The Albert Lea Community Development Office has drafted two, more-detailed options for a B-2 Community Business District design ordinance and is seeking feedback about them.

The suggestions, drafted by Community Development Director Bob Graham, come ahead of the Albert Lea Planning Commission’s workshop on Oct. 20 to review ordinance options.

If the ordinance comes to pass, it would apply to Albert Lea’s major entrances, specifically East and West Main Street, Blake Avenue, parts of North Bridge Avenue, South Broadway Avenue between Front and Seventh streets and then the east side of Southeast Broadway Avenue to the Elks Lodge. Albert Lea’s historic downtown is in a separate district.

Though the new suggestions address many of the concerns presented at earlier public hearings, Graham said in a memo, “These are only suggestions and certainly the workshop is open to any suggestions and ordinance wording.”

Under the first suggestion, a design statement would simply be inserted into the purpose section of the B-2 Community Business District. The second is an attempt at a full design ordinance.

“This partly depends on whether the goal of the community is to give general notice to developers that design is important or if the commission wants to establish a design standard,” Graham writes in the memo. “There is subjectivity in the process and review through the city staff development review committee will be required for consistency. The only way to avoid subjectivity is to design a series of buildings and include them in the ordinance. Then all buildings are required to match any one of the designs.”

Chamber Executive Director Randy Kehr said it seems there are now two very different proposals.

“It gives the community and the business community something to look at with a little more clarity,” Kehr said.

He noted he was pleased Graham heard the messages presented at the previous Planning Commission meeting and incorporated them into the proposals.

Option No. 1

The first option puts developers on notice that design is important to the Albert Lea community, Graham writes in his memo.

For this suggestion, a paragraph would be added to note that the B-2 District has a purpose of more than just encouraging the establishment of commercial establishments along the major highways and thoroughfares.

It also has the purpose of presenting “a series of attractive entrances and main thoroughfares within the community and a quality first impression to visitors while encouraging new business and compatible design in order to protect investment,” his suggestion states.

As part of this option, before a developer can be issued a building permit for exterior improvements within the district, they must submit plans to the review committee to discuss design goals and compatibility.

Then the committee would “guide the developer in understanding the community’s development goals while providing guidance and practical development opportunities.”

Dan Dorman, executive director of the Albert Lea Economic Development Agency, said he’s concerned that this means every developer is required to meet with the committee before they move forward with aspects of their project.

“I would be very cautious about that,” he said. “It starts to look more like spot zoning or spot standards. I just worry if the standard is unclear to people that you could have different results coming out of the review process, even though they’re somewhat similar.”

He’s worried about there being too much subjectivity.

Option No. 2

This option lays out specific design standards for new buildings and expansions.

Similar to the first option, a developer would submit design and material options to the review committee before being issued a building permit. The committee would guide the developer and may suggest options.

The following would apply to new buildings:

 Vertical surfaces

This section describes the materials that should go into making vertical surfaces.

The proposal states, “All building vertical services shall have finishes made of noncombustible, non-degradable and low maintenance construction materials that may include, but not be limited to: face brick, architectural or decorative block, natural stone, specifically designed precast concrete or synthetic stucco, natural stucco, vinyl, aluminum, or steel, and other materials that enrich the experience of the traveler.”

This adds vinyl, aluminum and steel as acceptable materials, compared to a previous proposal.

It still states building materials must be colored during the manufacturing process, and not painted afterward because paint tends to deteriorate.

 Front orientation

The vertical surfaces of buildings in the district that face the primary street or are designated as the front of the building should have a defined entrance and windows and doors that allow customers to see what is marketed inside the property, the proposal states.

It also states that the front of the building should have a minimum of 20 percent in see-through windows. The bottoms of the windows cannot be more than 42 inches above the ground or sidewalk, and not more than 10 percent of that window space can be covered with signs.

 Sides

The other sides of the building should be finished with materials that are compatible in design and color to the front of the building, the proposal continues.

While windows may be permitted on the sides, the 42-inch standard is not required.

Roofs

The design of the roof should be consistent with the intent of the building and should be used to “compliment the exterior mass fo the building, add visual interest, and be appropriate to the architectural style of the building.”

It should also provide screening of roof-top equipment so it can’t be seen from the primary street or front entrance, the proposal states.

Trash

All exterior trash enclosures should be designed to screen trash containers and be made with materials similar to the rest of the building, according to the proposal.

At the end of the proposal, it talks about whether developers would have to comply with the standards in the case of an expansion.

The proposal states that existing buildings being expanded by at least 50 percent of the existing gross floor area would be required to meet the same standards as new buildings for both the expansion and the existing building.

Buildings that are being remodeled or added onto by less than 50 percent of the existing floor area would be encouraged, but not required, to consider the standards.

Lastly, it states that while proposals for exterior modifications will also be reviewed by the review committee, the committee will also consider economic realities.

Dorman said he thinks — based on the results of the recent ALEDA design standards survey — that this proposal seems a little further than what people are suggesting at this time.

Kehr encouraged people to take a look at what’s being offered, and if interested, attend the Planning Commission workshop where more of it will be discussed.

The commission meets at 5:30 p.m. Oct. 20.