Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-02-22 CDRB Packet - cancelledAGENDA CITY OF MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Tuesday, February 22, 2011 6:00 P.M. Council Chambers - Maplewood City Hall 1830 County Road B East 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes: a. January 11, 2011 5. Unfinished Business: 6. New Business: a. Complete /Livings Streets Recommendations b. 2010 Annual Report 7. Visitor Presentations: 8. Board Presentations: 9. Staff Presentations: a. Election of Officers 10. Adjourn MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, JANUARY 11, 2011 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Ledvina called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Boardmember Jason Lamers Absent Chairperson Matt Ledvina Present Boardmember Michael Mireau Present Boardmember Ananth Shankar Present Vice Chairperson Matt Wise Present, arrived at 6:09 Staff Present: Michael Martin, Planner Michael Thompson, City Engineer 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Boardmember Shankar moved to approve the agenda as presented. Boardmember Mireau seconded the motion. Ayes - All The motion passed. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Boardmember Mireau moved to approve the minutes of the September 28, 2010, minutes as presented. Boardmember Shankar seconded the motion. Ayes - All The motion passed. Boardmember Shankar moved to approve the minutes of the November 23, 2010, minutes as presented. Boardmember Mireau seconded the motion Ayes — Boardmembers Mireau, Shankar & Wise Abstention — Chairperson Ledvina The motion passed. January 11, 2011 Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes 1 5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None 6. DESIGN REVIEW a. Design and Comprehensive Sign Plan Approval — Metro Transit Park and Ride Ramp, Northeast Corner of Beam Avenue and Southlawn Drive 1. Planner, Michael Martin gave the report and answered questions of the board. 2. Applicant, Lindsey Sheppard, Project Manager, Metro Transit Engineering & Facilities, Minneapolis, addressed the board. 3. Gary Milne Rojek, Principal Architect, Bentz, Thompson, Rietow, gave the report and answered questions of the board. Chairperson Ledvina moved to approve the parking -ramp design plans, the site plan, the lighting plan, and the landscaping plan date - stamped December 2, 2010, for the proposed parking ramp proposal for Metro Transit at the northeast corner of Beam Avenue and Southlawn Drive. The applicant shall comply with the following conditions: (additions are in bold and underlined) 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Submit a revised photometric plan for staff approval displaying code compliance. 3. Comply with any and all requirements in Virginia Gaynor's report, dated December 22, 2010. 4. Comply with any and all requirements in Steve Kummer's report, dated December 20, 2010. 5. Submit an irrevocable letter of credit or cash escrow in the amount of 150 percent of the cost of completing the landscaping and site lighting. 6. These items must be provided before the city shall issue a building permit. 7. All work shall follow the approved plans. Planning staff may approve minor changes. 8. The applicant shall work with the support lines behind the metal panels similar with how the applicant has worked with the precast reveal lines. Chairperson Ledvina moved to approve the comprehensive sign plan for the proposed parking ramp proposal for Metro Transit at the northeast corner of Beam Avenue and Southlawn Drive. The applicant shall comply with the following conditions: 1. All signs shall follow the approved plans. Planning staff may approve minor changes. 2. Any major changes to the comprehensive sign plan must be approved by the CDRB. Seconded by Board member Wise. Ayes — All January 11, 2011 Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes A friendly amendment was added by Board Shankar that the applicant shall work with the support lines behind the metal panels similar with how the applicant has worked with the precast reveal lines. The friendly amendment was accepted by the motioner and the seconder. The motion passed. 7. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None 8. BOARD PRESENTATIONS None 9. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. Election of Officers Chairperson Ledvina moved to table the election of officers until all boardmembers can be present. Seconded by Boardmember Wise. The motion passed. The next CDRB meeting will be February 22, 2011. 10. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by Chairperson Ledvina at 6:48 p.m. January 11, 2011 Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes 7 URI4 0 1 U7ilN4101:AI TO: Community Design Review Board Environmental and Natural Resources Commission Planning Commission FROM: Michael Thompson, City Engineer / Dep. Director of Public Works Steve Love, Assistant City Engineer Steve Kummer, Civil Engineer II Jon Jarosch, Civil Engineer I Troy Brink, Streets Crew Chief Ann Hutchinson, Naturalist Virginia Gaynor, Naturalist Michael Martin, City Planner SUBJECT: Complete /Living Streets Recommendations DATE: February 9, 2011 INTRODUCTION The Complete Streets sustainability work group was charged with studying the concepts of complete streets /green streets and making recommendations to the commission and council. The group has prepared background information, an overview of current operations and policies for city streets for both new development and street reconstruction, and presents it recommendations herein. BACKGROUND The Complete Streets group met April 28, 2010, June 29, 2010, and September 30, 2010. At the June 29` meeting Ramsey - Washington Metro Watershed District and Barr Engineering presented the Living Streets case study they are conducting with North Saint Paul. Over the entire period group members provided individual contributions and furthered their knowledge on the topic. A few members attended Complete Streets workshops in Ramsey and Hennepin Counties. Terminology surrounding this topic can be confusing. Complete Streets typically refers to street design that provides for multiple modes of transportation (auto, mass transit, pedestrian, bike). Green Streets typically refers to street design that reduces environmental impacts by reducing impervious surface, managing stormwater, and providing shade. Ramsey - Washington Metro Watershed District and North St. Paul are using the term Living Streets to combine these definitions. Complete Streets Legislation The State of Minnesota passed Complete Streets legislation in 2010. The Commissioner of Transportation has committed Mn /DOT to implement a complete street vision for the trunk highway system. Cities are encouraged to adopt policies to meet their unique needs; however it is not a mandate. According to Mn /DOT, "Complete Streets does not mean "all modes on all roads "; rather, the goal of Complete Streets should be to: 1) Develop a balanced transportation system that integrates all modes via planning inclusive of each mode of transportation (i.e., transit, freight, automobile, bicycle and pedestrian) 2) Include transportation users of all types, ages and abilities. Examples of Complete Streets goals and principles listed in the report to the legislature include: 1) Reduce crash rates and severity of crashes. 2) Improve mobility and accessibility of all individuals including those with disabilities in accordance with the legal requirements of the ADA. 3) Encourage mode shift to non - motorized transportation and transit. 4) Reduce air and water pollution and reduce noise impacts. 5) Increase transportation network connectivity. 6) Maximize the efficient use of existing facilities. 7) Strive for tax supported investments to provide maximum benefits to the community and all user groups. 8) Safely integrate intermodal connections across the transportation network. 9) Promote safe and convenient access and travel for all users (pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders) and people of all abilities as well as freight and motor vehicle drivers. The City of Maplewood finds some of these examples useful however the City wants to go further in addressing the environment and active living instead of focusing solely on a transportation vision. Minnesota GreenStep City The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has launched the Minnesota GreenStep City program. This is a challenge, assistance and recognition program to help cities achieve their sustainability goals through implementation of 28 best practices. The actions related to complete streets /green streets include: 1) Adopt a complete streets policy that addresses street trees and stormwater, and modify street standards accordingly. 2) Adopt zoning language for a selected area /project that is substantially equivalent to the LEED for Neighborhood Development credits for Walkable Streets or Street Network. 3) Document the installation of trees, and green stormwater infrastructure, and utility renovations as needed (sewer, water, electric, telecommunications) as part of at least one complete street reconstruction project. 4) Identify and remedy non - complete street segments by, for example, adding a bike route /lane or sidewalk. 5) Identify and remedy street -trail gaps (at least one) between city streets and trails /bike trails to better facilitate walking and biking. 6) Implement traffic calming measures in at least one street redevelopment project. The discussion portion of this report will focus on: 1) Actions or practices that have the most impact on the environment or associated operations; 2) Assessing our operations to determine methods to become more sustainable and reduce impacts on the environment; 3) Determining if the modifications will be practical, economical, and meet community needs. IQ1.10111 *11IQ0 Living Streets Landscape Architect Fred Rozumalski from Barr Engineering and RWMWD Administrator Cliff Aichinger gave the taskforce a very informative presentation on the Living Streets concepts they developed for North St. Paul. RWMWD Administrator has given staff permission to use information from their report and presentation and the following discussion uses materials from the North St. Paul project. Living Streets pulls together the concepts of complete streets, green streets, and puts additional focus on quality of life aspects for city residents. Figure 1 below shows the components of Living Streets. The model balances the "green" components (environment and social factors) and the "grey!' components (transportation and utilities) of the system. Stormwater capture and use Traffic Trees Speed Pedestrians movement Sewers Pedestrian safety Gas Sikes Electric Community Telecom Aesthetic character Storm water drainage INFRASTRUCTURE FIGURE 1 - RWMWD/BARR REPORT The taskforce thinks a Living Streets concept better fits our goals than a Complete Streets concept. Maplewood's goals are similar to those developed by RWMWD and Barr Engineering for North Saint Paul. We believe our Living Streets policy should: 1) Improve stormwater quality through expansion of the rain garden program, reducing the impervious footprint, and meeting or exceeding the 1" infiltration standard. 2) Implement traffic calming measures through the use of techniques best suited for site conditions. 3) Improve biking and walking conditions along natural connector routes and collector streets through designation of bike lanes, sidewalks, or multi - purpose trails. 4) Create boulevard tree standards that provide environmental benefits (stormwater management, shade to reduce heating and cooling costs, filtering air pollutants), enhance quality of life, and are practical and affordable. 5) Minimize construction costs while also ensuring future maintenance and replacement costs are equal to or less than that of a standard street section. Greatest Impact Items and Assessing Operations The following items are high impact items that should be further assessed in order to become more sustainable with the living streets concept: 1) Rain gardens — The city's rain garden program has represented Maplewood well in the eyes of communities throughout the U.S. in terms of sustainability and "going green." Our program includes installing rain gardens as part of street reconstruction projects, conducting educational programs to support residents that install rain gardens on their own, and promoting the use of rain gardens in new development. The early street reconstruction projects that included rain gardens had high resident participation and thus made a significant impact reducing stormwater volume. But the number of residents requesting rain gardens on street reconstruction projects has decreased over the years. In 2009 -2010 staff made two changes on the Hills and Dale project to try to increase resident participation and redirect staff resources: 1) have contractor plant the home gardens, and 2) test a new "whole street" planting design. Participation in the home rain garden program has increased dramatically on this project. In coming years, rather than devoting so much staff time to supporting planting of the home gardens (placing plant orders, sorting orders, delivery, coordinating planting day, mulching), staff can now focus on education support for maintaining the gardens. We believe nothing promotes rain gardens better than attractive, well- maintained gardens from previous projects. Staff recommends that we continue to investigate ways to increase resident participation in rain garden programs, including ideas such as adjusting the Environmental Utility Fee credits /incentives for qualifying best management practices Pros - i. Minimal maintenance required by city for home gardens, reduces pollutants to lakes and wetlands, provides aesthetic enhancements to neighborhoods, reduces volume of water within the system thereby increasing existing capacity, can reduce storm piping infrastructure requirements Cons - ii. Need to determine a long -term maintenance policy for residential gardens (e.g. residents sign a form that they will maintain, etc.), need ongoing educational support for home gardens, large city gardens require maintenance and an experienced gardener, a garden could be filled in by a resident in the future, cannot count on rain gardens because the program is voluntary 2) Street sections — Currently our standard urban street section calls for a 32' wide street section and cul -de -sacs require a diameter of 93'. Reducing the width of streets reduces the amount of impervious surface and lessens the environmental impact. Over the past years, the city has allowed for narrower streets in some new developments and has incorporated parking bays and traffic calming designs (narrowing of street) on some street reconstruction projects (Beam Avenue, English Street, Hazelwood Street). Our Engineering Department will be exploring some of these design concepts on the Western Hills street reconstruction project in 2010 -2011. A majority of vehicles have a width of 8.5' or less including fire trucks, school buses, and garbage trucks. The required turning diameter for a fire truck or school bus is about 93' which matches the current requirement for city cul -de -sac standards. However many school buses no longer enter into cul -de -sac locations for pickup but rather pick children up at the nearest cross street. Also, fire trucks and safety vehicles can maneuver within cul -de -sacs with a much tighter diameter. As seen in Figure 2, a street section of 22' can accommodate parking on one side of the street with two cars comfortably passing one another on a residential street. A 22' street section with parking on one side can also accommodate larger vehicles but there may be some yielding when vehicles must pass one another near a parked vehicle. If parking is needed on both sides of a residential street then a street section of 26' can accommodate two parked cars and a passing vehicle in between, with yielding required at the pinch points. This concept is shown in Figure 3. FIGURE 3 — RESIDENTIAL STREET - RWMWD /BARR REPORT A general windshield survey showed that not many cars are parked along city streets during daytime. City ordinance prohibits cars parked on city streets from 2:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m. The taskforce recommends we reevaluate street parking in Maplewood and develop guidelines about levels of street parking that should be provided in different scenarios. On current street reconstruction projects, residents are sometimes asked whether they would like the street narrowed. In the past, few neighborhoods have wanted to decrease street width. The taskforce recommends that the city thoroughly explores street widths, cul -de -sac diameters, street parking, street standards, and develops a policy that helps minimize environmental impacts. This should include educating residents about the costs and benefits associated with street widths and exploring incentives for neighborhoods that reduce street width during street reconstruction projects. Pros - i. Reduces impervious area, reduces pollutants and runoff volume, slows traffic by narrowing, reduces future replacement costs and maintenance because the footprint would be smaller than current standards Cons - ii. Reduces area for on- street pedestrians if no sidewalk exists or is wanted in the boulevard, safety vehicle needs, idea may not be accepted by residents 3) Active Living Opportunities — Providing a designated system of sidewalks, trails, and bike lanes increases the likelihood for walking and biking. During development of Maplewood's 2030 Comprehensive Plan, the city evaluated our sidewalk and trail system and identified future trails and connections needed. Currently City Code requires sidewalk installation adjacent to collector streets, however, it will be important to start providing on- street bikeways to promote active lifestyles in addition to sidewalks. Figure 4 depicts a typical layout of a collector street with biking and pedestrian facilities. FIGURE 4 — COLLECTOR STREET - RWMWD /BARR REPORT This typical collector street section would accommodate parking on one side of the street in addition to biking lanes on either side. A sidewalk would also be placed on one side of the street. Bump outs would be provided to provide for some traffic calming and also providing additional opportunities for stormwater treatment. A review and revision of standards would need to be conducted to determine the type of street best suited for this treatment. Pros - i. Promotes walking and riding bikes, reduces need for vehicle use on short trips if proper infrastructure is in place, traffic calming using bump outs Cons - ii. May require wider streets to accommodate biking lanes, impacts into boulevards, additional costs for striping and maintenance, difficulty to plow and maintain in winter especially with bump outs 4) Pervious Pavement— Maplewood has installed pervious asphalt parking lots at the public works building and at Geranium Park. Both are functioning well, but studies are still ongoing to determine life expectancy and maintenance protocols for this type of system. The city of Shoreview recently installed pervious concrete on a roadway in a smaller neighborhood and to date considers the project a success. It is important that the city continues to explore the latest infrastructure technologies. Pros - i. Reduces need for storm sewer pipes, reduces pollutants and volume of runoff, quieter when driven on compared to regular pavement, firmer stable walking surface Cons - ii. High cost, maintenance issues, predictability 5) Tree Plantings — Trees provide many benefits to the community. They help treat stormwater, filter air pollutants, provide shade which can lower energy consumption, add value to homes and enhance the aesthetics of a neighborhood. The city's current right - of -way ordinance does not allow tree plantings within public rights of way /boulevards, however, the city typically requires planting boulevard trees on Planned Unit Development projects. The city has no policy regarding replanting trees that die. In addition to boulevards, trees could be considered within cul -de -sac islands as a green street feature. The taskforce recommends that we review the city's policies on boulevard trees. A review should include cost estimates for tree planting and maintenance and ensure the policy is affordable. Pros - i. Provides shade to homes thereby reducing energy needs, provides a neighborhood feel, aesthetically pleasing, trees utilize excess runoff and act as a filter, shades pavement which reduces hot/cold cycles increasing pavement longevity Cons - ii. Conflicts with utilities in the boulevard, requires ongoing maintenance /pruning /removal /replanting if diseased I N x91191 LVihVi14 0 117A I M 0 It is recommended that the Community Design Review Board, Planning Commission, and Environmental and Natural Resources Commission provide input on objectives and developing a successful framework in which to create and recommend a Living Streets policy to the city council. Attachments: 1) Resolution Attachment 1 DECLARING SUPPORT FOR ESTABLISHING A COMPLETE STREETS (LIVING STREETS) POLICY FOR THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA WHEREAS, the Living Streets concept is similar to Complete Streets in that it is designed to assure safety and accessibility for all the users of our roads, trails and transit systems, including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, motorists, commercial and emergency vehicles and for people of all ages and of all abilities; and WHEREAS, Living Streets reduce congestion by providing safe travel choices that encourage non - motorized transportation options, increasing the overall capacity of the transportation network as well as decreasing consumer transportation costs; and WHEREAS, Living Streets will help the City of Maplewood reduce greenhouse gas emissions as more people choose an alternative to the single occupant vehicle; and WHEREAS, Living Streets support economic growth and community stability by providing accessible and efficient connections between home, school, work, recreation and retail destinations by improving the pedestrian and vehicular environments throughout communities; and WHEREAS, Living Streets enhance safe walking and bicycling options for school age children, in recognition of the objectives of the national Safe Routes to School program; and WHEREAS, Living Streets can help reduce crashes and injuries and their costs; and WHEREAS, Living Streets provide environmental and social benefits including: 1) Improving stormwater quality 2) Reducing impervious surfaces 3) Providing traffic calming measures 4) Improving biking and walking conditions 5) Protecting and enhancing the urban forest THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that in order to develop and maintain a safe, efficient, balanced and environmentally sound city transportation system for people of all ages and abilities, transportation and development projects shall incorporate a Complete Streets philosophy that expands transportation choices and further incorporates the Living Streets theme and key concepts listed above; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the staff shall prepare a Living Streets Policy and shall concurrently review city ordinances, engineering standards, policies, and guidelines in order to make recommendations ultimately to the City Council on a Living Street Policy that will reduce impacts to the environment, be practical and economical, while also meeting community and stakeholder needs. 1UI=I1UIQNetL I Bill Vil TO: Matt Ledvina, Community Design Review Board FROM: Michael Martin, AICP, Planner SUBJECT: 2010 Annual Report DATE: February 14, 2011 INTRODUCTION Attached to this memo is the draft of the community design review board's (CDRB) 2010 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. I Q 1-10111*11 IQ L I The format of the 2010 Annual Report is similar to previous years. Staff has included a section for 2011 activities. This was done with the intention of the CDRB having a discussion at its February 22, 2011 meeting to develop its goals for the upcoming year. Staff included the in- service training opportunities and the continued 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 2011 outside of its design review duties. RECOMMENDATIONS Please review the attached draft 2010 Annual Report and come to the February 22, 2011 meeting prepared to discuss. Attachments: 2010 CDRB Annual Report MEMORANDUM TO: James Antonen, City Manager FROM: Matt Ledvina, Community Design Review Board Chair SUBJECT: Community Design Review Board 2010 Annual Report DATE: February 22, 2011 INTRODUCTION Annually the community design review board (CDRB) reports the board's actions and activities for the city council for the previous year. In 2010, the CDRB reviewed the following 20 items during its 10 meetings: Type of Proposal New Development Proposals 1. T- Mobile Fencing Proposal (1961 County Road C East) # Reviewed 7 2. Lower Keller Picnic Grounds Parking Lot (West Side of Highway 61 at the South End of Keller Lake) 3. Feed Products North (1300 McKnight Road North) 4. Goodwill (2580 White Bear Avenue) 5. The Shores at Lake Phalen (940 Frost Avenue) 6. Metro Transit Park - and -Ride Parking Ramp Proposal (Beam Avenue and Southlawn Drive) 7. Design Approval — The Woodlands of Maplewood (Sophia Avenue, East of McMenemy) Expansions /Remodels /Revisions 2 1. Landscape Plan Revision for Century Trails Apartments (Benet Road and Monastery Way) 2. Shores at Lake Phalen — Landscape , Photometric and Signage Plans (940 Frost Avenue) Miscellaneous Reviews and Actions 1 1. Frost Avenue Bridge Replacement Type of Proposal, continued # Reviewed Special Projects and Presentations 10 1. 2009 Annual Report 2. Vegetation Guidelines for Maplewood 3. Development Review Procedures Discussion 4. Advisory Committees and Application Fees Discussion 5. Extreme Green Makeover 6. Green Building Code 7. 2010 Summer Tour 8. Architectural Guidelines Discussion 9. Changes to Granting of Variances Discussion 10. City Hall Campus Plan Total 20 COMPARATIVE INFORMATION Year Number of Items Reviewed 2003 25 2004 25 2005 27 2006 33 2007 27 2008 15 2009 18 2010 20 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 Began Term Expires Ananth Shankar 8/8/94 4/30/13 Matt Ledvina 3/10/97 4/30/11 2 Matt Wise 2/12/07 4/30/13 Jason Lamers 5/26/09 4/30/12 Michael Mireau 5/26/09 4/30/12 In 2010, the city council took action to stagger the terms of members serving on the CDRB and to stagger term expiration dates among all of the city's advisory boards and commissions. Previously, CDRB terms expired on the first of the year — like most other city advisory boards and commissions. To avoid the flood of reappointments in January, the city council moved the CDRB's term expiration date to April 30 of each year. In addition, because four of the five CDRB members had terms that were set to expire in 2012, the council extended two of the terms to 2013 for staggering purposes. Matt Ledvina is the only member due for reappointment in 2011. Mr. Ledvina has submitted an application for reappointment, which the council will consider in the spring. DISCUSSION 2010 Actions /Activities In 2010, the CDRB reviewed 20 items, a slight increase from 2008 and 2009. The CDRB saw an uptick in projects reviewed as the economy is slowly recovering. In 2011, the CDRB expects to see increases in its number of projects reviewed. As in 2008 and 2009, the decreases of building projects to review in 2010 has allowed the CDRB an opportunity to spend more time of administrative projects and long -term goals. The CDRB began work on establishing vegetation guidelines for major corridors in the city. The CDRB created a subcommittee to work with MnDOT on this project, which will continue throughout 2011. The CDRB also spent a considerable amount of time in 2010 working with staff to ensure city projects are proceeding with design considerations made. The CDRB reviewed one new housing project that will work to increase housing options within the city. The Shores at Lake Phalen project will add 105 new senior housing residential units. In addition, the CDRB reviewed the 27 -unit Woodlands of Maplewood development. In 2007, the city approved the The Woodlands of Maplewood but those approvals had lapsed and the new developer needed the CDRB to review his revised building plans. 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. 2011 Activities In addition to its design review duties, the CDRB lists these potential activities for 2011: 1. Continue having in- service training sessions for the CDRB. 2. Continue developing policy guidelines for vegetation use along public rights -of -way. CONCLUSION In 2011, 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 2010 annual report. P \corn- dev\cornrnunity design review board \annual report (2010) 0 1UI=I1UIQZIML I Bill Vil TO: Community Design Review Board Members FROM: Michael Martin, AICP, Planner Charles Ahl, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: Election of Officers DATE: February 10, 2011 INTRODUCTION The City of Maplewood's Commission Handbook requires the community design review board (CDRB) elect a chairperson and vice - chairperson. Matt Ledvina currently serves as chairperson and Matt Wise as vice chairperson. I Q 1.10111*11 IQ L I The Commission Handbook states officers should be elected at the first regular meeting in December. However, the CDRB did not meeting in December, so the commission will need to nominate and elect officers at its first meeting in January. Staff is recommending the CDRB elect a chairperson and vice - chairperson to serve in 2011. On January 11, 2011, nominations will again be taken for officers to serve through 2011. The handbook has a section which 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 the procedure for election of the chairperson and vice chairperson. CDRB members should voice nominations for chair and vice chair, and the body will 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 than one nomination, the CDRB should vote publicly to decide which candidate will be appointed. RECOMMENDATION Consider nominations and elect a chairperson and vice chairperson for 2011.