Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-05-16 ENR Packet AGENDA CITY OF MAPLEWOOD ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURCE COMMISSION May 16, 2011. 7 p.m. Council Chambers - Maplewood City Hall 1830 County Road BEast i L ~ , I , 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes: April 18, 2011 5. New Business a. Maplewood Mall Stormwater Improvements b. Capital Improvement Plan (2012 - 2016) 6. Unfinished Business a. Chicken Ordinance b. 2011 Goal Implementation Strategies 1) Trash Hauling 2) Greenways 3) Environmental Neighborhood Groups 7. Visitor Presentations 8. Commission Presentations 9. Staff Presentations a. Gervais Lake - Lake Vegetation Management Plan b. Living Streets Task Force c. ENR Commission Annual Report Update d. ENR Commission Membership e. Waterfest - May 21 f. Maplewood Nature Center Programs 10. Adjourn Agenda Item 4 MINUTES CITY OF MAPLEWOOD ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION 7:00 p.m., Monday, April 18, 2011 Council Chambers, City Hall 1830 County Road BEast A. CALL TO ORDER A meeting of the Environmental and Natural Resources Commission was called to order at 7:20 p.m. by Vice Chair Edmundson. B. ROLL CALL Bill Schreiner, Chair Randee Edmundson, Vice Chair Judith Johannessen, Commissioner Carole Lynne, Commissioner Carol Mason Sherrill, Commissioner Dale Trippler, Commissioner Ginny Yingling, Commissioner Absent Present Present Ab t nt Staff Present Shann Finwall, Environmental Planner Michael Thompson, Deputy Public Works Steve Kummer, Civil Engineer II C. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The following agenda it H.1. Emerald Ash Borer - H.2. C.E.RTS. Annual Spring etworking Event - Commissioner Johannessen H.3. City Council Request for Additional ENR Commissioners - Commissioner Trippler Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the aQenda as amended. Seconded by Commissioner Yingling. Ayes - All The motion passed. D. APPROVAL OF MINUTES March 21, 2011: Commissioner Yingling had two corrections. On page 1, under Staff Roll Call it should say Ginny Gavnor rather than Ginny Yinglinll Item E.5.b. on page 2, it should say Ginny Gavnor rather than Ginny Yingling. Commissioner Trippler would like the discussion during Visitor Presentations from Councilmember Nephew and Maplewood resident Dave Schelling summarized with what was said for the minutes. April 18, 2011 Environmental and Natural Resources Commission Meeting Minutes 1 Commissioner Johannessen moved to approve the March 21. 2011. Environmental and Natural Resources Commission Meetina Minutes as amended. Seconded by Commissioner Trippler. Ayes - All The motion passed. E. NEW BUSINESS 1. Maplewood Shoreland Wetland Regulations - Capstone Project Presentation a. Environmental Planner, Shann Finwall introduced the item. b. Jana Haedtke, Graduate Student, Environmental Management Student with University of Maryland addressed the commission and gave the Capstone project presentation. The Capstone Project was designed to research wetlands adjacent lakes in Maplewood, Minnesota, their current regulation, and their differences compared to freestanding wetlands in order to answer community and city concerns about the regulation of wetlands adjacent lakes separately from freestanding wetlands as part of the city's shoreland ordinance. The students have found that based on ecological, wildlife, and water quality aspects, wetlands adjacent lakes should be regulated just as strictly as fr anding wetlands, as all the positive benefits of having a healthy ecological and wildlife s and good water quality are the same for both types of wetlands, even though their fun . iffer. Based solely on social and economic aspects, particularly recreational u d value, s stringent buffer requirements would be justified. However, a decline in wat ,ecolog ,and wildlife due to recreational uses and other human activities will greatl di creational uses and value. If buffer widths and restrictions are reduced, the ecolog water quality will be negatively impacted, which in turn, will decrease the quality of t and lakes and, along with it, the social, economic, and recreational use a s, wetlands adjacent lakes should be regulated just as strictly as freestanding Ms. Haedtke thanked staff project. dents for their great work on this Maplewood Shoreland Ms. Finwall thanked the fo Wetland Regulations C ommission for the opportunity to work on this challenging 2. Western Hills Area Street Improvement Project a. Environmental Planner, Shann Finwall introduced the item. b. Civil Engineer, Steve Kummer gave the presentation and answered questions of the commission. Staff is proposing improvements to the "Jackson Hole" wetland buffer, located on a city-owned parcel on the northwest corner of the intersection of Jackson Street and Larpenteur Avenue within the Western Hills Area Street Improvement Project area. The city's wetland ordinance allows the city to vary from the wetland buffer for public improvements. The improvements must be reviewed by the Environmental and Natural Resources Commission, Planning Commission, and City Council. Jackson Hole is classified as a Manage B wetland not adjacent to a lake. The ordinance requires a 75-foot averaged buffer from the delineated line. To improve the current wetland area within the basin, staff is requesting the commission recommend an exemption to use the buffer for storm water improvements. April 18, 2011 Environmental and Natural Resources Commission Meeting Minutes 2 Commissioner Trippler moved to recommend construction of public utilities and storm water improvements within the wetland buffer of the Jackson Hole basin and recommend this to the city council. Seconded by Commissioner Yingling. Ayes - All The motion passed. 3. Living Street Policy a. City Engineer, Deputy Public Works Director, Michael Thompson gave the report and a power point presentation as well as answered questions of the commission. Maplewood's living street policy goals include: . Improve stormwater quality through expansion of the rain garden program, reducing the impervious footprint, and meeting or exceeding the 1" infiltration standard. . Implement traffic calming measures through the use of techniques best suited for site conditions. . Improve biking and walking conditions along natural connector routes and collector streets through designation of bike lanes, sidewalks, or multi-purpose trails. . Create boulevard tree standards that provide environ ental benefits (stormwater management, shade to reduce heating and coolin ts, filtering air pollutants), enhance quality of life, and are practical and affordable. . Minimize construction costs while also ensuri are equal to or less than that of a standard rns about the 22 foot wide streets. There inter for snow removal. Commissioner's Trippler and Johanness should be no parking on either side of th Commissioner Yingling asked ab some infiltration. Also, the poli work together within those gre of pervious pavement along the street so there is r how bike trails and walking corridors link and Commissioner Trippler bikers to bike on the stre the city as possible. Id be more sidewalks for bikers. It is too dangerous for for walkers, kids, and bikers to have as many sidewalks in Vice Chair Edmundson asked about bike routes on a regional level and how the bike paths connect to ensure our residents can have less dependence on cars. The ENR commission supports the living streets policy. 4. Annual Report a. Environmental Planner, Shann Finwall gave the 2010 ENR Annual Report. Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the 2010 ENR Annual Report with one minor amendment. Seconded by Commissioner Yingling. Ayes - All F. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. 2011 Goals -Implementation Strategies a. Environmental Planner, Shann Finwall gave the report. April 18, 2011 Environmental and Natural Resources Commission Meeting Minutes 3 Trash Hauling: It was determined that the Trash Hauling Subcommittee would be disbanded and three Commissioners would be appointed to serve on the new Trash Hauling Working Group (Commissioners Schreiner, Trippler, and Yingling). The Trash Hauling Working Group will conduct analysis and review of various collection systems and report their findings to the full City Council. Greenways: Implementation strategies to be discussed during the next meeting. to- Neighborhood Environmental Groups: Implementation strategies to be discussed during the next meeting. Commissioner Johannessen would be interested in being part of the Greenways subgroup. Vice Chair Edmundson was working with the Environmental Neighborhood Group and she is still interested in working in that group and doing some educational pieces. Commissioner Yingling said she has been working on the Greenways and she would like to continue on that group. Commissioner Yingling said she would tentatively work on the Trash Hauling group as well. Seconded by Commissioner Johannessen. mmittee be disbanded. And a new ler, Yingling, and Schreiner. Commissioner Trippler moved that the trash hauling s working group be formed to include Commissioner's The motion passed. The commission took a break from 9 p.m. 2. Chicken Ordinance nwall gave the report on the Chicken Ordinance. Commissioner Trippler s ne wanted to raise chickens they should buy a lot zoned as farm. There are hundreds 0 are zoned farm in the City of Maplewood. Commissioner Trippler said the commission whole was concerned about the cost to run this program and he is concerned that it will be more expensive than the staff anticipated basing this off the cost of having a pet license. Vice Chair Edmundson said she likes the ordinance but wondered if the city should set the number of chickens allowed based on the square footage of the property. She knows some cities have chicken ordinances that are less restrictive and they have very few problems or concerns. Commissioner Yingling offered to assist staff with the ordinance. Staff said with assistance from Commissioner Yingling staff can bring this ordinance back to the ENR Commission in May. G. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. H. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS 1. Emerald Ash Borer- April 18, 2011 Environmental and Natural Resources Commission Meeting Minutes 4 Commissioner Yingling e-mailed a memo regarding background information on why the commission is recommending the city not use pesticides for Emerald Ash Borer. This is the memo proposed for the city council's review of the EAB policy in a week. . The commission members thanked Commissioner Yingling for her work on the Emerald Ash Borer Plan. This item will go to the city council workshop on Monday, May 9, 2001. 2. C.E.R.T.S. Annual Spring Networking Event- Commissioner Johannessen said the C.E.R.TS. group is a gathering of partners and affiliates to promote saving energy with Green teams and green step programs. About 50 people from around the area came to the event to share ideas which was an excellent way of networking. The speaker Rick Carter, an architect spoke regarding his desire to develop a green building. He would like to come up with evaluation techniques, the short and long term effects and determining the outcomes and effects of building a green building. 3. City Council request for an additional ENR Commission member ~ The motion passed. Commissioner Trippler said at times the commis . coming and others might not be present mea need to consider changing the number of E commission member. There are some lar have a lack of a quorum and delay meetings. commission in May. s been short members. Summer is f a quorum. The city council may . Commis members and add an additional s comi g up and it would be unfortunate to will look into this and report back to the Commissioner Trippler moved tha e increased from seven to nine members. Ayes - All I. 1. Spring Clean Up - April 30th a. Environmental Planner, Shann Finwall said the Spring Clean Up is Saturday, April 30, 2011, from 8 - 1 p.m. at Aldrich Arena, 1850 White Bear Avenue. 2. Waterfest- May 21st a. Environmental Planner, Shann Finwall said waterfest is scheduled for Saturday, May 21, 2011, from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. at Lake Phalen Park Pavilion in St. Paul. 3. Maplewood Nature Center Programs a. Environmental Planner, Shann Finwalllisted off programs offered at the Maplewood Nature Center. More information can be found on the city's website at ci.maplewood.mn.us/nc or you can call 651-249-2170 for further information. J. ADJOURNMENT Vice Chair Edmundson adjourned the meeting at 9:45 p.m. April 18, 2011 Environmental and Natural Resources Commission Meeting Minutes 5 Agenda Item 5.a. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Environmental and Natural Resources Commission Shann Finwall, AICP, Environmental Planner Maplewood Mall Stormwater Improvements May 11, 2011 for the May 16 ENR Commission Meeting BACKGROUND The Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District (RWMWD) has been collaborating with the City of Maplewood, Ramsey County and the owners of Maplewood Mall (Simon Properties), on a plan to provide for stormwater treatment and volume reduction (infiltration) for the reconstruction of County Road D and White Bear Avenue adjacent to the Mall. Since both roadways have very limited right-of-way and providing infiltration practices would be difficult, the District suggested that the City and County work with the District to retrofit portions of parking lots at Maplewood Mall to provide the required treatment. This discussion has led to a multi-year plan for retrofitting the parking areas at the mall with various BMPs (best management practices) to reduce the quantity of runoff and improve the quality of stormwater runoff leaving the site. The stormwater runoff from the mall area is tributary to Kohlman Creek and drains to Kohlman Lake. Kohlman Lake is an impaired water for excess nutrients (phosphorus - which leads to excessive algae blooms, reduced clarity, and water recreational impacts). The "impaired" status required the preparation of a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Study to identify the sources of phosphorus and to specify projects or programs that can reduce the phosphorus runoff and improve the lake. The TMDL Implementation Plan provides for a number of programs and projects to improve the lake over the next decade. One of the primary improvement activities is to reduce the volume of runoff reaching the lake. Therefore, the District is pursuing cost-effective retrofit projects such as the parking areas at Maplewood Mall to make these improvements. SUMMARY Stormwater improvements at the Maplewood Mall will be complete in several phases over the next few years. Cliff Aichinger, RWMWD Administrator, will be present during the May 16 ENR Commission meeting to update the commission on these improvements. Attachments: 1. Maplewood Mall 2009 Rainwater Garden Locations 2. Before and After Computer Illustration Legend D"""""..FIiJ"...'orGar..ns DRAFT e ." " . ~ D",~ JlJ1)'8, 2(J0'l Mapl~dMaIlP"."'I-En1rao<aR.l"".",rGarO.ns R.m..y.W..n"9IOnM't",Waw<<h'dDi,trI;:t LinIeCanado.MN . . Q) ~ ell .. ..., ~ ~ Q) > .~ A ~ ell .- ..s::: ..., ;:l o U1 a.J C) ~ ~ ~ ~ 00 ~ ~ a.J ........'i:I ~ ~ ~~ "'0 ~ o a.J o~ ~ ~ ........ ~ 0.. ..... ~ ~ ~~ Agenda 5.b. AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Commissions Charles Ahl, Assistant City Manager Capital Improvement Plan for 2012 - 2106 April 21,2011 INTRODUCTION The Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is an annually prepared document that begins the process for preparation of the 2012 Budget. The CIP is being released for review by the various Commissions and a Public Hearing on the CIP will be held at the Planning Commission on May 17, 2011. Following the receipt of recommendations from all the Commissions, the City Council will be asked to adopt the CIP. Adopting the CIP does not commit the City Council to the proposed projects, nor implement the assumptions made during the preparation; however, this is the basis for the 2012 Budget as we proceed to begin preparing for the 2012 Budget document. Each Commission shall review and comment on the impact of the assumptions and recommended projects within the CIP. A recommendation of approval, approval with conditions, or denial should be made and forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration at their Public Hearing on May 17th. The Commission should appoint a member to attend the Public Hearing at the Planning Commission on May 17th, as well as to the City Council meeting on May 23rd, when final adoption of the CIP will be considered. Backaround Information During the April 11 th Work Session the City Council discussed a referendum for various facilities along with the status of the 2010 final revenue and expenditure summary. The scope of the budget process starts with the assumptions of funding that might be available from 2010 [such as extra funds from 2010 being used for the MCC Pool and the Phone System] as well as a discussion of the major capital projects. The Council indicated that a referendum may be of interest, but nothing major is ready to be considered. The CIP was prepared assuming that there would be no referendum at this time. That can be changed as the process is evaluated, but the staff assumption is to attempt to implement goals without the benefit of a referendum discussion. Similarly, the staff has assumed that the City Council endorses the uses of 2010 funds being carried forward for improvements to the Pool at MCC and replacement of the city's telephone system. Those projects are not included in the 2012 - 2016 CIP. Included with your packets is a disk containing a Draft of the 2012 - 2016 CIP for review. The Transmittal Letter highlights the major projects and revisions within the Plan for consideration. The biggest revision is the inclusion of the new Fire Stations and expansion of the Police Department, which adds nearly $7.0 million in improvements to the plan over last year's proposal. The document explains each of the proposed projects, as well, analyzes the impacts on the budget for the various funds, along with the tax impact necessary to implement these projects as proposed. CaDitallmDrovement Plan Process The process for the CIP begins in February of each year. The City Council provided guidance by adopting goals for the coming years. A clear goal of the City Council was financial sustainability combined with a focus on funding for City facilities. The key issue involved the Maplewood Community Center funding as well as a long-term vision for public safety facilities. The staff submits projects based upon those goals, and the finance staff analyzes the funds available for capital projects along with the impacts of the staff proposals. A number of revisions are made in the project submittals based upon the analysis of finance, as well as management priorities to achieve the attached CIP plan. This document reflects the final accumulation of that process. 2012 - 2016 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN PAGE TWO Summary of CIP The 2010 - 2014 CIP was approved at a $77.76 Million level; while last year's 2011 - 2015 CIP was approved at a reduced $65.74 Million level. The staff, again based upon the City Council input on priorities for investment in the MCC and public safety facilities, has slightly decreased the proposed 2012 - 2106 CIP to $65.32 Million. It should be noted that the original staff submittals to management totaled $102.79 Million in needed requests. Each project was analyzed, and management determined that nearly $38 Million in proposed projects should be removed from the next five years of consideration. A majority of those projects are listed in the Declined Category; it is noted that some projects were revised to lower estimates and, while proceeding, are proceeding at lower levels; thus the Declined projects total only $28.9 Million. The proposed 2012 - 2016 CIP can be divided into three sections based upon the need for new revenues as follows: 1. New annual revenue for Public Safety Facilities: $620,000 a. What does this investment provide? i. New Fire Stations: 1. A new station within the South Leg of Maplewood on or near the 3M Campus to be built in 2012 - 2013 without the need for a referendum. We have assumed that we could implement an assessment to a partner and then sell bonds for both the assessment as well as the Fire Station expense to provide for the $4.0 million expense. Significant bond work and discussion with partners are necessary to make this a reality. 2. RefurbishmenUreplacement of Fire Station #7 at Hazelwood and County Road C in 2014 - 2015. This assumes that the Century Avenue, Londin Lane and McMenemy Street stations are abandoned; the property sold at a value of $2.0 million by 2013. This funding would then be used for the construction of new Fire Station #7 at the same location. ii. New money to the Fire Truck Replacement Fund 1. Prior to the recession, the City was providing an annual levy to be placed in a fund for the replacement of fire trucks on a rotating basis. The last levy dollars that were placed in the fund was a $45,000 transfer of General Fund dollars in 2009. This proposal provides a plan for an annual levy of $100,000 so that funds are available to replace a fire truck in 2014 and again in 2016. iii. Police Department Expansion beginning in 2011 - 2012 1. A space needs study is just beginning; however, this plan provides for expansion at City Hall. An allocation of $825,000 is estimated to be spent for unspecified facilities but would include finishing vacant space at Public Works for relocation of a department from City Hall to make space for expanding the Police Department. No referendum is necessary to make this work. iv. Begin to reduce the Deficit in the Ambulance Fund 1. While this is not a capital expenditure issue, the continued shortfall in planning for the Ambulance Fund is addressed with this approach. An assumption by previous finance staff on revenues was discovered that creates some revenue revisions in 2011 and 2012. These policy decisions, combined with the continual shortfall in coverage by Medicare for up to 60% of the calls, created a cash shortfall in this fund. 2012 - 2016 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN PAGE THREE 2. The Ambulance Fund cash issue revolves around the write-off of millions of revenue dollars due to reimbursement expenses from Medicare. The lack of a write-off in 2009, created an assumption of extra funds, which need to be addressed. Without going into significant financial allocation funding techniques, this change creates a shortfall in the General Fund. 3. The proposal calls for a levy, possibly under the Public Safety I Emergency Services levy authority, that would be outside levy limits. A levy, of up to 2.0%, was considered as an assumption as part of this plan. This item will be reviewed in detail in June - July 2011 as part of the overall discussion of the 2012 Budget, but is an assumption of this plan as presented. The staff recognizes that the Ambulance Fund will begin a very slow revision to a positive cash flow and will begin a process to reduce the negative cash balance. 4. This allows for the replacement within this plan of an Ambulance in 2013 and a second ambulance in 2016. b. What is not in this plan? i. Fire Training Facility I Marshlands Proposal 1. Due to the unknown funding status at the state, we have placed this proposal on hold. The sequence of the project requires that the MnDOT property be conveyed to Maplewood jurisdiction. This conveyance is necessary as a match forstate bonding, but cannot occur until state bonding is received. Because the property is currently right of way, there is no property description number which means that comprehensive planning cannot occur. Without that planning and jurisdiction of the parcel, we cannot access the County grant funds for clean-up; and we do not want to accept the jurisdiction of the property because MnDOT wants us to create wetland credits in exchange for the parcel, of which funding is tied partially to the state grant funds. ii. Rehabilitation of Fire Station #2 1. As part of Chief Lukin's proposal for the fire department, he identified needs for improvements at the three main fire stations. We have identified a funding approach for two of the three stations, but this third project will need to be delayed to post 2016. An.alternative would be to raise the levy an additional 1 % above the recommended 2% to generate an estimated $175,000 per year for this need. iii. New Police Facility 1. This program expands the Police Department at City Hall in the amount of $825,000 to address immediate needs. A proposal for a newly expanded Police Department at an undisclosed location was proposed in the amount of +$10 million, but has been put on-hold; and will likely require a referendum question. The proposed improvements within this plan will be implemented to provide for immediate needs and could be used if a future referendum is passed and expansion is approved at the existing City Hall. 2012 - 2016 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN PAGE FOUR i. Public Safety Program Cuts [to be reviewed in June - July] 1. Police: we have estimated that a reduction of $150,000 will be made from the current allocation to the Police Department; likely from the over- time allocation, as well as personnel expenses moving forward. 2. Fire: we have estimated that a reduction of $110,000 will be made from the current allocation to the Fire Department in the Ambulance Fund, likely from expenses and personnel cost savings; in addition a reduction of up to $100,000 will be needed from the General Fund portion of the Fire Department to reduce the growth in the program. These reductions will need additional evaluation within the next 2 - 3 months to determine the extent of reductions and level of service to be provided. I c- f r , i 2. Additional Funds to Cover Debt Service $250,000 a. What does this investment provide? i. Support for the Debt Service Fund on Previous Projects 1. The Debt Service Fund will peak in 2014 and begin decreasing in needs in 2015. With the revisions in state aid funding, the allocation for debt has been reduced and needs to be supplemented, in addition, the City debt incurred in 2007 - 2010 for the advanced street improvement program is coming due and this increase is necessary to maintain our top bond rating. ii. Continued Investment in the Streets Program 1. The streets program is significantly reduced by this proposed CIP, but continues to invest and returns to recommended levels in 2015 - 2016. In the interim, projects such as TH 36 - English; the Gladstone project and overlay of MSAS streets are implemented that do not require significant impacts to debt service. b. What does this not provide? i. Public Works Program Cuts [to be reviewed in June - July] 1. Public Works: We have estimated that a reduction of $150,000 will be made from the current allocation to the Public Works Department; likely from expenses and personnel expenses. This reduction will make the 2012 Streets program net neutral to the 2012 budget, as that program is estimated to add $140,000 in extra levy expense. 3. Additional Funds for Operating and Facility Expenses $460,000 a. What does this investment provide? i. Support for new Operating Expenses in 2012 1. Three major expenses are anticipated in 2012 that will have an impact on the amount of funds available for capital expenses next year. Approved employment contracts and employee step increases will add approximately $125,000 to 2012's budget; while we are assuming $4 per gallon fuel, which will add $75,000 in expenses; while the IT Fund has been used for advancing expenses and increased costs to return to sustainability [this is not an expansion of IT services] of $40,000 is required to remain net neutral to overall needs. 2012 - 2016 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN PAGE FIVE ' i. New Capital for Improvements at MCC . 1. The five-year MCC Sustainabilit~ Plan proposed by staff and reviewed with the City Council on April 11 h is partially impleme.nted with this plan. An allocation of $150,000 has already been proposed in 2011 and an additional $100,000 will be allocated in 2012 to meet the requested $250,000 annual needs. 2. This plan will move significant additional funds into Parks and Recreation as follows: a. Levy for 2011: i. MCC Fund Levy - $340,000 ii. MCC Capital Levy - $ 0 iii. Rec Program Fund Levy - $225,000 iv. General Fund Transfers - $ 70,000' v. Total- $635,000 vi. 'Note this does not include the $150,000 for the Pool. b. Levy for 2012: L MCC Fund Levy- ii. MCC Capital Levy - iii. Rec Program Fund Levy- iv. General Fund Transfers - v. Total- $340,000 $100,000 $200,000 $ 70,000 $710,000 ii. New Funds for CIP Fund for Facilities 1. In previous years, a levy was implemented for Capital expenses. It is proposed to re-instate that levy in the amount of $95,000 per year. These funds are used for improvements of existing Park equipment and Community Fields along with improvements to City Hall and departmental equipment. The 2012 proposed improvements include $100,000 to existing park facilities. 2. Future plans include replacement of Election Equipment, improvements at the Nature Center and carpet replacement at Public Works. b. What does this investment not provide? i. Additional identified needs at Maplewood Community Center 1. The requested improvements at MCC are significant. While a proposed allocation in 2011 of $150,000 for the pool is likely, the MCC staff has estimated a need of $250,000 annually beginning in 2012. Only $100,000 of funds has been proposed at this time. The staff recognizes that the MCC Fund still shows a negative balance, but additional steps will be taken and it is anticipated that eventually the fund will begin to show a positive cash flow in future years. ii. Additional Funds for Park Development 1. The number of projects proposed for improvement within Maplewood Parks will far exceed the funds projected to be available from PAC Funds. An annual levy of $140,000 would be necessary to meet these needs. This has not been proposed. Projects at Goodrich Park, Joy Park and Legacy Park have been delayed or reduced due to the lack of funding. 2012 - 2016 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN PAGE SIX Hi. General Fund Program Cuts [to be reviewed in June - July] 1. Citizen Services: We have estimated that a reduction of $42,000 will be made from the current allocation to the Citizen Services Department; likely from expenses and personnel expenses. 2. Community Development: We have estimated that a reduction of $60,000 will be made from the current allocation to the Community Development Department; likely from personnel expense shifts and possibly an increase in permit revenue. 3. Executive/Legal/Finance: We have estimated that a reduction of $40,000 will be made from the current allocation to the Executive / Legal / Finance programs; likely from expenses and personnel expenses. 4. Park and Recreation Programs: We have estimated that a reduction of $50,000 will be made from the current allocation to the Park and Recreation Department; likely from expenses and personnel expenses. Budaetarv Consideration As noted within the CIP Document and this memorandum, the proposed approach can be implemented with a 3 - 5 % projected levy increase. The final amount will depend upon the level of reserves that the City Council wishes to have going into 2012, along with the estimate of revenues for 2012. We have assumed that 2011 revenues, other than the noted tax levy increase, will be equal to 2012 revenues; with no major increases or decreases. The Finance Manager has some concerns with a couple of revenue assumptions and is monitoring the situation. Those items will be reviewed along with the impacts of cuts within the various departments and programs during the budget meetings in July 2011 as the City Council moves forward with budget determinations and directions. One final consideration is the current legislation on a state level that may impact City operations as well as the tax levy. Current proposals that have been approved by the State House and Senate are now in conference committee before being presented to the Governor. This legislation, if adopted, will have a potentially positive impact on City operations, by reducing retirement compensation required by the City; as well, the legislation calls for elimination of Market Value Homestead Credit [MVHC] in 2012. As Maplewood loses significant funds to MVHC, the elimination of the MVHC program would amount to an estimated effective 3.0% levy reduction to residential property owners, and thus a 3 - 5 % levy increase would likely appear as a decrease or minimal increase to most residential property owners. Non MVHC property would see a greater increase. The final decision on tax policy is weeks [or more] away, but may have an impact on the Council's final decision on any levy increase. As noted, these are the assumptions that the CIP was based upon for presentation to the Commissions and City Council. The assumptions will be reviewed in detail as the process proceeds over the next months. Recommended Action The Commission should review the proposed projects within the 2012 - 2016 Capital Improvement Plan. A recommendation of approval; approval with revisions or conditions; or denial should be made prior to the May 17th Public Hearing at the Planning Commission. Said recommendation from the Commission will be presented to the City Council on May 23rd. Attachment (Separate Disk): 1. Draft 2012 - 2016 Capilallmprovement Plan Agenda Item 6.a. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Environmental and Natural Resources Commission Shann Finwall, AICP, Environmental Planner Chicken Ordinance May 11, 2011, for the May 16 ENR Commission Meeting INTRODUCTION Urban communities throughout the country are considering allowing chickens in residential areas as a way of promoting urban agriculture and sustainability. There has been an interest by some Maplewood residents and the Environmental and Natural Resources (ENR) Commission to allow chickens in Maplewood for this purpose as well. Maplewood's zoning code prohibits the raising or handling of poultry (including chickens) in all single dwelling residential zoning districts. BACKGROUND ENR Commission Review In October 2009 the ENR Commission began to review the feasibility of allowing chickens in residential zoning districts as a means of promoting more sustainable food products. Since that time the Commission has reviewed comments from residents, the Maplewood Animal Control Officer, Chief of Police, and Health Officer in regard to this matter. Staff has conducted research on other cities in the metropolitan area that have developed chicken ordinances. The comments reflected both positive and negative impacts due to the raising of chickens in residential areas. Positive impacts include homeowners producing their own organic eggs and using the manure for garden fertilizer. The main negative impacts outlined by staff were possible nuisance complaints from neighbors. After review of the research and comments, the ENR Commission recommended approval of an ordinance on July 19, 2010, which would allow up to ten chickens on a residential lot of any size with a permit. The permit can only be approved if at least 75 percent of the property owners within 150 feet consent to the permit. The ENR Commission attempted to address all of the possible negative impacts of raising chickens in residential areas with regulations such as prohibiting roosters (noise impacts), requiring chickens to be housed in chicken coops located in the back yard, requiring chickens to be contained in a fenced area, requiring chickens to be banded for identification in the event they get loose, and prohibiting the slaughtering of chickens on the property. Planning Commission Review In August and September 2010, the Planning Commission reviewed the chicken ordinance (Refer to Attachment 1 and 2). Several issues were raised by the Commission during the review including requiring larger lot sizes, requiring 100 percent of the neighbors to approve of a permit, concerns about permit cost, and chicken coop and run placement. After two meetings, the Planning Commission recommended denial of the ordinance by a vote of four to three, with 1 some of the commissioners who voted against the ordinance indicating they would be more supportive of the ordinance if additional protections were built in for surrounding residential properties such as requiring larger lots for the keeping of chickens, etc. City Council Review On March 7, 2011, the City Council held a workshop to discuss the proposed chicken ordinance. Following is a summary of their discussion: 1. Comment: What would Hillcrest Animal Hospital do with an unclaimed chicken? Response: By law the city is required to hold a domestic animal for seven days. After those seven days, the animal becomes the property of the Hillcrest Animal Hospital, as outlined in the city's animal boarding contract with Hillcrest. Hillcrest Animal Hospital attempts to find homes for animals that are unclaimed. However, if they are unable to find a home for an animal they do euthanize animals. That would cost the city an additional $58 on top of drop off and boarding fees. There was discussion among the City Council that it would be easy for Hillcrest Animal Hospital to find a new home for chickens if they are still producing eggs. 2. What if a neighbor signs a petition, and then determines after the fact that it is a nuisance and no longer wants the chickens next to their property? Response: The requirement is for the property owner to obtain a yearly permit The city could notify the adjoining property owners prior to issuance of a yearly permit to determine if there are any complaints. However, staff does not recommend that a yearly permit require the same neighborhood petition. Property owners must invest in a chicken coop, fencing, and chickens prior to the issuance of the first permit. It would not be fair to pull that permit and take away a property owner's investment because a new neighbor did not support the use. The permit should be reissued if there are no ongoing nuisance issues. 3. Ten chickens on any size lot may not be fair. The city should look into allowing chickens based on a sliding scale depending on lot size. Response: The City of Minneapolis allows chickens in residential zoning with a permit The permit allows a maximum of 25 chickens, which is determined by a chicken per square foot calculation. I n closing, a majority of the City Council expressed support for allowing chickens in residential zoning districts. The City Council requested that staff bring the ordinance back before the ENR Commission for final review and recommendation. DISCUSSION During the April 18, 2011, ENR Commission meeting, Commissioner Yingling offered to review the chicken ordinance and propose changes that would address the Planning Commission and City Council questions/concerns regarding the draft ordinance. Commissioner Yingling compared the ordinance to "Recommendations for Municipal Regulation of Urban Chickens," which has been endorsed by the Humane Society (Attachment 3). Following is a summary of proposed changes based on this review: 2 1. New construction requirements for the chicken coop, run, and yard. 2. Added a definition for exercise yard. 3. Modified the definition of a run. 4. Modified the definition of chicken coop. 5. Added a requirement for the disposal of dead birds. These changes should address two issues: Establish space requirements on a "per bird" basis that will result in the "sliding scale" of birds per lot size discussed by the City Council, while also ensuring humane conditions for the birds. The maximum number of ten chickens is still being proposed, but the space requirements may prohibit some very small residential lots from accommodating the coop, run and/or exercise yard for the maximum number of birds. Proposed Ordinance Amendment Residential Zonina: 1. Following is an amendment proposed to the Maplewood Zoning Code that would allow chickens in residential areas (additions are underlined and deletions are stricken from the original ordinance): Chapter 44 (Zoning), Article II (District Regulations), Division 3 (R-1 Residence District) Sec. 44-6. Definitions. Poultry means domesticated birds that serve as a source of eggs or meat and that include among commercially important kinds, chickens, turkeys, ducks, geese, peafowl, pigeons, pheasants and others. Sec. 44-103. Prohibited uses. The following uses are prohibited in the R-1 Residence district: (1) The raising or handling of livestock, poultry (except for chickens as outlined in Sections 10-476 throuah 10-487. Chickens) or animals causing a nuisance, except for licensed kennels. 2. Most of the city's single dwelling residential zoning districts have a permitted and prohibited uses section. The R-1 zoning district lists the specific uses, and subsequent single dwelling zoning districts should refer to those same uses as well. There are five single dwelling residential zoning districts as follows: R-1, R-1 S, RE-30,000, RE 40,000, and R-1R. Two of those single dwelling zoning districts (R-1R and R-1S) do not have the reference to permitted or prohibited uses, and as such require an amendment as follows: Chapter 44 (Zoning), Article II (District Regulations), Division 5 (R-1S Small-lot Single Dwelling District) Sec. 44-192. Pormilted uJ,lses. ill Permitted uses. The only permitted uses allowed in the R-1S small-lot single- dwelling district are the permitted uses in the R-1 district. c- 3 m Prohibited uses. @} Accessory buildinas without an associated dwelling on the same premises. The raising or handling of livestock. poultrv (except for chickens as outlined in Sections 10-476 throuah 10-487. Chickens) or animals causina a nuisance. except for licensed kennels. , l F F- e @ Chapter 44 (Zoning), Article II (District Regulations), Division 3.5 (R-1 R Rural Conservation Dwelling District) Sec. 44-118. Uses. (a) (b) (c) Prohibited uses. The city prohibits the following uses in the R-1 R zoning district: (1) Accessory buildings without an associated single dwelling on the same property. m The raising or handling of livestock. poultrv (except for chickens as outlined in Sections 10-476 through 10-487. Chickens) or animals causina a nuisance. except for licensed kennels. Animals: Following is proposed language which would specify the permitting requirements for chickens in residential areas. All of the proposed language is new and would be added to the animal chapter of the city code. Much of the language is reflective of the city's existing dog section of the animal ordinance. Changes made since the April 18, 2011, ENR Commission review are shown in italics and underlined if added and stricken if deleted. Chapter 10 (Animals), Article IX (Chickens) Sec. 10-476. Definitions. Brooding means the period of chicken growth when supplemental heat must be provided, due to the bird's inability to generate enough body heat. Chicken means a domesticated bird that serves as a source of eggs or meat. Coop means the structure for the keeping or housing of chickens permitted by the ordinance. COOf> may be permitted "'Ifth or wftl10lJt a rufl. Exercise yard means a laraer fenced area that provides space for exercise and foraaina for the birds when supervised. Hen means a female chicken. Officer means any person designated by the city manager as an enforcement officer. Rooster means a male chicken. 4 Run means a fully enclosed and covered area attached to a coop where the chickens can roam unsuoeNised. Sec. 10-477. Purpose. It is recognized that the ability to cultivate one's own food is a sustainable activity that can also be a rewarding past time. Therefore, it is the purpose and intent of this ordinance to permit the keeping and maintenance of hens in a clean and sanitary manner that is not a nuisance to or detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare of the community. Sec. 10-478. Investigation and Enforcement. Officers designated by the city manager shall have authority in the investigation and enforcement of this article, and no person shall interfere with, hinder or molest any such officer in the exercise of such powers. The officer shall make investigations as is necessary and may grant, deny, or refuse to renew any application for permit, or terminate an existing permit under this article. Sec. 10-479. Limitations for each dwelling unit in residential zones. (1) No more than ten (10) hens shall be housed or kept on anyone residential lot in any area of the city zoned for single dwelling residential with a permit as outlined below. (2) Roosters are prohibited. (3) Slaughtering of chickens on the property is prohibited. (4) Leg banding of all chickens is required. The bands must identify the owner and the owner's address and telephone number. (5) A separate coop is required to house the chickens. Cooos must be constructed and maintained to meet the followinG minimum standards: (a) Located in the rear or side orooertv line. (b) Setback at least five (5) feet from the side or rear orooertv lines. (c) Interior floor soace - four (4) SGuare feet per bird. (d) Interior heiGht - six (6) feet to allow access for cleaninG and maintenance. (e) Doors - one (1) standard door to allow humans to access the cooo and one (1) for birds (if above Ground level. must also orovide a stable ramo). (f) Windows - one (1) SGuare foot window per 10 SGuare feet floor soace. Windows must be able to ooen for ventilation. (g) Climate control- adeGuate heater. fan. ventilation and/or insulation to maintain the cooo temoerature between 32 - 85 deGrees Farenheit. 5 (h) Nest boxes - one (1) box oer every three (3) hens. (i) Roosts - one and one-half (1 Y:;) inch diameter or areater. located eiahteen (18) inches from the wall and two (2) to three (3) inches above the floor. (j) Rodent oroof - cooo construction and materials must be adeauate to orevent access by rodents. (6) A run attached to the cooP is reauired. Runs must be constructed and maintained to meet the followina minimum standards: (a) Located in the rear or side orooerty line. (b) Setback at least five (5) feet from the side or rear orooerty line. (c) Area - ten (10) sauare feet oer bird. if access to a fenced exercise yard is also available: sixteen (16) sauare feet oer bird. if access to an exercise yard is not available. If the cooP is elevated two (2) feet so the hens can access the soace beneath. that area may count as a oortion of the minimum run footorint. (b) Heiaht - six (6) feet to allow access for cleanina and maintenance. (c) Gate - one aate to allow human access to the run. (d) Cover- adeauate to keeo hensin and oredators out. (e) Substrate - comoosed of material that can be easily raked or reaularly reolace to reduce odor and flies. (7) A fenced exercise yard is reauired if the run does not orovide at least 16 sauare feet oer bird. Exercise yards must provide a minimum of 174 sauare feet oer bird. (8) Chickens must not be housed in a residential house or attached or detached garage, except for brooding purposes only. (9) Chiekon ceeJ)s and nms are liR'liled te tno rear yar.a only. (1 Q) Chicken eooJ)s and nms require at least a fi'ie (5) feet sotback Ie the side and rear J)n:lJ)orty line. (11) All premises on which hens are kept or maintained shall be kept reasonably clean from filth, garbage, and any substances which attract rodents. The coop and its surrounding must be cleaned frequently enough to control odor. Manure shall not be allowed to accumulate in a way that causes an unsanitary condition or causes odors detectible on another property. Failure to comply with these conditions may result in the officer removing chickens from the premises or revoking a chicken permit. (10) Tho cool' R'lust bo G9nstructod and R'laintained S9 as Ie bo rGdont J)reef. 6 (12) All grain and food stored for the use of the hens on a premise with a chicken permit shall be kept in a rodent proof container. (13) Hens shall not be kept in such a manner as to constitute a nuisance to the occupants of adjacent property. i1.1l Dead birds must be double baGGed and placed in home's GarbaGe receptacle for pick-up the same week the animal dies. Sec. 10-480. Permit required. The officer shall grant a permit for chickens after the applicant has sought the written consent of seventy-five (75) percent of the owners or occupants of privately or publicly owned real estate within one hundred fifty (150) feet of the outer boundaries of the premises for which the permit is being requested, or in the alternative, proof that the applicant's property lines are one hundred fifty (150) feet or more from any structure. Censent is alse requires where a stroet separates the preFRises fer which the perFRit is oein!! r-equestes frOFR other noi!!hborin!! property if it FReets the sistance requirements specifies aoo'le. Where a property within one hundred fifty (150) feet consists of a multiple dwelling or multi-tenant property, the applicant need obtain only the written consent of the owner or manager, or other person in charge of the building. Such written consent shall be required on the initial application and as often thereafter as the officer deems necessary. Sec. 10-481. Application. Any person desiring a permit required under the provisions of this article shall make written application to the city clerk upon a form prescribed by and containing such information as required by the city clerk and officer. Among other things, the application shall contain the following information: (1) A description of the real property upon which it is desired to keep the chickens. (2) The breed and number of chickens to be maintained on the premises. (3) A site plan of the property showing the location and size of the proposed chicken coop and run, setbacks from the chicken coop to property lines and surrounding buildings (including houses and buildings on adjacent lots), and the location, style, and height of fencing proposed to contain the chickens. Portable coops and cages are allowed, but portable locations must be included with the site plan, (4) Statements that the applicant will at all times keep the animals in accordance with all of the conditions prescribed by the officer, or modification thereof, and that failure to. obey such conditions will constitute a violation of the provisions of this chapter and grounds for cancellation of the permit. (5) Such other and further information as may be required by the officer. Sec. 10-482. Permit conditions. 7 (1) If granted, the permit shall be issued by the city clerk and officer and shall state the conditions, if any, imposed upon the permitted for the keeping of chickens under this permit. The permit shall specify the restrictions, limitations, conditions and prohibitions which the officer deems reasonably necessary to protect any person or neighboring use from unsanitary conditions, unreasonable noise or odors, or annoyance, or to protect the public health and safety. Such permit may be modified from time to time or revoked by the officer for failure to conform to such restrictions, limitations, prohibitions. Such modification or revocation shall be effective after ten (10) days following the mailing of written notice thereof by certified mail to the person or persons keeping or maintain such chickens. Sec. 10-483. Violations. (1) Any person violating any of the sections of this article shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction, shall be punished in accordance with section 1-15. (Section 1-15 states that a person found guilty of violating this section could be charged with a misdemeanor or a petty misdemeanor. A fine not exceeding $1,000 or imprisonment not to exceed 90 days or both could result in violation of a misdemeanor. A fine not exceeding $300 could result in a petty misdemeanor.) (2) If any person is found guilty by a court for violation of this section, their permit to own, keep, harbor, or have custody of chickens shall be deemed automatically revoked and no new permit may be issued for a period of one year. (3) Any person violating any conditions of this permit shall reimburse the city for all costs borne by the city to enforce the conditions of the permit including but not limited to the pickup and impounding of chickens. Sec. 10-484. Required; exceptions. No person shall (without first obtaining a permit in writing from the city clerk) own, keep, harbor or have custody of any live chicken. Sec. 10-485. Fees; issuance. For each residential site the fee for a permit is as may be imposed, set, established and fixed by the City Council, by resolution, from time to time. Sec. 10-486. Term. The permit period under this section shall expire one year from the date the permit is issued. Sec. 10-487. Revocation. The city manager may revoke any permit issued under this division if the person holding the permit refuses or fails to comply with this article, with any regulations promulgated by the council pursuant to this article, or with any state or local law governing cruelty to animals or the keeping of animals. Any person whose permit is revoked shall, within ten (10) days thereafter, humanely dispose of all chickens being owned, kept or harbored by such person, and no part of the permit fee shall be refunded. 8 RECOMMENDATION Review the chicken ordinance and make a final recommendation. If the ENR Commission recommends the ordinance, staff will schedule the City Council's first reading of the ordinance for June 27, 2011. Attachments: 1, Planning Commission Minutes (Partial) 2. Planning Commission Minutes (Partial) 3. Recommendations for Municipal Regulation of Urban Chickens 9 Attachment 1 MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, AUGUST 17, 2010 (Partial) 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Commissioner AI Bierbaum Commissioner Joseph Boeser Vice-Chairperson Tushar Desai Chairperson Lorraine Fischer Commissioner Robert Martin Commissioner Tanya Nuss Commissioner Gary Pearson Commissioner Dale Trippler Commissioner Jeremy Yarwood Present Present Present Present Absent Present Present Present Absent Staff Present: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner; Shann Finwall, Environmental Planner 6. NEW BUSINESS a. Ordinance Review to Consider Allowing the Keeping of Chickens in Residential Areas Shann Finwall, Environmental Planner, and Melissa Weigant, Community Development Intern, presented the proposed ordinance that has been under development by the environmental and natural resources commission (ENR) since October 2009. The purpose of the ordinance is to promote urban agriculture and sustainability. Current zoning code prohibits the raising of poultry in all zoning districts. In the development of the ordinance, the ENR researched the ordinances of six other cities that allow chickens to be kept in residential areas; these cities are: Minneapolis, Saint Paul, Shoreview, Rosemount, Oakdale and Burnsville. The ENR also spoke with health experts as well as citizens who either own or have owned chickens at their residence. The ENR recommended approval of this ordinance on July 19, 2010. The proposed ordinance carries the following restrictions: 1. Up to 10 chickens would be allowed on any size lot with a permit. 2. Applicant must have approval of 75% of home owners within 150 feet of the applicant's property. 3. No roosters can be kept. August 17, 2010 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 1 4. Chickens must be kept in a separate coop; no chickens may be kept in human-use buildings, including garages, etc. 5. Leg banding is required as a means of identifying ownership of each chicken 6. Slaughtering of chickens is prohibited. Additional application requirements are also included in the ordinance. The following questions/issues were raised and discussed: 1. Allergies among neighbors 2. Make the ordinance specific in requiring chickens to be kept in the back yard 3. All adjacent neighbors must approve 4. Cost to the city/tax payers versus permit fees: · Commissioner Trippler noted that, as the ENR was developing the ordinance, it was always stressed that it should not cost the tax payers to allow people to have chickens, yet, while the costs to process would be approximately $115, the ENR commission is recommending a fee of $50. The ordinance does not actually state what the fees would be. 5. Assess fees per chicken like it is for dogs. 6. How will the ordinance be policed? 7. What are the requirements for dealing with feces and deceased chickens? How will that be regulated? 8. What are the set backs for the location of the coops? 9. Some questioned the "sustainability" of keeping only hens. 1 O. Concern that allowing chickens will lead to residents wanting to keep other types of livestock. Ms. Finwall made the following clarifications: 1. The ordinance would be pOliced the same as any other animal ordinance. Leg bands are intended to reduce the cost of boarding stray chickens. Slaughtering can be done by an outside company with the chicken is no longer producing eggs. Similar to the policing of other ordinances, policing would be done based on complaints received. 2. Portable chicken coops are quite innovative and a practical way to keep them, so the ordinance allows for the use of these portable coops; therefore, there are no specific setbacks included. 3. ENR heard from people have concerns about the eggs they are buying in the store. They are people who prefer to grown their own food on their own property. Ms. Finwall believes this ordinance will be used only by people who know what they are getting into. Sustainable agriculture is also preferred by a large part of the immigrant cultures. Commission members agreed to review and consider the ordinance again if the following changes are made: 1. Include language to address the handling of feces and deceased chickens. 2. Include specific language on how the ordinance will be policed. 3. Define "officer" to distinguish between animal control and police. 4. Add the word "live" to references of keeping chickens. August 17, 2010 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 2 5. Require the approval of 100% of adjacent neighbors. 6. Require the approval of neighbors as part of the annual permit renewal. 7. Increase the distance for neighbor approval to 300 feet. 8. Limit the number of chickens based on the lot size using a ratio of chickens to area. 9. Establish set-backs. 10. Address disposal of a deceased chicken and the waste. 11. Make the fees strong enough to make people serious about doing it. 12. Require rodent-proof coops. A guest raised concerns about the city being at risk for law suits filed due to incidents that occur with chickens. Commissioner Boeser recommended that the liability issue be investigated. The ENR will modify the ordinance as discussed and present this updated ordinance to the Planning Commission at a future meeting. August 17, 2010 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 3 Attachment 2 MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 21,2010 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Commissioner AI Bierbaum Commissioner Joseph Boeser Vice-Chairperson Tushar Desai Chairperson Lorraine Fischer Commissioner Robert Martin Commissioner Tanya Nuss Commissioner Gary Pearson Commissioner Dale Trippler Commissioner Jeremy Yarwood Present Absent Present Present Present (Arrived at 7:07) Present (Arrived at 7:05) Present Present Absent Staff Present: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Shann Finwall, Environmental Planner UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Ordinance Review to Consider Allowing the Keeping of Chickens in Residential Areas (heard out of order) Ms. Finwall presented the revised ordinance and led the discussion. Ms. Finwall addressed the Planning Commission's previous concerns from their August 17, 2010 meeting from that meeting. Additional questions and concerns were discussed. Mr. Ekstrand requested a recommendation from the Planning Commission. Ms. Finwall explained that this ordinance requires review by the Planning Commission because it involves the City's zoning code. The Planning Commission is being asked to review it from the perspective of if it is an appropriate use of residential land and if it is in the best interest of the health and safety of the public. Commissioner Trippler moved that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council not move forward with this ordinance. Commissioner Pearson seconded the motion. Ayes 4 (Bierbaum, Desai, Pearson and Trippler); Nays 3 ( Fischer, Martin, Nuss) Motion carries. Chair Fischer and Commissioner Nuss explained that, although they voted against the motion, they do not necessarily support the ordinance as is it currently written. Ms. Finwall has not yet scheduled this ordinance to go before the City Council. September 21, 2010 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 1 At\-~hll'\~(\t ~ RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MUNICIPAL REGULATION OF URBAN CHICKENS For distribution to public and permit applicants BASIC CHICKEN CARE INSTRUCTIONS (pages 2-8) REQUIREMENTS FOR KEEPING CHICKENS (page 9) Mary Britton Clouse Chicken Run Rescue 2010 Endorsed by Chicken Run Rescue Eastern Shore Sanctuary and Education Center Farm Sanctuary The Humane SocietY of the United States Srumyskies Bird and Animal Sanctuary United PoultJ:y Concerns Woodstock Farm Animal Sanctuary htto :lIwww.brittonclouse.com/chickenrunrescuel Page 1 2/15/101 BASIC CHICKEN CARE INSTRUCTIONS CONSIDERATIONS BEFORE ACQUIRING A CHICKEN Lifespan - Chickens can live as long as a dog or cat- up to 14 years or longer. - Egg laying for a hen generally starts at 6 months old, peaks at 18 months and declines with age. Cost - Start-Up costs for coop, maintenance, tools, cleaning equipment, heating / cooling appliances, dishes, nets, food storage, scale, fencing, security locks, lighting, motion detectors, monitors, cameras, permit application ($2-3,000) - Annual supplies per bird for food, bedding, nutritional supplements, hygiene supplies, permit fee, utilities ($300) - Vet care per bird per service (office exam $66, fecal test $28, plus other services as needed for illness or injury). Are you able to provide the birds with proper veterinary care needed? Time - Average 1 hour per bird per day minimum for cleaning, parasite control, grooming, physical exam, travel time to purchase supplies, construction, repair, medication, feeding, supervise free time out of pen. - Chickens need to be tended to twice daily. Will you have a person ready to substitute for you when you have reason to be absent? Space At least a 6 ft x 12ft x 6 ft high space in a yard is needed for a coop and pen for 4 birds, in addition to a larger fenced area for regular exercise. Location Coop and pen should be located in an area that provides shade, direct sunlight, good drainage and protection from prevailing winds and will not present a problem to neighbors. Uninvited guests Chickens will attract bird-mites and lice, mice, yard birds, squirrels, raccoons, dogs, coyotes, fox, mink, opossum, rats, ow.ls, bobcats, hawks, snakesl weasels, ferrets, fishers, martens and humans. ACQUIRING A CHICKEN: ADOPTION OR PURCHASE/BREEDING? The recent interest in having chickens has overwhelmed animal rescue organizations with inquiries from people wanting to give up unwanted chickens. As with all other animals surrendered to shelters, rescue organizations cannot help them all. There are never enough homes for displaced animals, so adoption of birds who need homes is always the kindest choice. instead of purchasing from a breeder or hatchery. Adoption- 8y adopting from a rescue organization or a private individual, you can know what to expect with regard to the bird's health, sex, behavior and personality. Reputable rescue organizations can provide advice on selecting the right bird and care information, and they generally have a generous return policy to insure that bird will be happy, compatible and well cared for. Purchase/breeding- The identification of the sex of chicks by feed stores, breeders and hatcheries is often wrong and not apparent until the bird is 6 months old. 50% of the chicks hatched are roosters who are killed or otherwise discarded of as waste. Newborn chicks shipped through the postal service are deprived of their mothers, warmth and food. The younger the birds, the more fragile and difficult they are to care for. http://www.brittonclouse.com/chickenrunrescue/ Page 2 2/15/102 HEALTHY BIRD CHECKLIST Eyes: clear, clean, wide open, alert Face I comb I wattle: clean, soft, blemish free, healthy deep red indicating good blood supply, (some faces are not red) Posture: head erect, good balance, stands or perches on both feet on extended legs, good grip on perch, facing activity Odor: none or slightly fermented hay Beak I nostrils: clean, uniform, shiny and solid Legs I feet: clean, shiny, uniform scales and nails; foot bottom soft and blemish-free; legs and toes straight and functional Feathers; clean, bright, shiny, smooth or fluffy; free of mites or lice Wings: held close to body, symmetrical, smooth movement in joints when flexed, flight feathers intact Skin: clean, soft, pale pink and translucent (some breeds have bare red patches at shoulders and keel), free of mites or lice Droppings: 70% odorless greenl white, firm, 30% stinky brown pasty (cecal), watery if stressed Keel (sternum): Straight, good muscle mass on either side, lump free Crop (on bird's right side of lower neck): full, contents of consumed food easily palpated Vent: petite, clean, moist, soft, pliant Respiration: 12-37 per min., inhalation louder and shorter than exhalation, minimal chest movement, closed beak NUMBER OF BIRDS Calculating available space, time, and cost (see above) will dictate how many birds can be properly cared for: Coop: 4 sq. feet of floor space minimum per bird for the interior (an area 2 ft x 2 ft per bird) Pen: 10 sq. ft of floor space minimum per bird (an area 3 ft x 3.3 ft per bird) Rangel exercise yard: 174 sq. ft per bird (an area about 10 ft. x 17 ft per bird) A single chicken is a sad chicken. Plan to have at least 2- they are flock animals and need the companionship of other chickens. Generally, 3-S compatible chickens can be well maintained in a typical city environment. Individual birds' sex, ages and temperaments can affect compatibility. Over crowding chickens is the most common mistake. Hens should outnumber roosters. Sometimes single birds can thrive with a human friend if they have special needs. Roosters, single or in pairs, are very sociable and can make terrific companions if handled gently and often. HANDLING & RESTRAINT Never handle a chicken by wings, feet or legs. Herd bird to corner using slow deliberate movement. (Fast= predator, slow = less threat.) Place hands over top part of wings (shoulders) and hold securely but do not squeeze. Pick up and hold under arm to keep wings in place. Support feet with other hand if bird will tolerate. To restrain for transport or examination, drape a. towel over shoulders cape-style and wrap around body. TRANSPORTATION Consider travel time and avoid extreme weather conditions. Heat exhaustion can develop quickly, and interior car temps can reach fatal point 10 minutes. Medium-sized, hard pet carriers work well for security, safety, stress. Line with a towel, shredded paper or straw. Food is a good stress reducer. Offer wet food like greens or cucumber for long trips. ARRIVAL If other birds are already present, a 2-week quarantine in a separate area is recommended to watch for http://www.brlttonclouse.com/chickenrunrescue/ Page 3 2/15/1 03 signs of illness and parasites. Avoid noisy, high-traffic areas, and allow the bird to acclimate before introducing to other birds, animals and family. PROVIDING A GOOD HOME NATURAL HISTORY It is Important to understand how chickens live in the wild and to provide them with an environment that meets those instinctive physical and psychological needs as closely as possible. Chickens are all descended from Tropical Jungle Fowl and are adapted to living in a natural habitat that is spacious, richly vegetated, diverse and warm. This presents a particular challenge in a small, urban setting in a cold climate like Minnesota. Flocks have a highly developed social structure and members depend on one another for companionship and security. Naturalists have observed that they can recognize and remember 180 other individual flock members. They are ground-dwelling birds. Most are capable of low flight in short distances; smaller birds can fly higher and farther. In the wild, they roost in trees at dusk before they sleep or to escape predators. They hide their nests in cavities in the ground. The majority of their waking hours are spent active, widely ranging, grazing and foraging for food- plants, bugs and occasionally small rodents. In their natural state, they typically travel 1/2 mile from their roost each day. In the wild, they are never over crowded; if the population becomes too dense, members will break off into subgroups and spread out. They move on from one area to another, which allows food sources to regenerate and prevents their waste from concentrating in one place so it can decompose without health risk to the flock. Roosters alert the flock to danger, find food and call the hens to it and stand guard as they eat. They select and build nests and will even participate in caring for the young. They also act as peace keepers to intervene in disputes that can develop between flock members. Roosters will start to crow and display courting behaviors at about 6 months of age. It is essential to gently handle a rooster on a daily basis to establish that you are the flock leader (Alpha) and maintain a well-socialized companion. The hens spend their time scratching for food, dust bathing, preening, playing and napping. Hens begin to lay eggs at about 6 months of age. Hens in the wild produce only a few clutches of eggs a year for the sole purpose of reproduction. Domesticated hens have been bred to lay one egg a day, but by 18 months of age, egg-laying frequency generally diminishes, and many adult or senior hens stop laying altogether. Chickens are sociable, cheerful and intelligent creatures who can form lifelong bonds with each other and other species including humans, dogs and cats. Because of their keen intelligence and instinctive physical activity, they need a stimulating environment that mimics as much as possible the rich and diverse world nature designed them to enjoy. COOP, PEN, RANGE/ EXERCISE YARD "Housing and infrastructure. The primary purpose of poultry housing is to protect flocks against adverse weather and predators (coyote, fox, stray dogs, raccoons and raptors). Weather is of critical concern in the Upper Midwest, where summers can be extremely hot and winters bitterly cold. Housing must provide shade from sun and cover from rain. It must be able to withstand high winds and snow loads if it is to be used for year-round operation. These basic housing considerations apply to all poultry." -Poultry Your Way: A Guide to Management Alternatives for the Upper Midwest, Minnesota Department of Agriculture, 2005 htto :i/www.brittonclouse.com/chickenrunrescue/ Page 4 2/15/104 COOP: The house, closed structure or enclosed room which provides shelter from cold, heat, wind, roin, snow and predators for protected roosting, nesting, feeding and watering space. Construction & Materials - Coops can be purchased ready made or in kits, constructed within an existing structure or built from scratch. Local building codes should be followed to prevent damage from snow, wind, etc. NOTE: rabbit hutches, plastic igloos, dog houses and such are not appropriate structures. Required features: Size: 4 sq. feet of floor space minimum is required per bird for the interior (an area 2 ft x 2 ft per bird). So, four birds will need a coop with an inside floor space of at least 4 ft x 4 ft, not including nest boxes. Outside dimensions should be about 5 ft x 5 ft x 6 ft high. Overcrowding is the most common cause of behavior problems, injury and disease. Coops should be high enough for a human to stand up comfortably for cleaning, maintenance and egg collection. It also allows for additional roosting. Temperament and social structures should be taken into account, and partitions should be available for birds who are sick, injured or lower in the pecking order. Access to electricity: This is required in free standing structures. Floor: The floor should not collect and hold moisture, should be easy to clean, should retain heat in cold weather and shouid exclude rodents/predators. A dirt floor draws heat away and is not easy to clean or to rodent/predator-proof. A wood floor is adequate, provided it is at least a foot off the ground, Insulated and sealed properly- but it is difficult to sanitize because it is porous. A concrete floor is ideal since it discourages rodents/predators and is easy to sanitize. Regardless of the floor type, bedding strewn on the surface is needed is to absorb moist fecal matter and facilitate cleaning. Leaves or wood shavings work best and can be com posted or easily bagged and disposed of as solid waste. Walls- Materials that are resistant to moisture and mold and easily cleaned are best. Chemically treated materials should be nontoxic. A good compound with anti fungal agents is good for humid areas. Clear varnish is also good. Everything should be treated or painted before it is assembled. Wooden structures should be draft free and built with double walls that have at least 11/2 inch insulation layer between them. Roof: The coop roof should be made of a material that will not collect and hold heat and should be built with double walls that have at least 11/2 inch insulated layer between them. The roof surface should be covered with an insulating tar paper to protect it from heavy rains. The roof should be slightly inclined, to allow water to run off. An overhang at the front wall will protect from downpours. A few small openings along the eaves allow moisture to escape and provide fresh air. Doors: One human-sized door is needed for daily access. Doors for chickens should be just large enough for the largest bird and can be positioned anywhere from ground level to about 2 feet high with a stable ramp with cleats. Chickens are ground dwellers, not parrots-small doors at heights greater than 3 feet with flimsy, unstable ladders are not appropriate. Doors must be able to be secured against predators at night. . Windows: Chickens love windows and need natural light. Double glaze for warmth. Cover with 1/2" metal screen so they can be opened for ventilation in hot weather. Allow one square foot of window for each 10 square feet of floor space. Roosts: Lumber or branches can be used. They should be strong enough and mounted securely enough to hold all birds. The surface should be rough for good grip with no splinters or sharp edges. For medium sized birds, 2" or 4" flat or 11/2" diameter is best for foot comfort. The longer the roost, the better it will prevent competition. They should be set 18" from the wall, 2 -3 feet off the floor. If mounted higher, rung steps are needed, spaced 8-12 inches apart. The addition of a dropping board underneath and an elevated roost will collect droppings and keep floor space below clean and inhabitable. Climate: Shelters should be kept at a comfortable temperature for the animals. According to the Minn. Dept. of Agriculture, "Minimum Temperature S5"(F) , maximum temperature 70' (F)." (Ibid.) The coop should be heated to maintain a temperature above 320 F during the coldest part of the winter and cooled below 850 F in the hottest part of the summer. c- htto:f fwww.brillonclouse.comfchickenrunrescuef Page 5 2/15/105 Below 320 F, birds are uncomfortable and cannot maintain body temperature. Below lSoF, frostbite begins, and hypothermia increases. Oil- or water-filled safety heaters (i.e. brands Pelonis, DeLonghi, Honeywell) are completely closed, sealed systems that run on electricity. The oil is heated from within and the heat is radiant, so there are no exposed heating elements to create dangerous problems even if they tip over. Heat lamps should only be used with extreme caution and should be firmly attached at least 3 feet from animals and far from any flammable item, especially dry straw or bedding. Smoke alarms are highly recommended. Extra bedding should be available to keep animals warm and comfortable in cold seasons. 8etween 750 and 850 F, panting and dehydration begin; above 850 F, heat stress and danger of heat prostration increases. Yentilation: Doors, windows and vents near the ceiling supply oxygen, remove heat from breathing, remove moisture from breath and droppings, remove harmful gasses and dust particles, and dilute disease-causing, airborne organisms. Fans should be provided for hottest weather. Light: Natural light from windows and/or skylights are required. Can be supplemented with full spectrum incandescent light to follow normal seasonal light cycles and for cleaning and maintenance. The minimum light intensity you should provide should be enough to clearly see the hens feed when standing over the feeder. Feeders: Food receptacles should be made of non-corrosive material that is easily cleaned, minimizes spillage, prevents contamination with droppings and keeps food dry. The containers should be large enough for all the birds to comfortably eat at once or numerous enough to prevent competition or intimidation. Large, heavy, rubber feed buckets work nicely. Hanging dishes or feeders work as well and should be hung at about the level ofthe bird's back. If dishes are outside the coop, they should be set under an overhang to keep them dry when it rains. Waterers: Water receptacles should be made of non-corrosive material that can be cleaned and disinfected with a solution of chlorine bleach, prevent contamination with droppings and is spill and leak proof. The containers should be large enough for all the birds to comfortabiy drink at once and hold enough water for all birds for an entire day. They should be slightly positioned higher than the feeder or far enough away to prevent contamination with food. Nestboxes- One nest box is needed for every 3 hens. A 12"W x 12"D x 14"H box is most versatile. Chickens prefer wooden nest boxes with covered opening for privacy placed on or as low to the floor as possible. If set higher, they require a perch in front of the opening. They should be filled with 2-4 inches of straw, litter, or grass. They prefer to nest in the southeast corner of the structure whenever possible. . PEN: The pen is a fenced area surrounding the coop that provides secure access to exercise, sunlight, earth and vegetation and is freely available to the birds when they are unsupervised. It is constructed to prevent the birds' escape and prevents entry by intruders/predators. Construction & Materials - Kennel pens can be purchased ready-made or in kits, or built from scratch. Local building codes should be followed to prevent damage from snow, wind, etc. Temperament and social structures of flock should be taken into account, and partitions should be available for birds who are sick, injured or lower in the pecking order. Required features: Size: 10 sq. feet of floor space (an area of 3 ft x 3.3 ft) minimum per bird is required, so 4 birds will need floor space of at least 6 feet x 7 feet. If the coop is adjacent to the pen, at least a 6 x 12 foot space in a yard is needed. If the coop is elevated 2 feet so the chickens can use the space underneath, the coop and pen can occupy some, but not all, of the same footprint. Having most of the pen in deep shade all ofthe time is conducive to unheaithy bacterial and fungal development. The pen should be high enough for you to stand up comfortably for cleaning, maintenance, capture and also to allow for additional roosting. Substrate: Choose a well-drained area. Substrate material for the pen should be clean, nontoxic, biodegradable, readily available, inexpensive and replaceable. Since it will become compacted from little feet and contaminated by concentrated droppings and parasites, it will need to be raked out and http://www.brittonclouse.com/ch ickenrunrescue/ Page 6 2/15/106 replaced frequently to reduce odor and fly activity. Play-sand, leaves, municipal wood chips, sod and hard-wearing ground cover work well. Metal fencing I predator control: The type of fencing depends on what the most likely predators are in your area. Dogs, rats, raccoons, hawks and coyotes are the most prevalent in city neighborhoods, but others include fox, mink, opossum, bobcats, snakes, weasels, ferrets, fisher and marten. It's best to build the strongest deterrents possible. Chain-link panels or welded or woven fencing on a sturdy frame, reinforced at the bottom with small-mesh metal wire that prevents predators from tunneling under the fence will discourage most intruders. Regular inspection is the key to security. Gate: A gate is needed for easy human access. Cover: The pen should be covered to keep birds in and predators out. The type of covering needed will depend on the type of predators. Covering part of the pen with a roof such as corrugated fiberglass can provide shade and rain shelter. Windbreak: Providing a wind and snow break will give the birds a protected area to be outdoors even in winter. . Shade: Shade must be available and can be provided by vegetation or strategically placed materials. Dust bath: Taking a dust bath is the closest thing to heaven for a chicken. They derive pleasure and contentment by bathing in the sun and in loose, dry soil depressions in the dirt, which cleans their feathers and rids them of parasites. Birds will usually dig their own hole for dust baths. Keep the soil in the dust bath loose, and add play-sand if it is a heavy clay soil. Adding a little poultry dust, diatomaceous earth or wood ash increases the effectiveness of parasite control. Large, heavy rubber feed buckets filled with play-sand are a welcome addition to the indoor coop in the winter. Enrichment furnishings: There is nothing sadder than a barren pen, when compared to the rich jungle environment chickens evolved in. Lots of large branches, stumps or platforms provide places to go and things to do, and they look natural and attractive in the pen. Include bushes, boxes or other objects to sit in or hide behind. Plant kale or other safe, edible vegetation around the outside of the pen for forage. Overcrowding, boredom and barren pens are the most common causes of behavioral problems. RANGEl EXERCISE YARD: The larger fenced area like a backyard that provides ample space for safe exercise, forage, sunlight, earth and vegetation that is regularly available to the birds when supervised. For regular exercise, 174 sq. ft per bird (an area about 10 ft x 17 ft per bird) is required. Four birds will need access to a 40 ft x 70 ft fenced area in the yard. If there is no access to a larger rangel exercise yard, 16 sq. feet of floor space minimum per bird (an area 4 ft x 4 ft per bird) in the pen must be provided. Fencing: 6 feet of privacy fencing prevents and discourages uninvited human and animal visitors. It also promotes the safety and security of the birds and neighbors. Nontoxic plants: Chickens are inquisitive and voracious eaters of vegetation and many ornamental garden plants can be toxic to them. Learn which of your plants might be harmful and fence them off or better yet replace them with safe and nutritious plants. Security: Chickens are susceptible to theft, vandalism and predators and need to be securely shut in the coop at night. Security cameras, lights and baby monitors are also highly recommended deterrents. PROVIDING GOOD CARE FOOD I WATER Fresh food and water are required daily and should be available at all times. Hay, grain and prepared feed should be fresh-less than one year old and free of mold, insects or other contaminants. Daily intake should include: 60 % nutritionally balanced, prepared feed appropriate for the age of bird, 20% scratch (cracked corn, oats, black oil sunflower seeds, milo, barley) 20% fresh (nutritious foods and table scraps-caution, toxic: onion, avocados, chocolate). Supplements: oyster shell or limestone for calcium, granite grit for digestion, mineral salt or ground salt licks. Chickens drink 1-2 cups of water a day. htto ://www.brittonclouse.com/chickenrunrescue/ Page 7 2/15/107 Feed should be stored inside rodent-proof containers in a cool, dry area inaccessible to animals. Stored feedbags should be rotated to ensure that feed is always fresh. Food that is uneaten or spilled should be removed from animal enclosures daily. SOCIAL NEEDS Temperament and social structures of animals should be taken into account, and separate areas should be provided for incompatible birds. VET CARE Locate a veterinary clinic nearby that will see chickens before one is needed-preferably one that specializes in avian care. Chickens are welcome in increasing numbers of city clinics. Check vet backgrounds at htto://www.vetmed.state.mn.us/Default.asox?tabid=803. Have an isolation area or roomy carrier and heating pad for sick or injured birds. Critical/emergency first aid supplies should be kept, including roll gauze, gauze pads, tape, vet wrap, blood-stop powder, antibiotic ointment, antibacterial scrub and solution, and bandage scissors. SANITATION Manure and wet bedding should be removed from the coop and animal feeding and lounging areas daily. Thorough, complete cleaning of walls and perches, removal of all bedding, and disinfecting of the coop and furnishings should be done at least once a year. Keeping shelter areas clean and dry will help prevent bacteria, fungi, insects, rodents, etc. Rodent levels will be minimized by keeping all feed in rodent-proof. containers and removing spilled or uneaten food promptly. Litter can be double bagged and disposed of as solid waste or composted, but composting must be done in an area where chickens will not scratch for at least a year. Housing animals in spacious, clean and relatively dust-free environments will keep them healthy and will minimize human exposure to infectious disease. Sources: Poultry Your Way: A Guide to Management Alternatives for the Upper Midwest, Minnesota Department of Agriculture, 2005 Standards of Care for Chickens, Adapted from Standards of Care for Farmed Animals, The Association Of Sauctuaries (TAOS). Edited by Chicken Run Rescue. 6/2008, revised 4/7/09 Poultry Housing Considerations for Low Input Small Scale Producers, David Sullenberger, TimeWarrior Farm Chronicle Special Reports, Revision E, fall 2003 Building Chicken Coops: Storey Country Wisdom Bulletin A-224, Gail Damerow, 1999 Chicken Health Handbook, Gail Damerow, 1994 htlp ://www.brittonclouse.com/chickenrunrescue/ Page 8 2/15/108 REQUIREMENTS FOR KEEPING CHICKENS The Permit for keeping chickens and other domestic fowl is contingent on your meeting responsibilities to your neighbors and the birds. Our department so often sees animals In inappropriate settings. Before going further, please read the enclosed CHICKEN CARE SHEET. Consider the commitment needed with regard to the lifespan, cost, time, space, location, and other consequences of caring for chickens. Next, consider the kind of impact they may have on your neighborhood. You must provide sufficient control so that their presence will not disturb neighbors with property damage, activity, noise, odor or trespass. You must keep your property clean and maintained in a manner that prevents insect and rodent infestations. Finally, consider the birds themselves. Are you willing to assume a long term commitment to them? They must be provided with food, water shelter and veterinary care. They also need kindness and personal attention. COOP: The house, closed structure or enclosed room which provides shelter from cold, heat, wind, rain, snow and predators for protected roosting} nesting, feeding and watering space. size: 4 sq. feet interior floor space minimum per bird (an area 2 ft. x 2 ft. per bird). access to electricity floor: wood- 1 ft. off the ground, insulated / sealed or concrete bedding: clean, absorbent, nontoxic, biodegradable and replaceable material walls: varnished, treated or painted draft free double walls 11/2 inch insulation roof: will not collect / hold heat, min. 1-1/2 inch insulation, insulating tar paper, inclined, vents doors: 1 human-size, 1 bird door 0-2 ft. high, stable ramp, secure latch windows: 1 square foot of window per 10 square foot of fioor space roosts: 11/2 diameter or greater, lB" from wall, 2 -3 feet off the fioor. climate control: heater, fan, ventilation to maintain temperature 320 min.- 85" max. F light: full spectrum, windows and/or skylights, incandescent light or other to follow normal seasonal light cycles. feedersl waterers: non corrosive, dean, size and number sufficient, accessible for all birds nestboxes- 1 per 3 hens, bedding PEN: The fenced area surrounding the coop that provides secure access to exercise, sunlight, earth and vegetation and Is freely available to the birds when they are unsupervised. It is constructed to prevent the bird's escape and prevents entry by intruders/predators. size: 10 sq. ft offloor space minimum per bird (an area 3 ft. x 3.3 ft per bird) substrate: well drained area; clean, nontoxic, biodegradable and replaceable matter metal fencing and gate I predator control: sufficient to keep birds in/predators out cover: sufficient to keep birds in/predators out windbreak, shade, dustbath, enrichment furnishings (ie. branches, stumps or platforms bushes, boxes) RANGE/ EXERCISE YARD: The larger fenced area like a backyard that provides ample space for safe exercise, forage, sunlight, earth and vegetation that is regularly available to the birds when supervised. size: 174 sq. ft per bird (an area about 10 ft. x 17 ft per bird) If no access to a larger Range/ Exercise Yard, pen must provide 16 sq. ft. of floor space minimum per bird (an area 4 ft. x 4 ft per bird) fencing: 6 ft privacy fencing FOOD / WATER: Fresh food and water daily, calcium supplement, grit, stored in rodent proof containers, uneaten / spilled removed daily. SOCIAL: separate areas provided for incompatible birds. VET CARE: designated veterinary clinic, isolation area SANITATION- manure/wet bedding removed daily; clean / disinfect coop and furnishings annually. Soiled litter double bagged for solid waste or com posted in an area inaccessible to chickens for at least a year. htte ://www.brittonclouse.com/chickenrunrescue/ Page 9 2/15/109 Agenda Item 6.b. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Environmental and Natural Resources Commission Shann Finwall, AICP, Environmental Planner 2011 Goals -Implementation Strategies May 11, 2011 for the May 16 ENR Commission Meeting INTRODUCTION On January 13, 2011, the Environmental and Natural Resources (ENR) Commission held a goal setting meeting. During the meeting the commission chose to carry over the 2010 goals for continued implementation in 2011 including trash hauling, greenways, and neighborhood environmental groups. In addition, the commission wants to increase environmental public outreach efforts and continue work on the wetland, shoreland, slope, and Mississippi Critical Area regulations in 2011. On April 18, 2011, the ENR Commission reviewed implementation strategies for these goals. However, not all commissioners were able to participate in this discussion. Therefore, this memorandum will review strategies discussed and other options available for implementing the 2011 goals. DISCUSSION Status of Goals 1. Trash Hauling: On April 18, 2011, the ENR Commission determined that the Trash Hauling Subcommittee would be disbanded and three Commissioners would be appointed to serve on the new Trash Hauling Working Group (Commissioners Schreiner, Trippler, and Yingling). The Trash Hauling Working Group will conduct analysis and review of various collection systems and report their findings to the full City Council. 2. Greenways: The greenways subcommittee has planned for programming in the Holloway/Beaver Creek Greenway. This greenway was chosen because of the natural resource projects which wilJ.take place in the greenway in 2011. The subcommittee designed a general greenway brochure which gives an overview of greenways. Each of the city's four greenways will also be highlighted in a brochure that will include maps and photographs specific to each greenway. The Holloway/Beaver Creek Greenway brochure has been complete as part of the 2011 greenway programming. The main Holloway/Beaver Creek Greenway program is scheduled for Saturday, May 14, 2011, at Hill Murray High School (Which is located in the Holloway/Beaver Creek Greenway). The subcommittee invited all residents living in or near the greenway to the event, which will include a presentation on basic greenway concepts and the ecology of the Holloway/Beaver Creek Greenway, as well as a bus tour to view successes and challenges in the greenway. Future implementation of this goal to include programming for the Phalen Chain of Lakes Greenway in 2012. This greenway was chosen because of several city, watershed district, conservation district, and county projects proposed in the .greenway next year. These 1 projects include Gladstone Neighborhood improvements, shoreland and rainwater garden cost share programs offered by Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District and Ramsey Conservation District, and the Phalen Chain of Lakes Park Master Plan (Adopted August 2010). 3. Neighborhood Environmental Groups: The neighborhood environmental subcommittee was formed to look at ways to support neighborhoods in taking action to improve their environment. In 2010 the subcommittee focused on energy efficiency and conservation by partnering with Metro Clean Energy Resource Team and Xcel Energy to present an energy efficiency workshop. During the workshop energy experts gave a presentation on simple ways to save money and energy in homes and discussed energy efficiency programs and rebates offered by Xcel Energy. The energy workshop was a good start to engaging residents in the energy and neighborhood environmental group dialogue. The subcommittee had an opportunity to highlight their energy efficiency and conservation goals and neighborhood environmental efforts during the April 2011 Spotlight on Maplewood cable show. Future implementation strategies for this goal could include the creation of a green neighborhood guide or webpage. The guide would give guidance and resources to residents and neighborhood groups that are interested in tackling an environmental issue in their home or neighborhood. Additionally, the neighborhood environmental subcommittee. could partner more closely with the Maplewood Nature Center during their neighborhood- based programming, such as buckthorn removal. Events During the goal setting meeting the commission stated they would like to place more emphasis on environmental public outreach in 2011. To achieve this, the commission has agreed to review a calendar of events, and request that commissioners sign up to assist staff in the planning and participation of the event. Following are events to consider for participation: Calendar Year - 2011 April . 9 (Saturday): Maplewood Park Clean Up . 30 (Saturday): Spring Clean Up May . 7 (Saturday): Rain Barrel/Compost Bin Sales . 7 (Saturday): Treemendous/Arbor Day Event . 14 (Saturday): Greenway Presentation/Bus Tour . 21 (Saturday): Waterfest June . 11 (Saturday): National Get Outdoors Day RECOMMENDATION Ju/y . 13-17 (Wed. - Sun.): Ramsey Co. Fair August . 2 (Tuesday): National Night Out . 19 and 20 (Fri.lSat.) - Taste of Maplewood September . End of Sept. (Saturday): Friends of Maplewood Nature Annual Picnic October . 15 or 22 (Saturday): Fall Clean Up . End of Oct., Beginning of Nov. (Saturday): Public Buckthorn Removal Event Review the 2011 goals and determine how best to implement them throughout the year. i::-- 2 Agenda Item 9.a. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Environmental and Natural Resources Commission Shann Finwall, AICP, Environmental Planner Gervais Lake Vegetation Management Plan May 11, 2011 for the May 16 ENR Commission Meeting The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) held public meetings beginning in January 2011 to obtain feedback on the Gervais Lake Vegetation Management Plan (LVMP). An LVMP is a document the DNR develops with public input to address aquatic plant issues on a lake. It seeks to balance riparian property owners' interest in use of shoreland and access to the lake with the preservation of aquatic plants, which are important to a lake's ecological health. The main focus of this L VMP is to bring management of aquatic plants on Gervais Lake into compliance with statewide standards, and to find opportunities to increase vegetative buffers around the lake, while allowing flexibility to address invasive species if they become a problem. The DNR completed the Gervais L VMP in March 2011. Sean Sisler, Aquatic Plant Management with the DNR, has forwarded the complete plan for city review (attached). There are four goals to be addressed by the plan including: 1. Identify strategies to restore or enhance lake shore habitat. 2. Reduce the levels of silt and nutrients within and entering the lake through activities such as identification and mitigation of stormwater run-off sources. 3. Maintain or increase abundance and distribution of native submersed aquatic plants throughout the growing season. 4. Build in flexibility to address invasive aquatic plants Eurasian water milfoil and curly leaf pondweed if they become a problem. o(lf)'~~"""" . . ~ 1JF~.i\ii\!lo Lake Vegetation Management Plan D Variance Requested by Cooperator o Variance Approved (see Section VI) Section I: Lake Information Name: Gervais Lake DOW Number: 62000700 County: Ramsey Fisheries Area: East Metro Surface Acres: 236 Littoral Acres: 91.0 Classification: D Natural Environment D Recreational Development IZI General Development Cooperator(s): Gervais Lake Association, Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District (RWMWD), City of Little Canada, City of Maple wood, and the MN DNR. Section II: Water Quality and Plant Community A. Water Quality IZI Total Phosphorus: Mean: 30 ppb ~ Secchi Disc: Mean: 2.3 m ~ chlorophyll 'a': Mean: 11.4 ppb Date: 1999-2008 Jun-Sept Summer Ave. Date: 2009 Jun-Sept Summer Ave. Date: 1999-2008 Jun-Sept Summer Ave. Narrative (describe water quality concerns, quantifY TSI): Carlson Trophic Status for Total Phosphorus: 53.0 Carlson Trophic Status for Chlorophyll-a: 54,0 Carlson Trophic Status for Secchi Disk: 51.0 Overall Trophic Status: Eutrophic Gervais Lake is a eutrophic lake located in the Phalen chain oflakes. The water quality is relatively good (currently exceeding watershed and state goals) and has been improving since 2005. . Improvement to water quality may be attributed in part to the work the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District has been doing in the watershed, for more information see the watershed districts website http://rwmwd.org/gervais. Another contributing factor may be that there has been a decrease in aquatic plant control since 2005. B. Plant Community: Narrative (describe plant community, list common, rare, or other important aquatic plant species, list plant surveys): Aquatic plants are valuable for a number of ecological and biological functions including using nutrients that would otherwise be available to algae, stabilizing bottom sediments and shorelines, providing shelter for a variety of game and non-game fish and aquatic insects, and providing food for waterfowl and other wading birds. The Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District (RWMWD) conducted several point- intercept plants surveys since 2004 (Aug 2004, Aug 2008, June 2009 and Sept 2009). In 2004 the plant community was dominated by algae; in June 20 I 0 the three most abundant aquatic plants were coontail, Canada waterweed, and nodding waternymph, In 2004 Eurasian I IJ'~~ . . ~ .."'" Lake Vegetation Management Plan watermilfoil (EWM) was found in 12.4% ofthe sites, but in 2010 it was below detection limits. In 2004 curly-leafpondweed (CLP) was below detection limits, but was found in -4-5% of the sites in 2009 and 9.8% in 2010. Currently, Gervais Lake is dominated by native aquatic plants with a low occurrence of invasive plants. Implementation stratigies outlined in this plan will help to ensure this trends continues for Gervais Lake. Strategies will also include built-in flexibility to be able to address management/control of invasive species if they become a problem in the future. Summary of Plant Surveys from 2004-2010 (percent frequency): Taxa June 2010 Sept 2009 June 2009 Aug 2008 Aug 2004 Coontail 57.8% 70.0% 58.8% 47.1% 30.3% Canada Waterweed 40.2% 32.0% 12.7% N/A N/A Nodding Waternymph 32.4% 44.0% 2.9% 12.9% 1.1% Muskgrass 16.7% 19.0% 9.8% 2.1% N/A Small Pondweed 18.6% 15.0% 20.6% 10.0% N/A CurlyleafPondweed 9.8% 4.0% 4.9% N/A N/A LeafY Pondweed 4.9% 1.0% N/A N/A 12.7% Sago Pondweed 3.9% 7.0% 7.8% 7.9% 2.2% White Waterlily 2.9% 4.0% 3.9% 7.1% 14.6% Common Duckweed 1.0% N/A 1.0% N/A N/A Wild Celery N/A 6.0% N/A 0.7% N/A Water Stargrass N/A 5.0% N/A N/A N/A Yellow Waterlily N/A N/A 1.0% N/A 1.1% Watermeal N/A N/A 1.0% 0.7% N/A Flatstem Pondweed N/A N/A N/A 1.4% 8.5% Southern Waternymph N/A N/A N/A 0.7% N/A Eurasian Watermilfoil N/A N/A N/A N/A 12.4% Total # sampled pts 102 100 102 140 89 Section III: Public Iuput Process (narrative): Letters were sent to the Gervais Lake Association, City of Little Canada, City of Maple wood, Ramsey County, State Senators and Representatives, and Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District (RWMWD) explaining that the clause allowing Gervais Lake to chemically treat a greater percentage of aquatic plants within the littoral area than the rest of the lakes in Minnesota is set to expire by April 15, 2014. Before this clause expires, Minnesota DNR is required to create a lake vegetation management plan (L VMP) to identifY aquatic plant management issues on Gervais Lake and develop a specified plan to address the issues, if needed. DNR is partnering with the lake association, watershed district, and local municipalities to create this lake vegetation management plan for Gervais Lake. 2 ~".!!!!!Il ... ~ ! j) q.;~.nll\"" Lake Vegetation Management Plan DNR representatives met with the Gervais Lake Association board and Representative Bev Sclaze on September 30, 2010 to discuss the issues associated with the development and implementation of the lake vegetation management plan and what the potential affects may be for the lakeshore owners. From the discussion at this input process there were two main goals identified. The first was to maintain/improve Gervais Lake's water quality and second is to build flexibility into the plan to address invasive species if they become a problem. The drafting committee met on November 16, 2010 at the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District in Little Canada. The committee had representation from the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District, Maplewood, Gervais Lake Association, and the DNR. The committee reviewed the draft lake vegetation management plan and made minor changes. The L VMP was posted to the DNR's website on December 20,2010 and it was presented to the public on January 4, 2011 just before and at the Gervais Lake Association meeting. A notice was put in the lake association's newsletter, a press release through the DNR, and a public notice was published in Ramsey County Review on December 29,2010. The plan was made available on the DNR website, and a 30-day comments period start January 4, 2011 and ended February 4, 2011. No written comments were received. The Gervais Lake Association is responsible for making sure any required monitoring is collected in accordance with DNR guidelines and are submitted to the DNR (if required). Currently, there are no monitoring requirements because a variance has not been issued, however; if the plan is amended to include a variance with monitoring required then ultimately it will be the permittee's responsibility to make sure the data is collected and provided to the DNR. Section IV: Problems to be Addressed in tbis Plan (narrative): The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) revised the aquatic plant management (APM) rules on April 15, 2009 (MR 6280). The clause within the revised rule allowing Gervais Lake to chemically treat a greater percentage oflittoral area than the rest of the lakes in Minnesota is set to expire by April 15, 2014. The DNR is required to develop a lake vegetation management plan (L VMP) for Gervais Lake before the clause expires. The lake vegetation management plan will serve as a guide for the management of aquatic plants, The lake vegetation management plan is a document the DNR develops in partnership with the public to address aquatic plant issues on a lake resulting in a targeted management plan to address those issues. The problems addressed in the lake vegetation management plan include: maintaining/improving water quality, restoring vegetative shoreline buffers to intercept runoff and stabilize shorelines, and ensuring plan flexibility so invasive species management can be address if they become a widespread nuisance. Section V: Goals for Management of Aquatic Plants (narrative, include a description of efforts to protect rare features): There are four goals to be addressed in this lake vegetation management plan: 3 e ~ Lake Vegetation Management Plan I) IdentifY strategies to restore or enhance lake shore habitat (i.e. lake shore restoration, mitigating source pollution through working with the watershed district, etc...) 2) Reduce the levels of silt and nutrients within and entering the lake through activities such as identification and mitigation of storm water run-off sources. 3) Maintain or increase abundance and distribution of native submersed aquatic plants throughout the growing season. 4) Build in flexibility to address invasive aquatic plants Eurasian watermilfoil and curlyleafpondweed if they become a problem. * The Gervais Lake Association has express interest in actively pursuing partnerships and potential grant opportunities to restore the vegetative buffer around Gervais Lake. The DNR is supportive ofthis goal and encourages the Lake Association on this action. The DNR also encourages the Lake Association to pursue cost share and grant programs such as: Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District's Best Management Practices Cost Share Program, Ramsey Conservation District's Phalen Chain of Lakes Shoreline Restoration Cost-Share Grant Program, and the MN DNR Shore land Restoration Grants to achieve this goal. The Gervais Lake Association has opted to begin implenting these goals as soon as the plan is signed and authorized. 4 Lake Vegetation Management Plan Section VI: Treatment Plan (map marked with areas where control of plants is anticipated): A. Commons Area (> 150' from shore) [8J Mechanical Control: Maximum total treatment acres 45.5 acres to be treated, 50 % oflittoral area Narrative: Guidelines for aquatic plant management are described in MN rule 6280. Mechanical control of aquatic plants is allowed up to 50% of the littoral area. The cumulative amount of mechanical and chemical aquatic plant control may not exceed 50% of the littoral area. Currently, mechanical treatment is not anticipated [8J Herbicide Control: Maximum total acreage allowed with chemical treatment is 13.7 acres to be treated, 15 % oflittoral area Product(s): Endothall (such as Aquathol K or Aquathol Super K) for curlyleafpondweed (CLP) and Auxin mimic (such as 2,4 D and Triclopyr) for Eurasian Watermilfoil (EWM). Rate of Application: Endothall: 0.75 -1.0 ppm; Auxin mimic: 1.00 ppm. Timing of Application: Early spring between the temperatures of 50-60 degrees F to reduce damage to native plants and to prevent turion development. Narrative: Aquatic plants are valuable for a number of ecological and biological functions including utilizing nutrients that would otherwise be available to algae, stabilizing bottom sediments and shorelines, providing shelter for a variety of game and non-game fish and aquatic insects, and providing food for waterfowl and other wading birds, There is evidence that removal of submersed aquatic plant through the use of herbicide can hann lakes (such as reductions in populations of vegetation-dependent fish, removal of nursery habitat for fish, removal of habitat for invertebrates (food source for waterfowl and fish), and reductions in water quality). Cumulative loss of aquatic plants (especially when coupled with nutrient loading) can lead to drastic ecological changes in lakes causing the lake to have low water clarity, become algae dominated with little to no rooted aquatic plants, and shift to disturbance-tolerant fish species such as bullhead and carp (Engle 1990; Wilcox and Meeker 1992; Scheffer and Carpenter 2003; Egertson and Downing 2004). The 15% limit is a level of plant control the DNR has confidence in that will allow riparian owners access to the lake while maintaining the basic functions and benefits that aquatic plants provide. Most lakes never reach the 15% limit for chemical control of aquatic plants. A variance is required to remove more than 15% of the littoral area and monitoring of the plant community and the water quality is required to ensure that cumulative impacts of aquatic plant removal are not resulting in hann to the lake. One of the situations the DNR does considers issuing a variance to the 15% limit is for the selective control of invasive species to enhance ecological and recreational benefits, Currently, invasive species do not make up a significant proportion of the plant community and are not 5 (i) ~"" Lake Vegetation Management Plan ecological or recreational nuisance within Gervais Lake. If invasive species become an ecological or recreational problem, this lake vegetation management plan may be amended to include a DNR approved treatment regime. There are no treatment regimes that are 100% selective for invasive species. However, there are some treatment regimes that are more selective using low dose, targeted herbicides, and timing of treatment to reduce the impacts to native plants. The above information on herbicides, timing, and target concentration are the current understanding of "selective control" for curlyleafpondweed and Eurasian watennilfoil. Selective control of invasive species is an evolving science and the treatment protocol may change as new infonnation becomes available. D Other: acres to be treated, % oflittoral area Narrative: B. Individual Pennit Standards (new pennits) Chemical Treatment of Submerged Vegetation: individual shorelines may be allowed to treat up to 100 feet or half the property's shoreline whichever is less except for properties that have less than 70 feet of shoreline may treat up to 35 feet along shore 100-150 feet lakeward Narrative: Pennit requests are subject to inspection and the aforementioned limits are maximums allowed for native species control. Selective control of invasive submerged aquatic plant species may be allowed to treat up to the entire frontage of the shoreline given that the stand of invasive species is nearly a monoculture, very dense and matted, and there are not native species present that would be affected by the "selective treatment". Pennit standards for individual shorelines are in place to ensure each shoreline retains some aquatic habitat, Near-shore habitat, which are the most frequent targets for control efforts by shoreline property owners, are particularly important as habitat for young or small fish, and have the greatest diversity of non-game fish and amphibians (Poe et al. 1986; Bryan and Scarnecchia 1992; Weaver et al. 1992). Many species of mammals and waterfowl depend on these aquatic plants for food and nesting sites and are especially important for laying females whose reproductive success is closely tied to the availability of aquatic plants (Krull 1970; Bellrose 1976; Batt et al. 1992: 7-9). Development is increasing on lakes (particularly in the metro area) and entire reaches of near-shore habitat have been impacted through development. Having restrictions on the amount of shoreline individual properties can treat, allows each property owner to have access to the lake while retaining some of the near-shore habitat that is so critical for fish and wildlife. These restrictions also allow for an equitable distribution of aquatic plant management activities among all riparian property owners while mitigating the cumulative impacts on the lake as a whole. Treatment of Emergent Vegetation: feet along shore to open water 6 I),,""'" . . , \ ~ 1;loi"~TuII'" Lake Vegetation Management Plan Narrative: Individuals who would like to remove emergent vegetation to access open water may apply for a permit. The neccessity of removal to create an access channel will be assessed by the DNR before a permit is issued, Other Treatment - feet along shore feet lakeward Narrative: Section VII: Funding [check all that apply] D Lake Association D DNR Grant D Lake Improvement District (LID) D Conservation District D Other (please describe) 7 Lake Vegetation Management Plan Section VIll: The commissioner may issue APM permits with a variance from one or more ofthe provisions of parts 6280.0250, subpart 4, and 6280.0350, except that no variance may be issued for part 6280.0250, subpart 4, items Band C. Variances may be issued to control invasive aquatic plants, protect or improve aquatic resources, provide riparian access, or enhance recreational use on public waters (6280.1000, subpart 1). Variance(s) and Justification(s) [check all that apply] D Application of pesticides to control submerged vegetation in more than 15 percent ofthe littoral area (M.R. 6280.0350, Subp. 4, A). (list justification below) D Application of pesticides to control aquatic macrophytes in natural environment lakes established pursuant to part 6120.3000 (M.R. 6280.0250, Subp. 4, E.). (list justification below) D Mechanical control of aquatic macrophytes in more than 50 percent of the littoral area (M.R. 6280.0350, Subp. 3, B). (list justification below) D Other (please explain) Justifications (identifY which variance and provide the rational for all items checked above): A variance has not been issued at this time for Gervais Lake. However, if invasive species become an ecological and recreational problem, the DNR and the cooperators will evaluate the conditions of the lake to determine the best course of action. This lake vegetation management plan may be amended at that time to include a variance and a DNR approved treatment regime to target the invasive species if that is the agreed upon course of action. If a variance is issued then monitoring would be required to ensure that the treatments are having the desired affect and that the treatment regime is not doing more harm to the lake then good. Required monitoring would be for water quality, invasive species, and native aquatic vegetation as described below. D Variance approved without condition(s) D Variance approved with following conditions(s): [8J Pretreatment data collection Narrative: pre-treatment data would include a pre-treatment point intercept inventory of the aquatic plant community and water quality data to serve as baseline data to compare the effectiveness of the treatment regime and to determine the impacts on the lake. [8J Post treatment data collection Narrative: At least one point-intercept snrvey will occur annnally during the peak growth of native vegetation (late June throngh August). It will be the responsibility of the lake association to make sure a point intercept is conducted. (The Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District has been conductiong point-intercept surveys and have stated they are 8 !I) A<'....Nl\"" Lake Vegetation Management Plan willing to continue to monitor the aquatic vegetation.) Again, reliable water quality data must also be collected throughout the season. The survey reports and water quality data must be provided to the DNR, the lake association, and other interested parties upon completion or by the fall of each year. ~ Evaluation Narrative: The DNR, in conjunction with other interested parties, will review the point- intercept survey(s) and water quality results annually. If the point-intercept surveys or water quality data reveal that the herbicide treatments appear to be doing more harm than good, treatments may be ceased at the discretion of the DNR. Examples of reasons to stop treatments include, but are not limited to, notable decreases in water quality and obvious decreases in native vegetation. If treatments are ceased, the DNR will work with the association to develop an alternative management strategy. D Other: Narrative: 9 / S I~i e Lake Vegetation Management Plan Section IX: Signatures This Lake Vegetation Management Plan is in effect for 5 years from date of Regional Fisheries approval. If the plan is not renewed, then permits will be issued according to the standards listed in MR6280. DNR Approval Submitted By: ~~ 'S ~2> \ Qjf' Title: ,1\A..~ I JJJlKQ;;c".k/i:.Q S~ \C~';'j,t\: Date: :;;)?.'5 I aa \ , ;J:.L~ ~I I~ 3-L(-11 Date 3MI Date I affirm that I am an authorized representative of Gervais Lake Association and acknowledge participation in the development and implementation of this lake vegetation management plan. ~_~ /L ;J-e;; II Date Either party may terminate participation in this plan at any time, with or without cause, upon 30 days' written notice to the other party. If participation is terminated, permits will be issued according to standards listed MR6280. '" ,., 2 "0'" iVl/\n ~.. __ !.: lit 10 Agenda Item 9.b MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Environmental and Natural Resources Commission Michael Thompson, City Engineer / Dep. Director of Public Works Living Streets Taskforce May 11, 2011 for the May 16 ENR Commission Meeting BACKGROUND Staff has presented Living Streets concepts to the Planning Commission, Environmental and Natural Resources Commission, and Community Design Review Board. The discussion has focused on a few key areas: 1) Improve storm water quality through expansion of the rain garden program, reducing the impervious footprint of streets, 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 (storm water management, shade to reduce heating and cooling costs, filtering air pollutants, reduce urban heat island effect), enhance quality of life, and are practical and affordable. 5) Be cognizant of construction, replacement, and future maintenance costs DISCUSSION The feedback thus far has been positive in moving forward with the creation of a Living Streets policy. To help refine the focus and generate buy-in a task force is proposed. It is the intent of the staff to propose a formation of Living Streets Task Force to the city council in Mayor June 2011. It is anticipated that the membership could be formed to include: )> 1 member of the Environmental and Natural Resources Commission )> 1 member of the Community Design Review Board )> 1 member of the Planning Commission )> 1 member of the City Council )> 1 member of the business community (Business & Economic Development Commission?) )> 1 staff person from Public Safety (Police or Fire) )> 2 staff persons from Public Works (1 engineering and 1 maintenance) )> 1 staff person from Parks Department )> 1 staff person from Community Development )> 2 at large resident volunteers / appointees?? RECOMMENDATION At this time the creation of a Living Streets Task Force is dependent on city council approval. In preparation of that approval, staff would like to be prepared to move forward with selected volunteers from boards and commissions. It is anticipated that the time commitment would be no more than three to four meetings over the next five-month period.