The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 07/02/2013 - ITEMS RELATING TO URBAN AGRICULTUREDATE: July 2, 2013 STAFF: Laurie Kadrich Lindsay Ex AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 26 SUBJECT Items Relating to Urban Agriculture. A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 096, 2013 Amending the Land Use Code to by the Addition of Provisions Pertaining to Urban Agriculture. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 097, 2013 Amending Chapter 4, Article II & III of the City Code Related to the Care and Keeping of Animals. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to better align the Land Use and City Code with City Plan by allowing urban agriculture land uses in all zone districts, expand the districts where farmers markets are allowed, and allow a broader range and number of animals to be raised in the City. City Plan contains several principle and policy statements aimed at promoting local food production. 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 and number 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 duck hens to be raised, and (3) updating the beekeeping Ordinance to reflect current best practices. 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 neighborhoods. 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. Throughout this year, representatives from the private sector, public sector, and academic sector are coming together to identify how we can implement 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 July 2 is the 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.” July 2, 2013 -2- ITEM 26 Based on research, outreach, and City Plan direction, this project has the following objectives: Objective 1: Create an alternate development review process for urban agriculture land uses The first project objective is to 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 requiring the uses to go through development review, which could prove prohibitive for achieving the City Plan principle of encouraging local food production. Based on feedback from Council, a specific application requirement will be to provide more detailed information on the proposed manure management at the site (see Attachment 3 for all submittal requirements). Objective 2: Allows farmers markets to be permitted in additional zone districts 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 duck hens to be raised, and update the beekeeping standards Staff proposes the following structure for scaling 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 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. One discussion during the May 14 Council Work Session was whether male ducks (drakes) should be allowed to be raised within the City. While they do not pose the same level of noise concerns that roosters do, CSU experts and Larimer County Department of Health staff presented concerns related to handling ducklings and to the noise concerns that could still arise from allowing drakes. Though raising drakes with hens can be beneficial to the overall health of the animals, staff is recommending that drakes not be allowed within the City at this time. 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. Note there are two separate licenses within this discussion: 1. Uban Agriculture License – this license will be managed by the Planning Department and will be for those land uses, e.g., community gardens, market gardens, etc. where the garden or farm is the principal use on the land. As discussed during the May 14, 2013 Work Session, the fee for the licenses will be waived for the first year to allow existing gardens and farms to comply with the proposed regulations. 2. Poultry License (currently the chicken license) – this license will be managed by the Larimer County Humane Society and will be for anyone wishing to obtain chicken hens and/or ducks hens in compliance with the proposed City Code regulations. The fee for this license is $35. July 2, 2013 -3- ITEM 26 Other Objectives and Next Steps: Goats In discussions with the community, the public outreach process, and during the Council Work Session on May 14, significant support has been expressed for allowing miniature or pygmy goats to be raised within City limits. However, in May, staff met with representatives from the Larimer County Department of Health, CSU Extension, CanDo (the Coalition for Activity and Nutrition to Defeat Obesity), and Animal Control to obtain their feedback on the proposed code changes. During this discussion, staff learned that there is a disease associated with goats (Q fever) that has the potential to affect residents beyond the individuals actually raising the goats. For example, Q fever is a wind-borne disease that has the potential to affect neighbors who did not choose to be impacted, and can be threatening to sensitive populations. Further, staff learned there is not a vaccine or reliable screening test for this disease. In addition to Q fever, CSU experts also expressed concerns over the increasing number of cases of rabies in the Front Range. As such, they are concerned that increasing the types of animals allowed within the City could increase the number of rabies incidences, especially as there is a not a vaccine labeled for goats in the United States. Staff should note that there is an “off label” vaccine that veterinarians can use in goats in general practice, but the lack of an approved vaccine for goats creates a situation where prevention of transmitting the disease between goats and humans cannot be guaranteed. After the discussion, staff contacted other urban, municipal governments that allow goats, e.g., Denver (allowed since 2011) and Seattle (allowed since 2007). Staff spoke with health experts from those areas as well as representatives from the Center for Disease Control, CSU’s Urban Agriculture Program, and numerous citizens. While all health representatives acknowledged the risks of Q fever, they acknowledged that no Q fever outbreaks have occurred in urban environments and the risk is low that an outbreak would occur in the City, should the City allow goats to be raised. If the City were to move forward with allowing goats, CSU experts have recommended that potential goat owners be required to take a class in animal husbandry, care, and disease prevention and management. They also suggested an inspection of the goat facilities prior to issuing a license should be required. Due to the low number of citizens who have requested an interest in raising goats, to staff’s knowledge, the amount of resources required to coordinate these classes and conduct the inspections, and the potential health risks to the community, staff is not recommending that Council allow goats to be raised at this time. Year-round Growing During the public outreach process, 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. Staff is currently coordinating the required code changes to allow hoop houses and intends to bring these changes forward with the building code revisions this fall. Water Quality During the May 14 Council Work Session, staff was asked to assess if baseline sampling could be conducted to ensure that water quality does not degrade as a result of allowing urban agriculture within the City. Through discussions with Utilities, staff learned we would need to have a better understanding of the types of chemicals being used at the site before we could conduct this sampling. Staff has added questions related to the use, timing, and frequency of chemicals to the submittal checklist. If farmers or gardeners propose to use these chemicals, staff will have a better understanding of what chemicals will need to be tested. As these tests can prove expensive, staff can also provide these applicants with resources regarding alternative, organic treatments to minimize the use of these chemicals. Implementation Report As discussed during the Work Session, staff will provide an implementation report to Council in the summer of 2013 with at least the following information: July 2, 2013 -4- ITEM 26 • Number of urban agriculture and poultry licenses issued; • Average staff time to process a license; • Whether a particular size of operation causes greater impacts than smaller operations; • If any applicants proposed to use synthetic chemicals and if a change in water quality was able to be sampled for (and detected); • If additional demand for goats has arisen and if the City should pursue allowing goats; • If allowing drakes (male ducks) should be considered; • Other key issues that have arisen during the licensing process; and • Any suggested refinements to the urban agriculture regulations. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS The economic impacts to the City of Fort Collins from producing more food locally have not been quantified, However, Boulder County conducted a study in 2012 and found that if 25% of foods were produced locally, the economic impacts of this 25% shift would provide 1,899 additional jobs, over 80 million dollars in wages, and almost 12 million dollars in additional business taxes would be generated in Boulder County alone (see http://www.fcgov.com/developmentreview/pdf/ua-be-local.pdf for the presentation by Hill Grimmett, former Executive Director of Be Local Northern Colorado). In addition to the broader economic impacts, being able to produce your own food or obtain more food locally supports the City’s goal of a more resilient local economy (Principle EH1). ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Allowing urban agriculture to proliferate within City limits presents the opportunity to have numerous environmental impacts. These benefits include the potential for increased pollinator populations (biodiversity) and the psychological benefits of local food production and being more self-sufficient. In addition, the production of more food locally can reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by reducing the vehicle miles traveled by the food we consume. For these reasons, and many more, urban agriculture presents an opportunity for the City to provide for a local, resilient food economy. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinances on First Reading. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Zoning Board unanimously (5-0) recommended approval of the Land Use Code amendments related to urban agriculture during its March 21, 2013 meeting (Attachment 4). The Economic Advisory Commission unanimously (9-0) recommended approval of the Land Use Code amendments during its April 17, 2013 meeting (Attachment 5). The Natural Resources Advisory Board unanimously (7-0) recommended approval of the Land Use Code and City Code amendments related to urban agriculture during its May 15, 2013 meeting (Attachments 6 and 7). Staff also met with the Landmark Preservation Commission (Aug 2012), the Fort Collins Housing Authority Development Committee (Aug 2012), the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (Sept 2012), and the Senior Advisory Board (Sept 2012). All boards expressed general support for the changes. PUBLIC OUTREACH On July 2, 2012, the urban agriculture public engagement plan was submitted to Council. Extensive public outreach, including a project website, online survey (611 responses), public open house (95 attendees), several focus group July 2, 2013 -5- ITEM 26 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). Staff also benchmarked existing City regulations with other similar communities, including Austin, Portland, Seattle, Steamboat Springs, Denver, and Wheat Ridge. The attachments related to these outreach efforts were provided to Council during its May 14, 2013 Work Session (available at the project website at http://fcgov.com/urbanagriculture). ATTACHMENTS 1. Zone Districts where Urban Agriculture practices are currently allowed 2. Illustration of where Urban Agriculture practices are actually occurring 3. Submittal Requirements and Application Form for an Urban Agriculture License 4. Planning and Zoning Board – March 21, 2013 Meeting Minutes 5. Economic Advisory Commission – April 17, 2013 Meeting Minutes 6. Natural Resources Advisory Board – Memo from the Board Chair 7. Natural Resources Advisory Board – May 15, 2013 Meeting Minutes 8. City Council Work Session Summary, May 14, 2013 9. Powerpoint Presentation 10. Public Comment received since the May 14, 2013 Work Session (prior public comment provided to Council at the Work Session) ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 2 SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST: URBAN AGRICULTURE LICENSE  Application form  Written statement, including the following elements:  Describe the nature of the proposed urban agriculture land use, including the size of growing area;  How many employees or co-workers will be working at the site;  How will individuals access the garden or farm? Is there sufficient parking available for all users?  How will mechanized equipment be used on the site, how will the project comply with the City regarding noise levels (see http://www.colocode.com/fcmunihtml.html for more information).  What chemicals or fertilizers will be used on the site; if using synthetic pesticides or herbicides, a list of those chemicals shall be provided, along with information on timing and frequency of application;  Whether the site is in close proximity to a Natural Habitat or Feature (contact Lindsay Ex at 224-6143 or lex@fcgov.com for more information);  How trash and composting will be managed on the site;  How manure will be stored and managed on the site (setbacks from water sources and ecologically sensitive areas, how the manure will be composted and then used on the site, how the manure will be kept dry, etc. – see manure management checklist);  How the site will be maintained;  The form of irrigation to be used on the site and how stormwater will be directed into a drainage system or City right-of-way;  If produce is proposed to be distributed throughout the City, the applicant shall provide a list of the locations where the food will be distributed, the timing of the distribution, and the anticipated number of customers picking up the food at each location; and  Any additional elements that are proposed to mitigate impacts on adjacent property owners.  If a neighborhood meeting is required (urban agriculture sites over 0.5 acres or in a residential zone): Three lists (3) of names and addresses of all owners of record of real property within at least 800’ of the property lines for the parcel of land for which the project is proposed, exclusive of public right-of-way. (Two (2) lists typed on mailing labels (30 names per sheet) and the other list on a reproducible copy of those labels). All information provided on mailing labels must be submitted digitally in a Microsoft Excel format.  Floodplain Use Permit. If any part of the urban agriculture land use is within a floodplain, a floodplain use permit must be provided prior to the issuance of the license.  Site drawings. (11” x 17” or larger) Site drawings shall include the following elements:  Where mechanized equipment will be stored;  Proposed site parking (bicycles and vehicles);  If synthetic chemicals or fertilizers are proposed to be used, where they will be stored;  Location of trash and compost receptacles (must be setback a minimum 10’ from any abutting residential land use);  General drainage patterns (how the site will runoff);  The location of the proposed sign;  Measurements from the edge of all activities to any adjacent residential land uses (minimum 5’ setback).  An electronic copy of all submitted materials (above) on a disk or other digital storage device (1 copy). The following information is required to be submitted with all applications, unless waived by staff. Any item waived must be dated and initialed by a planner with the City of Fort Collins Community Development and Neighborhood Services Department. Community Development & Neighborhood Services – 281 N College Ave – Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 ATTACHMENT 3 APPLICATION FORM: URBAN AGRICULTURE LICENSE PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT Location of Business: ______________________________________________________________________ Street Address Zip Code Owner(s) Name: ______________________________ Sales Tax No. (if applicable): _________________ Business Name: ______________________________ Business Phone: __________________________ Email Address: _______________________________ City of Fort Collins Urban Agriculture Requirements: Article 3.8.31 Urban Agriculture (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 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. (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. Revised June 17, 2013 2 Urban Agriculture License Submittal Requirements ATTACHMENT 3 APPLICATION FORM: URBAN AGRICULTURE LICENSE (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 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. I have read and do understand the urban agriculture license requirements, Article 3.8.31, Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins. I agree to comply with the standards of this ordinance when operating my farm or garden. I understand it is my responsibility to comply with subdivision protective covenants which relate to urban agriculture. Signature: ________________________ Date: ______________________ Please submit this application and the associated requirements outlined in the submittal checklist to the City of Fort Collins Planning Services Department. Contact Lindsay Ex at 970.224.6143 to schedule a review of the proposed license. Special Conditions (as required by City): ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ City Approval: __________________________ Date: _________________________ Revised June 17, 2013 3 Urban Agriculture License Submittal Requirements ATTACHMENT 3 URBAN AGRICULTURE: MANURE MANAGEMENT CHECKLIST How will manure be used on site? (check all that apply)  Fertilizer  Composting  Excess stored until disposal  Other How will manure be supplied? (check all the apply)  Produced on site  Delivered to site  Combination  Other Manure Produced Onsite Please record the types of animal(s) and their number(s):  N/A Animal Number  Pets (e.g. dogs/cats) _______  Chickens _______  Ducks _______  Other _______ ____ I understand any manure delivered to the site, or excess manure produced on site and not for use in composting must be dried, tilled into the ground within 48 hours, or stored in a sealed, leak and insect-proof container. ____ I understand stored manure must be screened from view of the street and may be placed out for disposal no earlier than 12 hours before scheduled pickup and cannot remain for more than 12 hours after pickup. ____ Storage of manure shall comply with all provisions of the Fort Collins municipal code, including Section 20-1, Air Pollution Nuisances. The following information is required to be submitted with all applications, unless waived by staff. Any item waived must be dated and initialed by a planner with the City of Fort Collins Community Development and Neighborhood Services Department. Community Development & Neighborhood Services – 281 N College Ave – Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 ATTACHMENT 3 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 written data and cited sources regarding Mr. Sutherland’s claims in a more formal written presentation moving forward. Mike Pruznick commented on job/skills mismatch and believes it is a fallacy based on research he has done. In addition, he believes the City should diversify its financial support and not rely so heavily on sales tax revenue. He also stated that local retailers are not meeting the needs of the citizens of Fort Collins, but internet retailers are. Retail is changing and it doesn’t need to be revitalized, it needs to be revamped. Agenda Item 4: Follow-up Discussion Josh Birks provided an update regarding the Woodward Assistance Package. He stated that first and second reading have passed Council, and the Package will now be reviewed by Woodward’s Board. He is hopeful the project will move forward in May. Agenda Item 5: Future Agenda Items and Sales Tax Update Jessica Ping-Small presented a Sales Tax Update. Sales and Use Tax are up 4.2% for the year and we have been trending in about the 4% range. Josh Birks, Sam Solt, and Blue Hovatter met prior to the meeting to discuss a new EAC Agenda format with the goal of making our monthly meetings more efficient. The new format would include a logistics section (30 minutes), New Projects/Policy Review (45 minutes) and on-going initiatives (75 minutes). It was also stated that moving forward, the EAC would be more selective in reviewing items brought forth by other departments and more proactive about the implementation of the Economic Health Strategic Plan and other topical areas of focus. The EAC agreed, and the new agenda format will be put in place for next month. After additional discussion regarding the Urban Renewal Authority, next month’s agenda will include a URA educational training including a 3rd party URA expert and additional information provided by the City specific to our program. In May, the agenda will include a panel discussion with all interests represented to discuss the use of URA’s and their positive and negative benefits. Agenda Item 6: EAC Process Logistics No updates provided at this time. Agenda Item 7: Urban Ag Lindsay Ex presented an overview regarding Urban Agriculture in Fort Collins. Information included a description of urban agriculture, the project goal, public outreach, proposed regulations, and next steps in the process. Current trends show that many urban agricultural uses are already occurring outside of their zone districts. The proposed changes include creating a licensing system that allows for urban agriculture in all zone districts including a change in land use codes to support farming activities and a change in City animal codes to allow ducks and goats. Dan Lenskold and Jim Clark commented that they were concerned about allowing more livestock in an urban environment and the possibility for disease. Lindsay commented that she would add those concerns to do further research. After thorough consideration and discussion, the EAC developed the following recommendation to the Fort Collins City Council. Mike Kulisheck motioned, and Dan Lenskold seconded the following motion: Due to the economic benefit of sourcing food locally, the Economic Advisory Commission supports the Land Use Code changes as proposed on April 17, 2013. We find the changes to be economically sustainable appropriately supporting a local marketplace in a local economy. Motion passed 9-0 Economic Advisory Commission April 17, 2013 ATTACHMENT 5  Increase locations of farmers markets to include low, medium and high density mixed use neighborhoods.  Allow ducks, and poultry based on lot size.  Allow two goats per household.  Update beekeeping regulations. o Have early dialogue o Commitment to best practices o Allows tracking of licenses o Allow a grace period to be license free o Development Review would not be required • Support from City Boards and Commissions so far: o Formal endorsements from Planning and Zoning and Economic Advisory Boards o General support from presentations in 2012:  Natural Resources Advisory Board  Parks and Recreation Board  Landmark Preservation Board  Senior Advisory Board Discussion • Paul Nastu: What about apartment buildings? (Everyone in a multi-family building has to agree if any of the units participate in urban agriculture.) • Harry Edwards: Don’t HOA rules take precedent over these rules? (Yes. We can give information to them, but staff is not recommending to override HOA’s rules. • Phil Friedman: If licensing doesn’t apply to household gardens, what size garden does licensing affect? (This is a grey area. The key issue is that the City does not allow urban agriculture as a principal use on the land in 21 of our 25 zone districts. A license is required when a garden or farm becomes a principal use on the land. The City is more interested in compliance than handing out licenses. We are trying to make a process that is easy to comply with and meet best practices.) • Lindsay Ex: Regarding keeping animals, no slaughtering is allowed in the City. • Lindsay Ex: The local food cluster will address how to get food to market for the farmers. • Harry Edwards: Are there any special needs on solid waste management for animals. (The City’s nuisance code would apply here. You could also use the manure for composting.) • Joe Halseth suggested Joe Piesman add to his letter of recommendation to Council on this issue that hoop houses receive exemption from the City’s Building Code update. Vote on representative to Bike Advisory Committee (BAC). • Joe Halseth attended the last Bicycle Advisory Committee.. He agreed to be the NRAB’s representative to the BAC. Joe Piesman moved and Liz Pruessner seconded the following motion: The NRAB supports permissive measures which encourage the growth of urban agriculture as one of several means of contributing to the health and vitality of the local economy, and the thoughtful reduction of Land Use Code provisions which present ready access to community gardens, community-supported agriculture and urban farming. The NRAB recommends the adoption of the staff-supported amendments to the Land Use Code and The City Code to increase the opportunities for urban agriculture within the City. Vote passed unanimously 7 – 0 - 0 ATTACHMENT 7 ATTACHMENT 8 ATTACHMENT 8 ATTACHMENT 8 ATTACHMENT 8 ATTACHMENT 8 ATTACHMENT 8 ATTACHMENT 8 1 1 Urban Agriculture City Council Hearing Laurie Kadrich, Community Development and Neighborhood Services Director Lindsay Ex, Senior Environmental Planner July 2, 2013 2 Council Consideration • First Reading of Ordinance No. 096, 2013 amending the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code to by the Addition of Provisions Pertaining to Urban Agriculture -and- • First Reading of Ordinance No. 097, 2013 amending Chapter 4, Article II & III, of the Code of the City of Fort Collins related to the Care and Keeping of Animals ATTACHMENT 9 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 Urban Agriculture in the City Zone Districts Allowing Urban Agriculture - Public Open Lands -River Conservation - Urban Estate - Residential Foothills 6 Existing Urban Agricultural Land Uses Urban Agriculture in the City 4 7 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) 8 Objective 1: Create a licensing system • Allows urban agriculture in all zone districts • Opportunity for early dialogue and commitment to best practices • Submittal checklist addresses manure management concerns • Grace period allows existing producers to be licensed at no additional cost 5 9 When is a license required? Private garden: Allowed in all zone districts, can grow and sell produce grown as an accessory use Urban Agriculture: When a garden or farm is a principal use on the land, then a license is required. Garden on Sunset Drive (Photo: Ginny Sawyer) Happy Heart Farms (Photo: Happy Heart Farms) 10 Objective 2: 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) 6 11 Objective 3: 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 required. (Photo: Sustainable Living Association) 12 Animals • Update beekeeping regulations – Allow for movable comb hives – Allow increased time days to dispose of or combine nucleus colonies. Movable Comb Beehive. 7 13 Changes since the Work Session • Ducks – only allowing hens • Goats – no longer recommending – Concerns raised from the Larimer County Department of Health and Colorado State University • Risks of keeping goats (because of potential diseases, e.g., Q fever and rabies) outweigh the benefits • Recommend waiting until vaccines or more reliable screening methods are available 14 Next Steps • Community-Wide – Local Food Cluster – Community Gardens • Policy and Regulations – Year-round growing – Water Quality – Implementation Report 8 15 City Boards and Commissions Formal Endorsements for Code Changes: – Planning and Zoning Board (March 21) – Economic Advisory Commission (April 17) – Natural Resources Advisory Board (May 15) General Support (presentations in 2012): – Parks and Recreation Advisory Board – Landmark Preservation Commission – Senior Advisory Board 16 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 9 17 Council Consideration • First Reading of Ordinance No. 096, 2013 amending the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code to by the Addition of Provisions Pertaining to Urban Agriculture -and- • First Reading of Ordinance No. 097, 2013 amending Chapter 4, Article II & III, of the Code of the City of Fort Collins related to the Care and Keeping of Animals From: chrish@trebuchetgroup.com on behalf of Chris Hutchinson To: City Leaders Cc: Lindsay Ex Subject: Request to support a change around urban animal husbandry Date: Thursday, June 20, 2013 12:26:39 PM First, I want to thank you all for the fine work you do serving us as citizens of this great city. Second, I'd like to ask that you consider allowing the code change to allow raising of goats in the city as has been researched by staff, even as staff is not recommending to go forward with this change. My understanding is that the one significant reason for the lack of recommendation is that Larimer County Department of Health is concerned about Q fever. I also understand that staff contacted health experts from other urban, municipal governments that allow goats, e.g., Denver (allowed since 2011) and Seattle (allowed since 2007), as well as the Center for Disease Control, CSU’s Urban Agriculture Program, and numerous citizens. According to Lindsay Ex, a staffer on this project, "While all health representatives acknowledged the risks of Q fever, they acknowledged that no Q fever outbreaks have occurred in urban environments and the risk is low that an outbreak would occur in the City, should the City allow goats to be raised." I also understand that only a small number of citizens, myself included, have expressed interest in raising dwarf goats in pairs on their property. I know that some people already raise goats without problems or oversight, yet do so very quietly since they are out of compliance with code. I believe one of the reasons for only hearing from a few people is that people who are doing it do not want to raise attention, and other people don't yet see it as a possibility. For me, I have 1/4 acre with a garden and yard that supplies much of my family's food during the growing season, and would like to include small goats to help my children be able to participate in and truly understand the full cycle of nature. We had a dog at one point who, while friendly, liked to escape through our front door, bark, and disturb our neighbors. My experience with goats is that the impact to our neighborhood would be far less than our dog or other dogs in the neighborhood, with the beneficial side effects of nutrition and education for my children With all the feather-ruffling about chickens before the code was changed, I have heard no problems with errant chickens or property owners since. In my opinion, we live in a highly-educated city where people tend to make good decisions and deal with consequences effectively. With all this in mind, I ask you to override staff's recommendation and adopt the carefully researched language allowing the responsible raising of goats into City code. Thank you, Chris Hutchinson 1320 Whedbee St 970 219 2993 PS The cost of milk-producing goats is $300-$500 each, so this is not an inexpensive undertaking when you also factor in food and veterinary care. PPS Here is a great site with simple information about temperament and care of dwarf nigerian goats (one of the options in the draft ATTACHMENT 10 language) http://www.ndga.org/about.html ATTACHMENT 10 From: Lindsay Ex To: "andrewthesteiner@yahoo.com" Cc: Laurie Kadrich Subject: Goats in City Limits - response Date: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 9:15:22 AM Attachments: q_fever.pdf Good morning Andrew, My name is Lindsay Ex and I am the project lead on developing the urban agriculture regulations for the City. I’m going to try and address your request for articles about Q Fever, but as you have found there are limited data surrounding Q fever in an urban environment, as the documented incidences have occurred in larger farms. However, for general information about the disease, I’m attaching an article by the Center for Food Security and Public Health (at Iowa State University) that was provided to me. King County (Seattle) has an excellent website on all issues related to private goat ownership, see here. Make sure to click on the link that further outlines diseases from goats and livestock. The outbreak that was associated with farms in Washington and Montana is also linked to from their website, but the direct link is here. I hope this information begins to answer your request – if you would like more information, would you please let me know? Thanks, Lindsay Lindsay Ex, LEED G.A. Senior Environmental Planner CDNS | City of Fort Collins lex@fcgov.com 970.224.6143 From: Andrew Steiner [mailto:andrewthesteiner@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2013 9:44 PM To: City Leaders Subject: Goats in City Limits Hello, I am writing in regards to the upcoming vote which would allow citizens of Fort Collins to possess goats within city limits. From what I have read, the only potential drawback is one that does not generally affect urban goats called Q Disease. It is a disease that affects goats in confined spaces, like within farms created for mass production and is not a real threat to small populations like what ATTACHMENT 10 is being proposed in our city. I know that there's a lot of information out there, and I was hoping you all could direct me to more legitimate articles about the concerns of Q Disease. Would any of you be able to provide me with that information? It seems to me that conservatives would support such a notion on the basis of both self-reliance and individual freedom and green liberals would support such a notion on the basis of community sustainability and individual freedom. I'm just curious as to what the real drawbacks are, if any. Since many cities have already allowed urban goats (Seattle, Portland, Denver, Austin) I ask what would stop our city from doing the same? I believe our strength is in our independence and that we ought to do everything we can to promote that mentality. The more we provide for ourselves, the less we need to rely on outside forces that may not have our best interest at heart. Thanks for your time and thoughts, Andrew Steiner ATTACHMENT 10 From: Lindsay Ex To: "bfedak13@gmail.com" Subject: RE: Urban Agriculture - Update and Council Hearing on July 2, 2013 Date: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 12:11:20 PM Hi Becky, Thank you so much for your note – I will include it in the packet that goes onto City Council so your voice can be heard. It should be noted that the key reason we are not recommending goats is not because of the lack of interest but because of the concerns raised by the Larimer County Department of Health, as outlined below. But, to answer your question, we have not conducted a formal survey of individuals in the City who wish to raise goats. However, the email list for this topic includes almost 400 people, and you are the first person I’ve heard back from who is expressing the desire to raise goats above the six that I am already aware of. This is not to suggest that there aren’t more people out there who also want to raise goats, but I’m just not certain there is a groundswell of interest in raising goats in the same number that want to raise chickens. If you feel that I’m wrong, do let me know. I hope we’ve shown in this process that we are very open to feedback from the community. Thanks again for your feedback – I really appreciate it. Sincerely, Lindsay From: Becky Fedak [mailto:bfedak13@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2013 10:26 AM To: Lindsay Ex Subject: Re: Urban Agriculture - Update and Council Hearing on July 2, 2013 Hello Lindsay, I just wanted to take the time to thank you for providing all of the helpful and informative emails and keeping those of us that are interested in the urban agriculture discussion in Fort Collins apprised of the developments and decisions by staff. It is exciting to see the strides the community is making in this space! The one decision I am slightly disappointed about is not recommending the allowance of goats to council. You noted in your email that only half a dozen people have expressed interest in raising goats, was there a survey or some other means used to gather this information? I would expect this number to be higher, for example our household has entertained the idea but have not shared this information directly with City staff so would not be included in your counts. I unfortunately will be out of town for the July 2nd council session to express this opinion but would encourage the City to reconsider their decision and recommendation to council as it seems more data needs to be gathered on the interest of residents in this practice to make an informed decision and accurate recommendation to council. ATTACHMENT 10 Best, Becky Fedak On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Lindsay Ex <lex@fcgov.com> wrote: Good morning everyone, As you may know, the urban agriculture code changes are heading to City Council on July 2, 2013. Council meetings begin at 6:00 pm and the agenda (which will indicate what time this item goes on) will be available online no later than June 28th at this website: http://www.fcgov.com/cityclerk/agendas.php. Updates Since the May 14, 2013 Council Work Session In general, the proposed code changes to allow urban agriculture in all zone districts and allow farmers markets in a few more zone districts have not changed. We did remove the reference to “all” in the parking standards outlined in the urban agriculture license requirements. There are a couple of areas where changes have been made, including the following: Goats – As I indicated in my last email to the group (on May 17), staff was reconsidering the recommendation to allow goats within City limits due to the concerns raised by the Larimer County Department of Public Health and experts with Colorado State University. After the discussion, staff contacted other urban, municipal governments that allow goats, e.g., Denver (allowed since 2011) and Seattle (allowed since 2007). Staff spoke with health experts from those areas as well as representatives from the Center for Disease Control, CSU’s Urban Agriculture Program, and numerous citizens. While all health representatives acknowledged the risks of Q fever, they acknowledged that no Q fever outbreaks have occurred in urban environments and the risk is low that an outbreak would occur in the City, should the City allow goats to be raised. We also asked the experts with CSU what standards should be put in place if the City were to move forward with allowing goats. These experts recommended that, at a minimum, potential goat owners should be required to take a class in animal husbandry, care, and disease prevention and management. They also suggested an inspection of the goat facilities prior to issuing a license should be required. Knowing the concerns from the Larimer County Department of Health, who have significant expertise in this area, the relatively low number of citizens who have expressed an interest in raising goats (I have heard from only about a ½ dozen folks), the amount of resources required to coordinate these classes and conduct the inspections, and the potential health risks to the community, staff is not recommending that Council allow goats to be raised at this time. Ducks – Also in my last email update, I mentioned the concerns that were raised around allowing drakes (male ducks). While they do not pose the same level of noise concerns that ATTACHMENT 10 roosters do, CSU experts and Larimer County Department of Health staff presented concerns related to handling ducklings and to the noise concerns that could still arise from allowing drakes. Though raising drakes with hens can be beneficial to the overall health of the animals, staff is recommending that drakes not be allowed within the City at this time. Chickens and Ducks – Based on the feedback from CSU experts during the discussion about goats, staff is now proposing a pre-inspection of the structures for raising poultry to ensure they meet the standards outlined in City Code, e.g., setback 15’ from abutting property lines unless there is written approval from surrounding neighbors, that the structure be predator- resistant, etc. This pre-inspection will help ensure that licensees have developed a structure that complies with the code and will minimize any impacts on the neighbors. Thanks to all of you for your active involvement in this discussion. Your feedback and guidance throughout this process has been incredibly appreciated. As always, I encourage each of you to attend the City Council during their July 2nd Hearing to express your thoughts on these proposed code changes to Council. I look forward to seeing you on July 2nd , and if you cannot attend the meeting, please feel free to send any written comments my way (prior to the hearing) and I will make sure those get into Council’s packet. Thank you, Lindsay P.S. If you’d like to be removed from this mailing list, please just let me know. Lindsay Ex, LEED G.A. Senior Environmental Planner CDNS | City of Fort Collins lex@fcgov.com 970.224.6143 -- Rebecca Fedak, P.E. www.linkedin.com/in/beckyfedak www.runningwaterinternational.org ATTACHMENT 10 From: Cheryl Distaso To: City Leaders Cc: Bruce Hendee; Lindsay Ex Subject: Urban Agriculture Date: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 11:22:52 PM Dear City Leaders- Hope you are enjoying these beautiful summer days. I'm writing you this evening about the Urban Agriculture Issue that will be before you on Tuesday, July 2nd. I've had the pleasure of working with Lindsay Ex regarding this issue. It's actually the first time I've worked with Ms. Ex, and I've found her to be extremely transparent and responsive; her commitment to this community shines through in the work that she does. I encourage you to support the Land Use Code and Municipal Code changes necessary to move forward with the Urban Agriculture proposal. Additionally, I strongly urge you to allow two pygmy or dwarf goats for those community members who choose to have goats for milk production. It is my understand that staff is not recommending that goats be included in the Urban Agriculture proposal because of concerns about Q virus. I believe that these concerns are unfounded, as we can look at other cities, such as Denver, Lake Wood, Portland and Seattle which have been allowing goats for years without any negative consequences. Having goats to produce milk is a matter of sustainability, as is the entire Urban Agriculture proposal. Our City decision makers are not only data driven but inherently concerned with the three areas of sustainability: environment, equity, and economy. The Urban Agriculture proposal that is before you, with the addition of two pygmy or dwarf goats, would give the city a great opportunity to walk the talk of sustainability. Thanks much, Cheryl -- Cheryl Distaso Coordinator, FCCAN P.O. Box 400 Fort Collins, CO 80522 (970) 419-8944www.fccan.org info@fccan.org ATTACHMENT 10 From: Lindsay Ex To: "Kate Peterkin" Subject: RE: Urban Agriculture - Update and Council Hearing on July 2, 2013 Date: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 2:43:32 PM Hi Kate, Thank you for writing about the urban agriculture efforts we are conducting. In response to your question, the City does not currently override HOAs on chickens and staff is not proposing to override HOAs. In other words, HOAs do have the discretion to not allow chickens. I hope that helps - will you let me know if I can provide any further clarification? Sincerely, Lindsay -----Original Message----- From: Kate Peterkin [mailto:katepete@earthlink.net] Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 2:58 PM To: Lindsay Ex Subject: Re: Urban Agriculture - Update and Council Hearing on July 2, 2013 Hello Lindsay, Thank you for keeping me in the loop regarding proposals for Urban Agriculture. Can you tell me whether HOAs will have the discretion to override the City's choice to allow chickens, etc in "all zones"? I believe this issue needs to be addressed at this point to avoid unnecessary conflict between HOA residents and their HOA regulatory boards. Clear guidance from the City will be needed. Thank you. Kate Peterkin, Resident of Warren Shores Community Association 730 Sandpiper Point, Fort Collins ATTACHMENT 10 1 ORDINANCE NO. 096, 2013 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING THE LAND USE CODE BY THE 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, in 2011, the City Council adopted the City Plan ASafety 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 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: . . . 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: 2 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 agriculture 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 the proposed use has obtained an urban agriculture 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 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. (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 3 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. All urban agriculture land uses 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 all urban agriculture land uses, which sign shall contain the name and contact information of the manager or coordinator of the agricultural land use. If a synthetic pesticide or herbicide is used in connection with such use, the sign shall also include the name of the chemical and the frequency of application. The contact information for the 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 agriculture land use abuts a residential use, there shall be a 4 minimum setback of five (5) feet between the operation and the property line. (3) Notice. At the time of an initial application for an urban agriculture land use 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 agriculture land use exceeds 0.5 acres in size, the Director shall determine whether the proposed urban agriculture land use presents a significant impact on the affected neighborhood, and if so, the Director shall schedule a neighborhood meeting and provide mailed and posted notice for such meeting. Such notice and neighborhood meeting shall be conducted in accordance with Sections 2.2.2 and 2.2.6 of this Land Use Code. 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. 5 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: 6 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. . . . 7 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. 8 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. . . . 9 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. . . . 10 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. 11 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: 12 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. 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: 14 (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: 15 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. 16 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 Section 4-117 of the City Code, and exactly two (2) pygmy or dwarf goats except as otherwise authorized in Section 4-121 of the City Code 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 17 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. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 2nd day of July, A.D. 2013, and to be presented for final passage on the 16th day of July, A.D. 2013. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 16th day of July, A.D. 2013. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk ORDINANCE NO. 097, 2013 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKING CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 4, ARTICLE II & III, OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS RELATED TO THE CARE AND KEEPING 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 also worked with the Larimer County Humane Society to assess whether allowing chickens to be kept in the City has created a nuisance in the community, and has found that, although there have been 153 permits issued for the keeping of chickens, there has only been the issuance of one 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 WHEREAS, staff has conducted citizen outreach and has learned that many City residents favor allowing ducks and an increased number of chickens 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 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. That Section 4-117 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: 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 iIn 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, up 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 permit by the Human Society and have received such information or training pertaining to the keeping of poultry as said agency deems appropriate; (2) The keeping of roosters or drakes (male ducks) is prohibited; only chicken or duck hens are permitted, and all references herein to poultry shall mean chicken or duck 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 (12) 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 property owners abutting the parcel where the poultry will be housed must be notified in writing prior to obtaining a permit for said number of poultry. (14) 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- (25) Any person keeping chicken henspoultry pursuant to this provision must first have been issued a permit by the Humane Society and have received such information or training pertaining to the keeping of chicken henspoultry as said agency deems appropriate. Prior to the issuance of said license, a site inspection shall be conducted by the Humane Society to verify compliance with the requirements of this subsection; (36) 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 per chicken four (4) square feet per chicken hen or duck; (47) 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; (58) The chicken henspoultry must be further protected from predators by being closed in the chickenpoultry house from dusk to dawn; (69) 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; (710) The chicken henspoultry 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 (811) The chicken henspoultry 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 2. That Section 4-228 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: 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. -3- Section 3. 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 thirty(30)sixty (60) days after the date it is acquired. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 2nd day of July, A.D. 2013, and to be presented for final passage on the 16th day of July, A.D. 2013. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 16th day of July, A.D. 2013. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk -4-