayment and the
tiles leak. This will require removal of all the tiles, installation of appropriate
underlayment, and reinstallation of the tiles. The contractor estimates 20-30%
breakage. The original company that made tiles is still in business and is located in
Chicago. Replacement tiles will match profile of current tiles.
10) Pending 11.1 Reviews
Brookings County Jail expansion
Small cell towers in historic districts
Willert left at 7:51 pm.
ANNOUNCEMENTS/CORRESPONDENCE/COMMUNICATIONS/CALENDAR
April 18-19 City Comprehensive Master Plan Stakeholder Meetings
Apr 27 State Historical Society Board of Trustees Meeting, Sioux Falls
Apr 28-29 SD Annual History Conference, Sioux Falls
May 1-30 Preservation Month
May 1 Article/Brookings Register Deadline
May 4 City Volunteer Appreciation Reception, McCrory Gardens, 5 -7 pm
May 11 BHPC Meeting, 5:30 pm (note later time)
May 25 Green Drinks Presentation, Jessica Garcia Fritz
May 26 “Historic Sites on Bikes” Guided Tour
May 31 National Park Service Grant Closeout Deadline
June 1 BHPC Meeting, 5 pm
June 7-9 Statewide CLG Meeting
June 23 Strategic Planning Meeting
July 13 BHPC Meeting, 5 pm
July 19 Combined Award Event
Aug 10 BHPC Meeting, 5 pm
Sept 14 BHPC Meeting, 5 pm
Oct 12 BHPC Meeting, 5 pm
Nov 9 BHPC Meeting, 5 pm
Nov 14-17 National Trust for Historic Preservation Conference, Chicago
Nov 30 Trolley Tours – Festival of Lights
Dec 14 BHPC Meeting, 5 pm
June 16-18, 2018 St. Paul’s Episcopal 100th Anniversary Event
Meeting adjourned at 7:54 pm.
Submitted by Laurie Carruthers