Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-04-20 City of Mankato Deowntown Design Review District CY 03 -95 04/20/95 • ORDINANCE . . . ADOPTION OF DOWNTOWN DESIGN REVIEW DISTRICT . . . SECTION 10.19 . . . PLANNING AGENCY The Planning Commission tabled this request at their January meeting and directed staff to meet with the affected property owners in an effort to address their concerns regarding the proposed district. Staff met with the property owners on March 15, 1995. A copy of the meeting's minutes are attached. Before the meeting, staff had made several changes to the district standards based on comments received at the Planning Commission meeting in January. One of the significant changes was that the majority of reviews would only be triggered by those activities requiring a building permit. The first draft contained several activities, such as painting, which do not require a building permit but would be required to be reviewed. Another change was that the expansion or exterior alteration of existing development must conform to the appearance and design of the existing building rather than specific design standards contained in the ordinance for new buildings. The changes addressed many of the concerns of those present at the meeting. Some issues raised at the meeting include the dollar amounts of activities requiring Planning Commission review and the reconstruction of nonconforming buildings. It was suggested that the level at which activities are forwarded to the Planning Commission be raised from $100,000 to $500,000. Another concern was whether or not an existing building which is destroyed by fire or - wind could be rebuilt to its preexisting design or would the reconstruction be subject to the new ordinance. The attached draft is similar to the one presented to the property owners at the informational meeting; however, staff added a section regarding the reconstruction of nonconforming structures. Staff believes that the attached draft addresses many of the concerns of the property owners, while still retaining provisions which will carry out the purpose and intent of the district. Recommendation Staff recommends adoption of the Design Review District. Attachments 1. General Location Map 2. Minutes - March 15, 1995, Information Meeting 3. Design Review District Standards • • City of Mankato Downtown Design Review District Section 10.19. Downtown Design District Subd. 1. Statement of Purpose The City of Mankato's Downtown District, defined on the Official Zoning Map, is intended to be the community's "show case" business and civic district. The City Council finds that the area's visibility, private and public assets, and economic importance gives rise to the need for a special approach to the development of this area. Subd. 2. Application - Certificate of Design Compliance A Certificate of Design Compliance shall be required for all construction activities, including all street and utility activities, within the Downtown Design District. The purpose of the Certificate of Design Compliance is to insure that development activity will enhance the visual and aesthetic character of the Downtown area in accordance with the Riverfront 2000 Plan and the design framework set forth in this document. • The application of this Section shall apply to the following: (a) The expansion and exterior alteration of buildings, existing on the effective date of this ordinance, when said expansion or exterior alteration requires a building permit. In such case, the expansion or exterior alteration shall be compatible in material, color, scale and architectural features with the existing building. (b) The construction of new buildings; (c) Moving a building; (d) Demolition of a building; (e) Adding or removing landscaping plantings in excess of 100 square feet in area; (f) Erection of signs; (g) All mobile and/or seasonal concession vehicles/stands located within the Downtown area which effectively become permanent structures by remaining immobile at the same location for more than three hours in any 24 hour period; and • Section 10.13, Subd. 19 - Design Review Standards Page2of7 • Subd. 3. Application and plans An application for a Certificate of Design Compliance shall be submitted to the Planning Director for any activity in the Downtown Design District listed in Subdivision 2. Prior to the filing of an application for a certification of design compliance, the developer shall meet with the Planning Director, or his/her designee, for informal discussions regarding the proposed development. As far as practical, the Planning Director will advise the developer as to the extent the proposed development conforms to the established design criteria set forth and suggest possible plan modification. Such form of application shall be supplied by the City's Division of Planning and Development Services. The application shall be accompanied by detailed plans for the proposed activity. Such plans shall at a minimum, include: (a) Description of site; (b) Area of site (in square feet or acres); (c) Date, north arrow, and scale (1:20, 1:50 or 1:100); (d) Name and address of person(s) preparing the plan; (e) Key map showing the site location and existing structures within 100 feet of the site. • (f) Scaled footprint of main building and all accessory structures. (g) On -site open space and landscaped areas, including plat species, fencing, and other landscape amenities; (h) Location of on -site parking facilities; (i) Loading and servicing areas; (j) Scale drawings of all proposed building elevations, including roof plan. Drawings shall include notes on building materials and color samples; (k) Floor plans to scale; (1) Sign plans; showing materials, colors and test at scale. (m) Perspectives, model or other suitable graphic materials as required. 1. Exceptions. The following activities shall not be required to submit the above plan items provided that sufficient information is provided for a determination to be made by the Planning Director regarding the compliance of the activity: (a) The expansion and alteration of the exterior of buildings that exist on the effective date of this ordinance. (b) Erection of signs. (c) All mobile and/or seasonal concession vehicles/stands located within the Downtown area which effectively become permanent structures . by remaining immobile at the same location for more than three hours in any 24 hour period; and Section 10.13, Subd. 19 - Design Review Standards Page 3 of 7 • Subd. 4. Plan Review Upon receipt of a completed application for a Certificate of Design Compliance, the Planning Director shall forward the application to the Planning Commission if the estimated cost of the activity outlined in the application exceeds $100,000. For activities with an estimated cost of less than $100,000, the Planning Director shall be responsible for undertaking an expeditious and timely review to determine whether the proposed project meets the intent and requirements of this section. For activities with an estimated cost of more than $100,000, the Planning Commission, shall review the activity to determine whether the proposed project meets the intent and requirements of this section. If the cost of the activity exceeds $500,000, the Planning Commission shall forward a recommendation to the City Council regarding the activity's compliance with this Section. Subd. 5. Issuance of Certificate of Design Compliance The City Council, after receiving the recommendation of the Planning Commission, may issue a Certificate of Design Compliance for any of the activities listed in Subdivision 2. The City Council shall have the sole authority for issuing certificates for all new developments or significant redevelopments of property. The Planning Commission may issue Certificates of Design Compliance for any activity listed in Subdivision 2 for which the estimated cost is less the $500,000. The Planning Director may issue a Certificate of Design Compliance for any activity listed in Subdivision 2 for which the estimated cost is less than $100,000. The Planning Director or Planning Commission may refer any application for a Certificate of Design Compliance to the City Council for review. The City Council, Planning Commission, and Planning Di shall issue a Certificate of Design Compliance only if there is a formal finding that the activity complies with the provisions of this Section. No building permit shall be issued for any activity listed in Subdivision 2 unless a Certificate of Design Compliance has been issued. If more than 60 days have elapsed since the completed application is submitted to the Planning Director, and no finding has been given to the applicant as to whether the activity outlined in the application complies with this Section, the application will be automatically approved and an application for a building permit may be submitted. In the event the activity outlined in the application is found not to comply with the provisions of this Section, the applicant shall be notified of the finding within ten (10) days of the reviewing body's decision. The notification shall include the finding of the reviewing body and a recommendation as to how the activity could be altered to • comply with the provisions of this Section. Section 10.13, Subd. 19 - Design Review Standards 41 1 Page4of7 Subd. 6. Design Framework Established A design framework for the Downtown Design District is hereby established to serve as a basis for design review in the district. The primary goal of the design framework is to foster the "sense of place" within the Downtown Design District. To achieve this, the design framework presents specific objectives that will enhance the Downtown Design District's character, assure harmonious new development, and strengthen the area's cohesiveness and attractiveness. The Council finds that compliance with the objective's as set forth in this section will strengthen property values and protect the private and public investments made within the Downtown Design District. The standards and guidelines set forth in this design framework are intended to encourage sensitive architectural rehabilitation and preservation of the older significant buildings as well as establish standards for new developments which emphasize harmonious and unifying architectural design that will tie the entire district together. • 1. Urban Design. To refine and/or enhance the most desirable characteristics of the Downtown Design District, the following urban design concepts shall apply: 2. Acceptable Exterior Building Materials. Exterior building material shall consist of traditional high quality materials, including: • 1. Brick and mortar; 2. Cut limestone or other natural stone; 3. Pre -cast concrete units and concrete block, provided the surfaces are molded, serrated examples or treated with a texture material in order to give the wall surface a three - dimensional character; 4. Synthetic stucco and architectural panels; 5. Glass; and 6. Weather - resistant metal accents or other metal determined to satisfy the intent of this section. The City Council reserves the right to withhold approval if it that a exterior building material does not meet the intent of this section. 3. Colors. Colors are an important element of the overall design concept for the downtown area and should be complementary to the Downtown Design District's • showcase building, the Mankato Civic Center /Arena, or other historic and significant buildings in the vicinity. • • Section 10.13, Subd. 19 - Design Review Standards Page 5 of 7 4. Building Mass and Height. Development proposals shall not degrade the appearance or function of other buildings in the area due to the developments building mass and/or height. 5. Architectural Features. Architectural features which create a sculptural or three dimensional quality such as marquees, balconies, grill work, sculpted keystones, caryatids, detailed cornices, brackets, niches and awnings are encouraged. Such ornamentation also furthers the urban design goal of adding scale and texture to the district. However, these features shall be in keeping with the overall architectural style of the building and the character of the Downtown Design District. 6. Landscaping and Lighting. New developments in the Downtown Design District will incorporate open areas accessory to the main building. Courtyards and plazas are encouraged. As far as practical, open areas shall be landscaped with a combination of trees, shrubs, flowers and ground cover, decorative wrought iron fencing. Surface parking lots containing over ten parking stalls shall incorporate landscaping which comprises 10 percent of the parking lot area. Lighting standards along sidewalks or in open spaces and plazas shall be similar to _ fb lighting standards found along Hickory Street in the vicinity of the Mankato Civic Center and Arena. Lighting standards in parking lots and lots illuminated by building surface mounted lights may use an alternative fixture with the approval of the Planning Director. Decorative standards are encouraged for parking lots but a "shoe box" type fixture or other fixture may be approved provided it does not exceed forty (40) feet in height. 7. Visual Connections and Gateways. It is recognized in the Riverfront 2000 plan that several areas in the Downtown Design District serve as gateways to the downtown area. In addition, the public roadways in the downtown area serve as visual connections. These visual connections serve as visual access between structural elements in the downtown area (for example, South Riverfront in the vicinity of the Depot and Civic Center), and visual connections between the downtown core and adjoining land use districts or significant buildings located outside of the area (for example, Jackson Street which serves as a visual connection between Mankato Place and the Old Main Building). Visual connections and gateways are important to the perception of the downtown areas and development proposals shall be reviewed on the basis as to how the corridors and gateways will be impacted. New landscaping, building construction, or building alteration, shall be designed to not unduly block or compromise connections • or gateways. Section 10.13, Subd. 19 - Design Review Standards • Page 6 of 7 8. Signs. Signs shall conform to district standards as set forth in Section 10.36 of the City Code. Neon, wall signs consisting of individual letter, projecting sculptural or carved signs with wrought iron brackets, and decorative banners and flags are encouraged. 9. Downtown Design Area Supplement. The Planning Commission shall develop and recommend to the Council a Downtown Design Area Supplement that will serve as a guideline for the implementation of the design framework. Subd. 7. Special Review Considerations 1. Because of the varying characteristics of the land uses allowed and adjacent uses, projects must be viewed in the context of existing and planned developments. The Council may impose special design requirements upon a proposed use in order to mitigate against undue negative impacts on surrounding uses; 2. When considering the aesthetics of a development proposal, it should be • recognized that development must maintain their economic viability if any improvements are to be made in the district; 3. Review of activities in the Downtown Design District should be mindful of the need and requirements for handicapped accessibility in its review of development proposals; 4. The forgoing urban design guidelines are in no way intended to create uniformity which would result in an uninteresting and contrived appearance. New developments and alterations to existing structures which add to the variety of compatible uses, harmonious visual images, and rich sensory experiences of the district are encouraged. Subd. 8. Nonconforming Buildings Buildings existing on the effective date of this ordinance which are considered nonconforming under the design framework contained in Subdivision 6, may continue in their present appearance and design. Any such nonconforming structure which is damage or destroyed by any means not within the control of the owner, may be repaired or restored to its preexisting condition provided that if the structure is destroyed by more than 50 percent of its market value before destruction or damage, said structure shall conform to the use, bulk, density, and height provisions of this • Chapter (Zoning Ordinance). MINUTES . DOWNTOWN DESIGN REVIEW MEETING Mankato Civic Center - VIP Room 279B March 15, 1995 - 3:OOpm Staff Present: Larry Forsythe, Director of Planning & Development Services Paul Vogel, Associate Planner /Zoning Administrator Diane Biedscheid, Staff Assistant, Planning & Development Services Public Present: Doug Anderson, Holiday Inn & 111 E. Cherry St. Bob Barnett, Barnett Photography, 100 Minnesota St. Lois Barnett, Barnett Photography, 100 Minnesota St. Tom Borchert, Mankato Citizens Telephone Co., 221 E. Hickory St. Ken Bunde, Homeowner, 221 S. Broad St. Bruce Carlson, Cargill, 200 N. Riverfront Dr. Dick Clarksean, TCF Bank, 325 S. Broad St. Ron Doty, TJ Finnegan's Pub, 520 S. Front St. Joe Hager, Farm & Gustafson Plumbing & Heating, 228 Poplar St. Dawn Fazio, The Free Press, 418 S. 2nd St. Nancy Green, Mankato Place/Mankato Parking Corp, • 101 E. Hickory St. Nancy Hamer, 217 Walnut St. Jack D. Higginbotham, Rental Property, Broad & Hickory Streets Bernie Hogan, Miller Motors, 518 S. Front St. Gary Hopfensperger, Kentucky Fried Chicken, 403 S. Broad St. Chas. "Gus" Johnson, Johnson Anderson & Zellmer, 600 S. 2nd St. Suzette Johnson, Johnson Anderson & Zellmer, 600 S. 2nd St. Jeff Kagermeier, KSPA Architects, Inc., 526 S. 2nd St. Sara R. Kahn, Midwest Food, 304 N. 2nd St. Bernadine Kopischke, Homeowner, 218 N. 4th St. Gary Kratzke, Matt J. Graif Building, 101 E. Hickory St. Dean Lavitschke, Love -It Furniture, 124 E. Walnut St. Joe Leonard, Holiday Inn, 101 E. Main St. Toni Louwagie, American Building Properties Phyllis Mullin, Homeowner, 315 E. Jackson St. Alice Nelson, Homeowner, 325 E. Hickory St. Lee Nordgren, Artcraft Camera & Photography, 408 S. Front St. Elouise Olson, YWCA, 603 S. 2nd St. Julie A. Peterson, YWCA, 603 S. 2nd St. Daryle Pomranke, North Star Concrete, 240 Mound Ave. Warren P. Smith, Survey Services, 531 S. Front St. Glenn Thompson, Happy Chef Systems, 500 S. Front St. Jim Ulman, Happy Chef Systems, 500 S. Front St. Cornelius F. Votca, 119 Allan Ct. Douglas Willaert, Homeowner, 322 N. Broad St. Section 10.13, Subd. 19 - Design Review Standards fa Page 7 of 7 Subd. 9. Sequence of Approval of Applications for both a Certificate of Compliance and Conditional Use Permit or Variance An application for a Certificate of Design Compliance shall be reviewed by the Council concurrent with the consideration of an application for a conditional use permit or variance for the same activity. Subd. 10. Violations If any building or structure is erected, constructed, reconstructed, altered, repaired, or converted in a violation of this subdivision, the City may institute any proper action or proceedings and shall have police power to prevent the occupancy of the building. Subd. 11. Fees An applicant for a Certificate of Design Compliance shall pay a non refundable filing • fee in connection with the submittal of the application. Activities with an estimated cost of less than $100,000 shall not be required to pay a filing fee. Activities with an estimated cost between $100,000 and $500,000 shall pay a non refundable filing fee • of $75. Activities with an estimated cost of more than $500,000 shall pay a non refundable filing fee of $100. Subd. 12. Other Regulations Applicable The regulations contained in this Section shall be deemed to be in addition to zoning district standards contained in this Code and other applicable laws, ordinances, rules and regulations. Where conflicts occur, the most restrictive regulations shall apply. dre5 • CY 14 -95 04/20/95 pg 2 of 3 Site Plan Review Committee • The Site Plan Review Committee reviewed the request on April 18, 1995, and recommended approval with the condition that the necessary easements be reflected on the final plat. Review The applicant is proposing to subdivide his property located on the corner of Ruth Street and North Riverfront Drive. The applicant is requesting preliminary and final plat review. Currently, the property is considered one development parcel and contains ten separate buildings. The applicant plans to subdivide the property into four separate lots. Lot 1 contains the main building for Custom Home Improvers and two cold storage buildings. One of the cold storage buildings is•split between Lots 1 and 2. Lot 1 will be retained by the owner. Lot 2 contains another main building serviced by water and sewer, a cold storage building, and part of building shared with Lot 1. Lot 3 contains three cold storage buildings._ None of these buildings are served by water and sewer, but water and sewer is available in Ruth Street. Lot 4 contains one cold storage building and the lot does not have direct access to a public right -of -way. The applicant plans to sell Lot 4 to Southern Valley Coop which owns adjacent property located to the west. Several issues which still must be addressed include: • 1. Easements are currently dedicated, but not reflected on the plat. Easements exist in all the vacated alleys and streets, and a 50 foot wide easement exists from Ruth Street across the old railroad property to the west. Some of the easements in the former alleys and streets should be vacated since they now lie under existing buildings and are not needed. 2. Lot 2 has dual zoning, with the east half being zoned B -3 and the west half zoned M -1. A rezoning request should be submitted to bring the entire property under one district. 3. The City Engineer has indicated that the former railroad right -of -way to the north of Lot 4 should be included in the plat. The railroad right -of -way is currently part of the same abandoned right -of -way which extends through Mr. Dickmeyer's property and was only recently sold by the railroad to adjacent property owners. 4. Since some of the buildings will be split by lot lines and others will have zero setbacks from lot lines, fire separation requirements under the building code must be addressed. Depending on the type of use, one to two hour fire separations may be necessary and there will be restrictions on building openings. Recommendation • Staff recommends approval of only the preliminary plat with the following conditions: 1. Easements shall be reflected for all existing utility lines. Downtown Design Review Meeting - 3/15/95 Minutes - Page 2 of 5 • Mr. Forsythe briefly described the proposed draft ordinance of the Downtown Design Review District and outlined the suggested district boundaries. He stated that the City Council has requested staff to draft a downtown design review district ordinance that will be acceptable to the Council and the downtown property owners, while accomplishing the goal of maintaining aesthetically compatible growth and development in the downtown area. He also summarized concerns about the proposed ordinance that have been expressed to staff by interested parties. Mr. Forsythe stated that while it is perceived by some that the ordinance will cause de- valuation of property, historically this type of ordinance has had the opposite effect. The district is not designed to prohibit or stop growth, but to encourage aesthetically compatible growth and development. Mr. Vogel reviewed the major differences between the original draft ordinance and the current draft being proposed. He stated that in the first draft, property owners were most concerned about being required to obtain a Certificate of Design Compliance from the Planning Director for items such as remodeling, repairing, or altering structures or improvements in any manner which changed their exterior appearance, including, but not limited to, sandblasting, chemical cleaning and painting, siding, and alterations of the roofline; Adding or removing landscaping exceeding four feet in height or 100 sq. ft. in area; and Other activities as determined • by the Planning Director. To accommodate those concerns, staff amended some of the qualifying conditions in the current draft ordinance to the expansion and exterior alteration of buildings, existing on the effective date of the ordinance, when said expansion or exterior alteration requires a building permit. In such case, the expansion or exterior alteration shall be compatible in material, color, scale, and architectural features with the existing building; Adding or removing landscaping plantings in excess of 100 sq. ft. in area; and deleted the wording, [and] "other activities as determined by the Planning Director. Mr. Vogel explained that the purpose of the ordinance is mainly to address new development and redevelopment in areas already developed. He stated that the current draft is tailored to new development. Mr. Vogel then reviewed and explained other items changed from previous drafts to the current draft ordinance. He specifically reviewed Subd. 4, Plan Review; Subd. 5, Issuance of Certificate of Design Compliance; and Subd. 10, Fees. Mr. Forsythe then opened the floor for questions and comments from the public. • Bernie Hogan, Miller Motors, was concerned about not being able to choose such minor exterior finishes as paint color for his building, and asked for further explanation. Mr. Vogel explained that that condition has been removed from the current draft, and that the ordinance mainly addresses items that would require a building permit. Painting does not require a building permit. Downtown Design Review Meeting - 3/15/95 Minutes - Page 3 of 5 • Mr. Hogan asked why a downtown design review district gn d strict is necessary, since most vacant parcels downtown are owned by the City. Mr. Vogel explained that once a building on City -owned property is designed and the property sold, the new owner can do whatever he /she wants with the building and property. Mr. Forsythe added that the design review district regulations would apply to City -owned properties and buildings as it would to anyone else owning property in the downtown design review district. Mr. Forsythe explained that one of the main reasons the Council requested staff to draft the proposed ordinance was because of a downtown hotel proposal they received that included a concrete block exterior finish in the design. The Council felt that the proposed exterior building design would not be aesthetically compatible with existing downtown development; and subsequently requested the developer to redesign the exterior finish to one more compatible with existing downtown development. The developer felt the proposed concrete block building would look just fine downtown and did not alter the plan and is now looking at a privately owned site downtown where, without the downtown design review district regulations, would be able to construct the block building. Mr. Hogan stated he is opposed to applying rules to downtown businesses that are • not applied to businesses on the hill. He stated that he wants to be able to operate — in a free market. Although Mr. Forsythe stated that the downtown design review regulations would not be chiseled in stone and could be changed if it is found they aren't working, Mr. Hogan felt that once this type of ordinance is on the books it is very difficult to remove. Mr. Hogan stated that he feels new development should be controlled and existing businesses should be grandfathered in. He added that he wants to keep the downtown vital, and feels that the downtown design review district would hamper the sale of properties. Joe Hager, Farm & Gustafson Plumbing & Heating, stated that they were required to put up a brick or stone exterior building when they constructed their building, and asked why the rules would need to be duplicated. Mr. Forsythe explained that their building was constructed during Urban Renewal and it was a requirement for all buildings being constructed; however, those standards no longer apply. Lois Barnett, Barnett Photography, stated that she thought the City preferred to lease property to developers rather than sell it, and if that is the case, they could control the property. Mr. Forsythe explained that that was a more prevalent practice during times of Urban Renewal; however, now the City is trying to "prime the pump" for downtown development and increase the value of downtown property; therefore, the City is willing to be more flexible with the sale or lease of downtown properties. • Ms. Barnett also stated that they do not like being told what they can and cannot do with their property. She felt property owners should be given incentives to improve their properties. She stated that while they agree with what the City is trying to do, Downtown Design Review Meeting - 3/15/95 Minutes - Page 4 of 5 4111 they don't agree with how they're trying to achieve it. Staff assured everyone that the Council wants the proposed ordinance to have a positive impact on downtown, not a negative impact. Bernie Hogan noted that sign regulations are more restrictive in the proposed ordinance, and wanted to know why the sign ordinance is being duplicated in the downtown design review district ordinance. Mr. Vogel stated that while signs are mentioned in the proposed downtown design review ordinance, it only states the sign regulations included in the downtown design review district are encouraged, not required. The sign ordinance is still the official ordinance. Mr. Vogel stated that in drafting the current ordinance proposal, staff tried to word the ordinance so that if the person holding the Planning Director position changes, the regulations are clearly stated and would continue be administered and enforced in the same manner as before. Tom Borchart, Mankato Citizens Telephone Company, stated that he likes the sign portion in the draft because it would make the downtown area look nice. Warren Smith, Survey Services, spoke in favor of the current draft ordinance. He said he is pleased with the current draft. He was concerned about wording in the -- • first draft where a Certificate of Design Compliance would be required to simply paint your building. Charles "Gus" Johnson, said he was opposed to the ordinance in general because of its excessive control. He felt that since the City owned the majority of the property downtown, it is not necessary to adopt this ordinance for the few remaining properties. Clem Thompson, Happy Chef, was also generally opposed to the proposed ordinance. Mr. Thompson also wanted to know what the City's interest would be in downtown if City Hall and the Civic Center weren't there. He felt it is self - serving for the City to concentrate on an area where the majority of the property is City - owned. Mr. Forsythe stated that the proposed ordinance would create some consistency in the area, and that this type of ordinance has also been suggested for other areas of the city, including the Lincoln Park Neighborhood, Old Town, and the industrial parks. He noted that with current staffing levels, it would be administratively impossible to impose design restrictions in the entire city. Joe Hager asked if, under Subd. 4, Plan Review, the dollar value could be raised from • $100,000 to $500,000 for items being forwarded to the Planning Commission level for review. In its present state, the Planning Director would review activities with an estimated cost under $100,000. Projects with valuations of $100,000- $499,999 would • t r Downtown Design Review Meeting - 3/15/95 Minutes - Page 5 of 5 • be reviewed by the Planning Commission, and projects with valuations $500,000 and over would be reviewed by the Planning Commission with a recommendation forwarded to the City Council for their approval. Joe Leonard, Holiday Inn, inquired what would happen if a building was destroyed by fire or natural disaster. Mr. Forsythe stated that the types of materials used to construct a new building would be controlled by the design review criteria; however, the City would take circumstances into consideration. Mr. Hogan stated that all property owners could rely on would be what is written in black and white. Mr. Forsythe then stated that language could be added to the ordinance pertaining specifically to destroyed buildings. • Jeff Kagermaier, KSPA Architects, stated that he liked the design review district ordinance and, in fact, liked the first draft (that was more restrictive) better. Bernie Hogan requested that the downtown property owners be mailed a copy of the final draft that will be considered by the Planning Commission at their April 26 meeting. Mr. Vogel stated that he would mail a copies of the proposed ordinance along with the public hearing notices. • The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m. • 0 ' . . t, t \ \'t'• ;; '.._._ _ 'sir I�-;� , ;,. : = :, : --�; �� d L . fi t PLUM _ =:- --z---2:-:12-•=' - � � 1 � �'�' l 'p111ll'i - i - I = - -� . l _ / I ' `111 J .1 i � I • , *-a1 O Cr ' !Lc it I I r a : i f i t. � N... CC °;, 1 ! C. Q ti, • t t ,. . • • i . N c - ° i . • 1 „1- 1 1 _ I L ,,,,, oq ‘ , / , ,4 .0.,. irt_____,.... 1,.- coo, .c.• ____....... _ • .., ,.. //;J rdlio, w �] : , mil ; el , , f 7 CI I* 1; ,PIII a D 1 r . • -- - . • .. J 1 11)0, ,. 0-1--or f R o l ..,, ..._.,,... . ., _ • ,.)., /- g ■•.• - : i c i t o .. - - • . • • ; , _ 0 I I, . ;l ....„..„ j i ii ili kt 't I . 1 1 t .,, ,,, Ig RiiiiiRA am gm ''- _ ,- - - 111:11 1 h r / / • A, ,_ r -ZE ,,,,..: _ ` a ! —� T C' // F (II i I Q - i i • i -.. fa - ° _ �t�� l PQ► WARR ST of -0: \Slike<5‘', I ; : a ;rte -=. T p[�? o ' � 1 ` ' J i � at A I" NA Q I - 11) 0 I A ii. , i.9 II C � VV//I ° o ,c