HomeMy WebLinkAboutBHPCMinutes_2017_10_121
Brookings Historic Preservation Commission
October 12, 2017 Minutes
A meeting of the Brookings Historic Preservation Commission was held on Thursday, October 12, 2017 at
5:00 p.m. in City Hall. Members present: Angie Boersma, Leah Brink, Janet Merriman, Greg Heiberger,
Carrie Kuhl and Dennis Willert. Absent: Virginia James, Jessica Garcia Fritz and Janet Gritzner. Others
present: Shari Thornes and Laurie Carruthers.
Chairperson Boersma called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. A motion was made by Merriman,
seconded by Brink, to approve the agenda. All present voted yes, motion carried. A motion was made by
Brink, seconded by Willert, to approve the August 3, 2017 minutes. All present voted yes; motion carried.
DISCUSSION AND OFFICIAL COMMENT ON AN 11.1 REVIEW CASE REPORT FOR A ROOFTOP PATIO AT THE 9BAR, 305 MAIN
AVENUE
Project Location/Historic Significance: The owner’s application lists the address as 305 Main Avenue;
however, the National Register Nomination address for this property is 303 Main Avenue. It was built
originally as a pool hall in 1936 by Fred Best and is designated as a contributing structure in the Brookings
Commercial Historic District. The 1988 National Register of Historic Places nomination describes it as a
“one-story brick commercial structure is of yellow toned variegated brick arranged in interesting patterns
and designs. Stone trim outlines the exterior façade that peaks in the middle. The condition of the brick
is good, but the store sign covers a large portion of the original brick.” The signage and shingle awning
were later removed. It is one of 32 structures in the District considered as Early 20th Century American
Commercial Style representing the largest architectural influence of 54 percent. The nomination
characterizes the style as “constructed of red brick in a variety of bonding patterns with a general brick-
front organizational design.”
Project Description: The owners of Cubby’s Sports Bar & Grill, 307 Main Avenue, also own the 9Bar at
305 Main Avenue and have submitted the attached application to extend their rooftop patio. Lynda
Pierce, DesignArc, submitted the application on behalf of the owner “requesting to extend the metal
railing that is currently installed on Cubby’s Sports Bar and Grill patio. The owner intends for the rooftop
of the 9Bar to function as a support space for the Cubby’s rooftop. The only material to be used on this
project would be the same metal railing as the adjacent building. Because the 9Bar and Nightclub building
parapet is taller than that of the adjacent Cubby’s property, the railing would be less visible than the
railing installed along the Cubby’s storefront. The placement of the railing in relation to the front façade
will be the same as the Cubby’s railing placement.”
The State Historic Preservation Office reviewed the application and based on the information provided,
felt the project has the potential to encroach upon, damage, or destroy historic property that is included
in the National Register of Historic Places. They have requested an abbreviated case report responding to
questions 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10. For item #10, they requested the Brookings Historic Preservation
Commission review and comment on the abbreviated case report within 180 days of receipt prior to
submittal to the SHPO. DesignArc submitted an abbreviated case report responses and supplemental
information.
BHPC August 3, 2017 Review. The applicant was unable to attend the August meeting and asked the
Commission to table this item until September. The Commission asked the applicant to define the barrier
that will be structured to the south and west. To minimize the visual from the street, it was suggested to
move the current bar 90 degrees to the west. Will there be any structure or steps between the roofs of
2
the 9bar to Cubby’s? Are the preliminary drawings accurate as to the visual from the street? What are the
long-term plans for the new rooftop space? Will there be a dance floor, umbrellas, seating (if yes, what is
the height of the seating), etc.? Will plantings be installed to soften the visual impact from the street?
Thornes added that the alcohol licensing needs to be clarified with City Council action. Thornes advised
that the Commission has no authority on any nonpermanent temporary furnishings.
Discussion: Thornes advised the applicant produced new photos and advised that there will be no step
into the new space. The street-side fence and barrier wall will be constructed with the same materials as
Cubby’s. Construction is currently set for spring 2018.
ACTION: A motion was made by Brink, seconded by Kuhl to accept the findings of the case report
with the assumption that no additional structures will be built and future structures will be
reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission. Brink made a friendly amendment to the
motion that the height of the barrier would not exceed the current height of Cubby’s barrier, would
not have any horizontal members/supplemental roof or pergola structures and be made from the
same material as Cubby’s.
A motion was made by Willert, seconded by Heiberger to table the current motion until the end of
the meeting to see if the applicant could be reached to answer questions. All present voted yes;
motion carried to TABLE. Staff was unable to reach the applicant’s representative.
A motion was made by Brink, seconded by Merriman, to retract the current motion and all
subsequent amendments from table. All present voted yes; motion carried.
A motion was made by Willert, seconded by Merriman, to table this review until a specific
definition of the barrier wall is provided with architectural drawing or the applicant or their agent is
present. All present voted yes; motion carries.
DISCUSSION AND OFFICIAL COMMENT ON THE 11.1 REVIEW CASE REPORT FOR A DEMOLITION PERMIT FOR THE CITY PARK AND
RECREATION CENTER, “HISTORIC NATIONAL GUARD ARMORY,” 221 MAIN AVENUE
Project Location/Historic Significance: The project is located at 221 Main Avenue and is designated as a
contributing property in the Brookings Commercial Historic National Register District. 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 “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.
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.
11.1 Review: 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
3
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. 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.
BHPC April 13, 2017 Review: The Commission reviewed the City’s Case Report dated March 1, 2017 and
identified additional information was needed in the following sections. The following action was taken: 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.
On June 6, 2017, the following questions were submitted to the City Manager.
“We have reviewed the armory case report submitted on March 1, 2017 and concluded that there is insufficient
information to enable us to make a determination as required by the South Dakota State Historic Pre servation
Officer’s letter of December 15, 2016. The case report does not meet the requirements as outlined in the
“Standards for Case Report” provided in ARSD 24:52:07:03. It does not fully address all alternatives; does not use
specific and measurable factors for analysis; includes documentation that has not been developed by professionals
experienced in community planning, design, construction and rehabilitation of historical structures; and includes
commentary that is based on conjecture and personal opinion rather than statements of fact. We are therefore
unable to analyze the situation to the extent required for a request with such a potentially significant outcome. We
are providing the following questions and comments for you to address in a revised case report, so that we may
complete our review and make a determination in accordance with SDCL 1-19B.
In general, it is expected that the case report should address each question or topic area fully and in the appropriate
order, as outlined in the “Standards for Case Report.” The following comments address each specific section and
your responses within these sections:
(1) A description of any impending project, which may adversely affect historic property;
Please provide a description of the intended project to demolish and develop an open/green space in its location.
Include any plans to build a display and/or kiosk to acknowledge the site and significance of the armory. Provide the
motion and information from the November 8, 2016 City Council meeting i n which the decision to demolish and
develop an open space was made. Please note that it is not the practice of the BHPC to approve anticipatory
demolition. Thus, demolition requests without specific plans for how the site will be reused are considered
incomplete proposals.
(2) Photographs, maps, or drawings showing the existing project site, the extent of projects, and details of the
proposed projects, which may include three-dimensional models or accurate computer-generated representations of
proposed new construction. Models or representations must clearly show the visual impacts of new construction on
surrounding neighborhood or landscapes;
Please include in Exhibit 1 additional photographs to provide evidence of exterior defects and interior damage to
include roof deterioration, and mold and decay encountered in the basement as described in the case report. Also,
4
include drawings or annotated photographs with dimensions that indicate massing, proportions, and building
feature relationships. Provide drawings for the remaining development proposal and the open space plan.
(3) The planning and approval schedule for projects, which may adversely affect historic property;
While the city is still developing a final plan for the demolition project, the report should address the entire history
of the issue. A timeline should be included which details all planning and decisions starting from the time when the
City Council identified a need to develop community space and tasked the development of the Request for Proposal
(RFP) for Adaptive Reuse of the armory, to the current date. The timeline should also note who has been involved in
each step of the decision making process. Include the following information:
-Dates and decisions of City Council meetings involving the armory and all associated proposals.
-Dates of all actions in the development of the RFP for Adaptive Reuse of the armory and review of
proposals. Include the dates and forums in which the need to develop the armory for community space
was identified and the committee was commissioned, as well as all planning events and other actions to
advertise, receive, and review investor proposals. Discuss when investor proposals on the adaptive reuse of
the Armory were forwarded/reviewed by other city organizations/commissions; and when actions were
taken to encourage/request organization feedback and public comment.
-Date when the Comprehensive Master Planning Committee was formed and the past and future timeline
for release of the Comprehensive Master Plan.
-Dates for the formation of the Open Space Task Force; meetings of the task force; forums in which the
task force engaged community organizations and/or the public; relevant survey data; and reports of the
task force. Include dates the City Council received and reviewed the Open Space Task Force report and any
actions taken in regards to that report.
-Date on which a landscape architect was retained to provide concept drawings and estimates for the
development of an open space on the armory site and when the documents were received.
-That on July 21, 2016, the Mayor and City Manager visited Brookings Historical Preservation Commission
(BHPC) with concept drawings illustrating the plan to build an open space/park on the site of the Armory.
-Date and forum in which the donor for the demolition of the armory and creation of open/green space
came forward.
-Dates and forums in which community members expressed an interest for open/green space downtown as
identified in task force and case report.
-Date that one investor withdrew their proposal for the adaptive reuse of the Armory. Documentation of
official withdrawal from consideration should be provided.
-Date that the City Council first received and reviewed the BHPC letter of concern dated September 13,
2016.
-Dates that letters from Brookings Area Chamber of Commerce and Brookings Convention and Visitors
Bureau were received and reviewed.
-Date that the City Manager was tasked to prepare cost estimates for reuse, remediation, and stabilization
of the armory as well as costs for the demolition of the Armory with proposed park and dates that those
estimates were received and reviewed by the City Council.
-Date that the City Council voted to demolish the Armory and develop a park on the site.
-Any other relevant actions taken within this timeframe and to date not noted above.
5
(4) A statement explaining how projects adversely affecting the historic property were brought to the attention of a
state entity or political subdivision;
Define the community-wide interest that is discussed in the case report by providing specific forums in which
organizations and/or the public were inquired or expressed concern and/or interest in the demolition of the Armory
and/or need for both indoor community space and open/green space. Detail how many citizens spoke as
proponents and/or opponents to the demolition of the armory and/or need for open/green space. Include the
results from the poll conducted as part of the RFP development for adaptive reuse that addressed questions about
community space. Discuss the tasking of the Comprehensive Master Planning Committee as it applies to identifying
the need for downtown green/open space and/or indoor community space. Explain what prompted the green space
design that was presented to BHPC in July if the Comprehensive Master Plan has not been published and the Open
Space Task Force committee had not issued their report. Define the terms “active and passive use” along with
specific metrics of those uses. Include as an exhibit any documents that were developed by design professionals
who are qualified in conducting comprehensive site analysis that identify a need for open space downtown and cite
the armory location as the best option. Include the Open Space Task Force Report as an exhibit to the case report.
(5) A description of potentially affected historic property with any relevant physical, economic, or situational
information on the property;
In the case report, it was stated that the facility generates little to no economic activity. Quantify the value of the
economic impact of this property as compared to others of its type that are not revenue generating. If there are
similar usage facilities that generate revenue, provide information on how these facilities generate revenue and why
the armory cannot be used to generate revenue in the same manner. Detail the income and usage of the armory
over the past 5 years. Quantify the usage of the facility as compared to the city’s similar non-revenue generating
facilities. If claims are made regarding the “underutilization” of the facility, provide documentation that advertising
and/or marketing efforts have been employed to generate interest in rental of the facility.
Provide detailed information on the input costs over the last 10 years, to include utilities, maintenance and other
costs. Describe how this compares to other comparable low-revenue buildings within the city. Detail all repair and
maintenance efforts/projects and costs that have been incurred, to include the last time the roof was replaced and
repaired; the chair lift was replaced and repaired; and mold mitigation was performed. Provide all documented
results of condition inspections performed in the past 5 years that address structural, roof, and mold deficiencies. If
the roof has been replaced in the past 30 years, discuss the warranty provided under the latest replacement and any
efforts to repair the roof under the warranty. Provide a detailed timeline of all of the accessibility features that have
failed and the efforts made to bring the feature back to a usable state. Explain what percentage of the building’s
value is allocated each year for maintenance and repairs. Discuss what maintenance standard is used to plan repairs
for the building and other city facilities. If the city is declaring that demolition is being pursued due to the economic
hardship of rehabilitation, it must be established that the city has not enabled “deterioration by neglect” as defined
by SDCL 1-19B-52 and Brookings City Ordnance Section 46-42.
In the case report, it was stated that accessibility standards cannot be met. Substantiate why ADA standards cannot
be met through rehabilitation of the facility or replacement of current ADA features. Provide evidence that an
architect or engineer has been consulted in arriving at this conclusion. Additionally, consultation with the city ADA
Coordinator and Brookings Committee for People who have Disabilities could provide further direction. A suggested
resource is the National Park Service’s Preservation Brief 32: Making Historic Properties Accessible by Thomas C.
Jester and Sharon C. Park, AIA (https://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/32-accessibility.htm).
(6) A description of the potential effects of a proposed project on historic property and the basis for the
determinations of effect;
6
The case report provided the physical effect of the demolition and redevelopment. However, please also address
the historical, community and economic effects. Provide any effects revealed as a result of discussions or forums
with the community, adjacent building owners, and/or stakeholders, to include organizations that utilize the armory.
(7) A historic preservation plan or description and evaluation of all feasible and prudent alternatives which a state
entity or political subdivision proposes in order to minimize adverse effects of a project on historic property and
alternatives which the state entity or political subdivision has examined and rejected. The reasons for rejection must
be included. This section of the case report must clearly substantiate that all possible efforts to minimize harm to the
historic property have been undertaken.
Specifically, address each the following alternatives that have been identified through discussion in the case report:
1. Demolish the armory and develop a park with a small kiosk of the emblem on the armory site.
2. Preserve, Rehabilitate and Restore the armory for reuse through the investor proposals received in
response to the RFP for adaptive reuse released on September 22, 2015.
3. Rehabilitate and continue current usage of the armory.
4. Do nothing.
Describe the concepts completely, explain the criteria used to evaluate each plan, and provide reasons for purs uing
or rejecting the options as feasible and prudent alternatives. The alternatives should address the National Park
Service U.S. Department of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, which can be found at
https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards.htm. For the discussion of each alternative, directly address a. through e.
Further comments are provided for each of these:
Alternatives to aspects of the project, which may adversely affect the historic property, must:
(a) Receive consideration based on factual reports, research, tried methods, and professional and lay preservation
advice;
Reports, plans and estimates provided and used for evaluating the alternatives should be developed by
professionals such as architecture firms, community planners, preservation specialists , or construction consultants.
Specifically, the report provided by the Open Space Task Force was not based on established methods of research
and data collection, evaluation of data, or sound planning principles use to determine options that address
specifically identified community needs. Additionally, there appears to be a conflict of interest in the membership of
the Open Space Task Force as all three boards who were consulted to serve on the committee receive substantial
funding from the city.
While a landscape architect developed a complete opinion of probable cost for each of the options to develop a
park, the demolition and the rehabilitation estimates were not developed in the same way. As a result, the
rehabilitation estimate appears to include pricing for the replacement of the roofing in three lines as identified in
both the Asche Engineering and Great Plains Roofing prices, and the final line item for roof removal and
replacement. Replacement of the roof structure appears to be in two lines: the Asche Engineering estimate and the
final line item for removal and replacement. The scope of the HVAC estimate is unclear. Include documentation to
define the scope of work that is included in each portion of the estimate. Additionally, contingency appears to be
compounded since it is in included in engineering estimates and the overall estimate as well as other areas. Line
items for environmental permitting are typically included in the abatement contractors’ costs, and should be
identified as specific inclusions or exclusions in the contractor’s scope of work to avoid redundancies. There are no
costs associated with SHPO consultation. A scope document to verify the type and level of work and a certification
should accompany the estimate. The certification should be from the professional who developed the estimate
stating the stage of the estimate (preliminary/final), the level of certainty in the estimate, and whether the estimate
was developed through competitive bidding.
7
(b) Explore alternatives beyond the immediate project, taking into account broad community or regional issues in
which the historic resources may play a contributing role;
Discuss the adaptive reuse proposals as alternatives and why they are not feasible. Include the proposed timelines
for completion and the proposers’ expectations from the city. While it was stated that one of the adaptive reuse
proposals was deemed incompatible with the historic district standards, the proposal was never addressed with the
Brookings Historic Preservation Commission, and the criteria for determining the stated inc ompatibility was not
outlined. Therefore, please explain how this conclusion was reached if it is to be used for disqualification as an
alternative. Also, please provide clarification on what “historic district standards” were used.
Also, address whether other alternatives have ever been considered such as a parking garage or other facility that
could incorporate the building shell; moving the building; marketing or selling the property; or donating the facility.
Discuss the specific alternate locations that were evaluated for open space by the Open Space Task Force and
deemed insufficient. Provide dimensions, location concerns and other criteria with the evaluation considerations
that were used to eliminate them as green space locations.
(c) Take into account the impact of potential adverse effects on surrounding historic resources, community
preservation plans, and long-range community opportunities;
The only apparent discussion of the potential adverse effects noted above is in regards to the JLG proposal for
construction of a parking garage as part of their adaptive reuse proposal. Address the effects of d emolition on the
district in detail as well. Include a discussion of the long-range community opportunities that have or could be
identified through the Comprehensive Master Plan process. The armory currently serves to reduce the noise
pollution when trains operate to the south of the district. Also, address how noise mitigation will be provided to
downtown if the armory is demolished.
(d) Be based on professional assessments of the value and basic structural condition of the affected property and
estimates of a range of rehabilitation or mitigative options prepared by people experienced in historical preservation
work; and
See comment in 7.a. about using professionals experienced in historical preservation to address this section.
(e) Provide adequate periods of time for information to be prepared and for preservation options to be attempted; a.
This appears to be considered since the case review process has been initiated with no identified date for
demolition of the armory.
In addition, the following comments are also provided to address the information provided in Section 7 of the case
report:
Recent history of the issue: Discuss in Section 3 and address comments and questions discussed in Section 3 above.
Cost estimates for renovation: See comments under Section 7.a. regarding the use of professionals to develop
estimates and comments regarding the estimate. There should be a detailed scope provided with each estimate.
Consider that there should be different costs associated with rehabilitation in order to turn the building over to an
investor as opposed to repairing in order to continue current use. For instance, the HVAC system would not be
repaired to the same level for an investor because they would be modifying the system to meet the new facility
conditioning requirements.
Efforts to maintain the structure: Discuss in Section 5 and address comments and questions discussed in Section 5
above.
Alternative options for preservation: See comments in Section 7.b. above.
8
Usage and community benefit: Address in section 5. This is only discussed based on the usage of the two current
amenities, which are the second floor meeting room and sin gle-court basketball gymnasium. It does not address the
use of the building for city storage needs. This is also a consideration. Address potential amenities as well. Provide
historical information on how many days per month the facility has been used over the past 5 years. Discuss
whether usage of the facility has been growing and whether there is the opportunity for growth. Discuss what has
occurred to market the facility and encourage usage. Compare usage of the armory to that of similar non-revenue
generating facilities in the city. Provide public comments that have been received regarding armory usage.
Paragraph regarding support by Brookings Area Chamber of Commerce and Brookings Convention and Visitors
Bureau: Include this information in Section 9. Note that the Chamber of Commerce letter provides support for
exploring realistic and feasible options for green space, but not specifically the demolition of the armory or use of its
space. The CVB letter stated that if the city desires open space, the best location of city owned properties would be
the armory site. However, it did not state that the CVB saw a need for open space.
Cost-benefit analysis and conclusion: Provide a cost-benefit analysis that compares all alternatives and explain the
evaluation criteria. If the primary reason behind the decision to demolish the armory is fiscal, explain how green or
open space will generate economic return as compared to the armory if it is developed for reuse and as compared
to other green spaces within the city. The cost benefit analysis should not only address the investment cost, to
include retainage or consulting fees, but should address the future costs and revenues, to include the following:
1. Reuse and/or rehabilitation: utility, snow removal, repair, and regular maintenance costs as compared to
potential rental or other usage and/or tax revenues. Consult with other public or private owners of historic
armories to compare their potential to generate tax revenue.
2. Park costs: mowing, watering, snow removal, public safety, and maintenance costs as compared to potential
rental or other usage revenue.
3. For the adaptive reuse proposals discuss the terms of sale and proposer’s projected investment.
Redevelopment plan to include acknowledgement of site history: Provide concept drawings to show the intent to
recognize the site history. These costs are not apparent in the concept budgets provided for the open space
development. They should be included with the cost benefit analysis.
(8) Documentation of consultation with the Office of History regarding the identification and evaluation of historic
properties, assessment of effect, and any consideration of alternatives or mitigation measures;
In this section, it was stated that a letter was filed with the State Historic Preservation Office. The December 2, 2016
letter to the SHPO was not a consultation, but a notification of intention to demolish the armory. Address whether
the city has consulted with the state in the past to identify other potential solutions for adaptive reuse, potential
grants to fund rehabilitation, etc.
(9) A description of the efforts of a state entity or political subdivision to obtain and consider the views of affected
and interested parties;
Include not only the letters provided from the Brookings Area Chamber of Commerce and Brookings Convention and
Visitors Bureau, but provided synopsis of comments received from the public in various forums such as surveys
conducted during the RFP survey, City Council meetings, and the Comprehensive Master Planning Process.
Sections 10 and 11 will be identified through the BHPC and public comment process.
We thank you for the opportunity to review the city’s case report. Please do not hesitate to contact the BHPC chair
and vice chair via e-mail if you have questions about our response. We look forward to working through this
process with you.”
9
ACTION: The City has opted to not respond to the BHPC June 6th questions and requests final official
comment from the BHPC. At this point in the review process, the Commission may:
1) Agree with the findings of the case report and provide additional comments,
2) Disagree with the findings of the case report and provide additional comments; or
3) Decline to comment on the findings of the case report.
A motion was made by Merriman, seconded by Heiberger, that given the following and pursuant to
ARSD 24:52:07:03(10), the Brookings Historic Preservation Commission does not agree with the
findings of the case report and submits these official comments to object to the demolition of the
Brookings Armory. The Executive Committee is hereby authorized to finalize the comments and
attachments, as discussed, for submission to the State Historic Preservation Commission for their
determination.
1. The project to demolish the armory does not meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
Rehabilitation.
2. The City of Brookings has not fully investigated all potential alternatives to demolition and has
not demonstrated that there are no prudent and feasible alternatives to demolition as is
required when proposing an action that does not meet the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards for Rehabilitation. Furthermore, the City of Brookings has not demonstrated that the
proposal includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the historic property, as specified in
SDCL 1-19A-11.1.
3. The City of Brookings’ decision to demolish the armory is based on incomplete and inconsistent
economic studies.
4. The City of Brookings is justifying the demolition of the Armory based on extensive costs to
repair the facility that stem from a lack of regular maintenance to the facility. This situation is
classified as “demolition by neglect” and is not a defensible justification for demolition.
Public comment: Moria Curry agrees with the Historic Preservation Commission’s findings. The City
was given clear questions and path to investigate and they did not do their due diligence. If the City is
not ready to answer these questions, we should not be tearing down the Armory. The Armory is
currently used multiple times per week and should have been fixed in the first place. Dana Andersen
and Cathy Miller agreed the City should have taken care of the building. The Armory has a great history
and many generations have utilized this facility. Future generations need this facility.
Boersma feels that the Historic Preservation Commission has thoroughly handled this issue and most
everything has been said in public and writing.
On the motion; all present voted yes; motion carried.
Thornes reviewed the schedule. The minutes of this meeting will be submitted to the State Historic
Preservation Office. The State will review the project, information compiled and the recommendation
from the BHPC. The State will then determine if this project has the ability to destroy, damage or
encroach on a historic resource or not. If the State determines that it does destroy, damage or encroach
on a historic resource, then it goes to the City Council to make a determination and final decision. It will
be a public hearing before the City Council and likely on November 28 or December 12. Citizens would be
able to provide public comment at this meeting. If the City Council takes action to not issue a demolition
permit, then the issue is done and the state would be notified. If the City Council takes action to issue a
demolition permit, the City Council has to notify the State Preservation Office by certified mail and give
10
10 days notice. During that time, the State Preservation Office gathers official information and record of
the action.
PROJECT/ISSUE UPDATES & REPORTS
District Plaque Installation. The intern for the Sustainability Council is working on finalizing the Central
District installation and verifying who is remaining by going door-to-door. She is beginning the University
District by going door-to-door and creating a book. The installer knows several of the contractors and
property managers and will make connections for the plaque install. A mailing will not likely have a
successful response rate, so there will be a lot of leg work for the University District.
Heiberger asked about an intern for the BHPC. Thornes advised that this intern is funded out of the SDSU
College of Education & Consumer Sciences. Giza’s background is hospitality and restaurant management
and this is her second year as an intern with the city. The BHPC can discuss how to utilize her.
Central District Trolley Tour. Boersma suggested three providers. Willert suggested Curt Madsen who
lives on Lake Campbell. Thornes advised that the provider must provide liability insurance. The BHPC
discussed the starting point. In previous years, it has started at the Brookings Arts Council and Children’s
Museum. The BHPC advised the lighting, inlet and no turn around made the Children’s Museum a better
starting point. Staff will confirm with the Children’s Museum. Docents will recommend riders tour of the
Festival of Trees at the Brookings Arts Council and a summary of their rehabilitation work will be added
into script. First docents are Boersma and Merriman. Backups are Brink and Willert.
Comprehensive Master Plan Advisory Committee (Boersma & Garcia Fritz) – Boersma advised a draft plan
will be presented on October 16. Areas of focus include 6th Street and Brookings Marketplace. Boersma &
Fritz expressed concerns to preserve historic districts west of Medary Avenue along 6th Street and the
consultants agreed. Potential development would be considered along the south side of 6th Street up to
Medary Avenue. The north side of 6th Street would be avoided and maintain the residential scale
preservation. Thornes questioned this location because the HPC made the decision not to pursue historic
districts because of the pressure from campus to have larger density structures and try to preserve the
smaller scale residential density from 6th Street to the south (5th Street, 4th Street, and 3rd Street) and
continuing in that direction. This news is a shift from previous planning stand points from campus or the
community. Boersma is more certain of the plans west of Medary. East of Medary there were more plans
on mixed use and adding density. Boersma advised the consultants are recommending 5th Street be
maintained as residential scale and intentional buffering towards 6th Street. Thornes advised that the
recent City Council Meeting when the the mixed use structure at 12th Avenue and 6th Street was
considered, property owners were concerned about the structure impacting 5th Street, since the plans
included a house along 5th Street. This will set a precedent and could be a domino effect into the
neighborhood. Council Member Wendell questioned the work with the Comprehensive Master Plan.
Boersma advised the consultants are focusing on the half block that is immediately adjacent to 6th Street
with pockets of residential scale preservation and pockets for high density and mid-density closer to the
east. There was an amendment to development plan that required a parking lot at 5th Street and 12th
Avenue not be constructed until it is needed. Planning Commission Member Tornquist asked specifically
about this project at their last meeting and requested feedback from the consultant about using 5th Street
as overflow parking. The consultants believe Brookings’ parking regulations are high compared to other
cities and not intensity based. Thornes added, this area was strongly considered for a stand alone historic
district, but many of the houses have turned over to rentals. Individual listed properties could be
considered.
11
A draft Comprehensive Master Plan is scheduled to be released in December. A formal public
presentation by RDG will occur in December or January prior to actual adoption in 2018. Heiberger
questioned previous comp plans and how have they changed compared to this plan.
Public Arts Commission (Brink) – Brink advised that Chair Lamp presented a preliminary plan to the City
Council in September. They are currently finalizing documents, guidelines and the Patrick Dougherty
video.
State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
The next Deadwood Grant application deadline is October 1, 2017. Application packets are available
here: http://history.sd.gov/Preservation/FundingOpps/DeadwoodFundOverview.pdf
State Property Tax Moratorium application deadline for 2017 work is November 1, 2017. Application
packet: http://history.sd.gov/Preservation/FundingOpps/SPTMOverview2017.pdf
The 2018 history conference will be held April 27-28 in Rapid City. The program is being organized by
the Archaeology office and the theme is “Infinite Variety: Past, Present, Future.”
The 2018 CLG conference will be held May 16-18 in Vermillion, with guest speaker Donovan
Rypkema. The Clay County CLG is organizing the conference and Jim Wilson or Ted Muenster are the
contacts.
Site Visit scheduled for October 19th. Thornes is facilitating all appointments and will attend the site
visits.
November meeting – SHPO Staff Kate Nelson and Katelyn Weber will be attending the BHPC Meeting.
Executive Committee/Staff Updates
Terms expiring December 31 – Kuhl, Merriman and Gritzner. The city will advertise next week. Mayor
meeting with Chairs/Vice Chairs on appointments.
Streetlights – Central District – citizen contacting property owners to gain support for acorn LED lights
along 4th Street, 5th Street and the avenues. Working with Mayor, city staff, Brookings Municipal Utilities
and residents.
Bicycle Master Plan Presentation – Report innovative preservation projects at November meeting.
Preservation tools for development and asked what kind of town are you – tear down or preserve?
825 5th Street – recently purchased by historically minded couple
Thornes will research grant funding for interns and possible partnering with other organizations.
Announcements/Correspondence/Communications/Calendar
Oct 3-4 Growing Sustainable Communities Conference, Dubuque
Oct 12 BHPC Meeting, 5 pm
Nov 9 BHPC Meeting, 5 pm
Nov 14-17 National Trust for Historic Preservation Conference, Chicago
12
Nov 30 Trolley Tours – Festival of Lights
June 2018 Preserve Iowa Summit, date & location pending
Dec 7 Mayor’s Holiday Party
Dec 14 BHPC Meeting, 5 pm
Apr 27-18, 2018 State Historical Society Annual Meeting, Rapid City
May 3, 2018 City Volunteer Appreciation Reception, 5-7 pm, McCrory Gardens
May 16-18, 2018 South Dakota Statewide CLG Conference, Vermillion, Donovan Rypkema Keynote
June 16-18, 2018 St. Paul’s Episcopal 100th Anniversary Event
July 18-22, 2018 NAPC Forum, Des Moines
Nov 2018 National Trust Conference, date & location pending
Meeting adjourned at 6:11 p.m.
Submitted by Laurie Carruthers