BROOKINGS – Brookings County officials and their architects are likely headed back to the drawing board after the Brookings Board of Adjustment rejected a county request for a zero-foot front yard setback for the planned Brookings County Detention Center expansion.
The variance request was denied on a 3-2 vote Thursday.
Brookings County wants to build an $11 million, 17,000-square-foot addition onto the north side of the jail, giving the facility a total of 42 cells with 84 beds plus programming space, like safe rooms, room for counselors to use and juvenile space.
The county has a growing inmate population, and the jail’s current location, next to the courthouse, and building out rather than up is the most efficient and cost effective option, said architect Bruce Schwartzman, a partner with BKG Group.
With the zero-foot setback, the jail expansion could have come right up to the sidewalk on the north and east sides of the county property, along Fourth Street and Seventh Avenue.
The jail is located in an R-2 District, which, unless an exception is granted, has a 25-foot front yard setback requirement.
Brookings County Sheriff Marty Stanwick said it would be difficult for the county to put everything it needs into the jail expansion if it has to stay 25 feet back from the sidewalk.
Brookings County Commissioner Larry Jensen agreed.
“This variance request gives us the best possible building layout to meet numerous requirements, for example, the separation from the courthouse, adequate space for inmates and staff.”
The Brookings City & County Government Center chambers were packed Thursday night, with about 50 people in the audience and most in opposition to the variance.
Concerned Brookings residents had many complaints about the jail expansion plans this week. Some thought the design was too imposing and didn’t fit into the historic nature of the neighborhood. Others said the site was too small for expansion and that the county should relocate the jail.
Many questioned whether the expansion would really support the county’s inmate population for the next 50 years and suspected officials could be looking for more space sooner than that. Some thought there wasn’t enough communication between the county and the public regarding the project, noting that they’d only recently learned about the zero-foot setback request.
But board members emphasized that they only had authority over the zero-foot variance request and could choose to approve it, deny it, amend it or table it.
The Board of Adjustment has no power to make the county chose another building site, mandate specific building designs, materials or finishes, build up rather than out, or any other project specifications.
When comments focused on the setback request, one major area of contention was sight issues at the Fourth Street-Seventh Avenue intersection and the associated safety concerns and risk of increased crashes.
Stanwick acknowledged that there was even a sight problem at the intersection now but said there were fixes for it, such as making it a four-way stop, taking away on-street parking, or possibly creating a one-way road.
He also said the level of concern about the expansion was a surprise to him.
“I was always up front, this is what it’s going to cost the taxpayers, we’re going to have to go for a variance, work with historic preservation, all those things. Nobody came to our public hearing. No one in opposition. It’s the last couple of days that I heard all this,” Stanwick said.
Resident Pat Fishback said she was unaware of the county’s variance request until recently. “There have been individuals who have expressed concern all along. … It is the county’s duty to communicate about what’s going on.”
One resident told the board that the variance would make the jail an eyesore.
Resident Cory Ann Ellis said the jail would be the only zero-foot setback in the neighborhood. She noted that whether the project would be more expensive for the county if it didn’t get the setback doesn’t constitute an “unnecessary hardship” and shouldn’t be considered, per the board’s own rules.
Board member Eric Rasmussen noted that there are zero-foot setbacks in nearby downtown Brookings, with Main Avenue shops coming right up to the sidewalks. The Fifth Street Gym was also built with a zero-foot setback on its north side.
But business owner Kirsten Gjesdal suggested compromise, noting that the city spent a lot of time and money a few years ago redoing downtown to incorporate more green space.
City Councilor Holly Tilton Byrne added that visitors aren’t coming to the Farmers Market, the library or the Children’s Museum of South Dakota for the same experience they would have downtown.
Schwartzman said maybe designers could pull back the edge of the expansion, as much as 3 to 10 feet, to add in more green space.
Resident Doug Carruthers wanted to know, if the design is flexible, why it was necessary to approve the zero-foot variance.
Ellis agreed. “It’s now been made clear that there are other options. … So the zero-foot setback is not necessary, and it does not show that valid hardship. There are other options.”
Board member George Houtman suggested a 5-foot setback on the north side of the building, 8 feet on the east side near the corner, and 3 feet further south on the east side. But that amendment failed in a board vote, followed by the failure of the original request for the zero-foot setback.
Contact Jill Fier at jfier@brookingsregister.com.
