HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 05/14/2013 - URBAN AGRICULTURE - PROPOSED LAND USE AND CITY CODDATE: May 14, 2013
STAFF: Laurie Kadrich
Lindsay Ex
Pre-taped staff presentation: available
at fcgov.com/clerk/agendas.php
WORK SESSION ITEM
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Urban Agriculture - Proposed Land Use and City Code Changes.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City Plan contains several principle and policy statements aimed at promoting local food production
and encouraging urban agriculture. Several City departments are coordinating with numerous public,
private, and academic entities to implement these principles and policies. However, the Land Use
Code is in direct conflict with City Plan as it only allows urban agriculture in four of the twenty-five
zone districts as a primary use. While City Council amended the Land Use and City Code in 2008
to allow six chickens hens per lot (Ordinance No. 072, 2008), hundreds of citizens expressed the
desire to practice urban agriculture in more zones in the City, allow farmers markets in more areas,
and allow for a wider range of animals to be raised.
Based on City Plan and this feedback, staff proposes Land Use and City Code changes to implement
City Plan. The proposed Land Use Code changes include: (1) the establishment of an urban
agriculture licensing system that will allow urban agriculture in all zone districts; and (2) allowing
farmers markets in more zone districts in the City. Proposed City Code changes include: (1) scaling
the number of chickens allowed based on lot size; (2) allowing ducks to be raised; (3) allowing two
dwarf or pygmy goats per household for milk production; and (4) updating the beekeeping
Ordinance to reflect current best practices.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. What concerns or questions does Council have about implementing these urban agriculture
Code changes within city limits?
2. Are these proposed Code changes ready for formal Council consideration?
3. Are there other urban agriculture policy issues Council would like to see addressed?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Urban agriculture includes the production, distribution and consumption of locally produced food
in an urban environment. City Plan contains principles and policy statements in support of urban
agriculture in three of the seven key issue chapters. Partnerships internal and external to the City
are working to implement these policy and principle statements. For example, the Social
Sustainability Department and the Gardens on Spring Creek are implementing the Community
Gardens Outreach Program (Offer 236.1) to promote access to community gardens in low-income
May 14, 2013 Page 2
neighborhoods ( Attachment 10). The Planning Department is coordinating with numerous entities
to ensure the Land Use Code and City Codes are not acting as a barrier to implementing urban
agriculture in the City. Beginning in May, representatives from the private sector, public sector, and
academic sector are coming together to identify how City Plan strategically through the development
of a Local Food Cluster, sponsored by the City’s Economic Health Department. Each of these
efforts is critical to implement the urban agriculture portions of City Plan.
What is before Council on May 14 is the Planning Department’s effort to remove the Land Use and
City Code barriers that would allow more urban agriculture practices to take place throughout the
City. Currently, the Land Use Code only allows urban agriculture as a primary use in four of the
City’s twenty-five zone districts (see Attachment 1: Map of Zone Districts), yet these uses are
currently being practiced in numerous other zone districts (see Attachment 2: Map of Urban
Agriculture Land Uses).
This project aligns with the City Plan Principle SW 3, which states, “The City will encourage and
support local food production to improve the availability and accessibility of healthy foods, and to
provide other educational, economic, and social benefits.”
On July 2, 2012, the urban agriculture public engagement plan was submitted to Council (see
Attachment 3). Extensive public outreach, including a project website, online survey (611
responses; see Attachment 5), public open house (95 attendees; see Attachment 6), several focus
group discussions with local farmers, Homeowners Associations, the Larimer County Humane
Society, and discussions with six City boards and commissions occurred since the project was
initiated (in accordance with the Project’s Public Engagement Plan, see Attachment 3). Staff also
benchmarked existing City regulations with other similar communities, including Austin, Portland,
Seattle, Steamboat Springs, Denver, and Wheat Ridge.
Throughout the outreach process, citizens requested that urban agriculture be allowed in all zone
districts and that additional farm animals be allowed, e.g., allow for more chickens based on lot size
and allow for ducks and goats to be raised, as well.
Based on research, outreach, and City Plan direction, this project has the following objectives:
1. Establish an urban agriculture licensing system that addresses neighborhood compatibility
concerns raised during the outreach process instead of requiring urban gardens to go through
a full development review process;
2. Allow farmers markets in more zone districts in the city;
3. Amend the City Code regulations regarding animals in the following ways:
a. Scale the number of chickens allowed based on lot size, allows ducks to be raised,
and adjusts the space requirements for chickens and ducks to four square feet;
b. Allow two dwarf or pygmy goats per household for milk production (must meet
minimum space and humane condition requirements, as with the allowance of
chickens); and
c. Update the beekeeping Ordinance (adopted in 1989) to reflect hive styles currently
used and allows for nucleus colonies to be kept for a longer timeframe.
May 14, 2013 Page 3
Objective 1: Create an alternate development review process for urban agriculture land uses
Problem Statement
While the Land Use Code allows for the cultivation, storage and sale of crops, vegetables, plants and
flowers as an accessory use in all zone districts, Agricultural Activities as a principal use on the land
is only permitted in the RC (River Conservation) and POL (Public Open Lands) zone districts. In
all other zone districts, an Addition of a Permitted Use is required for these uses to be the principal
use on a parcel.
Thus, while City Plan indicates the City will “encourage and support local food production,” the
Land Use Code currently acts as an obstacle to these types of land uses.
Research and Outreach
At the onset of the project, staff initiated a focus group discussion with existing producers and
farmers within the city to assess what practices are already occurring in the city and what additional
practices are desired. Staff also organized focus groups with homeowners associations, realtors and
interested citizens to assess any concerns they might have with allowing these uses in additional
zone districts.
Staff also conducted an online survey and a public open house to assess the broader community’s
perspectives on these issues. The online survey found that almost 96% of the 611 respondents
supported allowing both market and community gardens in more areas (or all districts) across the
city. Many respondents identified the societal benefits from allowing gardens, such as increased
neighborly interaction, food security, and food access. When asked to identify what concerns were
associated with community or market gardens, respondents identified the following primary
concerns:
• Nuisances such as noise, odor, traffic and visual impacts (34%);
• Chemicals, including the use of fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides (15%);
• Overregulation (8%); and
• Food Safety (6%).
• 19% of respondents had no concerns.
Staff benchmarked the existing regulations regarding urban agriculture land uses against five other
communities and found that the Land Use Code was inconsistent in comparison to what other
communities allow. Every community researched had standards associated with the urban
agriculture practices, but none required the projects to go through the full development review
process. The standards proposed for the urban agriculture license are designed to address the
primary concerns identified by the public.
Proposal
Create an urban agriculture licensing system that allows urban agriculture to be practiced throughout
the city while ensuring neighborhood compatibility. If adopted, urban agriculture will be a permitted
use in all zone districts, subject to the licensing requirements set forth in Section 3.8.31 of the Land
Use Code. This licensing system creates a process for these land uses to be permitted without
May 14, 2013 Page 4
requiring the uses to go through development review, which could prove prohibitive for achieving
the City Plan principle of encouraging local food production.
Some concern was expressed at both at the open house and during the Planning and Zoning Board
Work Session, regarding whether a license for urban agriculture land uses is necessary. While
survey respondents were largely in support of allowing urban agriculture in more zone districts,
concerns were raised regarding compatibility with existing land uses e.g., screening, noise, traffic
etc. Staff also learned that many producers are unaware of City regulations, such as building permit
requirements, floodplain use permit requirements, etc. The licensing allows staff to work with
farmers to discuss the best management practices outlined in the proposed regulations. Early
dialogue with producers regarding compatibility can ensure that impacts can be proactively
minimized. Staff believes a licensing system also provides the opportunity to share information
regarding City regulations and allows the ability to track these land uses over time.
Implications of this Proposal
If a licensing system is enacted, urban agriculture land uses will be exempt from development
review requirements. Exempting urban agriculture from development review means these land uses
will not be required to plat or improve the local street frontage in front of their operations. Platting
and development requirements would only be triggered if a principal building, e.g., a retail store for
produce, were proposed on the site. Depending upon how long the urban agriculture is practiced,
this could transfer the costs of improving local streets to the taxpayer.
Starting up a local farm is not a capital-intensive business and requiring urban agriculture to be
processed through development review could prove prohibitive to these land uses. As City Plan
encourages these types of land uses, it is staff’s finding that processing these land uses through a
licensing system encourages these uses while still addressing the neighborhood concerns associated
with allowing urban agriculture in more zone districts. However, staff does recommend this issue
be closely monitored and continuously assessed, e.g., through the annual Land Use Code updates,
to determine if the process is still suitable.
Objective 2: Allow farmers markets to be permitted in additional zone districts
Problem Statement
Farmers markets are currently limited to the following zone districts: Downtown, River Downtown
Redevelopment, Community Commercial, General Commercial, Neighborhood Commercial,
Limited Commercial (except in the Riverside Area), and in the Harmony Corridor in neighborhood
or community centers. In all of these zone districts, farmers markets are subject to a Type I
(Administrative Hearing) review. In the public outreach process, citizens requested staff to examine
if farmers markets could be allowed in more zone districts.
Research and Outreach
The results of the online survey illustrated that 94% of the survey respondents supported allowing
farmers markets in more locations in the city. Concerns regarding allowing this land use in more
zone districts included increased noise, traffic and parking issues as well as overregulation of
vendors and the potential for diluting the market.
May 14, 2013 Page 5
In staff’s benchmarking analysis, staff found that allowing farmers markets in all commercial zone
districts (currently allowed) is consistent with other communities. However, other communities,
such as Portland and Denver, also allow these land uses in mixed-use areas.
Proposal
Staff is proposing that farmers markets be allowed, in addition to the existing zone districts, in the
LMN (Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood) and MMN (Medium Density Mixed-Use
Neighborhood) zone districts. However, staff is recommending that these uses be allowed only if
located within a neighborhood center, park, or central feature or gathering place to ensure that the
traffic and other nuisance issues, as identified through the survey, are minimized. Staff is also
proposing that farmers markets be allowed in the HMN (High Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood)
district, which is limited in its geographic extent and would not likely pose the same concerns as in
the other zone districts.
Objective 3: Scale the number of chickens allowed based on lot size, allow ducks and
miniature goats to be raised, and update the beekeeping standards.
Problem Statement
In 2008, City Council passed an ordinance allowing for up to six chicken hens per lot within the city
limits, requiring two square feet per chicken, and that coops be setback 15 feet from the property
line, among other standards aimed at achieving compatibility and protecting animal welfare. Since
that time, 153 chicken licenses have been granted and one citation has been issued. During early
discussions with producers and interested citizens, staff was asked to explore if additional chickens
could be allowed and if other animals, such as ducks and goats, could also be permitted within the
city.
Research and Outreach
The online survey results show that 90% of the survey respondents supported scaling the number
of chicken hens based on lot size, allowing ducks to be combined with the allowable number of
chickens, and allowing goats. Concerns about allowing this land use in more zone districts included
increased noise and odor, a lack of enforcement, having more animals at large, and ensuring humane
conditions for the animals.
Staff’s benchmarking analysis found that Denver allows up to eight chickens or ducks, combined,
and two dwarf goats on any city lot without a zoning permit. If residents would like additional
animals, then a zoning permit and notice to neighbors is required. Denver requires 16 square feet
per chicken or duck and 130 square feet per dwarf goat.
Steamboat Springs allows up to five chicken hens per lot with a permitting process for more.
Steamboat Springs also allows two to three goats on all city lots and 200 square feet is required per
goat. The Enforcement Officer in Steamboat Springs indicated their spacing requirements exceed
what a goat really needs and that Denver’s standards are more appropriate. In certain zone districts,
two to five goats are allowed per half acre of land, instead of being limited to three.
May 14, 2013 Page 6
In Portland, anyone can keep a total of three or fewer chickens, ducks, doves, pigeons, pygmy goats
or rabbits combined without a permit. If they wish to exceed that number, then a permit and
neighbor notification is required. Colorado Springs allows up to 10 fowl as a use by right, and
Seattle allows three animals per lot (including cats, dogs, chickens, and goats) if 20,000 square feet
is available and four additional animals per each additional 5,000 square feet.
In addition to public outreach, staff held numerous meetings with staff from the Larimer County
Humane Society (Animal Control), who handles the enforcement and licensing side of allowing
chickens. Animal Control staff indicated that increasing the number of chickens based on lot size
and allowing ducks presents no concerns, as allowing chickens within the city has not presented any
significant problems.
Initially, Animal Control was concerned about allowing goats as they are not equipped to manage
full-size goats. In addition, they were concerned about how well goats are really working in the
other communities. Animal Control staff contacted their counterparts and found that goats have
presented no problems in other communities. One Animal Control staff member in Denver noted
that allowing dwarf goats “seems to have greatly increased the goodwill from the public and has not
greatly affected the calls for service or complaints from the neighborhoods.”
Proposal
Regarding chickens and ducks, staff initially proposed that the number of chickens allowed be
scaled to the size of the lots and that ducks be allowed within that scaled number. During the open
house, attendees requested that staff scale the number of chickens and ducks similar to what Denver
proposed. Based on further discussions with Animal Control, staff is now proposing the following
scaling structure for chickens and ducks based on lot size:
• Less than 1/2 acre – up to eight chickens and/or ducks, combined (this would allow everyone
in the city to have up to eight chickens and/or ducks, similar to the City of Denver);
• Between 1/2 acre and 1 acre – up to twelve chickens and/or ducks; and
• More than 1 acre – six chickens and/or ducks per each additional 1/2 acre above a one-acre
lot size; however, when more than twelve chickens and/or ducks are requested, then all
abutting property owners must be notified prior to the issuance of a license to ensure
compatibility with the neighbors.
Regarding space requirements for chickens and ducks, numerous resources documented that ducks
need 4 square feet per animal to thrive. In addition, based on staff discussions from an enforcement
perspective, it was determined that increasing the size of poultry coops required for chickens and
ducks would be more easily managed if 4 square feet per animal was provided instead of 2 square
feet per chicken and 4 square feet per duck. In addition, as humane conditions were one of the
concerns of the survey respondents, staff is recommending that the regulations regarding the keeping
of chicken hens and ducks stipulate 4 square feet of spacing per animal.
In regards to goats, staff is proposing that two pygmy or dwarf (African Pygmy and Nigerian Dwarf
breeds) goats be allowed per lot in the city. As goats are herding animals, a minimum of two goats
is required to prevent nuisances. Staff also proposes, based on the feedback from Steamboat Springs
staff and from additional research, that a minimum of 150 square feet be provided per goat allowed,
for a total of 300 square feet. Additional standards to ensure compatibility, e.g., a 15-foot setback
May 14, 2013 Page 7
from any property line and having adequate fencing, and humane conditions are outlined in the draft
Municipal Code Ordinance.
With regard to bees, numerous citizens requested removing the current requirement that hives be
only Langstroth-style hives, since it is an antiquated standard. Numerous other communities,
including Larimer County, regulate beekeeping based on movable comb hives. Staff is
recommending that the hive requirement be updated to reflect more recent best practices and require
movable comb hives instead of Langstroth-style hives. In addition, citizens requested additional
time to dispose of or combine nucleus colonies. Instead of 30 days to dispose of or combine the
colony, staff is recommending allowing residents up to 60 days.
Finally, staff proposes a one-year review of the City Code changes be reported to City Council to
assess if allowing additional numbers and kinds of animals was successful and if any additional
changes need to be made to ensure compatibility with surrounding land uses.
Fees
A question that arose during the public process is “what the City would charge for an urban
agriculture license”? As there are many urban agriculture land uses already in place throughout the
city, staff recommends that a 12-month grace period be applied so that all existing urban agriculture
land uses can be “grandfathered” into the city. The purpose of the grace period is two-fold: first,
it would allow for all existing gardens within the city to be permitted at no cost. Second, the grace
period would allow City staff to track the time it takes to process the applications and calculate the
appropriate fee to charge based on actual time. Staff expects the fee would not exceed
$100/application or 4 hours of staff time.
The current fee for a chicken license is $35/license. Animal Control staff has indicated a preference
for combining poultry and goats into one urban farm animal license. They propose that the fee for
the urban farm animal license stay at $35.
Additional Concerns Not Addressed with these Code Changes
During the public outreach process, interested citizens and farmers requested that other issues be
addressed, including allowing hoop houses (temporary greenhouses with frames made of conduit,
PVC, or wood covered by polyurethane) within the city without a building permit and allowing other
farm animals on any lot within the city, if the lot size allows and humane conditions are met. Staff
began researching these issues but is not yet ready to bring forward any Code changes or policy
direction to address them. Instead, staff suggests that these changes be addressed in future phases,
such as through the building code revisions currently under way.
Staff also recognizes that some concerns still remain about allowing any additional animals within
the City limits and proposes, similar to what was done when the Ordinance allowing chicken hens
to be raised was passed, that a review of the code changes be conducted one year after adoption to
assess the success of the code changes and if any additional changes need to be made.
It is also important to reiterate that staff is not proposing any changes related to an individual’s right
to have a private garden. Private gardens are currently allowed under the Land Use Code and the
urban agriculture licensing system would not apply to these land uses. Instead, it would apply to
May 14, 2013 Page 8
urban agriculture land uses that are the principal use on a lot in the City of Fort Collins, unless those
uses were already approved under the development review process, in which case, a license is not
needed.
OUTREACH
As discussed above, extensive public outreach led to the formation of the proposed Code changes.
These outreach efforts included the following:
• April 2012
N Planning and Zoning Board Work Session and Hearing – Project Kick-off
• June 2012
N Interested Citizens Kick-off Meeting – 25 individuals attended from the farming,
gardening, non-profit community as well as interested citizens
• July 2012
N Project website launched
N Meeting with the Chamber Legislative Affairs Committee
N Planning and Zoning Board Work Session
N HOA , Realtor and Public Focus Group – 10 individuals attended
N Project email list created – currently almost 370 members
• August 2012
N Meeting with the Fort Collins Housing Authority Development Committee
N Landmark Preservation Commission
• September 2012
N Meeting with the Natural Resources Advisory Board
N Meeting with the Parks and Recreation Board
N Meeting with the Senior Advisory Board
N Online survey launched (611 responses when the survey closed in December)
N Media article in the Coloradoan announcing the launch of the survey
N Memo sent to the Community Development Block Grant Commission
• October 2012
N Planning and Zoning Board Work Session
• January 2013
N Focus group with local farmers to review the proposed regulations
N Media article in the Coloradoan announcing the public open house
N Public Open House (95 attendees)
• March 2013
N Planning and Zoning Board – Unanimous Recommendation of Land Use Code
Changes (see Attachment 4)
May 14, 2013 Page 9
• April 2013
N Economic Advisory Commission (see Attachment 5)
• May 2013
N City Council Work Session
N Natural Resources Advisory Board (May 15)
N Focus group discussion with Colorado State University Extension, Animal Sciences,
and Veterinary Sciences professors, Larimer County Department of Health, Larimer
Humane Society and interested citizens to review the regulations and receive
feedback from these professionals (May 16)
ATTACHMENTS
1. Map 1 - Zone Districts where Urban Agriculture practices are currently allowed
2. Map 2 – Illustration of where Urban Agriculture practices are actually occurring
3. Public Engagement Plan
4. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes
5. Economic Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes
6. “At-a-glance” Online Survey Results
7. Meeting notes from the Public Open House
8. Public Comment received to date
9. Frequently Asked Questions about the proposed code changes
10. Memo from Social Sustainability and the Gardens on Spring Creek
11. Powerpoint Presentation
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 2
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PLAN
PROJECT TITLE: URBAN AGRICULTURE LAND USE CODE CHANGE
PROJECT LEAD: LINDSAY EX
BOTTOM LINE QUESTION: What local food practices does the community support? Where should these
practices be allowed? And how should they be regulated?
OVERALL PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT LEVEL: Collaborate
KEY STAKEHOLDERS:
- Neighbors/residents
- Producers, consumers, and businesses related to agriculture
- Health and built environment advocates (CanDo, Gardens on Spring Creek, Food Bank)
- Realtors and others involved in real estate
- Homeowners Associations
TIMELINE: April – December 2012
Phase 1: Involve/Collaborate
Timeframe: May – June 2012
Key Messages:
• Local food production is strongly supported in Plan Fort Collins (Principle SW 3 and Policy SW 3.1),
• The Land Use Code is out of date regarding more urban forms of agriculture
• What practices does the community support?
Tools and Techniques
• Web – webpage within the development review webspace, spotlight on fcgov.com
• Media – news release
• Open houses – identify the range of practices and key areas where citizens agree
PHASE 2: Involve/Collaborate
Timeframe: July – September 2012
Key Messages:
• Illustrate what was heard at the early open house and what actions have been taken to date
• Determine if the direction being taken is on the right track
Tools and Techniques:
• Web – monthly updates
• Open houses – review draft standards and revise
PHASE 3: Inform and Consult/Involve
Timeframe: October – December 2012
Key Messages:
• Highlight community feedback
• Determine if the direction being taken is on the right track
Tools and Techniques:
• Web – monthly updates
• Media – news release
• Open house – final feedback, check in to make sure we captured their original feedback
ATTACHMENT 3
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing Minutes
March 21, 2013
6:00 p.m.
Council Liaison: Mayor Weitkunat Staff Liaison: Laurie Kadrich
Chair: Andy Smith Phone: (H) 482-7994
Chair Andy Smith called the meeting to order at 6:10 p.m.
Roll Call: Carpenter, Campana, Hart, Heinz, Kirkpatrick, and Smith
Unexcused Absence: Hatfield
Staff Present: Kadrich, Eckman, Ex, Sowder, Porter, Levingston, Stanford,
Siegmund, Vrata, Schleuter, and Sanchez-Sprague
Chair Smith said in an effort to make the process a little more citizen friendly he would provide
background on the order of business. He described the following processes:
• Citizen participation – an opportunity to present comments on issues that are not
specifically listed on the meeting agenda.
• Consent agenda items are considered items which have no known opposition. Any
member of the board, staff or audience may request for an item to be pulled from the
consent agenda and discussed in detail as a part of the discussion agenda.
• Discussion agenda items will include a staff presentation, an applicant presentation, and
questions by board members, staff comments and public comment.
• At the time of public comment, he asked that you come to the podium, state your name
and address for the record, and sign-in. He asked that the speaker clearly state their
position and he encouraged them to share comments relevant to the topic under
discussion.
• Responses by applicant and staff will follow public comment.
• The board will deliberate and reach a decision once a motion has been made and a vote
taken.
• The board will do their best not to use acronyms or jargon.
• He will begin each new item with a description of the development type being
considered.
Agenda Review
CDNS Director Laurie Kadrich reviewed the agenda.
ATTACHMENT 4
Citizen participation:
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Current, said over time he’s noticed that many individuals who
speak during public input do not restrict their comments to areas to which the board has purview
– Land Use Code (LUC). He said many times the public’s remarks pertain to eminent domain,
social, economic or environment components on which the board does not have purview.
Additionally, he said there’s some sensitivity from himself and others in the community relative
to prohibitions on speaking to their elected representatives (City Council) on issues that relate to
the Land Use Code process because the decision that the board or hearing office might make is
appealable to the City Council. He sees no legal justification for that policy and thinks it goes
against the intent of our entire democratic process. He thinks people should be well advised as
to the purview of this board so they can specifically address the elements on which the board
makes their decisions.
Consent Agenda:
1. Minutes from the February 7, 2013 Special Hearing and the February 21, 2013 Hearing
2. Addition to the Land Use Code – Section 2.2.10(D), Parkway Landscaping Amendments
3. Waterglen PUD Self Storage Extension of Final Plan - #71-93D
Member Campana made a motion to approve the consent agenda which consists of the
Minutes of the February 7, 2013 Special Hearing and the February 21, 2013 Hearing, the
Addition to the Land Use Code – Section 2.2.10(D), Parkway Landscaping Amendments,
and the Waterglen PUD Self Storage Extension of Final Plan - #71-93D. Member
Kirkpatrick seconded the motion. The motion passed 6:0.
Discussion Agenda:
4. 2013 Revisions, Clarifications and Additions of the Land Use Code – Division 3, 4 and 5
– Urban Agriculture
5. Carriage House Apartments Project Development Plan, #PDP120035
6. Remington Row Project Development Plan, #PDP110017
_______
Project: 2013 Revisions, Clarifications and Additions of the Land Use Code –
Division 3, 4 and 5 – Urban Agriculture
Project Description: This request is for a recommendation to City Council to update the Land
Use Code so it:
1. Establishes an urban agriculture licensing system that addresses
neighborhood compatibility concerns raised during the outreach
process instead of requiring urban gardens to go through a full
development review process;
2. Allows farmers markets in more zone districts in the City;
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Board make a formal
recommendation for adoption of the Land Use Code changes related to
urban agriculture
ATTACHMENT 4
Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence
Senior Environmental Planner Lindsay Ex said urban agriculture is the food production and
distribution in the urban environment and includes community gardens, farms, farmers markets,
and animals. This project addresses one (policy barriers) of many local issues - Land Use and
Municipal Code Regulations
Land Use Code (LUC) only allows urban agriculture practices in four of the twenty-five zone
districts as a principal use: Agricultural activities – River Conservation and Public Open Lands
and Farm animals – River Conservation, Residential Foothills, and Urban Estate. The project
goal is to ensure the LUC supports the community’s desires in relation to urban agriculture
practices both when and where appropriate. Ex described the public outreach process (focus
groups, boards and commissions, Chamber Legislative Affairs Committee, on-line survey (611
responses) and public open house (95 attendees). It is by those means they learned that the
community supports (while addressing compatibility issues such as traffic, noise, odor, and
parking):
Allowing urban gardens in more zones
Allowing farmers markets in more locations in the City
Allowing ducks, goats, and scale poultry based on lot size.
Staff recommends creating a licensing system that allows urban agriculture in all zone districts.
After conferring with the board at work session they suggest a one year grace period which
would allow existing producers to be licensed at no additional cost. It encourages early
dialogue and a commitment to best practices. It allows for tracking of licenses. A development
review process would not be required.
Ex said staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Board make a formal recommendation
for adoption of the Land Use Code changes related to urban agriculture, with the following
condition:
• The City Manager allows a twelve month grace period for all existing urban agriculture
land uses to be permitted allowing existing urban agricultural land uses to be permitted
at no cost.
Ex also recommends draft ordinance reference LUC Section 3.8.31(C) (2) (b) Parking be
revised to delete “all”. It would read “Urban agriculture land uses shall provide additional off-
street vehicular and bicycle parking areas adequate to accommodate all parking demands
created by the use.”
Public Input
Dennis Stenson, 2820 W. Elizabeth, said he and his wife started Happy Heart Farm 30 years
ago. He said they started Colorado’s first CSA (Community Supporting Agriculture) project.
There are now 35 CSA and community gardens in Fort Collins so it indicates how the
community has supported agriculture over the past 30 years. He said agriculture (with Colorado
State University) is definitely a part of our heritage. He said moving forward we’re looking at a
city government that would like to be included in that ‘hero’ story in Northern Colorado of going
back to the future and getting people engaged in the process of growing and distributing food in
a local area. He asked that the existing projects be given the ‘grandfathering’ they need to keep
doing the good job they’ve been doing.
ATTACHMENT 4
Brigitte Schmidt, 932 Inverness, said she supports the proposal and wanted to say staff has
done a fantastic job. She said when reading through the proposed ordinance she found in
Section C.2 (b) that it said accommodate all parking. She said she doesn’t think we’ve ever
required anything else to accommodate all parking and that would be unfair. She’s happy to see
staff supports the idea of eliminating ‘all’ and asked the board to consider making that change.
Elizabeth Joyce, 711 Laporte Avenue, said she’s generally supportive of the agriculture
proposal as it pertains to the gardens and farmers market but she does have some concerns
about expanding the livestock allowed in the city. She thinks there are too many conflicting
issues about competing neighbor interests – sanitation, health, and animal welfare issues. She
has concerns related to code enforcement; she wonders in some cases if it’ll have lower priority
with demands/available resources. She supports scaling the number of chickens if
consideration is given to smaller lots so there is minimal impact on the neighborhood. She
asked how the increased numbers of goats that come from pregnancy are handled and if the
anti-slaughter provision for chickens applies to goats.
Chuck Cotherman, 516 Villanova Ct, said he runs the Mulberry Community Gardens. He said
beyond food production they are educationally focused. He hopes the board adopts staff’s
recommendation – get back to where our food comes from.
Michael Baute, 2825 S. Taft Hill Road, said together with Megan Williams they manage Spring
Kite Farm. Luckily they are in one of the 3 zones that allow them. He supports the
grandfathering of existing operations as well as the removal of “all” as relates to parking. He
said land values are incredibly high and there are few who want to do the work. There needs to
be a reevaluation of the disparity between access to land and water (e.g. competition for water
for sod). He’d like to support what’s happening here and congratulate everyone for being a part
of it.
Trevor Shores, 2201 Creekwood Drive, is an apprentice at Happy Heart Farms. As a
prospective farmer, he does agree with many of the proposals. He’d encourage the city to try
and find a way to make it more attractive to people who want to farm. If he has to buy a permit
on top of the costs of seed, tractor, land, and water; capital he might have will run out. He
believes Fort Collins wants to be more food secure and this is a very nice first step.
End of Public Input
Staff Response
Staff member Lindsay Ex said most of the regulations are around synthetic chemicals in
fertilizer. No urban agriculture land user would be able to use those types of synthetic
chemicals in a natural habitat buffer zone. Ex said there are provisions in the Municipal Code
ordinance that is not yet available for public review. She can speak to it in generalities. She
said the regulations allow the kids to remain with the does for 12 weeks after they’re born so
they can be nursed. At that point they would need to be sold or given away. Ex said the
prohibition of slaughter of goats is the same as for the chickens.
Bill Porter of Larimer Humane Society said they support the increase of the number of chickens
based on the size of the land. He said since the adoptions of the ‘chicken ordinance’ there have
ATTACHMENT 4
been 76 complaints and 1 citation. He said it’s pretty much been a non-issue for the Humane
Society. He said the chickens must be in an enclosure and allowed outside during daylight
hours. At night they must be placed inside the enclosure to protect them from predators. The
coop is defined as an indoor/outdoor coop 15 feet from the adjacent property line.
Member Hart asked about setbacks for goats. Ex said it’s also 15 feet – similar to Denver and
Steamboat Springs and that it seems to be working for them.
Member Heinz asked about the urban agriculture license. Ex said the licenses are for the farms
or the gardens that are the principle uses on a lot. It will be coordinated by Planning Services.
Animal licenses are coordinated by Animal Control. Ex said concerns they heard through public
outreach were related to traffic and odor (compost piles) – she outlined proposed provisions as
relates to farms or gardens that are principal use for the Land Use Code and other provisions
related to the Municipal Code (which are the purview of City Council).
Member Campana asked if there is a requirement for a manure or compost management plan.
Ex said with licensing they would provide an overall plan on how they would handle that. She
said they did not hear concerns related to manure so they did not include a specific standard for
that. If it’s going to be in an area with higher density, they could discuss that issue. He’d
recommend the distribution of information related a manure management to raise awareness at
the Development Review Center front counter.
Member Heinz asked what was meant by ‘grandfathering’ as noted in public comment.
Community member Stenson said his concerns related to the already established farms and
how Planning Services (whose orientation may primarily have been other types of development)
would address an application for an existing or a new farm. He’s hoping existing operations
would be granted a ‘pass’. Member Hart asked if Mr. Stenson was aware of Colorado’s Right to
Farm provision. He was not. Staff member Ex said the licensing process is fairly benign. It’s
more about having the dialogue about the regulations that apply to those types of uses. She
thinks having the 12 month grace period with no cost will also help that.
Member Carpenter said many of the Home Owners Associations have regulations against
animals and she’s assuming this is not going to change any of that. Ex said correct.
Member Campana said he likes the idea of no cost to get the farms licensed. He said he
assumes the farms that exist today within the city are in zone districts that allow them. He
thinks what’s proposed will clean things up -- requiring farms to come in for licenses and to have
the dialogue with staff especially if there are any non-conforming uses.
Member Heinz said she likes the implementation of transparency of growing practices.
Member Heinz made a motion for the Planning and Zoning board to recommend to City
Council the adoption of Revisions, Clarifications and Additions of the Land Use Code –
Division 3, 4 and 5 – Urban Agriculture including the condition of the 12 month grace
period and the change related to deleting ‘all’ as relates to parking. Member Campana
seconded the motion.
Member Campana said great work. Member Heinz agreed.
ATTACHMENT 4
Member Smith said he’d like to see us continue this trend. He thinks this is a very important
element of our community from an economic, social and ecological standpoint.
The motion passed 6:0
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 6
Full Survey Results available at fcgov.com/urbanagriculture
ATTACHMENT 6
Full Survey Results available at fcgov.com/urbanagriculture
Open House Feedback1
Topic Area: Presentation and Overall Comments
Is a home occupation license required if selling at a second location? When does a home occupation
license apply?
Staff Response: After the open house, staff has removed all references to a home occupation license, as
the Land Use Code already allows for the cultivation, storage and sale of crops, vegetables, plants and
flowers produced on the premises. Thus, a home occupation license will not be required if citizens wish
to sell produce from their home, though a sales tax license is still required.
Please look into allowing hogs, sheep, milking cows and increasing the number of animal allowed
Staff response: We are still researching the questions surrounding hoop houses and scaling the number
of farm animals allowed based on lot size, but these issues may need to be addressed in a phase two of
proposed changes. But, we do know that these issues are concerns, and we will highlight them during
the upcoming hearings.
Would the terminology of registration (instead of licensing) be more palatable?
Staff response: The use of licensing for urban agriculture in the City would be consistent with the
existing Land Use Code. In addition, as staff is proposing specific standards associated with urban
agriculture land uses, the term licensing indicates that the applicants (gardeners and farmers) agree to
adhere to those standards, just as with a driver’s license where you agree to obey the speed limit, etc.
Is $100 too much for the license?
Staff response: Staff is proposing a six-month grace period, which would allow all existing urban
agriculture land uses to be “grandfathered” into the City. This will also give staff the opportunity to
evaluate how much time it takes to process an urban agriculture license, e.g,. if the time it takes is 4
hours, then the cost will be approximately $100 (or $25/hour), but if the time is less, then so will the
cost.
Increase the minimum chicken limit to 8 and increase the number threshold based on size of lot
Staff response: Based on the feedback from the open house, staff is now proposing that lots less than ½
acre be allowed up to 8 chickens. For lots between ½ and 1 acre, up to 12 chickens would be allowed.
Over 1 acre, an additional 6 chickens would be allowed per ½ acre, but residents wishing for more than
12 chickens will also be required to contact their abutting property owners prior to receiving a license,
to ensure that neighbor concerns are addressed.
What takes precedence if there is a conflict with HOA rules?
Staff response: When Council adopted the Chicken ordinance in 2008 (Ordinance No. 72, 2008), Council
did not vote to override Homeowners Associations if the HOAs chose to exclude chickens from the lands
1 Staff Note: This comments were captured both verbally, during the presentation, and from the
feedback cards from the open house. If we’ve incorrectly captured any of your feedback or missed any
feedback, please contact Lindsay Ex at lex@fcgov.com or 970.224.6143 to fix these errors or emissions.
ATTACHMENT 7
Open House Feedback1
governed by that HOA.
In this vein, staff is currently proposing that any ordinances adopted would not override existing HOA
rules. This means that HOAs can enforce their covenants regarding urban agriculture and choose not to
allow front yard gardens, chickens or other animals, etc. However, it should be noted that the City
adopted a Resource Conservation Ordinance in 2003 that does not allow HOAs to restrict conservation
efforts such as clotheslines (located in back yards), odor-controlled compost bins, xeriscape landscaping,
solar/photo-voltaic collectors (mounted flush upon the roof), or require that a portion of a lot be
planted in turf grass.
Urban agriculture should be specified in zoning
Staff response: These proposed changes would allow urban agriculture in all zone districts, subject to the
licensing requirements.
Please examine water resources and their needs for larger food system issues
Staff response: This is a larger issue than can be addressed by these code changes, but staff also
understands that there is a larger effort underway to address these concerns.
Water resources efforts/prioritization should be used to support food production rather than lawn
watering
Staff response: See response above.
What requires a building permit? Do farming structures or greenhouses require a building permit?
Examine the wind load, snow loading, etc. for greenhouses
Staff response: A building permit is required when a building exceeds 120 square feet or 8 feet in height.
Yes, farming structures and greenhouses require a building permit. Staff has initiated discussions with
the Building Department regarding these concerns and will continue to research if these requested
changes are feasible. Please contact the Building Department at 970.221.6760 with specific questions.
Please examine mosquito spraying: concerns over the health of produce and who is contracted to
spray and their requirements
Staff response: This is a larger issue than can be addressed by these code changes. Staff would suggest
contacting Parks staff with these questions (phone number is 970.221.6660).
What are the different standards between a community garden and market garden versus a farm?
What distinguishes one from another?
Staff response: All community gardens, market gardens and farms acting as a principal use on the land
will be regulated under the urban agriculture licenses. The key issue is whether or not the garden or
farm is the main use on the property; if it is, a license will be required under the current proposal. For
example, one church member asked if their community garden required an urban agriculture license.
Because the community garden is clearly subordinate to the church, an urban agriculture license is not
required. Staff is also working on a graphic to depict these differences for increased clarity.
ATTACHMENT 7
Open House Feedback1
Topic Area: Gardens and Farms
Water allocation and priority over other city needs - sod farming, construction - is a huge concern
now. Without consideration there will be no local food to offer to the community.
Staff response: See similar responses above.
Water concern: In cases of drought and City curtailment of lawn watering, could market
gardens/farms apply for an exemption?
Staff response: Staff has contacted our Water Conservation Coordinators regarding this question, and
the restrictions on no watering between 10 am and 6 pm only apply to turf. Thus, urban gardens and
farms will not be restricted in the same way residents are. Please note that we are putting into our
standards for urban agriculture licenses that farmers should minimize their water usage during 10 am
and 6 pm, from a conservation perspective, but we also understand sometimes this is the best time to
water your crops, e.g., in establishing new plants or reviving ones that are not thriving.
I would make this (the neighborhood meeting) optional, in other words, make the meeting contingent
upon neighbors' requests for a meeting.
Staff response: A neighborhood meeting is proposed to be at the discretion of the Director and would be
required if compatibility issues with surrounding neighbors were of concern. For example, one farmer
indicated they are on a 4-acre lot and the surrounding lots are either vacant or also farmed; it is unlikely
a neighborhood meeting will be required. However, if a new urban agriculture land use were proposed
in the middle of existing neighborhood, a neighborhood meeting could be required.
Do not create licensing hassle, as it will discourage gardeners/farmers from both starting gardens and
complying with City standards
Staff response: The licensing system is meant to be a middle ground between no regulations, which
would not address the concerns raised in the public outreach process, and the full development review
process, which would trigger infrastructure improvements. The standards proposed include best
practices that many existing farms are already following and are not meant to be a hassle but instead a
way to ensure compatibility with the land uses surrounding the urban agriculture land use.
To promote urban ag, do NOT spray over community with pesticides (mosquito spraying)
Staff response: See similar response above.
Allow structures for year round growing
Staff response: See similar response above.
Instead of a license why not land stewardship classes?
Staff response: See similar response above.
Associated cost is a barrier to low-income families/neighborhoods
Staff response: Staff will work with the Economic Health Department to see if these barriers can be
overcome; this is most likely to be addressed after the proposed regulations go to City Council for first
and second reading.
ATTACHMENT 7
Open House Feedback1
This is fine. Most market farmers already do this and we need to be part of a city (license). The
hoophouse limitations are extremely prohibitive. Why not require a notice of warning with any type
structure, like we have with horses?
Staff response: Thank you for your feedback. Please see the response above related to hoop houses and
green houses.
Attempting to provide local sustainable food for the community will potentially be negatively affected
by restrictions and limitations. A licensing fee, plus permits, supplies, labor, time, water, etc. only
makes this less of a possibility for many families and individuals who see "farming" as their only
option to providing food for themselves and others in their community.
Staff response: See similar responses above.
Grandfather in all existing farms as an urban agriculture space
Staff response: Staff is proposing a six-month grace period, which would allow all existing urban
agriculture land uses to be “grandfathered” into the City.
Promotes support & buy-in from neighbors
Staff response: Thank you for your feedback.
Urban Gardens in existence before 2007? Should be grandfathered (exempt from licensing)
Staff response: Staff is proposing a six-month grace period, which would allow all existing urban
agriculture land uses to be “grandfathered” into the City.
Mandate/encourage bicycle parking with urban agriculture - take holistic environmental approach
Staff response: Thank you for this feedback. Staff can work on adding this concern to the proposed code
changes.
No licensing or review for growing food
Staff response: See similar response above.
Greatly approve of reducing the licensing process and expenses of new urban ag projects, if this is the
intent of licensing versus development review. Existing projects would benefit from grandfathering or
grace period spoken of
Staff response: Staff is proposing a six-month grace period, which would allow all existing urban
agriculture land uses to be “grandfathered” into the City.
On a smaller scale farm/garden especially in a urban area, food safety should be a concern. Outside
chemicals impact food safety. What is the current safety regulations around this already?
Staff response: Staff would encourage residents to contact the Larimer County Health Department
regarding food safety concerns, as their department manages food safety at the local level. They can be
reached at 970.498.6775.
Encourage gardeners to bike & walk by not providing parking
Staff response: Thank you for this feedback. Staff can work on adding this concern to the proposed code
changes
ATTACHMENT 7
Open House Feedback1
I am for making neighbors reasonably comfortable and urban ag for everyone. I am against increasing
fees and legislative burden on producers. Neighborhood meetings seem like a positive way to create
dialogue and improve neighborly buy-in.
Staff response: Thank you for this feedback.
The needs of low-income families and the working poor need to be better represented. I realize the
City needs to recoup costs, but we also have a moral obligation to the poor. Can't we find the funds in
licensing from someplace else?
Staff response: Staff will work with the Economic Health Department to see if these barriers can be
overcome; this is most likely to be addressed after the proposed regulations go to City Council for first
and second reading.
What is your point? --Playing? --Really developing sustainable food strategies? --Allowing people to
support themselves?
Staff response: The intent of the code changes is to ensure that the Land Use Code is in alignment with
City Plan (that has policy and principle statements regarding the support of local food production) both
when and where appropriate.
Only certain or no chemicals should be allowed
Staff response: Staff is proposing that if a garden or farm uses synthetic pesticides or chemicals, that the
type of chemical and frequency of application shall be placed on the garden sign, so that residents may
be aware of any spraying that may occur.
Why is "urban farm" not a category here? Not all persons growing for sale in the City are taking food
to market. CSAs are not markets.
Staff response: Thank you for your feedback. Staff has amended the categories to include community
gardens, market gardens, CSAs, etc. under the one category of urban agriculture.
CSA doesn't turn a profit, keeps day job -- where does that fall in?
Staff response: If the CSA is a principal use on the land, then a license would be required. Whether or
not the owner has a day job is not considered.
If other HOA overrides (clothes line, xeriscaping, etc.) are largely centered around the freedom to
practice sustainability, this should not be subject to HOA rules. As stated in the comprehensive plan,
it is the City's responsibility to actively encourage sustainable practices
Staff response: See similar responses above.
ATTACHMENT 7
Open House Feedback1
Topic Area: Animals
There are many properties within the city limits that are greater than 1/4 acre that should have the
ability to be more like a farm than just a backyard garden. What if a family wants to feed themselves
with eggs but would also like to raise broilers and have more than enough space? Also, more animals
should be able to be on the land like pigs, sheep, alpacas, etc.
Staff response: Based on the feedback from the open house, staff is now proposing that lots less than ½
acre be allowed up to 8 chickens. For lots between ½ and 1 acre, up to 12 chickens would be allowed.
Over 1 acre, an additional 6 chickens would be allowed per ½ acre, but residents wishing for more than
12 chickens will also be required to contact their abutting property owners prior to receiving a license,
to ensure that neighbor concerns are addressed. Staff is still researching whether additional animals
being allowed in the City.
A pig is an extremely helpful animal for urban agriculture for "cleaning up" food waste and making it
productive. Please consider including hogs.
Staff response: Please see response above.
Land/acres or more should be addressed. We have 3 acres and can support much more than 12
chickens and 2 goats. We would like option to have other animals i.e. cow, sheep, pig, alpaca, llama,
donkey. Why only chickens and goats?
Staff response: Please see response above.
If this becomes subject to HOA rules, there will be few animals in residential HOA controlled areas.
City rules must overrule HOA
Staff response: Please see similar responses above.
I am pro regulating humane conditions for urban animals because they have no ability to speak for
themselves. I like the idea of urban animal licensing to again protect animals. I would like to see
more animals allowed for greater spaces. Also for dairy animals some checklist of basic safety
guidelines initialed and signed. Also eventually some nuisances (animal noises) will lead to a greater
acoustic environment
Staff response: Thank you for this feedback, and please see similar response above.
Excellent idea to register or license animals -- to decrease epidemics (ex: avian flu) important to know
where birds are located
Staff response: Thank you for this feedback.
Let’s scale farm animals per sq ft/acre all the way up past 1/2 acre as there are many pieces of
"farmland" in the city that have not been grandfathered in as a farm. Let’s include pigs, sheep cows.
Two miniature goats on an acre of weeds/pasture are not enough. This is an incredible time to really
make a great change. Let’s take an adult step, not a baby step.
Staff response: Thank you for this feedback, and please see similar response above.
ATTACHMENT 7
Open House Feedback1
There needs to be required workshops on poultry/goat care & nutrition
Staff response: Thank you for this feedback. The Larimer County Humane Society has
literature/educational materials regarding raising chickens; similar materials will be developed for the
other animals. In addition, staff has contacted the Sustainable Living Association to discuss the potential
for these workshops. Staff will continue to work with the community to ensure these resources are
provided.
Rather than talk about lot size (which has a house/garage/driveway on it too...) could recommend
coop and yard space be included in the concept?
Staff response: Coop size and yard space are also included. Basing the scaling on lot size is designed to
ensure compatibility with surrounding neighbors.
Will the license fee need annual renewal?
Staff response: An annual renewal is not proposed.
Take into consideration if they have other animals already - horses for example
Staff response: Thank you for this feedback, right now, the Municipal Code does not analyze animals
from a more holistic perspective such as this, as no problems have arisen that staff is aware of. If
problems or concerns arise, then additional standards can be proposed.
Chickens only require 4 square feet per bird. I would think more than 6 hens per 1/4 acre would be
reasonable
Staff response: Thank you for this feedback, see similar responses above for how the proposed code
changes have changed since the open house.
I have 14 extremely happy laying hens on 1/4 acre
Staff response: Please contact the Larimer County Humane Society to get back into compliance with the
City’s regulations.
Requiring licensing fees for goats will make them less accessible to low-income families, thereby
working against the intended benefits of urban agriculture.
Staff response: The licensing fees go directly to the Larimer County Humane Society, which handles the
enforcement of these regulations. As noted above, staff will continue to work with other City
Departments and organization to see how local food production for low-income families can be made
more accessible.
You need to allow more of land that is for farming and is not within a residential area; 6 in residential
area is okay.
Staff response: Thank you for this feedback, allowing more land for farming in the City is outside of the
scope of these code changes, but is being addressed in other efforts.
Should be a limit of 8 (not six) poultry on up to 1/4 acre. Six is not enough. Denver allows 8. More
than 1/2 acre limit should be much higher.
Staff response: Thank you for this feedback, and please see similar response above that addresses this
feedback.
ATTACHMENT 7
Open House Feedback1
What about more than 1/2 acre? You should consider the USDA requirement for animals that equate
1 cattle with so many pigs, etc. 12 Chickens do not equate to 1 horse (also allowed on 1/2 acres in
some areas)
Staff response: Thank you for this feedback, and please see similar response above that addresses this
feedback.
A milking cow can thrive very well on an acre of land
Staff response: Thank you for this feedback, and please see similar response above that addresses this
feedback.
ATTACHMENT 7
From: Barbara Wilson
To: Lindsay Ex
Subject: Fort Collins Land Use
Date: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 2:17:57 PM
Dear Lindsey Ex:
I am writing to you regarding Fort Collins Land Use and the changes currently under
discussion/consideration in Fort Collins.
First, as you will see by my return address, I am not a resident of Fort Collins and in
fact am not a resident of Colorado. I have, over the past several years, spent a fair
amount of time in Fort Collins as my daughter enrolled at CSU, graduated and
changed residency from PA to CO. I do have to admit, that although her father and
I are unhappy that she has not chosen to return "home" to PA, we too find much to
love about Ft Collins and the wonderful community to be found there.
While my daughter was living off campus and providing her own meals I became
aware of CSA's through my employment at Haverford College here in PA. Our
students had arranged with CSA's in Lancaster County, PA (Amish farm country) for
students and staff at my place of employment opportunity to purchase shares.
Good, chemical free, locally sourced food for the shareholder and support for local
small farms .. . .win/win. Which made me wonder if such a thing was nationwide
and perhaps in CO where I could connect my daughter locally with wholesome food
and allow her to meet people and form friendships so needed by a young woman far
from home. We found just such a place in Fort Collins, signed my daughter up for a
working share and she spent the last growing season working and forming
friendships at the Happy Heart Farm and obtaining wonderful produce which greatly
enhanced the quality of her diet. I was able to spend a morning harvesting and
meeting the folks Caitlin talked about during calls home and felt that she had in fact
found a community to which she felt connected. She has graduated from CSU,
found full time employment in town, has purchased park passes, is doing volunteer
work locally, attends a local church, and is really becoming an active member of the
Fort Collins community. She has renewed her membership at HHF for the coming
growing season and looks forward to both the produce and continued friendships
there.
I understand that people that live in community with one another must compromise,
adapt to changing needs, incorporate new technologies as community evolves. The
area I live in has little open space and we are to the point that even parking lots are
unavailable for local farmers markets due to lack of parking for local businesses.
Here in suburban Philadelphia an entire neighborhood was condemned for a new
highway but not until after decades of lawyers and courts. (The Blue Route in PA
was initially proposed in the 1920's and not opened until the 1990's although
construction began in the 60's.) What I would offer is that one should never
sacrifice wonderful elements of the community with a broad brush stroke. There are
definitely organizations/family farms/historic buildings worth preserving in their
original state. Grandfathering zoning and other provisions aimed at preserving
parks, farms, open spaces should be done thoughtfully, but should be done in any
and all cases possible.
I don't have a stake in the Fort Collins area Land Use decisions, but it will impact my
ATTACHMENT 8
daughter and her ability to enhance and maintain her newly formed connections to
her chosen new home. I would urge Fort Collins to look to other, more developed
communities and learn from their accomplishments and failures. While other areas
may not have the same challenges (you have a lack of water while we are now
required to incorporate water retention features and limit impervious surfaces on
residential properties due to storm water flooding) there is much in common and I
would counsel maintaining farms contained within the more urban areas of your
community with as little restriction to their operations as possible for the betterment
of the members who are enriched by their presence. Once lost, these treasures are
impossible to resurrect. They are part, along with your Old Town, parks and trails
and wonderful parking lot farmers markets what makes Fort Collins the place that
drew my daughter away from home.
In addition, having lived in a condominium community, I would add that I've
experienced folks joining a community and as opposed to valuing the elements of
the community structure, history and perhaps "idiosyncrasies" which make it unique,
immediately set out to change, limit, restrict that community which they chose to
join. If you are experiencing broken down tractors left to decay in fields, neglected
animals and use of toxic pesticides those are certainly reasons to legislate and
regulate behavior. If you have new members who have differing expectations but
clearly were aware of existing conditions when they joined a community, there
should be value and weight given to the needs of those who have been contributing
members of the community prior to their arrival. (We opted to leave our condo
community when the color of our draperies was regulated and we received a fine for
air drying pool towels on our own balcony.)
I would add that although my daughter is currently renting I would not be at all
surprised should she be in the market for a property in the not too distant future
where she would be able to keep a couple horses, have a chicken coop and perhaps
a goat and definitely a small garden. I do believe the fact that that would be
possible in Colorado where it would not be in the area in which she grew up was a
significant factor in her decision to live in your sunny state. By all means ensure the
safety of both residents and animals and insist upon reasonable maintenance
standards of community and personal gardens! Please also do all that you can to
support those who are operating in a responsible manner so that they are allowed to
continue using their properties for gardening and farming according to their current
practices.
Thank you for letting me add my voice.
With best regards,
Barbara Wilson
606 Upper Gulph Road
Strafford, PA 19087
ATTACHMENT 8
From: Laurie Rochardt
To: Lindsay Ex
Subject: Letter Regarding Proposed Urban Ag Land Use Code Changes
Date: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 10:34:05 PM
Dear Ms. Lindsey Ex:
I am writing today regarding the proposed Urban Agriculture changes in Fort Collins.
Firstly, thank you for being the contact person on these proposed changes, listening to our
viewpoints, being prompt on responses and in general being open to feedback on these
changes! I am hoping that you can forward and/or share this letter to the appropriate parties
including the other planning members and city council members for the meeting this
Thursday February 21, 2013, and again this is greatly appreciated.
As I review the proposed agriculture changes, I am grateful that this conversation has begun
and changes being proposed/made, as urban agriculture is an important part of our
community in Fort Collins as a whole. There are many urban farms in and on the outskirts
of the city that make up a large part of the culture of Fort Collins, and I think personally it’s
one of the major factors that makes our city so unique! The community, networking, and the
comradery among the farmers here, not to mention the passion, sweat, and justice
represented, is remarkable and something to be commended!
A year ago I went to Happy Heart Farm, a local CSA, to look for an apprenticeship so that I
could learn how to farm. It’s part of my larger vision that I start an urban CSA, and I had
only heard good things about Happy Heart so that’s why I chose to go there to learn. Little
would I come to find out that Happy Heart Farm is so much more than a farm per se, but a
place for sharing and promoting stories, art, music, joy, gratitude, love, food, passion for
health and education, personal growth, a supportive and growing community, and gaining a
sense of “belonging” or as Dennis Stenson calls it a “welcoming home”. I am truly grateful
that I found Happy Heart and all people involved including the farmers, apprentices,
members, neighbors, and countless others. After apprenticing and volunteering for the farm,
being involved with fundraisers that directly support feeding families who are in need of
food, and building community and countless friendships through the farm, it has been an
invaluable experience, much more than “learning how to farm”. This is what I envision for
our future, humanity’s future. This is how we truly take care of one another! This is how we
live from our heart space, in service, gratitude, kindness, compassion, and love! In fact, being
a part of this community of people has completely changed my experience in Fort Collins for
the positive!
After attending the meeting on January 31st
and reviewing the proposed changes it was only
natural to be excited and concerned with these changes.
While I appreciate the proposed changes, I think that there are some major issues
unaddressed for these farms. The first unaddressed issue is the lack of protecting the current
farms that are already in business and serving the community. One of the proposed changes
relates to existing farms go through a licensing process so that they can be grandfathered in
without fees, however they would have to go through a licensing process in order to achieve
that status. While the proposed “licensing process” is pretty vague, and unsure of how it
differs with the traditional development review process, this process seems to not have the
ATTACHMENT 8
farmers in mind first. Having to do extra paperwork and for farmers not grandfathered in,
having to pay extra fees, may be a burden on the farmers involved, especially for not-for-
profit run farms.
In addition, I believe there are larger and more important issues that should be addressed
more rapidly such as water usage, availability, and conservation (imperative for farming and
growing food); allowing for growing structures such as greenhouses and hoop houses for
season extension and greater growing efficiency (especially since growing season for these
structures is currently underway and supports a large part of the main growing season by
providing a place to start transplants and a place for growing food to share with members
earlier than the traditional growing season); and animal interfaces for farms that have already
been established and wish to grow their farm to include farm animals with the support of
surrounding community members (providing more food options to the community than a
traditional vegetable share such as milk, meat, and eggs). I think these pressing issues need
to be addressed as soon as possible to allow for the peace of mind that farms/farmers are
supported, and for the progress of urban agriculture in Fort Collins altogether.
Again I just wanted to express my gratitude for bringing the issues of urban agriculture to the
“table” so that effective change can happen in our city! I am optimistic that we can make the
necessary changes to allow for farming to grow and progress in Fort Collins so that everyone
may benefit from the healthy food being grown locally!
Thank you for your time and reviewing my letter!
Sincerely,
Laurie Rochardt
Citizen of Fort Collins, Colorado :)
ATTACHMENT 8
From: vanette starr
To: Lindsay Ex
Subject: please read liz...for urban organic farming and other issues to protect colorado and fort collins!!!
Date: Thursday, February 14, 2013 10:38:04 AM
Vanette L Starr
3200 Stanford #B107
Fort Collins, CO 80525
970-309=4534
City and County of Fort Collins CO
Attention LIZ
RE: Zoning for Urban Agricultural Land Use Code and Organic Farming with Happy Heart
Farms.
I thank you for the opportunity to speak up about my experience with the “Feeding the
Families Program” and assisting in the growth and support to the Happy Hearts Farm
Family! Because Dennis and Baylee Stenson had truly taken me in, when I was beaten and
down, and almost instantly, warmly welcomed me into the HHF family; I am now on the
road to physically healing as well as feeling like I am part of something much bigger than I
have ever been, before…and that’s the truth. I spent many years gaining education to enjoy a
career in Interior Design, and had hoped that I would have a family there…but it ended up
being just like everything else in our society, a way to make a living and working for a big
corporation, who rarely recognized me for more than the number my social security #, and
the work I provided for them.
Here at the Farm, I’ve been so fortunate to find the kind of experience that is only imaginable
and ONLY available, because of the vision of some very hard working and compassionate
individuals, starting over 25 years ago! This family of wonder and light, I’ve found in this
magic healing place, has been in the making for many years, which we now call Happy
Hearts Farm.
Not only do we, as participants and co-growers, get to learn how to assist the plants as they
are hand seeded, cultivated, replanted in the earth, nurtured and the crops hand weeded and
finally, gently, harvested. All the while bio-dynamically fed, these crops are kept healthy
and hardy without the use of harsh chemicals, found in more traditional agro American
farming, which were killing me, because I no longer had the healthy metabolic system to be
able to break down those horrific “growth” chemicals that are found in commercially grown
foods, any longer.
It’s almost as if, we as consumers, have been saying to the commercial non organic growers,
that it was okay to poison us with the “new” 20th
century farming, thereby receiving an
“agent orange affect” right here in our own lands and without any reasoning due to any war,
what so ever, just by consuming the poisoned vegetation, which came from our fully
developed 1st world country? We can no longer continue to raise our food and consume it,
in such a barbaric manor and hope to survive…we have been allowing our current food
industry to poison us…slowly for most, but much quicker, for those who were compromised
from birth with metabolic disorders or digestive dysfunction, in the first place.
ATTACHMENT 8
Dennis and Baylee, of Happy Hearts Farm, along with their 12 other community co-operative
farmers, who work together to make each season’s growth cycle, collectively, something far
more than just the food the farm delivers, but has the added benefit of healing our bodies,
minds and spirits, through food that is grown RIGHTLY, in the first place, as well as creating
a sense of community, pride and togetherness! We have also cultivated a sense of innate
compassion for one another, and empathy for those, who also need nurturing, support and
healing, by welcoming others in with open arms! As we continue to grow in size and in our
community presence, we too also need to get out every year and make a drive for those who
are still not eating well, and who have family members that are sick from the poisons that are
found in the regular stores food choices, and to offer education of the difference between the
food that’s offered in the grocery stores versus the food that’s grown and infused with love
and grace.
Through our education program, Dennis and Baylee have shown so many grade schoolers,
graduate students or CSU agro-graduate scholars, city volunteers, and those who are part of
the Feeding the Families Program, like myself, to become a part of something that is so much
bigger than the sum of its parts! Out whole, which is greater than its sum of the parts is a
shining example for many other communities around the world, as we are treating our planet
with respect and love, as well as believing in ourselves in knowing we deserve so much more
than what we were putting in our bodies, prior to being educated at HHF’s!
This farm has become and proven there is a new way to live, grow and commune with the
earth, together, collectively, a new way to truly enjoy and celebrate life together, by
partnering with one another towards a stronger force than we ever thought possible! To our
amazement, I/We are remembering how to nurture the Earth, the end users and the
community, itself, by gleaning a whole new “old school” way. We are re-remembering how
to treat our food, our land and ourselves with a whole new respect, so that what we put in
our food, becomes the love and respect, we put into the bodies!
So, we truly have learned, we are what we eat, after all!!!! Since we are treating our Earth,
our plants, our community with respect, we are able to give others the same gift, thereby
paying it forward. I’ve always loved that concept and have used it in many ways, in my life,
but never more than here, at the Farm. With great gratitude, we also get to help nurture and
assist the owners and their family, our community neighbors and the added benefit is that we
have, now, come to know complete strangers we might never have met, as our close friends,
our family at Happy Heart, through this beautiful program and it’s wonderful example of a
way to live!
As for my personal story, I had become a “disabled person” living off the social welfare and
social security system, five years ago, as a “special reward” (*just add sarcasm*) for eating
and living the filthy American Agrarian way to feed; the food was and is littered with
synthetic and dangerous pesticides, herbicides, DDT’s, and worst of all petroleum products,
which predictable destroy all of our endocrine systems; and all the other chemicals, which we
now know to destroy our nervous systems, the delicate balance of our endocrine systems and
our digestive systems, yet, is so critical to keeping our bodies alive, healthy and well.
Yes, while that “NEW INDUSTRIALIZED SYTEM of Agriculture” (*more sarcasm
necessary, here*), made our farmers wealthier, and initially, gained our country notoriety.
For a while, with ideas which started out as “animal husbandry” and soon became
ATTACHMENT 8
mainstream agricultural practice of late, which systematically destroying soil, then moving
onto another patch to deplete and destroy the next patch of land…year after year…decade
after decade, we believed that the almighty dollar was not only driving the economy but
“helping feed the hungry”.
In the end, and perhaps to our own detriment, at this time, we have now learned that doing it
the easy and quick way, has only raised the rates of disease, higher, and caused damage to
our Mother Earth, which may be healed over time, but it will take a whole lot of villages, like
that of Fort Collins and the protection it provides for our organic community gardening, to
stand up and say, “lets to do the right things, in raising our food and care for our land and
our people, despite the fact that initially it may cost us more time, resources, etc..!”
We are the stewards of this land and its seeds, and we have allowed the Monsanto’s and
other organizations out to gorge themselves on all the money they can get their hands on, to
pervert what food should have been, to the detriment of all of us once healthy individuals, in
order to butcher anything that might have looked like a healthy living. However, over the last
ten years, I began to get sicker and sicker, first with what is now one of the most common
diagnosis, Fibromyalgia, but also secondary diabetes as well as metabolic disorders.
All of these illnesses are quickly on the rise, one has to ask, is this coming from the
contaminated water supplies and the agricultural lands, which we were entrusted to take care
of? My illness started out with headaches and what appeared to show up as allergic reactions
to unknown sources of something, though with every test, nothing specific could be found.
That was because they were testing for naturally occurring resources, rather than
contaminated foods, chemicals in the food sources and water, and the air that was being
sprayed every single season with horrible chemicals we would never just spray directly on
our food, yet, farmers were told to do so, and that it was safe, for decades!
Since I have been a recipient of the Feeding the Family Program, for the last three summers,
I can truly say, I’ve not only felt I’ve been a part of a real dream, something that resembles
true passion for healing, and felt the desire of making these dreams come true; even better, I
have been able to heal my own body from decades of abuse with the hidden chemicals in the
foods and water, we were told were safe, and it wouldn’t have been possible without HHF,
and their vision and desire to educate and change how things are done, at the local level.
Because I was so very ill, in fact almost paralyzed, and my ability to think was vastly limited,
and I just so happened to run into Happy Heart’s organization program grant writer, Claudia
Demarco, back in 2009, I was educated about how the program was going to work once it
was up and running, how the dynamic growing of the vegetation is produced without
chemicals, herbicides and pesticides, and so on…I was so thrilled to find a true farm home
without chemicals on their food, that I knew was killing me, I began to tell everyone I knew!
I was amazed that I could pick up such high quality, truly naturally grown and veggies that
were painstakingly grown the right way from seedling to harvest and that my body had
begun to realize an own amazing healing!
I was so ill when I began eating these perfectly nurtured and hand grown food products, that
I couldn’t even keep my food down, little lone, have the ability to cook a small meal for
myself; I was somewhat paralyzed and or too weak to do so. So, I truly started with putting
all the veggies and fruits into a blender and adding other healthy foods, so that I could get the
natural enzymes as well as the vitamin and minerals, that my body desperately needed. That
ATTACHMENT 8
was the only way I could keep the food down. This inability to keep my food down was due
to all the years of devastating chemicals found on the foods, so called “whole foods”, at the
regular grocery stores.
After just three, five months per year of each growing season, I have gone from being
partially paralyzed, having a hard time staying awake, problems with neuro functions, issues
with my endocrine system, problems with thinking clearly, and so on… I was unable to
function for more than a day or two in a row, without having to go back to bed for several
days, at a time! I am now able to say, with great pride and gratitude that this wonderful
quality organic food that Happy Hearts Farms puts out, I am now feeling healthier and more
able to be part of this world again. I can trust in the fact that we aren’t cutting corners at
Happy Hearts Farms, since I’ve actually gotten on my hands and knees to become part of the
soil and the seedlings, putting them in the ground, watching them grow and mature, and
taking pride in the little that I was able to do for the Farm, myself!
Because there are so many other like minded growers in the Fort Collins area, Happy Hearts
Farms have started a co-operative of Healthy Happy Organic Growers, who also offer their
foods at such a wonderful price, well as for me and my family, we cant afford to not eat these
carefully dynamically and organically grown herbs, veggies, fruits, and other amazing foods!
Fort Collins and neighboring towns, have been so fortunate to be able to fill our digestive
systems with the highest quality nutritional foods, as well as enjoy some of the best
community shared events, together, that I believe we and other communities like Fort Collins
should count themselves so fortunate, every day! We need the backing and protection of the
city counsel and all of Fort Collin’s constituents to provide legislation and zoning, so that the
direction of what HHF and many other farms like them have started, can continue to grow.
I’ve also gotten to become part of other projects related to the farm, such as raising funds for
the Feed the Family Project, and offer my own special gifts for those like myself or those
who couldn’t other wise afford the highest of quality SYNERGISTICALY GROWN
VEGETATION through the use of age old farming techniques with a new technological twist
in order to see to it that many of the Less Privileged and/or Disabled individuals, like myself,
might have the chance to be a part of a wonderful organic community farming family.
I feel as if I should pay my physically gained wealth of health forward, so that others may
experience the healing and growth, as well as the education and support that is offered here
at the Farm. When I was too sick and too ill to pick up my foods, I’ve inevitably found a
wonderful soul, at the farms, who was able to pay it forward to me, when I was in need, and I
try to do the same, as I get healthier and healthier! I’m not completely out of the woods with
my health challenges, since it took so many years of poor eating and drinking habits to get
me here, it will likely take years to get my body fully healthy again, but I am counting my
blessing for now. Also, I’ve felt honored to be able to assist in the annual raising funds that
goes on at HHF’s, in order to keep this operation, of this magnitude, going year after year; I
enjoy doing the marketing on behalf of the many of the events and projects that impassioned
owners, Dennis and Baylee offer, year round. With these opportunities, I find my gratitude
growing, as well.
I simply ask that the City of Fort Collins, continues to offer small farm organizations like this
one at HHF, that are trying to keep their foods clean and pesticide free, as well as share their
education of how to do this kind of farming with the rest of the community, without any
encumbrances from big corps and big business to get in their way. We should always
ATTACHMENT 8
consider what the course of our actions will have in the long run, including the actions of the
City of Fort Collins on small organic farms and families who want to grow their own organic
foods in their own small lots, without encumbrances of pollution and ground water
contamination. Please consider this, as you have the opportunities to pass on the Fracking
opportunities, that are all the sudden arising right around our own city…the poisons that
come off those systems alone and into our ground waters, pose great health problems to our
own state, counties, and cities!
Please Read: http://www.endocrinedisruption.com/endocrine.introduction.overview.php
Thank you in advance for listening and reading to my opinion and story!
Vanette Starr
Vanette L Starr
970-308-4534
Email: vanettelstarr@yahoo.com
"Someday, after we have mastered the winds, the waves, the tides, and gravity, we shall harness for God the energies of
love. Then, for the second time in the history of the world, we will have discovered fire."
Teilhard de Chardin
"Love alone can unite living beings so as to complete and fulfill them... for it alone joins them by what is deepest
within themselves. All we need do is imagine our ability to love, developing it until it embraces the totality of men and
the earth."
Teilhard de Chardin
We are one, after all, you and I. Together we suffer, together exist, and forever will recreate each other.
Pierre Teilhard de Chardin
ATTACHMENT 8
From: Andrew Sachs
To: Lindsay Ex
Cc: dennisstenson@aol.com
Subject: Re: Urban Ag Update - Hearings Postponed
Date: Saturday, February 16, 2013 3:27:55 PM
Dear Lindsay,
Thank you for your efforts to amplify our sacred agriculture and
beloved farm community through municipal means. I see this as an
incredible opportunity to put Fort Collins on the map of communities
working towards resilience. The time is now for municipalities to step
up and recognize their responsibility to protect the last bastions of
hope for our world and our children. Without farms there is no food,
and without food we cannot grow and thrive. Protecting small farmers
from corporate agriculture is the most valuable action any city can
take to ensure the prosperity of future generations.
I moved to Fort Collins almost two years ago after graduating from
Prescott College in Prescott Arizona with degrees in both
Environmental Studies and Cultural and Regional Studies (similar to
cultural anthropology). My senior project work took place in East
Africa in a small village in Uganda. My goal was to share my education
and resources with rural villagers, and through consensus based
decision-making, engage in open-systems processing. This required us
to look at the bigger picture, to understand where we have been, where
we are now, and where we'd like to go. In a few short months we were
able to transform a five acre plot of largely mono-cropped bananas,
into a 35-plant permaculture site with integrated swales for water
retention, rainwater catchment for domestic use (a huge step for
women, as they were usually the ones traveling miles to fetch water),
composting areas, integrated goat, chicken, and cow management,
solar-electric phone charging, and a general store set up to sell
produce from the farm. After a year in Fort collins I travelled to
Uganda again to see the growth and prosperity of that initial capital
investment (no more than $2000) and community participation. I felt a
sense of community there that I had yet to feel in the states. I was
ready to leave the states for a long time. Then I found Happy Heart
Farm.
For the first time I have a sense of belonging in the United States.
Through my apprenticeship at Happy Heart, I have not only learned the
incredible value of medicinal quality food, but feel part of a
community that nurtures and supports my needs and desires. In short, I
now feel at home here, and a new world of possibilities is now at my
finger tips. I see a greater vision of happy heart and other farms in
this community becoming cultural bridges for people in other farms all
over the world to come and share resources and collaborate on a global
scale. If I could bring people from Uganda to the states, Happy Heart
is where I would bring them first. We truly have an opportunity here
to show ourselves and the world that we value community and health,
unlike the corporate agriculture giants like Monsanto that are
actively trying to make small farms like Happy Heart disappear. This
opportunity to protect our sacred agriculture is arguably one of the
most important steps in the evolution of humankind. Thank you Lindsay
for representing our community. Our thoughts and prayers are with you.
Best,
ATTACHMENT 8
Andrew
P.S. Please push to grandfather-in the farm! :)
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 11:29 AM, Lindsay Ex <lex@fcgov.com> wrote:
> Good morning everyone,
>
>
>
> I wanted to let you all know that we are running into a timing issue
> regarding completing all of the work in Council’s adopted work plan that was
> adopted two years ago (after the last election). As Council agreed to follow
> this work plan, projects not identified 2 years ago are being postponed, and
> the urban agriculture changes are one of those projects. It’s so important
> to note that this does not diminish the importance of the work we are all
> doing on this effort, but instead to honor the Council’s commitment to the
> community in completing the work they agreed to complete.
>
>
>
> So, what does this mean for our effort? It means that instead of a hearing
> on February 21 with the Planning and Zoning Board, we are now planning to go
> to the Planning and Zoning Board on March 21. We have not received an
> official date for the Council hearings yet, but I am expecting that we will
> be before Council in late April/early May. The good news is that this should
> give the urban agriculture item more time with the Planning and Zoning Board
> in March (there are 7 other items on their agenda in February!) and that
> this additional time will also give us more time for discussion with the
> community to start addressing other concerns that have been brought up,
> e.g., we can start working in earnest on the discussions with the Building
> Department on hoop houses.
>
>
>
> Also, several folks have asked if the draft Ordinances including the
> proposed changes can be sent out. As the Ordinances are still in legal
> review, I’ve compiled a document that includes a summary of all of the
> changes we are proposing to date (see attached). I cannot emphasize enough
> that this is still a DRAFT summary of changes and this is subject to
> additional feedback from all of you as well as from the Planning and Zoning
> Board and City Council. Thus, if you have additional changes or comments,
> please do send them my way! We’re always open to your thoughts and feedback.
>
>
>
> Thanks to all of you for your efforts to date on this project, and I look
> forward to continuing to work with all of you as this project moves forward.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
> Lindsay
>
>
>
> P.S. I’m also attaching the documents from the open house, including the
> presentation, the boards we presented, and the meeting notes we captured.
> I’m hoping to get all of this information up on the website ASAP as well.
>
ATTACHMENT 8
From: Tina Lamers
To: Lindsay Ex
Subject: Re: Urban Agriculture: Thank you, quick update, and a request
Date: Monday, February 04, 2013 12:38:33 PM
Lindsay,
I don't have my own farm, but have been a part of Happy Heart CSA for a number
of years. My interest in primarily to make sure that the new rules going into effect
won't hurt farms such as Happy Heart which have been around a long time and are
a valuable part of the community. The issue of Hoop Houses is one that comes to
mind in this regard. Dennis and Bailey, the owners of Happy Heart, do a lot of work
to help provide vegetables to those in our community who cannot afford to buy their
own. Please make sure they are able to continue this work and all the other good
things they do to provide food for many of us in the area.
Best regards,
Tina Lamers
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Lindsay Ex <lex@fcgov.com> wrote:
Good morning everyone,
I want to thank everyone who was able to come to the open house last Thursday
and those that have contacted me individually – we had 95 people at our open
house, which is quite the turnout! We very much appreciate your feedback in this
process.
What is changing as a result of your feedback:
As a result of the feedback you all provided last Thursday, staff is working on the
following issues:
· Proposing to increase the number of chickens/ducks allowed based on lot size
and at the following scales:
o Less than ½ acre – up to eight chickens and/or ducks, combined
(this would allow everyone in the City to have up to eight chickens
and/or ducks, similar to the City of Denver)
o Between ½ acre and 1 acre – up to twelve chickens and/or ducks
o More than 1 acre – 6 chickens and/or ducks per each additional ½
acre above a one-acre lot size.
· Being clearer on the defining lines between private gardens, gardens that
require a home occupation license, and those gardens that the City would classify
as an urban garden (which includes CSAs, community gardens, and urban farms,
etc.). Please note that if you do have a business in the City of Fort Collins, every
ATTACHMENT 8
From: Deanna O"Connell
To: Lindsay Ex
Subject: Urban Agriculture Land Use code changes
Date: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 5:17:40 PM
Hello Lindsay,
Just wanted to check in on the Urban Ag issue. I will admit that I am not as
involved with local government as I would like to be- caught up in busy-ness, family
etc.
This issue, however, is very important to me. I have been a CSA member at Happy
Heart Farm for many years. It has been such an enriching part of my life in Fort
Collins.
It has given my children a place to see where food comes from, and to meet the
people who plant and harvest this food.
It is an amazing community of good people as well as a model of beautiful, healthy
locally grown food. I meet so many children through my work who have no idea
where various fruits and vegetables come from. They are used to everything coming
in a can or from the freezer. This "processed" way of life is lending to poor health
and obesity in our society. I LOVE taking these kids to the farm - it is so eye-
opening and inspiring to see how they immediately gain confidence and a
connection to the earth - and to their own bodies. Happy Heart Farm and any other
farm that can provide any part of the above is an example of going in the right
direction in our city and our society. (Happy Heart just happens to have all parts
right!).
I believe so thoroughly that they are the model that our city...and country needs to
go to as a solution to many problems facing us in health and community. They are
a national example to all CSA's and we are so fortunate that they are here in Fort
Collins.
I hope the city government supports this model with Land Use Codes to help all
thrive who are willing to put their time and effort into this difficult path - for the
good of many.
I personally decided to get out of my busy life and support what I believed in by
helping support "Friends of Happy Heart Farm" - where we get fresh Happy Heart
veges to low income families, invite them to be a partner in the generous
community and educate them on how to use the veges in recipes etc. I believe
firmly that this is where the health of our children can begin to improve and take a
different direction than where it is currently headed. It is right here in our back
yards - and the more yards, spaces and people who can be involved - the better for
the health and well-being of all.
I appreciate you reading this and urge you to not let this very important issue slip
through the cracks - when is has such profound long-term potential benefits for so
many people in Fort Collins. Please call me with any questions - professionally or
personally about this issue.
Warm regards,
Deanna O'Connell
Registered Dietitian
Health Coach
970-214-7783
Linked In Profile
ATTACHMENT 8
March 14, 2013
Planning & Zoning Board
City of Fort Collins
Fort Collins, CO
Dear Board Members:
I am writing concerning the proposed Urban Agriculture regulations, since I am unable to attend
the hearing on March 21.
Speaking both for myself and for Be Local Northern Colorado,
being proposed. I believe that these changes will allow progress in the urban agriculture arena,
which has become a very important part of the local food
I believe the results will include better access to healthy food and positive economic impacts for
the food producers and for our economy.
be seen by most people as allowing and encouraging positive developments and tr
community. More local food production equates with better quality of life.
I would also like to commend Lindsay Ex and all the member
on this proposal. They did a great job of re
and in working to balance a variety of con
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Hill Grimmett
Executive Director
215 West Magnolia #204
Fort Collins, CO 80521
together we’re building
a sustainable economy
I am writing concerning the proposed Urban Agriculture regulations, since I am unable to attend
Speaking both for myself and for Be Local Northern Colorado, I strongly support the changes
I believe that these changes will allow progress in the urban agriculture arena,
has become a very important part of the local food “movement” in the last several years.
he results will include better access to healthy food and positive economic impacts for
the food producers and for our economy. In addition, these changes to the Land Use Code will
be seen by most people as allowing and encouraging positive developments and tr
More local food production equates with better quality of life.
ld also like to commend Lindsay Ex and all the members of the planning team who worked
They did a great job of reaching out to lots of people in various constituencies
and in working to balance a variety of concerns.
215 West Magnolia #204
Fort Collins, CO 80521
together we’re building
sustainable economy
I am writing concerning the proposed Urban Agriculture regulations, since I am unable to attend
I strongly support the changes
I believe that these changes will allow progress in the urban agriculture arena,
in the last several years.
he results will include better access to healthy food and positive economic impacts for
In addition, these changes to the Land Use Code will
be seen by most people as allowing and encouraging positive developments and trends in the
anning team who worked
aching out to lots of people in various constituencies
ATTACHMENT 8
From: Lindsay Ex
To: "gcarnes@earthlink.net"
Subject: RE: Urban Ag Update - P&Z Hearing and Council Work Session
Date: Friday, March 15, 2013 11:04:24 AM
Gary,
Thank you so much for clarifying your thinking – I really appreciate that. I now understand that you
are concerned about how we protect urban agricultural land uses in a more permanent sense
within the City limits. That’s a much bigger discussion that these Land Use and Municipal Code
changes can address, but it’s an important discussion nonetheless.
Currently, there is some discussion about the formation of a local food cluster, which would be a
group of folks committed to this issue beyond what regulations the City does or does not have.
Would that be something you or the organization you reference would be interested in engaging
with? If so, I can pass on that information to the folks that are organizing this discussion.
Let me know!
Lindsay
From: gcarnes@earthlink.net [mailto:gcarnes@earthlink.net]
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 9:52 PM
To: Lindsay Ex
Subject: RE: Urban Ag Update - P&Z Hearing and Council Work Session
Lindsay,
Looking long-term there should be some protection by the community of open areas which are suitable for urban
agriculture. Unless protected, these areas will likely be lost to development and the community would become
less and less sustainable. Current land owners could voluntarily opt for urban agriculture zoning or in some
cases the City might even pay for down-zoning.
I haven't researched the city's sustainability policies but this is very basic - healthful, environmentally and socially
beneficial and minimizing energy necessary to transport food. There are many cities around the world where
community gardens are in the midst of communities easily accessible from nearby homes.
I think is good to be able to garden in all zones, however, I think it is as or more important to protect prime urban
agriculture lands as resources for future community gardening.
I am a member of an organization which would support or advocate such protection.
Thanks,
Gary Carnes
-----Original Message-----
From: Lindsay Ex
Sent: Mar 13, 2013 8:35 AM
To: "'gcarnes@earthlink.net'"
Subject: RE: Urban Ag Update - P&Z Hearing and Council Work Session
ATTACHMENT 8
Hi Gary,
Instead of creating a separate zone for urban agriculture, the current proposal allows urban
agriculture (subject to the licensing requirements, see page 2 of the attached document) in all zone
districts. When we asked the community, through the online survey and the public open house, as
well as in other forums, folks indicated support for having these types of uses in all zone districts,
so that is what staff is proposing.
I hope that addresses your concern – can you let me know if I can be of further help?
Thanks,
Lindsay
224-6143
From: gcarnes@earthlink.net [mailto:gcarnes@earthlink.net]
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 3:18 PM
To: Lindsay Ex
Subject: Re: Urban Ag Update - P&Z Hearing and Council Work Session
Lindsay,
Any thoughts on creating an Urban Agriculture zoning classification? With future community
development, many CSA and other community gardens may be squeezed out and leave us in a less
sustainable situation. I realize that such zoning might involve down-zoning in some cases and
necessary compensation.
Thanks,
Gary Carnes
-----Original Message-----
From: Lindsay Ex
Sent: Mar 11, 2013 3:41 PM
To: Lindsay Ex
Subject: Urban Ag Update - P&Z Hearing and Council Work Session
Good afternoon everyone,
I hope everyone is enjoying the sunshine later in the day that has come with Daylight
Savings Time!
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing – March 21 at 6:00 pm – Council Chambers
I’m sending out a friendly reminder that the Planning and Zoning Board will consider the
proposed Urban Agriculture regulations next Thursday, March 21st
. The meeting begins at
6:00 pm and this item is the first discussion item on the agenda. For the full agenda
documents, please see here: http://www.fcgov.com/cityclerk/planning-zoning.php. If you
ATTACHMENT 8
From: Margo Ervin
To: Lindsay Ex
Subject: Re: Urban Ag Update - P&Z Hearing and Council Work Session
Date: Monday, March 11, 2013 9:17:25 PM
Hi Lindsay,
I can't attend the hearing but I wanted to submit a written comment:
Hello,
My name is Margo Ervin and I recently moved to the WaterLeaf neighborhood near
Water's Way Park. I would love to think that one day our park could become a true
community center (not just for the kids), bringing together all the residents of the
surrounding neighborhoods to meet each other, eat together, and support our local
farmers and gardeners in a market of our very own. This would greatly improve the
quality of Fort Collins residential life and provide employment opportunities for small
businesses like food and beverage carts and subsequent tax revenue. It's easy to
see the beneficial impact it would have on so many of us. I hope you agree.
Thanks, Lindsay!
Margo Ervin
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Lindsay Ex <lex@fcgov.com> wrote:
Good afternoon everyone,
I hope everyone is enjoying the sunshine later in the day that has come with
Daylight Savings Time!
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing – March 21 at 6:00 pm – Council
Chambers
I’m sending out a friendly reminder that the Planning and Zoning Board will
consider the proposed Urban Agriculture regulations next Thursday, March 21st
.
The meeting begins at 6:00 pm and this item is the first discussion item on the
agenda. For the full agenda documents, please see here:
http://www.fcgov.com/cityclerk/planning-zoning.php. If you would just like the
urban ag items, I’ve attached them to this email.
Please note that the Planning and Zoning Board will only make an official
recommendation on the Land Use Code changes (creating the urban agriculture
licensing system, allowing farmers markets in more zone districts, and allowing
urban agriculture in all zone districts) and not the Municipal Code changes that
relate to animals. However, staff will be presenting the full suite of changes
ATTACHMENT 8
ATTACHMENT 8
ATTACHMENT 8
From: Justin Reynier
To: Lindsay Ex
Subject: Re: Urban Ag Update - P&Z Hearing and Council Work Session
Date: Monday, March 18, 2013 12:47:49 AM
Lindsay Ex and the Planning and Zoning board,
I thank you all for taking time to address this very important issue. We all love Fort Collins
and it is a truely special place because of the people in our community. We have an
incredible opportunity to take a step in a positive direction which will help support many
current and many future businesses. To have a healthy vibrant community there is
nothing more crucial than healthy food. I am not talking about Whole Foods or Sprouts but
food from our friends who are growing right here in this community. I work at Happy Heart
Farm and it has been a true blessing every step of the way in being a part of the
community of great friends and wonderful people who I have met through the farm. Food
brings us all together whether its Super Bowl Sunday or if we are pulling weeds across
from friends. I know there is a base foundation for supporting local farmers. The majority
of our community does not support local farms or do they know where there food comes
from. I love that the city is working with the community to increase the amount of food
that we can grow here in town. Many of us are already leading by example and with
positive progressive bold steps we can lead this community as well as show other towns
across this country that we can sustain ourselves with our own efforts. We do not need to
rely on food from halfway around the world, we can grow right here. We are using so
much water and energy growing grass in our front yards while we live in a high windy
desert. We need to focus and use our limited water in wise ways. Supporting local farms
and supplying them with the water that is needed is far more important than green grass.
Green grass is only seasonal is this part of the world.
There are many properties in this city that are larger than ¼ acre. I propose that we
create a separate zoning for properties wishing to be a farm. Lets do the logical thing and
call a farm a farm. Lets not over regulate. Over regulation does not leave room for
freedom, freedom for individuals to use their creative abilities to come up with new ideas
and think outside of the box. Some of us want goats. Not two miniature goats but enough
that we can mow pastures and milk them. Some of us want sheep, hogs, and cows. This
can be done so that it is pleasant for everyone in the community. It is not the end of the
world even if there is a wif of some dung, after all on the right day we can smell the
feedlots of Greeley. Lets not stop us from growing food and raising animals because there
are some that are scared and resistant to change. We need a change. The food our
children and friends eat does not have the same nourishing qualities that it should. We
can lead and show the next generations that there is sustainability in raising your own
food. Lets take a large step together and really shift forward. Yes we are modeling
ourselves after other communities in the U.S. but lets go above and beyond and let the
people do what needs to be done so that we can have a healthy farm system. There will
be times when more chickens will be necessary or that ducks will aid in controlling insects,
or that sheep can be used to eat weeds, while providing meat for winter stews.
Grandfather in Happy Heart Farm and all the others who wish to be pioneers and lead this
community forward in a healthy positive way. This is the right thing to do. There are
beautiful properties in town that are not all pavement and cookie cutter homes. Lets keep
some of the old culture in tact here in Fort Collins. I know that what the farmers are doing
in town is good and we want nothing more that to have total support from everyone. We
ATTACHMENT 8
want to provide the best quality food to everyone. Lets keep the dollars in Fort Collins by
increasing the number of local business growing good. Together we can make a larger
difference. I thank you once again for taking time to address this very important issue.
After all it is the food we eat that becomes the bones and our bodies in which we live.
Healthy food equals healthy people. Thank you for your time.
Please do reach out to myself and all who are interested in working to create a strong
system so that all can thrive.
Justin Reynier
justin.reynier@gmail.com
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Lindsay Ex <lex@fcgov.com> wrote:
Good afternoon everyone,
I hope everyone is enjoying the sunshine later in the day that has come with
Daylight Savings Time!
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing – March 21 at 6:00 pm – Council
Chambers
I’m sending out a friendly reminder that the Planning and Zoning Board will
consider the proposed Urban Agriculture regulations next Thursday, March 21st
.
The meeting begins at 6:00 pm and this item is the first discussion item on the
agenda. For the full agenda documents, please see here:
http://www.fcgov.com/cityclerk/planning-zoning.php. If you would just like the
urban ag items, I’ve attached them to this email.
Please note that the Planning and Zoning Board will only make an official
recommendation on the Land Use Code changes (creating the urban agriculture
licensing system, allowing farmers markets in more zone districts, and allowing
urban agriculture in all zone districts) and not the Municipal Code changes that
relate to animals. However, staff will be presenting the full suite of changes
related to this topic during the hearing.
Also, if you cannot make it to the hearing, but would like to submit comments to
the Board, you can submit written comments up until the afternoon of the hearing.
However, if you know you are going to submit written comments, if you can
provide them to me as soon as possible, it’s always helpful to get them to the
Board sooner rather than later.
City Council Work Session – April 23 at 6:00 pm – Council Information
ATTACHMENT 8
From: Schmidt,Brigitte
To: Lindsay Ex
Subject: RE: Urban Ag Update - P&Z Hearing and Council Work Session
Date: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 8:33:58 AM
Hi Lindsay,
I read through all the Urban Ag stuff and it looks very good. I presume that is 8 total--chickens/ducks,
not 8 chickens and 8 ducks.
The other thing is in the section on parking it says must accommodate 'all' parking. I think that is unfair
since we don't require too many other things in the City to accommodate 'all' parking needs. So I would
suggest taking that out and leaving it with just 'accommodate parking.' Maybe Paul won't like that and
you can think of another way to put it.
My two cents.
Thanks, Brigitte
From: Lindsay Ex [lex@fcgov.com]
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 3:41 PM
To: Lindsay Ex
Subject: Urban Ag Update - P&Z Hearing and Council Work Session
Good afternoon everyone,
I hope everyone is enjoying the sunshine later in the day that has come with Daylight Savings
Time!
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing – March 21 at 6:00 pm – Council Chambers
I’m sending out a friendly reminder that the Planning and Zoning Board will consider the proposed
Urban Agriculture regulations next Thursday, March 21st
. The meeting begins at 6:00 pm and this
item is the first discussion item on the agenda. For the full agenda documents, please see here:
http://www.fcgov.com/cityclerk/planning-zoning.php. If you would just like the urban ag items,
I’ve attached them to this email.
Please note that the Planning and Zoning Board will only make an official recommendation on the
Land Use Code changes (creating the urban agriculture licensing system, allowing farmers markets
in more zone districts, and allowing urban agriculture in all zone districts) and not the Municipal
Code changes that relate to animals. However, staff will be presenting the full suite of changes
related to this topic during the hearing.
Also, if you cannot make it to the hearing, but would like to submit comments to the Board, you
can submit written comments up until the afternoon of the hearing. However, if you know you are
going to submit written comments, if you can provide them to me as soon as possible, it’s always
helpful to get them to the Board sooner rather than later.
City Council Work Session – April 23 at 6:00 pm – Council Information Center (adjacent to Council
Chambers)
Also, I wanted to let you all know that this item has been scheduled for a Work Session with City
Council on April 23rd
. While there is no public testimony during Work Sessions, please feel free to
attend this meeting. We expect that a formal hearing before Council will be scheduled shortly after
the Work Session.
ATTACHMENT 8
Project: Urban Agriculture Code Changes
Document: Frequently Asked Questions
Updated April 15, 2013
Question Response
1. What is urban
agriculture?
Urban agriculture entails the production of food for personal consumption,
education, donation, or sale and includes associated physical and
organizational infrastructure, policies, and programs within urban, suburban,
and rural built environments
(Source: American Planning Association).
The types of land uses associated with urban agriculture include market and
community gardens, urban farms, farmers markets, animals and bees.
2. Does the City
support Urban
Agriculture practices?
City Plan has identified encouraging and supporting local food production
with the following principle and policy statements:
Principle SW 3: The City will encourage and support local food production to
improve the availability and accessibility of healthy foods, and to provide
other educational, economic, and social benefits.
Policy SW 3.1: Support cooperative efforts to establish community gardens
and markets throughout the community and region. Such efforts include
maintaining ongoing partnerships with the Gardens on Spring Creek, Poudre
School District, Coalition for Activity and Nutrition to Defeat Obesity (CanDo),
farmers markets, Community Supported Agriculture programs (CSAs), and
others, as well as supporting the development of a potential year-round
community marketplace.
3. What are the
current regulations
for these types of
practices?
Land Use Code – Currently, many urban agriculture activities are limited to
accessory uses in the majority of zoning districts. In other words, if farming
were proposed as the main use on a property, then additional processing and
review would be required in 21 of the 25 zone districts in the City.
Municipal Code – City Code allows up to six chicken hens per lot and regulates
animal issues such as noise and disturbances, animals at large or running
loose, licensing or permitting, care or treatment, waste removal, quantity, and
aggressive or vicious behavior.
The keeping of bees is regulated in the City Code and is based on lot size (as
lot size increases, so do the number of bees allowed). The City Code also
requires that weeds be kept under 6 inches in height and that certain noxious
weeds be removed. All yard waste must be disposed of or composted
appropriately.
The Land Use Code also allows farm animals to be raised in certain zone
districts, such as the Urban Estate, Residential Foothills, and the River
Conservation zone districts.
ATTACHMENT 9
Question Response
4. What are the
proposed
regulations?
Urban farms, market gardens, and community gardens (when a principal use):
• Obtain an urban agriculture license from the Planning Services
Department;
• All existing farms and gardens can apply for a license at no cost for one
year after the proposed regulations are adopted;
• Commit to the best practices outlined in the proposed Section 3.8.31
of the Land Use Code, including providing adequate bike and vehicular
parking, keeping compost piles and trash containers at least 10 feet
from any property line, applying water conservation principles,
complying with floodplain standards, etc.
Animals:
• Obtain an urban farm animal license for the keeping of chicken hens,
ducks, or dwarf or pygmy goats.
• Increase the number of chickens allowed based on lot size and allows
ducks to be raised.
• Allow two dwarf or pygmy goats (no more or less than two) per lot.
• Updates the beekeeping regulations to reflect current best practices.
5. Does my backyard
or private garden
need an urban
agriculture license?
In general, no. The City currently allows for private gardens throughout the
City as an accessory use (see Section 3.8.1 of the Land Use Code).
If any of these practices become a principal use on the property, then an
urban agriculture license would be required. For example, if your property is
four acres in size and you have a home on it, but there is also an urban
agriculture land use that is three acres in size, then the garden has become a
principal use.
6. What if I want to
sell my own garden
produce at my house?
Existing regulations allow for the cultivation, storage and sale of crops,
vegetables, plants and flowers as an accessory use in all zone districts. Staff
polled the community about this existing allowance, and the results of the
online survey illustrated that 87% of the survey respondents supported
allowing produce stands in residential areas. Concerns regarding allowing this
land use in more zone districts include increased noise, traffic and parking
issues and ensuring the visual quality of the neighborhood is preserved.
In staff’s benchmarking analysis, staff found that Denver and Wheat Ridge
allow produce stands from products grown on-site but that they typically
restrict hours of operation and overall site cleanliness, e.g., remove the
produce stand when it is not in use. However, as 87% of the respondents
supported continuing to allow this land use, and Neighborhood Services and
Zoning staff have reported no complaints regarding these land uses, staff is
not proposing any changes to this allowance at this time. Still, as Fort Collins is
an urban community, staff will continue to monitor this standard to assess if
having produce stands in residential neighborhoods becomes a nuisance, and
if it does, present standards to mitigate those impacts.
ATTACHMENT 9
Question Response
7. Why should these
types of land uses be
required to be
licensed at all?
While the online survey respondents were largely in support of allowing
urban agriculture in more zone districts, concerns were raised regarding
compatibility with existing land uses e.g. screening, noise, traffic, etc. Staff has
also learned that many producers are unaware of City regulations, such as
building permit requirements, floodplain use permit requirements, etc. The
licensing allows staff to work with farmers to discuss the best management
practices outlined in the proposed regulations. Early dialogue with producers
regarding compatibility can ensure that impacts can be proactively minimized.
Staff believes having a licensing system will also provide the opportunity to
share information regarding City regulations and allows the ability to track
these land uses over time.
8. How has the
Chicken Ordinance
been implemented?
Have there been
problems?
Since 2008, 153 chicken licenses have been issued. Out of the 56,649 calls
that Animal Control has received, 76 calls were related to chickens and one
citation has been issued.
Type of calls
• Chickens at large: 29
• Roosters/Disturbance: 24
• Fence too close to neighbors: 4
• Number of chickens: 13
• Other 6
Results
• 21 calls resolved by educating the owner on the requirements, e.g.,
need to remove the roosters;
• 1 warning issued for number of chickens;
• 2 warnings issued for disturbance;
• 1 case is still open for number of chickens and location and license
required.
9. If my HOA doesn’t
allow chickens,
gardens in the front
yards, etc., can I do it
anyway?
When Council adopted the Chicken ordinance in 2008 (Ordinance No. 72,
2008), Council did not vote to override Homeowners Associations if the HOAs
chose to exclude chickens from the lands governed by that HOA.
In this vein, staff is currently proposing that any ordinances adopted would
not override existing HOA rules. This means that HOAs can enforce their
covenants regarding urban agriculture and choose not to allow front yard
gardens, chickens or other animals, etc. However, the City adopted a
Resource Conservation Ordinance in 2003 that does not allow HOAs to restrict
conservation efforts such as clotheslines (located in back yards), odor-
controlled compost bins, xeriscape landscaping, solar/photo-voltaic collectors
(mounted flush upon the roof), or require that a portion of a lot be planted in
turf grass.
ATTACHMENT 9
Question Response
10. If Denver requires
16 square feet per
chicken, why is staff
only proposing 4
square feet per
chicken or duck?
Current regulations require two square feet per chicken. Numerous resources
have documented that ducks need 4 sq. ft. per animal to thrive. In addition,
based on staff discussions from an enforcement perspective, it was
determined that increasing the size of poultry coops required for chickens and
ducks would be more easily managed if 4 sq. ft. per animal was provided
instead of 2 sq. ft. per chicken and 4 sq. ft. per duck. In addition, as humane
conditions were one of the concerns of the survey respondents, staff is
recommending that the regulations regarding the keeping of chicken hens
and ducks stipulate 4 sq. ft. of spacing per animal. Staff has not found any
evidence that 16 square feet is required per chicken.
Please note the spacing requirements for miniature goats are different than
for chickens. Staff is proposing that a minimum of 150 sq. ft. per goat (or 300
sq ft. total) be provided. This space requirement is consistent with other
communities in Colorado.
11. When you say you
want to scale the
number of chickens
allowed based on lot
size, what does that
mean?
Staff initially proposed that the number of chickens allowed be scaled to the
size of the lots and that ducks be allowed within that scaled number. During
the open house, attendees requested that staff scale the number of chickens
and ducks similar to what Denver has proposed. Based on further discussions
with Animal Control, staff is now proposing the following scaling structure for
chickens and ducks based on lot size:
• Less than ½ acre – up to eight chickens and/or ducks, combined;
• Between ½ acre and 1 acre – up to twelve chickens and/or ducks; and
• More than 1 acre – 6 chickens and/or ducks per each additional ½ acre
above a one-acre lot size, however, when more than twelve chickens
and/or ducks are requested, then all abutting property owners must
be notified prior to the issuance of a license to ensure compatibility
with the neighbors.
Staff has heard that some neighbors are concerned that any lot in the City
could have up to eight chickens and/or ducks. Some have suggested there be
an additional threshold, e.g., at ¼ acre or less, the City should keep the
allowable number of chicken hens at six hens per lot.
12. Are miniature
goats ornamental or
are they truly for local
food production?
Aren’t goats smelly?
According to the Nigerian Dwarf Goat Association, these goats can produce up
to two quarts of milk per day or more. The National Pygmy Goat Association
claims similar production levels. These production levels are similar to full-size
goats. Staff’s recommendation to allow pygmy goats instead of full-size
breeds is related to the Humane Society’s capacity to manage any goats that
might require Animal Control.
Bucks (male goats) are what you may remember when you think of goats
being smelly. Does and wethers (neutered males) are the only types of goats
proposed to be allowed and they do not smell.
ATTACHMENT 9
Question Response
13. Why are two
dwarf or pygmy goats
allowed? What if I
only want one? More
than two?
Goats are herding animals and having just one goat can create additional
nuisances. If additional goats are desired, citizens can go through the Addition
of a Permitted Use process to request the farm animals land use on their lot.
14. How will kids be
addressed?
The proposed regulations allow for kids to remain with the does or wethers
until they are 12 weeks of age to allow time for nursing. After 12 weeks, the
kids would not be allowed on the lot unless an Addition of a Permitted Use
was granted, see above.
15. I know chickens
are not allowed to be
slaughtered, what are
the proposed rules
for goats?
As with the Chicken Ordinance, staff is proposing that goats cannot be
slaughtered.
16. Will this effort
allow public lands to
be used for urban
agriculture?
This effort is a Land Use Code change and does not determine how public
lands can or cannot be used.
17. Who else in the
community is working
on urban agriculture
and local food
production issues?
CanDo - http://www.candoonline.org/community
CSU Extension - http://www.ext.colostate.edu/
Gardens on Spring Creek - http://www.fcgov.com/gardens/
Growing Project - http://www.thegrowingproject.org/
Food and Agriculture Coalition –
http://www.thegrowingproject.org/food--agriculture-coalition.html
Food Bank of Larimer County -
http://www.foodbanklarimer.org/Donate/GiveFood.aspx
HomeGrown - http://pvhs.org/homegrown
Home Grown Foods - http://www.homegrownfoodcolorado.org/
Poudre School District –
http://www.psdschools.org/school-resources/school-wellness/school-gardens
Small Growers Alliance
ATTACHMENT 9
ATTACHMENT 10
1
1
Urban Agriculture
City Council Work Session
Laurie Kadrich, Community Development and
Neighborhood Services Director
Lindsay Ex, Senior Environmental Planner
May 14, 2013
2
Questions for Council
• What concerns or questions does Council have
about implementing these urban agriculture code
changes within City limits?
• Are these proposed code changes ready for formal
Council consideration?
• Are there other urban agriculture policy issues
Council would like to see addressed?
ATTACHMENT 11
2
3
What is Urban Agriculture?
Food production and
distribution in the urban
environment
Includes:
• Community Gardens
• Farms
• Farmers markets
•Animals
Above: Gardens on Spring Creek
Right: Produce from Grant
Family Farms
4
City Plan Principles and Policies
• Principle SW 3:
– …encourage and support local food production…
• Policy SW 3.1:
– Encourage Community Gardens and Markets
• Principle LIV 42.2:
– Encourage agricultural uses
• Principle ENV 4.5:
– Support Community Horticulture
3
5
One of many implementation strategies
Local needs:
• Funding
• Land and water access
• Food insecurity
• Policy barriers
• Affordability
• Economic viability
• Limited wholesale market
• Infrastructure needs
• Education
• Technical Assistance
6
One of many implementation strategies
Local needs:
• Funding
• Land and water access
• Food insecurity
• Policy barriers
• Affordability
• Economic viability
• Limited wholesale market
• Infrastructure needs
• Education
• Technical Assistance
• Residential food
production
• Homeowners
Associations
• Building permit
regulations
• Permanent protection
of agricultural lands
• Land Use and City
Code Regulations
4
7
Urban
Agriculture
in the City
Zone Districts
Allowing Urban
Agriculture
- Public Open
Lands
-River
Conservation
- Urban Estate
- Residential
Foothills
8
Existing Urban
Agricultural
Land Uses
Urban
Agriculture
in the City
5
9
Project Goal
Ensure City
regulations support
the community’s
desires in relation to
urban agriculture
practices both when
and where
appropriate. Fossil Creek Community Gardens
(Photo: Courtney Levingston)
10
Survey Results –
Market and Community Gardens
• Support for allowing urban gardens in more zones
while addressing compatibility?
• Concerns:
– General nuisances: traffic, noise, odor, parking
– Visual impacts
– Overregulation
– Use of fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides
6
11
Survey Results – Farmers Markets
• Allow farmers markets in more locations in the City?
• Concerns:
– Increased noise, traffic and parking issues
– Overregulation of vendors
– Lack of enforcement
– Diluting the market
12
Survey Results – Animals
• Allow ducks?
• Scale poultry based on lot size?
• Allow goats?
• Concerns:
– Increased nuisances (odor, noise, etc.)
– Lack of enforcement
– Animals at large
– Humane conditions for the animals
7
13
What are the
proposed changes?
14
Create a licensing system
• Allows urban agriculture in all zone districts
• Opportunity for early dialogue
• Commitment to best practices
• Allows for tracking of licenses
• Grace period allows existing producers to be
licensed at no additional cost
8
15
Farmers Markets
• Currently allowed in seven
zone districts
• Proposed to be included in:
– LMN - Low Density Mixed
Use Neighborhoods,
– MMN - Medium Density
Mixed Use Neighborhood,
– HMN - High Density Mixed
Use Neighborhood.
(Photo: Alison O’Connor)
16
Animals
Allow ducks, scale poultry based
on lot size:
– <0.5 acre - up to 8 chickens or
ducks, combined;
– 0.5 – 1 acre - up to 12
chickens or ducks;
–>1 acre – 6 additional
chickens or ducks per each
additional ½ acre; notification
of abutting property owners
required.
(Photo: Sustainable Living
Association)
9
17
Animals
• Allow two goats per household, meet minimum
space and humane condition requirements
• Update beekeeping regulations
Nigerian dwarf goats (Photo: dreamersfarm.com). Movable Comb Beehive.
18
City Boards and Commissions
Formal Endorsements for Land Use Code
Changes:
– Planning and Zoning Board (March 21)
– Economic Advisory Commission (April 17)
General Support (presentations in 2012):
– Natural Resources Advisory Board
– Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
– Landmark Preservation Commission
– Senior Advisory Board
10
19
Thank you!
• Chamber of Commerce Legislative Affairs Committee
• Citizens and individuals who have helped to shape this effort
• City Boards and Commissions
• City Council
• City of Fort Collins and CanDo Staff Team
• Coalition for Activity and Nutrition to Defeat Obesity (CanDo)
• Colorado State University
• Farmers and producers who have contributed their time
• Fort Collins Housing Authority
• Gardens on Spring Creek
• Larimer County Humane Society and
Department of Health
20
Questions for Council
• What concerns or questions does Council have
about implementing these urban agriculture code
changes within City limits?
• Are these proposed code changes ready for formal
Council consideration?
• Are there other urban agriculture policy issues
Council would like to see addressed?
11
21
Urban Agriculture
City Council Work Session
Laurie Kadrich, Community Development and
Neighborhood Services Director
Lindsay Ex, Senior Environmental Planner
May 14, 2013
ORDfNANCE ~O. , 2013
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLfNS
MAKING CERTAfN AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 4, ARTICLE II & III,
OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS RELATED TO
THE CARE AND KEEPfNG OF ANIMALS
WHEREAS, in 2011, the City Council adopted the City Plan "Safety and Wellness Vision,"
which contains numerous policies supporting local food production, including Principle SW3, which
directs staff to encourage and support local food production to improve the availability and
accessibility of healthy foods, and to provide other educational, economic, and social benefits; and
WHEREAS, in 1989, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 72, 1989, which allowed for
the keeping of bees for the production of honey; and
WHEREAS, in 2008, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 72, 2008, which allows for
the raising of up to six chickens per lot for food production, while ensuring that chickens are raised
in humane conditions in the City and do not present a nuisance to their neighbors; and
WHEREAS, City staff has conducted citizen outreach regarding potential urban agriculture
land use changes, and throughout that process has been asked by numerous citizens to examine the
current provisions of the City Code pertaining to the keeping of animals and bees in the City; and
WHEREAS, staff has worked with the Larimer County Humane Society to assess whether
al lowing chickens to be kept in the City has created a nuisance in the community, and has concluded
that, although 143 permits have been issued for the keeping of chickens, all concerns regarding the
issuance of such permits that have been brought to the attention of staff have been addressed without
the issuance of a citation; and
WHEREAS, staff has researched other communities and found that they allow for a wider
range of animals to be raised in urban environments, including ducks and miniature goats; and
WHEREAS, staff has conducted citizen outreach and has learned that many City residents
favor allowing ducks and miniature goats in the City; and
WHEREAS, staff has also found through their research that other communities have updated
their regulations related to beekeeping to reflect the current best practices in the industry; and
WHEREAS, in view of this outreach, staff is recommending several amendments to Chapter
4 of the City Code; and
pending/keeping of animals ORD
April 2, 2013 (10:39am)
DRAFT
ATTACHMENT 12
WHEREAS, the City Council believes that these recommended amendments are in the best
interests of the City and its citizens.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1.
to read as follows:
That Section 4-117 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended
Sec. 4-117. Sale of chickens and ducklings; quantity restricted; keeping of
chickens and ducks.
(a) Chickens or ducklings younger than eight (8) weeks of age may not be sold
in quantities of less than six ( 6) to a single purchaser.
(b) Except iln those zone districts where the keeping of farm animals (as that
term is defined in Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code) is not otherwise allowed, the
keeping of chickens roosters and/or ducks (poultry) is permitted, or more than six (6)
chicken hens is prohibited .. However, ttp to six (6) chicken hens may be kept per
parcel of property, subject to the following requirements and subject to all other
applicable provisions of this Chapter.
( 1) Any person keeping poultry pursuant to this provisions must first have
been issued a pennit by the Human Society and have received such
infonnation or training pe1iaining to the keeping of poultry as said agency
deems appropriate;
(2) The keeping of roosters is prohibited; only chicken hens are
pe1111itted, and all references herein to chickens shall mean chicken hens only.
(3) Poultry may be kept in the following numbers:
a. On lots less than one-half (2) acre in size, up to eight (8)
chickens and/or ducks may be kept; and
b. On lots one-half (1/2) acre to one (1) acre in size, up to a total
of twelve (1 2) chickens and/or ducks may be kept; and
c. On lots more than one (1) acre in size, up to six (6) additional
chickens and/or ducks may be kept for every additional one-half (1 /2)
acre; provided, however, that if more than twelve (12) chickens
and/or ducks, combined, are to be kept, all prope1i y owners abutting
pending/keeping of animals ORD
April 2, 2013 (10:39am)
2
DRAFT
ATTACHMENT 12
the parcel where the poultry will be housed must be notified in
writing prior to obtaining a pennit for said number of poultry.
(t4) If a lot has more than one ( 1) dwelling unit, all adult residents and the
owner(s) of the lot must consent in writing to allowing the chicken hens
poultry on the property;
(2) Any pet so11 keeping chicke11 hens pm sua:nt to this prov is ion must fit st
have been issued a permit by the Humane Society and have received such
infonnation or haining pertaining to the keeping of chicken hens as said
agency deems appt opt iate,
(35) The chicken henspoultry must be provided with a covered, predator-
resistant chickenpoultry house that is properly ventilated, designed to be
easily accessed, cleaned and maintained, and must consist of at least two (2)
square feet pet chicken four (4) square feet per chicken hen or duck;
(46) During daylight hours, the chicken henspoultry must have access to
the chickenpoultry house and also have access to an outdoor enclosure that
is adequately fenced to protect them from predators;
(57) The chicken henspoultry must be further protected from predators by
being closed in the clrickenpoultry house from dusk to dawn;
(68) Neither the chickenpoultry house nor the outdoor enclosure may be
located less than fifteen ( 15) feet from any abutting property line unless the
owner or keeper of the chicken henspoultry obtains the written consent of the
owner(s) of all abutting properties to which the enclosure is proposed to be
more closely located, in which event the agreed-upon location shall then be
deemed acceptable notwithstanding any subsequent change in ownership of
such abutting property or properties;
(9-9) The chicken he:nspoultry must be sheltered or confined in such
fashion as to prevent them from coming into contact with wild ducks or geese
or their excrement; and
(810) The chicken he11spoultry may not be killed by or at the direction of the
owner or keeper thereof except pursuant to the lawful order of state or county
health officials, or for the purpose of euthanasia when surrendered to a
licensed veterinarian or the Humane Society for such purpose, or as otherwise
expressly permitted by law.
pending/keeping of animals ORD
April 2, 2013 (10:39am)
3
DRAFT
ATTACHMENT 12
Section 2. That Chapter 4 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended by
adding a new Section 4-121 which reads in its entirety as follows:
Sec. 4-121. Keeping of goats.
(a) In zone districts where the keeping of farm animals is not otherwise allowed,
two (2) pygmy or dwarf goats, plus any number of their offspring younger than
twelve (12) weeks, may be kept on any lot in the City. The keeping of just one (1)
pygmy or dwarf goat is prohibited. Only female or altered male Nigerian Swarf or
African Pygmy breeds of goats are permitted. No bucks or other breeds are allowed.
(b) Except as prohibited in subsection (a), goats may be kept subject to the
following requirements:
( 1) Any person keeping goats pursuant to this provision must first have
been issued a permit by the Humane Society, and must also have received
such information or training pertaining to the keeping of goats as said agency
deems appropriate.
(2) If a Jot has more than one (1) dwelling unit, all adult residents and the
owner(s) of the parcel must consent in writing to allowing the goats on the
property.
(3) On any residential zoned lot, the goats must be maintained in the rear
fifty (50) percent of the lot. On any residential zoned comer lot, the rear fifty
(50) percent of the lot shall mean that portion of the lot on the opposite side
of the residence from the front lot line. The front lot line shall mean the lot
line facing the primary entrance to the principal building on the lot.
( 4) The goats must be provided with a covered, predator-resistant shelter
that is properly ventilated and designed to be easily accessed, cleaned and
maintained.
(5) During daylight hours, the goats must have access to the shelter and
also have access to an outdoor enclosure that is adequately fenced to protect
them from predators, which shall be in total at least one hundred fifty (150)
square feet per goat in size.
(6) The goats must be closed in the shelter from dusk to dawn.
pending/keeping of animals ORD
April 2, 2013 (10:39am)
4
DRAFT
ATTACHMENT 12
(7) Neither the shelter nor the outdoor enclosure may be located less than
fifteen (15) feet from any abutting property line unless the owner or keeper
of the goats obtains the written consent of the owner(s) of all abutting
properties to which the enclosure is proposed to be more closely located, in
which event the agreed-upon location shall then be deemed acceptable
notwithstanding any subsequent change in ownership of such abutting
property or properties.
(8) The goats may not be killed by or at the direction of the owner or
keeper thereof except pursuant to the lawful order of state or county health
officials, or for the purpose of euthanasia when surrendered to a licensed
veterinarian or the Humane Society for such purpose, or as otherwise
expressly permitted by law.
Section 3.
to read as follows:
That Section 4-228 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended
Sec. 4-228. Hives.
All bee colonies shall be kept in Langstroth type hives with removable frames
movable combs, which shall be kept in sound and usable condition.
Section 4. That Section 4-233(b) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 4-233. Colony densities.
(b) For each two (2) colonies authorized under colony densities, Subsection (a)
above, there may be maintained upon the same tract one (1) nucleus colony in a hive
structure not exceeding one (1) standard nine and five-eighths (9 5/8) inch depth ten
(10) frame hive body with no supers attached as required from time to time for
management of swarms. Each such nucleus colony shall be disposed of or combined
with an authorized colony within tltirty(JO)sixty ( 60) days after the date it is acquired.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this_ day of
___ , A.D. 2013, and to be presented for final passage on the __ day of , A.D. 2013.
pending/keeping of animals ORD
April 2, 2013 (10:39am)
5
DRAFT
ATTACHMENT 12
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the __ day of ___ , A.D. 2013.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
pending/keeping of animals ORD
April 2, 2013 (10:39am)
Mayor
6
DRAFT
ATTACHMENT 12
ORDINANCE NO. ___, 2013
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING THE LAND USE CODE BYTHE ADDITION OF
PROVISIONS PERTAINING TO URBAN AGRICULTURE
WHEREAS, on March 18, 1997, by its adoption of Ordinance No. 051, 1997, the City
Council enacted the Fort Collins Land Use Code (the "Land Use Code"); and
WHEREAS, at the time of the adoption of the Land Use Code, it was the understanding
of staff and the City Council that the Land Use Code would most likely be subject to future
amendments, not only for the purpose of clarification and correction of errors, but also for the
purpose of ensuring that the Land Use Code remains a dynamic document capable of responding
to issues identified by staff, other land use professionals and citizens of the City; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the City Plan Safety and Wellness Vision, which
includes the aspirational goal of access to healthy, locally grown or produced food; and
WHEREAS, City Plan contains numerous policies supporting local food production,
including Principle SW3 which directs staff to encourage and support local food production to
improve the availability and accessibility of healthy foods, and to provide other educational,
economic, and social benefits; and
WHEREAS, in furtherance of the Planning and Zoning Board’s 2013 Work Program,
which calls for City staff to update the Land Use Code to reflect urban agriculture land uses
currently practiced and desired to be practiced in the City, City staff has proposed certain Land
Use Code changes to allow for these practices while also ensuring that neighborhood
compatibility is achieved; and
WHEREAS, City staff has vetted these proposed changes through focus groups with
local farmers, interested citizens, and homeowners association representatives, and through a
project website, an online survey and a public open house; and
WHEREAS, City staff and the Planning and Zoning Board have reviewed the proposed
Land Use Code changes regarding urban agriculture and have recommended to the City Council
that they be adopted; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the recommended Land Use Code
amendments are in the best interest of the City and its citizens.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
. . .
pending/LUC urban gardens 3-4-13 1 Pending Legal Review
DRAFT
ATTACHMENT 13
Section 1. That Division 3.8 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the
addition of a new subsection 3.8.31 which reads in its entirety as follows:
3.8.31 Urban Agriculture
(A) Applicability. These standards apply to all urban agriculture land uses, except
those urban agriculture land uses that are approved as a part of a site-specific
development plan.
(B) Purpose. The intent of these urban garden supplementary regulations is to allow
for a range of urban agricultural activities at a level and intensity that is
compatible with the City’s neighborhoods.
(C) Standards.
(1) License required. Urban agriculture land uses shall be permitted only after
the owner or applicant for which the garden is proposed has obtained an
urban garden license from the City. The fee for such a license shall be the
fee established in the Development Review Fee Schedule. If active
operations have not been carried on for a period of twenty-four (24)
consecutive months, the license shall be deemed to have been abandoned
regardless of intent to resume active operations. The Director may revoke
any urban agriculture license issued by the City if the holder of such
license is in violation of any of the provisions contained in Subsection (2)
below, provided that the holder of the license shall be entitled to the
administrative review of any such revocation under the provisions
contained in Chapter 2, Article VI of the City Code.
(2) General Standards. Urban agriculture shall be allowed as a permitted use,
provided that all of the following conditions are met:
(a) Mechanized Equipment. All mechanized equipment used in the
urban agriculture land use must be in compliance with Chapter 20,
Article II of the City Code regarding noise levels.
(b) Parking. Urban agriculture land uses shall provide additional off-
street vehicular and bicycle parking areas adequate to
accommodate all parking demands created by the use.
(c) Chemicals and Fertilizers. Synthetic pesticides or herbicides may
be applied only in accordance with state and federal regulations.
All chemicals shall be stored in an enclosed, locked structure when
the site is unattended. No synthetic pesticides or herbicides may be
applied within a Natural Habitat Buffer Zone.
pending/LUC urban gardens 3-4-13 2 Pending Legal Review
DRAFT
ATTACHMENT 13
(d) Trash/compost. Trash and compost receptacles shall be screened
from adjacent properties by utilizing landscaping, fencing or
storage within structures and all trash shall be removed from the
site weekly. Compost piles and containers shall be set back at least
ten (10) feet from any property line when urban agriculture abuts a
residential land use.
(e) Maintenance. An urban agriculture land use shall be maintained in
an orderly manner, including necessary watering, pruning, pest
control and removal of dead or diseased plant materials and shall
be maintained in compliance with the provisions of Chapter 20 of
the Municipal Code.
(f) Water conservation and conveyance. To the extent reasonably
feasible, the use of sprinkler irrigation between the hours of 10:00
a.m. and 6:00 p.m. shall be minimized. Drip irrigation or watering
by hand may be done at any time. The site must be designed and
maintained so that any water runoff is conveyed off-site into a city
right-of-way or drainage system without adversely affecting
downstream property.
(g) Identification/contact information. A clearly visible sign shall be
posted near the public right-of-way adjacent to an urban
agriculture land use that includes the name, contact information of
the garden manager or coordinator, and if synthetic pesticide or
herbicide is used, the sign shall also include the name of the
chemical and the frequency of application. The contact information
for the garden manager or coordinator shall be kept on file with the
City. All urban agriculture signs must comport with Section 3.8.7
of this Land Use Code.
(h) If produce from an urban agriculture land use is proposed to be
distributed throughout the City, the applicant must provide a list of
proposed Food Membership Distribution Sites in the application.
(i) Floodplains. If urban agriculture is proposed within a floodplain,
then a Floodplain Use Permit is required in accordance with
Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code.
(j) Additional Impact Mitigation. Measures such as landscaping,
fencing, or setbacks to mitigate potential visual, noise, or odor
impacts on adjoining property may be required by the Director.
There shall be no offensive noise, vibration, smoke, dust, odors,
heat or glare noticeable at or beyond the property line of the parcel
where the urban agriculture land use is conducted. Where an urban
pending/LUC urban gardens 3-4-13 3 Pending Legal Review
DRAFT
ATTACHMENT 13
agriculture land use abuts a residential use, there shall be a
minimum setback of five (5) feet between the operation and the
property line.
(3) Notice. At the time of an initial application, mailed notice, posted notice,
and a neighborhood meeting are required if an urban agriculture land use
is proposed within a residential zone (N-C-L, N-C-M, U-E, R-F, R-L, L-
M-N, M-M-N, H-M-N, N-C-B, R-C and P-O-L) or if the urban garden
exceeds 0.5 acres in size. Such notice and neighborhood meeting shall be
conducted in accordance with Sections 2.2.2 and 2.2.6 of this Land Use
Code. Additional notice and a neighborhood meeting may be required by
the Director at the time of license reissuance.
Section 2. That Section 4.1(B)(1)(a) and 4.1(B)(1)(b) of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
DIVISION 4.1 RURAL LANDS DISTRICT (R-U-L)
. . .
(a) Agricultural Uses:
1. Agricultural activities.
(ba) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses:
1. Accessory buildings.
2. Accessory uses.
3. Farm animals.
4. Urban agriculture.
. . .
Section 3. That Section 4.2(B)(1)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read
as follows:
DIVISION 4.2 URBAN ESTATE DISTRICT (U-E)
. . .
(a) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses:
1. Accessory buildings.
pending/LUC urban gardens 3-4-13 4 Pending Legal Review
DRAFT
ATTACHMENT 13
2. Accessory uses.
3. Farm animals.
4. Urban agriculture.
. . .
Section 4. That Section 4.3(B)(1)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read
as follows:
DIVISION 4.3 RESIDENTIAL FOOTHILLS DISTRICT (R-F)
. . .
(a) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses:
1. Accessory buildings.
2. Accessory uses.
3. Urban agriculture.
. . .
Section 5. That Section 4.4(B)(1)(b) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
DIVISION 4.4 LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (R-L)
. . .
(b) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses:
1. Accessory buildings.
2. Accessory uses.
3. Urban agriculture.
. . .
Section 6. That Section 4.5(B)(1)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read
as follows:
pending/LUC urban gardens 3-4-13 5 Pending Legal Review
DRAFT
ATTACHMENT 13
DIVISION 4.5 LOW DENSITY MIXED-USE NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT (L-M-N)
. . .
(a) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses:
1. Accessory buildings.
2. Accessory uses.
3. Urban agriculture
. . .
Section 7. That Section 4.5(B)(2)(c)3 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
DIVISION 4.5 LOW DENSITY MIXED-USE NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT (L-M-N)
. . .
3. Neighborhood centers consisting of at least two (2) of the
following uses: mixed-use dwelling units; retail stores;
convenience retail stores; personal and business service shops;
small animal veterinary facilities; offices, financial services and
clinics; community facilities; neighborhood support/ recreation
facilities; schools; child care centers; open-air farmers markets;
and places of worship or assembly.
. . .
Section 8. That Section 4.6(B)(1)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read
as follows:
DIVISION 4.6 MEDIUM DENSITY MIXED-USE NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT (M-M-N)
. . .
(a) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses:
1. Accessory buildings.
2. Accessory uses.
3. Urban agriculture.
. . .
pending/LUC urban gardens 3-4-13 6 Pending Legal Review
DRAFT
ATTACHMENT 13
Section 9. That Section 4.6(B)(2)(c) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the
addition of a new subsection 7 which reads in its entirety as follows:
DIVISION 4.6 MEDIUM DENSITY MIXED-USE NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT
(M-M-N)
. . .
7. Open-air farmers markets, if located within a park, central feature
or gathering place.
. . .
Section 10. That Section 4.7(B)(1)(b) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
Division 4.7 NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION, LOW DENSITY DISTRICT
(N-C-L)
. . .
(b) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses:
1. Accessory buildings, provided that they contain no
habitable space.
2. Accessory buildings containing habitable space.
3. Accessory uses.
4. Urban agriculture.
Section 11. That Section 4.8(B)(1)(d) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
DIVISION 4.8 NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION, MEDIUM DENSITY DISTRICT
(N-C-M)
. . .
(b) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses:
1. Accessory buildings, provided that they contain no
habitable space.
2. Accessory buildings containing habitable space.
3. Accessory uses.
pending/LUC urban gardens 3-4-13 7 Pending Legal Review
DRAFT
ATTACHMENT 13
4. Urban agriculture.
. . .
Section 12. That Section 4.9(B)(1)(d) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
DIVISION 4.9 NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION, BUFFER DISTRICT (N-C-B)
. . .
(b) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses:
1. Accessory buildings, provided that they contain no
habitable space.
2. Accessory buildings containing habitable space.
3. Accessory uses.
4. Urban agriculture.
. . .
Section 13. That Section 4.10(B)(1)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
DIVISION 4.10 HIGH DENSITY MIXED-USE NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT (H-M-N)
. . .
(b) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses:
1. Accessory buildings
2. Urban agriculture.
Section 14. That Section 4.10(B)(2)(c) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by
the addition of a new subsection 8 which reads in its entirety as follows:
DIVISION 4.10 HIGH DENSITY MIXED-USE NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT (H-M-N)
. . .
8. Open-air farmers markets.
. . .
pending/LUC urban gardens 3-4-13 8 Pending Legal Review
DRAFT
ATTACHMENT 13
Section 15. That Section 4.13(B)(1)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
DIVISION 4.13 PUBLIC OPEN LANDS DISTRICT (P-O-L)
. . .
(a) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses:
1. Accessory buildings.
2. Accessory uses.
3. Urban agriculture.
. . .
Section 16. That Section 4.14(B)(1)(a) and 4.14(B)(2)(d) of the Land Use Code is
hereby amended to read as follows:
DIVISION 4.14 RIVER CONSERVATION DISTRICT (R-C)
. . .
(a) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses:
1. Accessory buildings.
2. Accessory uses.
3. Urban agriculture.
. . .
(2) The following uses are permitted in the R-C District subject to
administrative review:
…
(d) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses:
1. Farm animals.
2. Agricultural activities.
. . .
pending/LUC urban gardens 3-4-13 9 Pending Legal Review
DRAFT
ATTACHMENT 13
Section 17. That Section 4.16(B)(1) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read
as follows:
DIVISION 4.16 DOWNTOWN (D)
. . .
(B) Permitted Uses.
(1) The following uses are permitted in the D District subject to basic
development review:
(a) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses:
1. Urban agriculture.
(ab) Any use authorized pursuant to a site specific development
plan that was processed and approved either in compliance with
the Zoning Code in effect on March 27, 1997, or in compliance
with this Land Use Code (other than a final subdivision plat, or
minor subdivision plat, approved pursuant to Section 29-643 or 29-
644 of prior law, for any nonresidential development or any multi-
family dwelling containing more than four [4] dwelling units),
provided that such use shall be subject to all of the use and density
requirements and conditions of said site specific development plan.
(bc) Any use which is not hereafter listed as a permitted use in this
zone district but which was permitted for a specific parcel of
property pursuant to the zone district regulations in effect for such
parcel on March 27, 1997; and which physically existed upon such
parcel on March 27, 1997; provided, however, that such existing
use shall constitute a permitted use only on such parcel of property.
. . .
Section 18. That Section 4.17(B)(1)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
DIVISION 4.17 RIVER DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (R-D-R)
. . .
(a) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses:
1. Accessory buildings.
2. Accessory uses.
pending/LUC urban gardens 3-4-13 10 Pending Legal Review
DRAFT
ATTACHMENT 13
3. Outdoor vendor.
4. Urban agriculture.
. . .
Section 19. That Section 4.18(B)(1)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
DIVISION 4.18 COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (C-C)
. . .
(a) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses:
1. Accessory buildings.
2. Accessory uses.
3. Outdoor vendor.
4. Urban agriculture.
. . .
Section 20. That Section 4.19(B)(1)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
DIVISION 4.19 COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL – NORTH COLLEGE DISTRICT (C-C-N)
. . .
(a) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses:
1. Accessory buildings.
2. Accessory uses.
3. Outdoor vendor.
4. Urban agriculture.
…
Section 21. That Section 4.20(B)(1)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
pending/LUC urban gardens 3-4-13 11 Pending Legal Review
DRAFT
ATTACHMENT 13
DIVISION 4.20 COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL – POUDRE RIVER DISTRICT (C-C-R)
. . .
(a) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses:
1. Accessory buildings.
2. Accessory uses.
3. Outdoor vendor.
4. Urban agriculture.
. . .
Section 22. That Section 4.21(B)(1) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read
as follows:
DIVISION 4.21 GENERAL COMMERCIAL (C-G)
. . .
(1) The following uses are permitted in the C-G District, subject to basic
development review, provided that such uses are located on lots that are
part of an approved site-specific development plan:
(a) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses:
1. Urban agriculture.
(ab) Any use authorized pursuant to a site specific development
plan that was processed and approved either in compliance with
the Zoning Code in effect on March 27, 1997, or in compliance
with this Code (other than a final subdivision plat, or minor
subdivision plat, approved pursuant to Section 29-643 or 29-644 of
prior law, for any nonresidential development or any multi-family
dwelling containing more than four [4] dwelling units), provided
that such use shall be subject to all of the use and density
requirements and conditions of said site specific development plan.
(bc) Any use which is not hereafter listed as a permitted use in this
zone district but which was permitted for a specific parcel of
property pursuant to the zone district regulations in effect for such
parcel on March 27, 1997; and which physically existed upon such
parcel on March 27, 1997; provided, however, that such existing
use shall constitute a permitted use only on such parcel of property.
pending/LUC urban gardens 3-4-13 12 Pending Legal Review
DRAFT
ATTACHMENT 13
. . .
Section 23. That Section 4.22(B)(1)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
DIVISION 4.22 SERVICE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (C-S)
. . .
(a) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses:
1. Accessory buildings.
2. Accessory uses.
3. Outdoor vendor.
4. Urban agriculture.
. . .
Section 24. That Section 4.22(B)(1)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
DIVISION 4.23 NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT (N-C)
. . .
(a) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses:
1. Accessory buildings.
2. Accessory uses.
3. Outdoor vendor.
4. Urban agriculture.
. . .
Section 25. That Section 4.24(B)(1) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read
as follows:
DIVISION 4.24 LIMITED COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (C-L)
. . .
(1) The following uses are permitted in the C-L District, subject to basic
development review:
pending/LUC urban gardens 3-4-13 13 Pending Legal Review
DRAFT
ATTACHMENT 13
(a) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses:
1. Urban agriculture.
(ab) Any use authorized pursuant to a site specific development
plan that was processed and approved either in compliance with
the Zoning Code in effect on March 27, 1997, or in compliance
with this Code (other than a final subdivision plat, or minor
subdivision plat, approved pursuant to Section 29-643 or 29-644 of
prior law, for any nonresidential development or any multi-family
dwelling containing more than four [4] dwelling units), provided
that such use shall be subject to all of the use and density
requirements and conditions of said site specific development plan.
(bc) Any use which is not hereafter listed as a permitted use in this
zone district but which was permitted for a specific parcel of
property pursuant to the zone district regulations in effect for such
parcel on March 27, 1997, and which physically existed upon such
parcel on March 27, 1997; provided, however, that such existing
use shall constitute a permitted use only on such parcel of property.
. . .
Section 26. That Section 4.26(B)(1)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
DIVISION 4.26 HARMONY CORRIDOR DISTRICT (H-C)
. . .
(a) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses:
1. Accessory buildings.
2. Accessory uses.
3. Outdoor vendor.
4. Urban agriculture.
. . .
Section 27. That Section 4.27(B)(1)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
pending/LUC urban gardens 3-4-13 14 Pending Legal Review
DRAFT
ATTACHMENT 13
DIVISION 4.27 EMPLOYMENT DISTRICT (E)
. . .
(a) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses:
1. Accessory buildings.
2. Accessory uses.
3. Outdoor vendor.
4. Urban agriculture.
. . .
Section 28. That Section 4.28(B)(1)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
DIVISION 4.28 INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT (I)
. . .
(a) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses:
1. Accessory buildings.
2. Accessory uses.
3. Outdoor vendor.
4. Urban agriculture.
. . .
Section 29. That the definition “Agricultural activity” contained in Section 5.1.2 of the
Land Use Code is hereby deleted in its entirety as follows:
Agricultural activity shall mean farming, including plowing, tillage, cropping, installation
of best management practices, seeding, cultivating or harvesting for the production of
food and fiber products (except commercial logging and timber harvesting operations);
the grazing or raising of livestock (except in feedlots); aquaculture; sod production;
orchards; Christmas tree plantations; nurseries; and the cultivation of products as part of a
recognized commercial enterprise.
pending/LUC urban gardens 3-4-13 15 Pending Legal Review
DRAFT
ATTACHMENT 13
Section 30. That the definition “Development” contained in Section 5.1.2 of the Land
Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
. . .
(2) Development shall not include:
. . .
(d) the use of any land for the purpose of growing plants, crops, trees and
other agricultural or forestry products; for raising or feeding livestock
(other than in feedlots); for other agricultural uses or purposes, or for
the delivery of water by ditch or canal to agricultural uses or purposes,
provided none of the above creates a nuisance, and except that an urban
agriculture license is required in accordance with Section 3.8.31 of this
Land Use Code.
. . .
Section 31. That the definition “Farm animals” contained in Section 5.1.2 of the Land
Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Farm animals shall mean animals commonly raised or kept in an agricultural,
rather than an urban, environment including, but not limited to, chickens, pigs,
sheep, goats, horses, cattle, llamas, emus, ostriches, donkeys and mules; provided,
however, that chicken hens, numbering six (6) or fewer, and ducks based on the lot
size thresholds outlined in Chapter Six, Section 4-117 of the Municipal Code, and
two (2) pygmy or dwarf goats shall not be considered to be farm animals.
Section 32. That Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the
addition of a new definition “Food membership distribution site” which reads in its entirety as
follows:
Food membership distribution site shall mean a site where a producer of
agricultural products delivers them for pick-up by customers who have pre-
purchased an interest in the agricultural products.
Section 33. That Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the
addition of a new definition “Urban agriculture” which reads in its entirety as follows:
Urban agriculture shall mean gardening or farming involving any kind of lawful
plant, whether for personal consumption, sale, and/or donation, except that the
term urban agriculture does not include the cultivation, storage, and sale of crops,
vegetables, plants and flowers produced on the premises in accordance with
Section 3.8.1 of this Land Use Code. Urban agriculture is a miscellaneous use that
does not include “plant nursery and greenhouse” as a principal use and that is
subject to licensing in accordance with Section 3.8.31 of this Land Use Code.
pending/LUC urban gardens 3-4-13 16 Pending Legal Review
DRAFT
ATTACHMENT 13
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this __ day
of_____, A.D. 2013, and to be presented for final passage on the _____ day of _____, A.D.
2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the _____ day of _______, A.D. 2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
pending/LUC urban gardens 3-4-13 17 Pending Legal Review
DRAFT
ATTACHMENT 13