Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-02-23 CDRB Packet AGENDA CITY OF MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Tuesday, February 23, 2010 6:00 P.M. Council Chambers - Maplewood City Hall 1830 County Road BEast 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes: a. November 24, 2009 b. January 12, 2010 5. Unfinished Business: a. Vegetation Guidelines for Maplewood 6. New Business: a. Election of Chairperson and Vice Chairperson b. Amendment to the Community Design Review Board Ruies of Procedure c. 2009 CDRB Annual Report 7. Visitor Presentations: 8. Board Presentations: 9. Staff Presentations: 10. Adjourn DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 24,2009 I. CALL TO ORDER Vice Chairperson Wise called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.rn. II. ROLL CALL Boardrnernber Jason Larners Chairperson Matt Ledvina Boardrnernber Michael Mireau Boardrnernber Ananth Shankar Vice Chairperson Matt Wise Present Absent Absent Present Present Staff Present: Michael Martin. Planner III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Boardmember Shankar moved to approve the agenda as presented. Boardrnember Lamers seconded The rnotion passed. Ayes - all IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. October 13, 2009 and November 10, 2009 Boardmember Shankar moved to table the minutes of October 13, 2009 and November 10, 2009, due to lack of a quorum. Boardmember Lamers seconded The motion passed. Ayes - all V. DESIGN REVIEW a. Comprehensive Sign Plan Amendrnent, Panera Bread, 2515 White Bear Avenue (Mapleridge Shopping Center) Planner Michael Martin presented the staff report for the request from Panera Bread for approval of a comprehensive sign plan amendment for the Mapleridge Shopping Center, located at 2515 White Bear Avenue. The applicant is proposing to install an awning that would have the company's wheat graphic displayed. The current comprehensive sign plan does not address the use of awnings for signs. Design plans were approved in August 2006 for this site showing solid colors being used for the awnings. Boardmember Wise asked if the sign application submitted by Panera Bread is tied to this request. Planner Martin responded that the wall sign request is a separate request and not tied to tonight's comprehensive sign plan amendment request. Comrnunity Design Review Board Minutes 11-24-2009 2 Boardmember Shankar asked if the request with the wheat graphic is considered advertising. Planner Martin responded that the reason staff is recornrnending denial of this request is that the wheat graphic would be a sign for Panera Bread and would create an inconsistent look within the shopping center. Mr. Martin explained the sign plan approved in 2006 had solid colors that were intended to show consistency from store to store. Scott Laage of Leroy Signs was present representing Panera Bread. Mr. Laage showed samples of the awning material and said that the various locations in the area have the wheat graphic on the awning. Boardmember Larners said he feels the tone and brightness of the new colors proposed for the awning are different from what exists and would change the irnage of the shopping center. Boardmember Shankar said since not all of the tenants have awnings, there is already an inconsistent look and questioned whether a different kind of awning would rnake it worse. Boardmember Lamers questioned if Panera Bread has made this awning change at other area locations as part of their national imaging, does Maplewood not want to be a part of that. John Hohman, operating partner of Pan era Bread, said the wheat graphic is used in many of the Panera Bread sites in the Twin Cities, but not everyone of them. Mr. Hohman said there are a variety of different colored designs used. Mr. Hohman said they are putting a large cornmitment into the remodel of the interior and exterior of this site and they feel the new awnings proposed improve the look of the exterior. Boardmember Shankar said he does not equate the wheat graphic with the golden arches or the apple and that he is ambivalent for that being considered signage. John Nephew, 628 County Road B East, asked if the notification to neighboring properties included the tenants of the shopping center. Planner Martin responded that typically only property owners are notified; therefore the tenants were not notified. Mr. Martin said the property owner of the shopping center supports this amendment. Planner Martin explained that if this request were to be approved, it would apply to all tenants in the center. Board members voiced their concerns that the tenants have a chance to speak to this matter, that their opinions rnatter, and to make them aware that the board is trying to do what it can to reinvest in the shopping center. Board mernbers agreed they do not consider the wheat graphic a sign and that other companies also use a wheat graphic. Planner Martin explained to the board that the current comprehensive sign plan requires landlord approval of any signs by the owner of the building. Mr. Martin said any sign application request needs the approval of the property owner before staff considers it and this application was signed by the building owner. Boardmernber Shankar moved to approve the cornprehensive sign plan amendment as visualized by plans date-starnped October 30, 2009 for the proposed awning sign for Pan era Bread at the Mapleridge Shopping Center, 2515 White Bear Avenue. This approval is based upon the tenants of the shopping center approving this signage and awning for Panera Bread. Boardmember Lamers seconded Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-24-2009 3 Boardrnember Wise suggested a friendly amendment be added to clarify what tenant approval would be required. Boardmember Shankar said he would request that staff survey the tenants to see that a majority of the tenants approve this awning and signage. Boardmembers Shankar and Lamers approved that the friendly amendment be added to the motion. The board voted: Ayes - all The motion passed. VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS Boardmember Wise spoke concerning the safety of monopoles. IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS Planner Martin reported that the city council held the first reading of the sign code amendment. Mr. Martin said the amendment was approved with changes to the percentage of window signage allowed and the timeframe. Mr. Martin explained the amendment will go back to the city council for the second reading before it is adopted into code. Planner Martin said the terms for board members Shankar and Wise will end this year and reminded those board members that applications for reappointment are due by November 30. Planner Martin requested that board members let staff know if they will be unable to make the December 22 scheduled board meeting. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 6:35 p.m. DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2010 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Ledvina called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Boardmember Jason Lamers Chairperson Matt Ledvina Boardmember Michael Mireau Boardmember Ananth Shankar Vice Chairperson Matt Wise Present Present Present Present Absent Staff Present: Michael Martin. Planner Ginnv Gavnor, Natural Resources Coordinator III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Boardmember Shankar moved to approve the agenda as presented. Boardmember Lamers seconded Ayes - all The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. October 13, 2009 Boardmember Lamers moved approval the minutes of October 13, 2009 as submitted. Boardmember Mireau seconded Ayes - Lamers, Mireau and Shankar Abstention - Ledvina The motion passed. b. November 10, 2009 , :(- Boardmember Lamers moved approval of the minutes of November 10, 2009 as submitted. Boardmember Mireau seconded Ayes - Lamers, Ledvina and Mireau Abstention - Shankar The motion passed. c. November 24, 2009 The minutes of November 24, 2009 were tabled by consensus due lack of a quorum. d. December 8, 2009 Boardmember Shankar moved approval of the minutes of December 8, 2009 as submitted. Boardmember Mireau seconded Ayes - Lamers, Ledvina and Shankar Abstention - Mireau The motion passed. Community Design Review Board Minutes 01-12-2010 V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 2 a. T-Mobile Fencing Proposal, Harmony Learning Center, 1961 County Road C Planner Martin presented the staff report for the request by T-Mobile for approval of the fencing proposal. Planner Martin explained the city council has approved T-Mobile's request for a conditional use permit and design review to construct a 75-foot-tall telecommunications tower for cellular telephone operations. Planner Martin said the city council added a condition of approval requiring community design review board consideration and approval of the required fencing materials. Mr. Martin said the city council required the applicant to submit plans for a non-chain-link fence that would weather better than a cedar fence, which the applicant has done. Amy Dresch, of FMHC Corporation, was present representing the applicant. Ms. Dresch said the product proposed for the fencing is a solid vinyl fence by Heritage Products in a tan color. Ms. Dresch said this product has been used by T-Mobile in the past and has been a positive experience. Ms. Dresch said there will be landscaping along the exterior of the fence and that the area inside of the fencing will be gravel and will contain the concrete bollards. Boardmember Shankar suggested that a sample of the fencing material be submitted to staff for approval. Boardmember Shankar moved approval of the applicant's plans to build an eight-foot-tall, tan vinyl fence to screen the tower and ground equipment. Recommendation is based on the findings required by code and subject to the applicant doing the following: 1. Building the fence according to the approved site and design plans date-stamped October 14, 2009. 2. The applicant is required to receive a building permit for an eight-foot-tall fence. 3. Submit fencing sample for staff approval. Boardmember Mireau seconded The motion passed. Ayes - all VI. NEW BUSINESS a. Vegetation Guidelines for Maplewood Ginny Gaynor, Natural Resources Coordinator, gave a brief presentation regarding the concept of establishing vegetation guidelines for Maplewood. Ms. Gaynor introduced Todd Carroll, who is with the Community Roadside Landscaping Partnership Program (CRLP) of Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). Ms. Gaynor explained that thrbugh this program, Mn/DOT works with communities who would like to landscape the highways. Ms. Gaynor said staff has started discussing with Mn/DOT the possibility of landscaping a portion of the Highway 36 corridor through Maplewood in the spring through this program. Ms. Gaynor encouraged board members to think about what vegetation they would prefer to see planted in Maplewood and on what roadways they feel the plantings would make the most impact. Todd Carroll, landscape architect for Mn/DOT, gave a presentation explaining the CRLP program and answered questions from the board. Mr. Carroll said only the side areas of the highway would Community Design Review Board 3 Minutes 01-12-2010 be planted and not the median. Mr. Carroll discussed ideas of what could be included in the design and showed examples of vegetation plantings done on area highways. Mr. Carroll said he expects to get an initial plan together in the next two to three months and then present a plan for a partnership agreement by June. It was agreed by the board and Ms. Gaynor that the vegetation guidelines for Maplewood be further discussed at the next board meeting. VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS Mayor Will Rossbach introduced himself to board members, thanked them for their service to the city and advised them to contact council members if they should have questions. VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS Boardmember Mireau reported on the December 14,2009 city council meeting. IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS None X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 8:00 p.m. MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: DATE: Community Design Review Board Members Michael Martin, AICP, Planner Ginny Gaynor, Maplewood Natural Resources Coordinator Guidelines for Highway 36 Landscape Design February 2,2010 TO: FROM: INTRODUCTION In 2008, University of Minnesota students worked with the city on the Sustainable Maplewood 2050 project. One of the groups focused on vegetation and recommended that the city establish policies to encourage sustainable landscaping. The group's report can be accessed on-line at: www.ci.maolewood.mn.us/DocumentView.asox?DID=915. The city is partnering with Minnesota Department of Transportation (MN DOT) on landscaping along highways. At the February 9, 2010 commission meeting, staff and commissioners will begin developing guidelines for the Highway 36 landscape project. DISCUSSION Maplewood is participating in the Minnesota Department of Transportation's (MNDOT) Community Roadside Landscaping Partnership Program. On January 12, Todd Carroll from MNDOT discussed the program with the commission, and explained that MNDOT provides design services and covers the cost of materials, while the participating community prepares the site, plants, and maintains the plantings. This winter and spring, Mr. Carroll will be working on a landscape design for the whole length of Highway 36 through Maplewood. At the February 9, 2010 commission meeting, staff will present background information for our discussion. The commission will then address several questions (Attachment 1) and develop guidelines for Mr. Carroll regarding the Highway 36 landscape design. This is part of a broader discussion on vegetation in Maplewood, which will help develop guidelines for vegetation on city lands with the goals of: 1. Creating a visual image that people associate with Maplewood; 2. Ensuring plantings are sustainable and the city only plants what it can maintain; 3. Creating plantings that reflect our natural heritage; 4. Minimizing the need for watering, fertilizing, and the use of pesticides. RECOMMENDATION Staff requests that commissioners discuss preferences arid develop guidelines for the landscape design for Highway 36. Attachment 1: Discussion Topics and Questions " Attachment 1 February 9, 2010 CDRB Meeting Guidelines for Highway 36 Landscape Design Discussion Topics and Questions a. Historical native plant communities in Maplewood b. Existing plantings in Maplewood c. Sustainable landscaping d. Maintenance requirements associated with various planting designs or styles e. Need for a hierarchy of planting intensity related to maintenance a. What streets in Maplewood have potential for being a "park.way"? b. What streets in Maplewood deserve higher intensity plantings (beyond trees)? i. Key intersections: ii. Roundabouts: Iii. Commercial areas: iv. Thruways: v. Highways: vi. Residential areas: vii. Other: a. If we had one monument in city, where would it be? Iftwo? Ifthree? a. What do you like or dislike about the templates MNDOT provided at our January meeting (will be available at February 9th meeting)? b. What image of Maplewood do we want to project from the highway? What messages do we want to convey? 1) Care for people, community, quality of life 2) Relationship to environment (celebrate and care for natural resources) 3) Aesthetics 4) Other c. Where should Highway 36 fit in the planting intensity scheme for the city (#2 above)? d. What elements of sustainability should the highway landscape have? i. Hardy, drought tolerant plants ii. Minimal use of pesticides (select hardy plants, avo,id monocultures) Iii. Minimal use of fertilizers (select hardy plants that don't need fertilizer) iv. Reduce turf grass v. Incorporate native plants vi. Provide for wildlife vii. Use diverse species Attachment 1 1) Do we want a signature plant? Or do we want our signature to be plant communities or diversity? VIII. Other e. What design styles do we prefer? (may want to combine several) 1) Natural area vs. garden/planting 2) Formalvs. informal 3) Massing vs. mixing 4) Design with "plant communities" S) Other f. Are there certain plants we want to incorporate? 1) Trees: 2) Shrubs: 3) Native perennials: 4) Non-native perennials: S) Bulbs: 6) Vines: 7) Other: 8) Invasive trees/shrubs to avoid: amur maple, honeysuckle, barberry.... g. Are any sections of highway the "gateway" to Maplewood? h. If a business would like more intense planting adjacent to their property, should that be accommodated? (ie, create designs for both low and high maintenance) i. Should the design include a monument? Where? What design elements? j. What features do we want included to help reduce maintenance? 1) Edging on plantings 2) Access to plantings 3) Other k. Is designing for year-round interest important? Are any seasons more important than others? I. Other thoughts on the Highway 36 landscape design 1) Near Residential 2) Near Commercial 3) Other a. "Gateway" area b. Areas that need intensive planting c. Areas that need screening d. Areas that need open views MEMORANDUM DATE: Community Design Review Board Members Michael Martin, AICP, Planner Election of Community Design Review Board Chairperson and Vice Chairperson February 2, 2010 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: INTRODUCTION The rules of procedure require the community design review board (CDRB) elect a chairperson and vice chairperson at its second meeting of every new year. The 2009 chairperson was Matt Ledvina and the vice chairperson was Matt Wise. DISCUSSION Matt Ledvina, the current chairperson, asked staff for more guidance on the process of selecting a chairperson and vice chairperson. The city council adopted the Commission Handbook on July 27, 2009 which established procedures for the city's advisory bodies to operate under. The handbook has a section that deals with the role of the chairperson and vice chairperson. Below is the excerpt from the handbook: Role of the Chairperson and Vice Chairperson Commissions generally appoint the chair and vice chair at set times of the year. Although the appointment is usually for a year, the chair and vice chair serve at the pleasure of the commission. The willingness and ability of an individual to serve as the chair or vice chair should be taken into consideration. Commissions should try to give all commissioners an opportunity to serve as chair. The responSibility of service as chair or vice chair does take extra time. . Responsibilities of the Chair: . Preside at all official meetings of the board, commission, or committee. . Consult with the staff liaison in drafting the meeting agenda. . Attend City Council meetings, in person or through another commissioner as designee, as needed to represent the commission, board, or committee with the approval of the commission, board, or committee. . Sign correspondence from the commission with the approval of the City Council. The effective chairperson also, during meetings: . Solicits opinions and positions from reticent commission members. . Protects new thoughts from being rejected prior to fair evaluation. . Discourages blame-orientated statements. . Keeps the discussion focused on the issue. . Builds trust by even handedness and fairness to all the participants. Responsibilities of the Vice Chair: . Substitute for the Chair as needed. The section is silent on procedure for the election of the chairperson and vice chairperson. The CDRB's rules of procedure are also silent on process for election of a chairperson and vice chairperson. City Attorney Alan Kantrud stated the existing chairperson should open the process for nominations for chair and vice chair, and the body would then vote for the positions. If only one nomination emerges for each position, a motion can be made to formally appoint that person to the post. If there is more the one nomination, the CDRB should vote publicly to decide which candidate will be appointed. RECOMMENDATION Elect a chairperson and vice chairperson for 2010. , .-.;. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Community Design Review Board Members Michael Martin, AICP, Planner Amendment to the Community Design Review Board Rules February 2, 2010 INTRODUCTION On July 27, 2009, the city council adopted the City of Maplewood Commission Handbook. The purpose of the handbook is to provide general information, rules and policies for commissioners and board members. There is one conflict with the community design review board's (COR B) rules of procedure. The CORB rules need a revision to ensure consistency between the two documents. DISCUSSION Commission Handbook" The CDRB initially reviewed the handbook in October 13, 2009 and December 8, 2009. At these meetings, staff had indicated to the CDRB that they would need to consider an amendment to the rules of procedure. Community Design Review Board Rules of Procedure The CDRB last updated its Rules of Procedure on February 10, 2009 to reflect a change in the open meeting policy. Below are two items that need further revision or review: 1. Rules of Order: The rules specify that Robert's Rules of Order govern the commission in its procedures. The rules should specify the required parliamentary procedures listed in the Commission Handbook as Rosenberg's Rules of Order. 2. Election of Chair and Vice Chair: The Commission Handbook specifies that commissions and boards should elect a chair and vice chair during their meetings in December. Since all commission and board terms expire at the end of the calendar year, this requirement seems impractical. The CDRB rules specify that these elections should take place in January. Staff will request the city council revise the commission handbook to ensure the elections take place after commission and board members are appointed. RECOMMENDATION '. Adopt the changes proposed to the community design review board rules of procedure. This change will modify Section IX (Rules of Order) to be consistent with the Commission Handbook, which requires following Rosenburg's Rules of Order. Attachments: 1. CDRB Rules of Procedure .i Attachment 1 COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RULES OF PROCEDURE We, the members of the Community Design Review Board of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, created pursuant to Article IV, Section 25 of the Code of Ordinances, hereby adopt the following "Rules of Procedure," subject to the provisions of said Article, which is hereby made a part of these Rules: I. MEETINGS A. All meetings shall be held in the council chambers in Maplewood City Hall, 1830 E. County Road B, unless otherwise directed by the chairperson or staff, in which case at least 24 hours notice will be given to all members. B. Regular meetings shall be held at 6 p.m. on the second and fourth Tuesdays of each calendar month, provided that when the meeting falls on a legal holiday or voting day, such meeting shall be rescheduled. C. Special meetings may be held upon call by the chairperson, or in his/her absence, by the vice chairperson, or by any other member with the concurrence of two other- members of the board with at least 72 hours notice to all members. . II. QUORUM A. Three members of the board shall constitute a quorum. B. Any member who abstains from voting on a particular question because of possible conflict of interest shall not be considered to be a member of the board for the purpose of determining a quorum for the consideration of the issue. -- C. Any action by the board shall require a majority vote of the members present. III. DUTIES OF THE CHAIRMAN A. In addition to presiding at all meetings of the board, the chairperson shall appoint such standing committees and temporary committees as may be required, and such committees will be charged with the duties, examinations, investigations, and inquiries relative to subjects assigned by the chairperson. B. No standing or temporary committee shall have the power to commit the board to the endorsement of any plan or program without the express approval of the board. -1- Attachment 1 IV. ELECTION OF OFFICERS A. The chairperson, vice chairperson, and such officers as the board may decide are needed, shall be appointed by the board at the second meeting of each calendar year and will serve until their successors have been duly elected and qualified. B. In the absence of the chairperson, the vice chairperson shall perform the duties of the chairperson. In the event that both are absent, the members present shall elect a chairperson pro tem. V. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD VACANCIES A. The following are grounds for recommending to the city council the dismissal of a community design review board member: 1. Failure to serve, as shown by failure to attend six meetings in any calendar year, without good cause. 2. Resignation in writing. 3. Taking public office in Maplewood. 4. Moving out of Maplewood. VI. DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PARKS A. In addition to carrying out the duties prescribed in city ordinance, the director or a designated replacement, shall: 1. Prepare the agenda for each meeting. 2. Act as technical advisor to the board on any matter which comes before the board. 3. Make written recommendations to the board on matters such as, but not limited to, architectural plans, site plans, signage and landscaping proposals. 4. Inspect the construction of all projects approved by the board for plan compliance. 5. Schedule any matter with the city council that has been reviewed by the board that requires city council approval. VII. AGENDA A. Copies of the agenda, together with pertinent staff reports and copies of the minutes of the previous meeting, shall be made available to each member of the board not later than three days prior to the next scheduled meeting. B. The agenda format shall read as follows: -2- : Attachment 1 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes 4. Approval of Agenda 5. Unfinished Business 6. Design Review 7. Visitor Presentations B. Board Presentations 9. Staff Presentations 10. Adjournment C. The board shall only consider items on the agenda. D. The board's review shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following items: 1. Site Considerations: a. Utilities b. Drainage c. Landscaping - fence, screening d. Traffic flow, parking and driveway access e. Trash receptacle enclosure f. Building setbacks g. Security lighting h. Access for emergency vehicles 2. Architectural Considerations: a. Materials B compatible with neighboring buildings; such as block, metal, brick, etc., including colors. b. Building aesthetics B compatible with neighboring buildings, scale of building, size in relation to surroundings, flat roof vs. pitched roof, etc. c. Location and concealment of outside equipment, e.g. air conditioning, and outside storage yards. VIII. AMENDMENT OR SUSPENSION OF RULES A. Any of the foregoing rules may be temporarily suspended by a majority vote of the members present. B. The "Rules of Procedure" may be amended at any regular meeting by a majority vote. Except as herein provided, Rosen's Rosenberq's Rules of Order, shall be followed. /~ ~--- IX. RULES OF ORDER p:com-dev\community design review board/rules.drb Revised: February 2, 2010 -3- MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Matt Ledvina, Community Design Review Board Michael Martin, AICP, Planner 2009 Annual Report February 2, 2010 INTRODUCTION Attached to this memo is the draft of the community design review board's (CDRB) 2009 Annual Report. The CDRB has produced this report every year to forward on to the city council for its review of the board's work throughout the previous year. DISCUSSION The format of the 2009 Annual Report is similar to previous years. Staff has included a section for 2010 activities. This was done with the intention of the CDRB having a discussion at its February 9, 2010 meeting to develop its goals for the upcoming year. Staff included the in- service training opportunities and the development of vegetation guidelines as a starting point. Staff will be looking for feedback from the CDRB as to what it would like to accomplish in 2010 outside of its design review duties. RECOMMENDATIONS Please review the attached draft 2009 Annual Report and come to the February 9, 2010 meeting prepared to discuss. Attachments: 1. 2009 CDRB Annual Report 1 :) :c '< MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: James Antonen, City Manager Matt Ledvina, Community Design Review Board Chair Community Design Review Board 2008 Annual Report February 9, 2010 INTRODUCTION Annually the community design review board (CDRB) reports the board's actions and activities for the city council for the previous year. In 2009, the CDRB reviewed the following 18 items during its 11 meetings: Type of Proposal # Reviewed New Development Proposals 4 1. Feed Products, North Office Building (1300 McKnight Road) 2. Mogren Office Building (South of 2607 White Bear Avenue) 3. Century Trails Senior Apartments (Benet Road and Monastery Way) 4. T-Mobile Telecommunications Monopole (1961 County Road C East) Expansions/Remodels 2 1. The Minnesota Waldorf School (70 County Road BEast) 2. Ramsey County Park Shelters (Several locations) Miscellaneous Reviews and Actions 4 1. Amendment to the CDRB Rules of Procedure 2. Sign Code Amendments 3. Ashley Furniture Comprehensive Sign Plan Amendment (1770 County Road D) 4. Panera Bread Comprehensive Sign Plan Amendment (2515 White Bear Avenue) Type of Proposal, continued # Reviewed Special Proiects and Presentations 8 1. 2008 Annual Report 2. 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update 3. Sustainable Maplewood 4. University of Minnesota Urban Management Program 5. Commission Handbook Review 6. Vegetation Guidelines for Maplewood 7. Questions for CDRB Membership Interviews 8. 2009 Summer Tour Total 18 COMPARATIVE INFORMATION Year Number of Items Reviewed 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 25 25 27 33 27 15 18 MEMBERSHIP The CDRB consists of five members appointed by the city council. Membership terms are for two years, with extensions for additional terms approved by the city council. The current membership is as follows: Board Member Membership BeQan Term Expires Ananth Shankar 8/8/94 1/1/12 Matt Ledvina 3/10/97 1/1/11 Matt Wise 2/12/07 1/1/10 Jason Lamers 5/26/09 1/1/12 Michael Mireau 5/26/09 1/1/12 The terms of Linda Olson, Matt Ledvina and John Demko officially expired on January 1, 2009. The council reappointed Matt Ledvina on January 26, 2009, whose membership will now end on 2 January 1, 2011. Linda Olson and John Demko did not seek reappointment but served until the appointment of new members. On May 11, 2009, the city council appointed Jason Lamers and Michael Mireau to two-year terms on the CDRB. The terms of Ananth Shankar and Matt Wise officially expired on January 1, 2010. The city council reappointed Ananth Shankar to a two-year term. Matt Wise was not able to attend the council interviews for reappointment. The council will interview and consider reappointment at one of its upcoming meetings. DISCUSSION 2009 Actions/Activities In 2009, the CDRB reviewed 18 items, around the same number of reviews as 2008. The types of reviews by the CDRB leaned toward administrative projects and code amendments, which is a reflection of the state of the economy and its effect on Maplewood. The slowdown in the economy has given the CDRB a perfect opportunity to plan for future development. The CDRB expects this type of work to continue into 2010. The CDRB reviewed one new housing project that will work to increase housing options within the city. The Century Trails Senior Apartments project will add 40 new senior housing residential units. The CDRB also worked on several key commercial and institutional projects in the city. The CDRB has consistently demonstrated keen interest and skill in their reviews of these development projects to ensure they are of the quality of design and materials that complement the surrounding areas and improves a site's aesthetics. Another reason for the drop in reviews is that the city has seen the amount of vacant land available for new developments diminish. In addition, many of the projects that occurred in 2009 were smaller in nature allowing city staff to process many of the city's remodels and additions as 15-day reviews, as allowed by code, rather than the more formal review by the CDRB. Because of the developed nature of the city, many of the new commercial and residential developments reviewed by the CDRB are either redevelopment of existing buildings or in-fill development. The CDRB will continue to be a vital advisory board to the city council in the future, particularly with more redevelopment and in-fill development projects on the horizon. The CDRB has worked extensively on the city's sign code for the past few years including recommending approval in 2009. The council adopted the majority of the sign code amendments on January 25, 2010. The city council also adopted the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, another long- term project in which the CDRB contributed, on January 25, 2010. 2010 Activities In addition to its design review duties, the CDRB lists these potential activities for 201 0: 1. Have in-service training sessions or provide educational materials for the CDRB. Training topics might include sessions about in-fill development, development review process, and sustainable/green development. 2. Develop policy guidelines for vegetation use along publi(: rights-of-way. 3 CONCLUSION In 2010, the CDRB will continue its dedication to the quality design of buildings and developments, ensuring a high quality of life for the citizens of Maplewood. RECOMMENDATION Approve the CDRB's 2009 annual report. P\com-dev\community design review board\annual report (2009) 4