HomeMy WebLinkAboutRes. 19-053Resolution 19-053
A Resolution Adopting Written Findings by the Brookings City Council
Disapproving a Proposal of the Brookings County Commission to Expand its
Current Detention Center.
WHEREAS, a meeting was held to consider the proposal of the Brookings County
Commission to expand its current detention center before the City Council at its normal
meeting time on July 9, 2019; and
WHEREAS, the City conducted a public meeting, gave notice as required by law, and
gave consideration to all relevant factors; and
WHEREAS, the Brookings City Manager authorized the Brookings City Attorney's Office
to prepare proposed written findings consistent with the decision of the Brookings
Historic Preservation Commission in preparation for the public hearing;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
That the recitals above are adopted as findings, and in addition, the following findings
are adopted:
FINDINGS:
1 The proposal of the Brookings County Commission to expand the current
detention center shall hereinafter be referred to as the "Proposal."
2. The Proposal impacts the Brookings County Courthouse which is listed on
the National Register of Historic Places.
3. The Proposal was reviewed by the Brookings Historic Preservation
Commission ("BHPC") on February 8, 2018, and again on June 14, 2018,
when the Commission determined that the proposal, if approved, would
have an adverse effect on the Brookings County Courthouse. Under
SDCL § 1-19A-11.1, the BHPC sent official comments dated July 31,
2018, to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO).
4. On August 29, 2018, SHPO sent a letter to Shari Thornes, Brookings City
Clerk, that contained a determination that the Proposal to expand the
Brookings County Detention Center upon the grounds of the Brookings
County Courthouse would encroach upon, damage, or destroy historic
property that is listed in the National or State Register of Historic Places;
and that alternatives to the project had not been adequately considered
and should be further explored.
5. The Brookings County Commission adopted its own written determination
under SDCL § 1-19A-11.1 on November 6, 2018.
6. The City Council set this meeting to make a final determination on the
Proposal under SDCL § 1-19A-11.1.
7. Brookings County had the burden to show the absence of feasible and
prudent alternatives.
8. The City Council heard testimony and presentations from City staff,
Brookings County, and proponents and opponents of the Proposal.
9. The City Council's review and consideration included, but was not limited
to, the above -referenced testimony and presentation; South Dakota
Codified Law 1-19A-11.1; Summary of SDCL 1-19A-11.1 Review Process
and the following:
a. Application from BKV Group, November 13, 2017
b. City's Notification to SHPO of proposed project, November 14,
2017
c. State Historic Preservation Office response requesting case
report, November 16, 2017
d. Case Report Submittal, dated January 19, 2018, received by the
City on January 22, 2018
e. BHPC Minutes/public comments (approved) February 8, 2018
f. Case Report Addendum, no date, received May 26, 2018
g. BHPC Minutes/public comments (unapproved) June 14, 2018
h. Office of the Attorney General Memorandum Opinion on SDCL
11.1 Reviews, dated 12/17/2013
i. National Register of Historic Places Inventory Nomination Form
for the Brookings County Courthouse, 1976
j. Official comment of the Brookings Historic Preservation
Commission pursuant to SDCL 1-19A-11.1 dated July 31, 2018
k. Letter of South Dakota Historical Society (SHPO) dated August
29, 2018
I. Resolution No. 18-44, Brookings County Commission's Written
Determination Concerning the Current Detention Center
Expansion Project Pursuant to SDCL 1-19A-11.1(1)
10. Upon review of the information provided, the Brookings City Council
determines that the proposal does not meet the Secretary of the Interior's
Treatment of Historic Properties, specifically the Standards for
Rehabilitation, as required by ARSD 24:52:07:02 and ARDS 24:52:07:04.
Specifically, the proposal does not meet the following Standards for
Rehabilitation:
• Standard #1: "A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be
placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining
characteristics of the building and its site and environment."
[Emphasis added]
Standard #9: "New additions, exterior alternations, or related new
construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize
the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and
shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural
features to protect the integrity of the property and its environment."
[Emphasis added]
11. The overall design of the proposed addition is compatible with the design
and materials of the existing courthouse, however the size of the proposed
addition is incompatible with the existing courthouse. The footprint of the
proposed expansion is substantially larger than the footprint of the original
courthouse, rendering the addition incompatible in size and scale with the
existing courthouse, as per Standard #9.
12. The west wall of the proposed expansion will essentially be flush with the
front (west) wall of the courthouse, making it highly visible rather than
subordinate to the existing courthouse. As a result, the size and
placement of the proposed addition on the courthouse square will
negatively impact the courthouse's symmetrical design and its site and
environment.
13. In addition, the Proposal does not satisfy subdivision 1 of ARSD
24:52:07:04, regarding compatibility of design, because the massing, size,
and scale of the new construction are not compatible with the historic
courthouse. The overall visual appearance of the new construction would
dominate the surrounding historic landscape and would infill a significant
portion of the historically important civic green space surrounding the
courthouse.
14. The Proposal does not satisfy subdivision 10 of ARDS 24:52:07:04,
regarding the setting, because the relationship of the new construction to
the existing courthouse would not maintain the traditional placement of the
historic courthouse in the block and would disrupt the symmetry and
balance of the site.
15. Brookings County has identified feasible and prudent alternatives to the
proposal, such as constructing a new Detention Center in a different
location. While the County concludes that an alternative site would be
more expensive and would require the transportation of prisoners to the
courthouse, those considerations do not mean that the alternatives are not
feasible and prudent.
16. The Brookings City Council is persuaded by the BHPC's official comment
dated July 31, 2018, and adopts its findings and conclusions.
17. The Proposal, if approved, would have an adverse effect on the Brookings
County Courthouse.
18. Based upon consideration of all relevant factors, there are feasible and
prudent alternatives to the Proposal, and the Proposal has not included all
possible planning to minimize harm to the historic property resulting from
such use.
19. The recorded minutes, video, supporting materials, and testimony on this
matter are incorporated herein in support of any and all findings made
herein.
Passed and approved this 9th day of July, 2019.
CITY OF BROOKINGS
Keith Corbett, Mayor
UVE-Uns
56n W-Fb§t r, Acting City Clerk
11%xt� ilY DAW