HomeMy WebLinkAboutBHPCMinutes_2018_06_14Brookings Historic Preservation Commission
June 14, 2018 Minutes
A meeting of the Brookings Historic Preservation Commission was held on Thursday, June 14, 2018 at
5:00 p.m. in City Hall. Members present: Angie Boersma, Greg Heiberger, Carrie Kuhl, Dennis Willert
(arrived 5:24 p.m.), Janet Gritzner, Jessica Garcia Fritz, Leah Brink and Virginia James. Absent: Janet
Merriman. Others present: Shari Thornes and Bonnie Foster.
Audience: County Commission members Stephane Miller, Ryan Krogman, Mike Bartley, Larry Jensen;
Bruce Schwartzman, BKV Group Architects; Diane Kosbau, Yvonne Fetzer, Nancy Flynn, Lawrence
Novotny, Pat Fishback, Dan Kemp, Michelle Kemp, Gloria Kloster, Martin Kloster; Sheriff Marty Stanwick,
Assistant Sheriff Scott Sebring, and Jail Administrator Bart Sweebe.
Chairperson Boersma called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. A motion was made by Heiberger,
seconded by Kuhl, to approve the agenda. All present voted yes, motion carried. A motion was made by
Kuhl, seconded by Garcia Fritz, to approve the April 12, 2018 minutes. All present voted yes; motion
carried.
DISCUSSION AND OFFICIAL COMMENT ON AN 11.1 REVIEW CASE REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED BROOKINGS COUNTY JAIL
EXPANSION (TABLED FEBRUARY 8, 2018).
Property Address: 314 6th Avenue & 315 7th Avenue
Property Owner: Brookings County
Applicant: Bruce Schwartzman, AIA, BKV Group, on behalf of Brookings County
Year Built 1912
Historic District/Listing:
Brookings County Courthouse – Individually Listed (1976)
Brookings Central Residential Historic District – List in 1986 and expanded 1997, borders the
courthouse grounds on the north, east, and south sides
Historic Carnegie Public Library – Individually Listed (1980), is located west of the courthouse
square
Category: Contributing
Architect/Style: C.E. Bell, Tyrie and Chapman, Renaissance Revival style
Project Description: The applicant is requesting to construct a 17,500 square foot addition to the existing
jail and Law Enforcement Center to the north of the existing building along with a remodeling of
approximately 4,750 square feet of the existing Center and jail.
Chairperson Boersma stated this item was before the BHPC on February 8, 2018, and was tabled with a
request for additional information.
Rules of Conduct: Boersma provided the BHPC standards and instructions for public code of conduct in
the public forum portion of the evening primarily because this will be an opportunity for public comment.
At the last meeting, there was a fair amount of comment by the County and Sheriff’s Administration to
provide background and information about operations. The BHPC will not be revisiting that tonight, so
there is plenty of time for public comment. Only new information will be considered tonight and the
discussion whether the project, as proposed, meets or does not meet the Standards (Secretary of the
Interior Standards for Rehabilitation).
Boersma read the following instructions: “It is the practice of the Brookings Historic Preservation
Commission to provide a neutral public forum for the Citizens of Brookings to voice both support and/or
opposition to a building-owner’s application. The 11.1 review process is intended to provide an objective
metric of the applicant’s consideration of and adherence to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
Rehabilitation, as called for in SDCL, with the explicit goal of minimizing harm to historically significant
structures, landscapes, and districts. The goal is to allow every individual opportunity to speak, while still
maintaining the order required of a public meeting, and being respectful of everyone’s time.
1.) Everyone planning to speak – please sign in on the sheet with your first and last name so that it
can be spelled correctly in the minutes, if necessary.
2.) Please keep your comments succinct and to the point.
3.) Please do not speak out of turn or interrupt another member of the public or the applicant.
The meeting will proceed in the following order:
1.) Staff will provide a brief introduction to the case report for the commission members and public.
The applicant will have opportunity to present the additional information for the case report or
specific details relevant to the information requested. The Chair asked that the applicant does
read the slides provided. If there are specific things to note, let us point those out quickly.
2.) The Commission members will ask any clarifying questions of the applicant directly.
3.) The floor will be opened for public comment, beginning with proponents of the applicant’s
proposed design, followed by opponents of the applicant’s proposed design.
4.) Once the public forum concludes, the floor will be closed and the commission will determine
whether to
A.) Agree with the findings of the case report,
B.) Disagree with the findings of the Case Report,
C.) Table any recommendation, pending additional documentation from the applicant or research
by the BHPC, or
D.) Abstain from any official comment.”
Staff Comments: Thornes, BHPC Program Manager, provided opening remarks. On February 8, the BHPC
made a motion requesting additional information and that is what is before the Commission tonight for
consideration.
February 8, 2018 BHPC Action: The case report was initially heard by the BHPC at their February 8,
2018 meeting. After hearing from the applicant, proponents, and opponents, the BHPC made the
following motion: “A motion was made by Merriman, seconded by Heiberger, to table any action on
the Brookings County Jail Expansion as there is not significant enough information to make a comment.
In order to take action on this matter, the Historic Preservation Commission requests the applicant
provide the following information:
1) The costs of the proposed project as compared to the off-site options, to include construction,
operational and other investment costs;
2) The construction costs to verify figures provided in case report;
3) Building dimensions, to include height and width, setbacks, and comparisons of the project to
those of the courthouse, as well as the properties to the north and east of the proposed project;
and
4) Projection numbers to determine the timeframe until the proposed facility would need
replacement/additional space or whether a phased approach to moving facilities off site could
be investigated as a prudent and feasible alternative.
All present voted yes; motion carried.”
The materials were submitted on May 26th for review at tonight’s meeting. NOTE: The information was
submitted past the published deadline for agenda materials. However, after consulting with staff and
input from the City Manager, the BHPC executive committee agreed to accept it late. County
Commissioner were notified of this decision.
Applicant: Chairperson Boersma opened it up for the applicant, specifically to point out anything that is
material to the conversation tonight that is new and/or not included in the handouts or specific items of
note that you want to make sure to highlight.
Bruce Schwartman, BKD, explained the additional information provided helps to clarify information
previously presented, and to clarify the changes in some numbers. He stressed the tremendous
operational impact when the courts and jails are separate. The Sheriff’s Office staff has also looked at
efficiencies during peak times. The reality is, with every SD County they talked to, there is a long -term
operational implication if those facilities are separated. One needs to consider if the County were to
build a new facility offsite, it would be an entirely different project. To build a new facility offsite would
increase the cost of the project significantly. Jails are very expensive projects for a variety of reason s:
security devices, electronics, hardness of facility to have inmates not get out of or get in to, fewer
providers of specialty equipment required for jails, etc.
The additional information also addressed the setbacks, the height analysis, and such. A series of
meetings have been held to wash out design options. He understands the sensitivity, desire, and
direction of all parties involved. At the end of the day, Schwartzman sees the Historical Commission as a
partner in the final product. This direction engages all parties, if and when the project continues.
Public Hearing/Comment:
Proponent Comment: Boersma asked for proponent comment of the project, in favor of the project as
proposed. No one spoke as a proponent of the application or project.
Opponent Comment: Boersma asked for opponent (against) comment on the project.
Pat Fishback, 423 8th Street, stated she does not believe all feasible alternatives have been pursued as to
where the jail expansion could be located. One option other counties are using is to locate their jails
offsite from their courthouses. They include a courtroom in those offsite jails, so it is not the prisoners
who travel, but the judge who travels and holds court in the jail. She does not believe financial
information has been provided on this option. It appears it would save on costs of transporting prisoners,
and costs of design and materials for the building as it would not need to be compatible with the
Courthouse. There is no doubt the County Jail needs expansion. Several months have been spent on the
interior plan for the jail, which is set and ready to go and can be located anywhere in the County. We now
know the County’s needs and the building required is larger than what can be accommodated reasonably
in the Courthouse greenspace. There are two renderings of what can take place on the historic
Courthouse square. This brings up a couple areas of concern. 1) At this point in the process, the
applicant was to provide one plan to BHPC to be acted upon. That plan was to say this is what is going to
happen in that area. The fact that two versions are presented adds to the general sense of not being able
to know what to expect from one meeting to another. There is an unpredictability as to the applicant’s
plans and actions. So whatever the BHPC acts on at this meeting, cannot be predicted of what will be
built on the site. Fishback urged the BHPC to vote no on the applicant’s request.
Yvonne Fetzer, 724 4th Street, stated Sheriff Stanwick had stated previously that the County foresees only
30 more years of use for the current Courthouse. She does not understand why a major expansion would
be built onsite if only using the Courthouse for the next 30 years.
Doug Carruthers letter submitted 6/14/2018. Read into the record by Heiberger.
“I regret not being able to attend tonight’s meeting of the Historic Preservation Committee to voice my
opposition to the current plan for the County Jail expansion. I would appreciate if the following could be
read into the public record.
The jail, as it stands today, is an example of the failure of past boards and committees to protect what is a
centerpiece of the architectural and historic character of our community. A continued approval of plans
which hide, detract and distort the courthouse structure from the original design would represent a
failure on the part of this committee to protect this community’s future self from its current needs for
expediency and what is ultimately a minor cost savings.
It is my view that the following points make any plan to expand the jail on the site untenable from the
perspective of historic preservation.
1. Aesthetic and Historical Character: The Courthouse is a central square courthouse built purposefully
with symmetry and placed in the center of a large lot. The very character of the building is predicated
upon visual balance and the open space in which it was meant to set. Much as a cathedral
encompasses a vast volume of empty space to inspire awe and draw the eye towards the heavens, a
central courthouse is designed to command a large open space with unencumbered views which
impress upon those who pass the importance of the structure and the activities it houses.
2. Useful Life: A 45 year life span on a jail expansion surrounding a historic courthouse should be a red
flag not a feature for the determination of whether it is wise for the HPC to endorse this project. The
courthouse is the facility which the committee is charged with protecting and as a courthouse, its
useful life will be outstripped with time and caseload. According to the meeting notes of February 8th
(pg 6), Sheriff Stanwick estimates that this could occur as early as 30 years from now. 15 years prior to
the end of the useful life of the new structure.
3. Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives: Objectively, if we consider these concepts in terms of long
term impact to the historic structure, the continued expansion of the jail can never be reasonable or
prudent because, in the medium and long term, the courthouse will not be able to satisfy its role as a
courthouse and will need to be moved. At which time, the location of the expanded jail represents
stranded investment and a burdensome cost to remove and return the courthouse to its original
condition. The protection of this site requires an acknowledgment that we as a community dropped
the ball in the past and allowed the original jail to expand in a way that is detrimental to the historic
character and architectural intent of the structure to be protected. Continuing to act on bad
precedent is not reasonable or prudent. If we maintain and care for it, our courthouse will remain for
centuries to come. It is in this time frame we must consider the consequence of further development.
~ Doug Carruthers
705 4th Street
Brookings, SD 57006”
Schwartzman clarified there was only one single floor plan and one single site plan presented. The
location of the walls was approved by the Variance Committee, as with the setback of the walls. That has
never changed. However, they did do some different façade treatment massing arrangements, which
was really an exercise in design materials, uses, and balancing proportions. The exterior design will
continue to develop. BKD was never asked ultimately what the building will look like, which is still being
determined by the County Commissioners. On the 30-year life of the current Courthouse, Schwartzman
stated some additional information was submitted (#41, Section 5). The specific question asked of BKD
was the timeframe needed for replacement, additional space, or if a phased approach expansion of the
facility could be implemented, prudent, or as an alternative. Based on inmate population/trends, it was
determined the new facility will accommodate inmate population for well over 45 years. The entire
facility should last for over 50 years.
(Willert arrived at 5:24 p.m.)
Schwartzman clarified that he is not trying to be contrary. He appreciates the concerns addressed from a
very educated and articulate community. He agrees the Courthouse setting is a historic Courthouse
square, and has done some things to respect this. In the 1800’s the Courthouse square was a communal
space. There were some images provided showing historic structures around the country where existing
historic buildings have been attached/built on to. We are not attaching the building to the courthouse,
but rather building adjacent to it. They are applying and abiding by the same rules and guidelines and
respecting the existing building. For example, the new building elevation is stepped back from the west
façade of the Courthouse. The current jail doesn’t respect or blend in any way with the Courthouse and
its grounds. The goal of the project is to give a more uniform feel, to tie it together with the Courthouse,
but not copy the historic significance of the Courthouse. The overall goal is to minimize the impact and to
improve what is going on. Clearly, there are other things which could be looked at, such as additional
space, adding a courtroom, etc. Everything added offsite adds cost to the project.
Heiberger asked for a point of clarification on the two plans presented and what it is going to look like.
When looking at the 11.1 application, checklist point #4 states “the site plan should clearly create a
graphic representation of the building and any other elements that are part of the request.” Heiberger
challenged this interpretation, and this commission from his perspective should vote on what this will
look like.
To clarify, Schwartzman stated as in 3.2, the proposed footprint is what is going to be done. The
height/massing is going to stay the same. Yes, there are there will be some minor articulations to discuss.
To penalize them about the massaging of the exterior is irrelevant. The footprint that is proposed is what
the footprint is going to be. The final articulation of the materials, that will be decided as a community.
Public comment portion closed.
A motion was made by Brink, seconded by Willert, to disagree with the findings of the case report based
on two major criteria: 1) the proposed addition doesn’t meet the majority of the standards for
rehabilitation as well as the ARSD standards for new construction in historic districts, and 2) there are
reasonable alternatives unexplored.
Boersma agreed with Brink that the proposed addition doesn’t meet the Secretary of the Interior
Standards. It is in our best interest to clarify which standards to talk about. Boersma noted Standards 1,
2, 5, 9, 10 very clearly apply. Points of Standards 3 and 4 also apply. In consideration of
additions/alterations on the block of the Courthouse, we have to consider the entirety of the block. It is
explicitly stated in Standards 1 and 2, includes the property as a whole, including the site and the
environment of its context, be considered. Due to the encroachment on the site, this project does not
meet Standards 1 and 2.
Brink stated the defining characteristic of the existing Courthouse is that it rests in the middle of the
block. The condition of the existing jail is a no starter. Garcia Fritz added historically, the Courthouse was
intended to be a communal space, and today is a civic space. The environment surrounds the
Courthouse, but it also extends into the historic district, surrounded by houses and institutional buildin gs.
The Courthouse mitigates the different scales, from residential to institutional, through this buffer zone.
This is the civic space that cities are intended to have. Exterior spaces are being encroached upon with
this.
Boersma recognized the commission is charged with preserving and maintaining the character defining
features of a property as a whole. Reading the nomination forms for the Brookings Courthouse and
Courthouses across the state of SD, there is a blanket nomination for all Courthouses listed in SD. One of
the things to point out is the majority of Courthouses in SD are not built as a central feature on a historic
Courthouse square. This makes Brookings Courthouse unique and distinct and is an important character
defining feature to preserve. Garcia Fritz added the importance of the symmetry and balance of the site.
In the elevation renderings, the symmetry/balance is thrown off with the proposed building.
Boersma stated parts of Standards 1, 2, 3 and 4 apply. It is the property as a whole. The distinctive
materials of the Courthouse itself doesn’t include the whole property. The distinctive features (#5)
includes exterior and interior features. Standards 6, 7, and 8 do not apply to this project, as they are
geared towards restoration of the Courthouse proper or significant archeological resources, which there
probably aren’t any. Standards 9 and 10 are specifically related to massing scale, proportion, etc., and
are also specifically referenced in the Administrative Rules for SD. In looking at the ARSD Rules in
conjunction with Standard 9, must be considered. When looking at the ARSD component, specifically
compatibility of design (#1), must be careful on understanding the massing and scale in light of the recent
demolition in a Sioux Falls historic district. BHPC does not want to be in that position of improper
massing. Item #10 speaks to setting, and the entirety of the block.
Garcia Fritz stated everything is working within the 10% rule. ARSD #1 clarifies how new construction
relates to the existing building. The overall appearance shouldn’t dominate or distract from the existing
building, the Courthouse. The interior standards go further with new construction, stating it should be
distinct enough from the Courthouse so as it shouldn’t distract from it. The exterior options are
important in these decisions.
Boersma commented the dominance on the block relevant to adjacent properties. The Sapienza
House/Court Case in Sioux Falls’ McKennan Park is an important part, an important precedence, and
reflects on the holistic nature of the entire neighborhood and historic district. Brink stated there is no
way around it, this proposed building would dominate the Courthouse square.
Boersma questioned Standard #10, the ability to remove a structure to restore a building to its original
intent, as the proposed building is not attached to the Courthouse, or completely integrated into the
Courthouse itself. The other part of the motion was the idea of feasible and prudent alternatives, which
is very specific to the way SD evaluates historic preservation proposals.
Kuhl commented the offsite location is $3.8 million more than the proposed new construction. Over the
course of 20 years, that $3.8 million doesn’t seem significant enough to remove that option from the
table. Brink added prudent alternatives are not primarily or solely based on financial means.
Boersma brought up the 2013 Marty Jackley Attorney General Opinion which specifically addresses two
things which have been an integral part of the conversation thus far: economic feasibility and operational
convenience. Archibald vs. Hennepin County (1993) is one of the major court cases referenced in the AG
opinion. In Jackley’s Attorney General Opinion, an alternative was considered imprudent only if it
presented unique problems of cost revenue community disruption that reached “extraordinary
magnitudes.” The $3.8 million over 20 years isn’t an extraordinary magnitude. Economic considerations
alone didn’t justify the destruction of a historic property because of the increase cost of transporting the
inmates from the jail to the courthouse by bus or van, and did not qualify as extreme hardship. Attorney
General Jackley has stated historic preservation trumps economic feasibility, unless it is an extreme
hardship. Operational convenience. Alternative sites were also discussed in the Hennepin County case,
even if those sites didn’t provide every convenience of an onsite operation. Operational convenience and
economic feasibility, under the auspices of feasible and prudent alternatives, don’t negate our
responsibility to protect the Courthouse square as a whole.
Schwartzman asked when the lawsuit docs were being identified in the Hennepin County case, did they
look at demolishing the building? Boersma responded the Attorney General Opinion was looking at the
demolition of an existing building to create a jail. In our case, we are not looking at the demolition of a
building, but the destruction of the integrity of a historic site, a historic resource.
The Chair asked if for public comment on the motion. No additional public comments were made.
The official comment will include the BHPC’s comments regarding the Secretary of the Interior Standards
ACTION: On the motion to disagree with the findings of the case report based on two major criteria: 1)
the proposed addition doesn’t meet the majority of the standards for rehabilitation as well as the ARSD
standards for new construction in historic districts, and 2) there are prudent and feasible alternatives
unexplored. The official comments to the State Historic Preservation Office will also include a letter
outlining the BHPC’s opinion regarding compliance with the Secretary of the Interior Standards for
Rehabilitation (SDAR 24:52:07:02), compliance with ARSD Standards New Construction and Additions in
Historic Districts (SDAR 24:52:07:04), New Construction & Additions in Historic Districts), compliance with
SDLRC Rule 24:52:07:03 Standards for Case Report, and additional analysis of prudent and feasible
alternatives that were not explored. All present voted yes; motion carried.
PROJECT/ISSUE UPDATES & REPORTS
A. Events/Special Projects
1) 2018 Mayor’s Awards. Press Releases are due mid-July. The Mayor’s Award
presentation will be held in conjunction with the ABLE Awards for Accessibility, Butler
Human Rights Award and Mayor’s Generational Leadership Award on August 30th at
McCrory Gardens from 5-7 pm, with a program at 6pm.
A motion was made by Heiberger, seconded by Garcia Fritz, to approve the following
winners:
o 1110 3rd St. (LaJoie) – Excellence in Rehabilitation (Heiberger)
o 835 6th Ave. (garage addition) – Excellence in Rehabilitation (Boersma or
Merriman)
o 310 Main Ave. (Carrot Seed interior) – Excellence in Rehabilitation (Kuhl)
o Chuck Cecil – Historic Preservation Achievement (Boersma)
o 501-503 Main Ave. – interior and exterior (Willert)
o Carnegie Library – Excellence in Rehabilitation (Garcia Fritz)
o Episcopal Church – Stewardship (Gritzner)
2) NAPC Conference & Award Event.
Boersma, Brink, Thornes, Merriman, and Gritzner are attending the conference. The
entire delegation will accept the National Award for Commission Excellence at the Friday
night Awards Ceremony. An announcement of the Award will be made at the Mayor’s
Awards Reception with a press release issued following the National Conference.
3) August 25th Combined Event.
This is a celebration of accessibility, local foods, sustainability, etc., with six volunteer
groups working together encouraging people to stay in Brookings. Need to set up an
information tent with details of the various events of the day.
B. BHPC Liaisons
1) Comprehensive Master Plan Advisory Committee (Boersma & Garcia Fritz)
Boersma shared the committee is not actively meeting at this time. The Mayor does not
want to disband the committee, as they will need to reconvene every 3-4 years and
evaluate changes, movements, etc. A change to intensity-based planning system will be
made, which will effect some related Ordinances in the future.
2) Public Arts Commission. No report as meeting was cancelled.
3) Downtown (Kuhl)
C. State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
1) Sofia Mattesini has been hired as the southeast CLG region program coordinator.
Board of Trustees quarterly meeting will be held 7/13.
D. Executive Committee/Staff
1) St. Paul’s Episcopal Church June 17th event. Boersma to speak at the program.
2) BHPC members attended June 15th Rotary presentation about Pioneer Girl by Nancy
Tystad Koupal. Brian Gatzke sponsored the BHPC as his guests.
3) Hartinger Barn has been listed on State Register of Historic Places.
https://brookingsregister.com/article/hartinger-barn-listed-on-sd-register-of-historic-
places
4) City 2018-2023 Strategic Plan update.
The City Council is having a special meeting on 6/19/2018 to identify priorities.
5) 2018/2019 National Park Service Funding update.
BHPC has received a grant for a Preservation Plan (2018-2019). Nory Winter & Co.
out of Denver, CO., premier consultants in the country, have been hired to assist.
6) 11.1 Reviews & Inquires
426 Main Avenue, second floor window replacement – pending submittal
Discussion of Armory at a City Council study session. The Armory will be on
the July 24th City Council Special Study Session. The Study Session will begin
at 4:00 p.m., with a Budget Session starting at 5:00 p.m.
Bungalows status.
Habitat for Humanity has declined the gift of the bungalows from SDSU
Foundation due to the amount of lead in the houses. Thornes has talked
with SDSU Foundation on what to do if find someone else to take the houses.
If don’t find someone to take the houses, and looking at demolition, a new
application will need to be submitted. Thornes will visit with SHPO for more
details. It was noted SDSU Foundation has also purchased the Simpsons
house, located north of the stucco apartments. Can see this house as
possibly demolished in the future.
2 Habitat for Humanity lots located in the Central District. The bank has
donated these lots to Habitat for Humanity. Question was asked if the bank
would take the SDSU Foundation Bungalows. Not known at this time. It is
safe to assume Habitat will not give up the two lots. The lot on 8th Ave. is
reviewable. However, the 3rd St. lot buts up against the 8th Ave. lot and
doesn’t touch the district, making it not reviewable.
Inquiry regarding Woodbine Cottage colors.
Jane Dunn, SDSU President Dunn’s wife, has asked about Woodbine Cottage
and changing the colors.
7) Sioux Falls’ McKennan Park demolition.
Brink commented she watched the demolition feed, and sees a huge
misunderstanding of what actually happened.
8) Meetings to be scheduled:
Public relations
Public education.
Executive committee
9) Possible action to reschedule July BHPC meeting date. A doodle poll will be sent for
availability.
10) Ordinance regarding window replacement
The City’s Building Official and City Engineer agree an Ordinance change is needed.
11) BHPC Vacancy. Press Release to be sent.
E. Calendar
June 16-18, 2018 - St. Paul’s Episcopal 100th Anniversary Event
July 18-22, 2018 - NAPC Forum, Des Moines
August 30, 2018 - Combined Mayor’s Award event
Oct 2-3, 2018 - Growing Sustainable Communities Conference, Dubuque
Nov 13-16, 2018 - National Trust Conference, San Francisco
Meeting adjourned at 6:33 p.m.
Submitted by Bonnie Foster