HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 03/04/2014 - FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 034, 2014, AMENDINGAgenda Item 8
Item # 8 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY March 4, 2014
City Council
STAFF
Lindsay Ex, Senior Environmental Planner
Sam Houghteling, Economic Health Intern
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 034, 2014, Amending Sections 3.8.31 and 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code
Pertaining to Hoop Houses.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to amend the Land Use Code to exempt hoop houses from the Building Code
requirements and add hoop houses to the list of accessory structures allowed in the Code, and require urban
agriculture licensees to locate hoop houses on their site plans. In July 2013, Council also directed staff to
consider standards for the raising of farm animals. Based on public outreach and staff research, staff found
that the concerns raised regarding farm animals could be addressed with existing regulations and were limited
to two neighborhoods within the City. In addition, numerous citizens expressed strong concerns about
regulating their food production ability within the zone districts that currently allow farm animals. Thus, staff is
not proposing amendments to the City’s regulations regarding farm animals. Instead of developing regulations
that could affect all residents within these districts (approximately 1,700 homes), staff is working with the
concerned neighborhoods directly to resolve specific concerns.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
In 2011, City Plan, the community's comprehensive plan, was updated and contained four goals related to
local food production. Since that Plan was updated, staff has been working to align policies and regulations
with the Plan’s goals. In 2013, Council adopted updates to the Land Use and City Code that permit urban
agriculture in all zone districts, allow farmers markets in more zone districts, and allow a greater number and
types of animals to be raised.
Throughout the public outreach process for the Phase One Urban Agriculture Code Changes, citizens
continuously expressed a desire for the City to promote year-round food production by allowing hoop houses
to be exempt from Building Code requirements. In addition, during the public hearings for the Code changes,
Council directed staff to consider whether to develop regulations for the raising of farm animals in the zone
districts where they are allowed.
Each of these two objectives (hoop houses and farm animals) is further described below, including the problem
statement, public outreach and research, and staff recommendation for each effort.
Agenda Item 8
Item # 8 Page 2
Objective 1: Begin removing barriers to year-round production by allowing hoop houses to be exempt
from Building Code requirements
Problem Statement: During the public outreach process and Council work session for the Phase One Code
changes, it was clear one of the greatest barriers to supporting year-round food production was being able to
erect hoop houses. Hoop houses are temporary and generally more cost-friendly than a greenhouse; they are
constructed of a large hoops or bows, often made of plastic pipe, and then covered with a layer of heavy
greenhouse plastic. Hoop houses do not contain utilities; if these structures did contain utilities, then they
would be classified as greenhouses.
The challenge regarding hoop houses is that the Building Code requires any structure over eight (8) feet in
height or over one hundred twenty (120) square feet to meet certain structural requirements, e.g., be able to
withstand certain wind and snow loads. Meeting these structural requirements would require significant
investments in the structures and would engineer them in such a way that they would act more as
greenhouses (permanent structures) than hoop houses (temporary structures). For beginning farmers, and
especially those on short land leases, hoop houses extend the growing season without requiring significant
investments.
Research and Outreach: In the spring 2013, staff met with the Residential Code Committee, who assists
Building staff in Building Code updates, to discuss any concerns they might have regarding exempting hoop
houses from the building permit process. During this discussion, the committee’s concerns related to hoop
houses were largely focused on land use concerns, e.g., setbacks from abutting parcels and overall
appearance. Given that these structures are temporary in nature and utilities are not allowed, the committee
was comfortable with regulating hoop houses through the Land Use Code rather than the Building Code.
To better understand the land use concerns, staff met with the Planning and Zoning Board during October
2013, conducted an online survey (87 respondents), held an open house (15 attendees), and conducted two
focus groups (one with self-selected citizens and one with the Local Food Cluster Policy Subcommittee).
The feedback from the focus groups, online survey, and open house were strongly supportive of the City’s
efforts to exempt hoop houses. 89.7% of survey respondents felt that the City is moving in the right direction in
exempting hoop houses from the Building Code. Additionally, 75.6% of survey respondents preferred that the
City work to produce and distribute informational brochures illustrating best practices, versus 26.7% who felt
that the City should develop specific standards for hoop houses. Citizen concerns generally surrounded visual
impacts, improper mooring, and HOA restrictions. A number of citizens suggested that should problems arise,
the City could move from informational brochures to standards and regulations. During the focus group
discussion with interested citizens, it was also discussed that City staff has never received a complaint related
to hoop houses that may already exist within the City.
Staff also researched how other communities that are committed to local food production are regulating hoop
houses and found a range of approaches. Many communities with shorter growing seasons, such as
Minneapolis/St. Paul, Milwaukee, Asheville NC, Boston and Cleveland have all provided exemptions or
minimally regulated hoop houses (Attachment 1).
Recommendation: Staff is proposing amendments to the Land Use Code that would allow hoop houses as
accessory structures in all zone districts, but require that anyone who is required to obtain an urban agriculture
license (those gardening or farming on a piece of land as a principal use) must also illustrate where the hoop
house will be located on the farm and minimize any impacts to surrounding neighbors, through minimum
setbacks (five feet) from the property line and other techniques as applicable.
To address concerns related to appearance, compatibility, and overall safety of the structures, staff is working
with the CSU Extension to develop an informational brochure that will be available to anyone interested in
using hoop houses for year-round food production. This brochure will contain information on the following
aspects of erecting and maintaining a hoop house:
Agenda Item 8
Item # 8 Page 3
Types/structure: the various shapes and sizes of different hoop houses and the pros and cons of each
option;
Growing: yield, seasonal solar gain, disease, planning for pests;
Tips/Advice: irrigation, siting the hoop house on your lot, being a good neighbor;
Resources and requirements: City regulations related to hoop houses and resources that can be
utilized for more information, e.g., the Natural Resources Conservation service and other cost-share or
financing issues;
Definitions: what the difference is between a hoop house and a greenhouse (temporary versus
permanent structures) and a glossary that includes ribs, baseboard, hurricane straps, etc.; and
Risk Management: maintenance, insurance, orientation, and structure.
It is staff’s goal to have a draft of the brochure available by the end of March. Should the proposed Land Use
Code changes be adopted by Council, staff will closely monitor whether the informational brochure is the best
solution for addressing the concerns raised during the outreach process. If additional standards are necessary,
staff will bring these forward to the Planning and Zoning Board and to Council with the annual Land Use Code
updates.
Objective 2: Develop standards for the raising of farm animals in the zone districts where they are
currently allowed (Urban Estate, Rural Lands, Residential Foothills, and River
Conservation Zone Districts).
Problem Statement: During the public hearing for the Phase One Code changes, Council directed staff to
assess whether the City has adequate regulations regarding farm animals in the zone districts where they are
allowed. Several citizens expressed concern during the hearings, specifically related to roosters and the
nuisances they were creating. Currently, the only specific regulations related to farm animals the City has is
the limitation of no more than one (1) horse per half (½) acre of open land.
Research and Outreach: Staff benchmarked existing regulations against eight communities both within the
state and throughout the country. Almost every community had more specific standards regarding the keeping
of farm animals, where they were allowed (Attachment 2). An early focus group was held to ascertain
concerns related to farm animals and the group identified that noise, odor, inhumane conditions, and water
quality as key issues for residents (see Attachment 2). Initially, staff began to consider drafting similarly
specific standards to reflect the concerns heard during the Council hearing and the focus group.
However, during the public outreach process, there was a lack of consensus on whether the City should
develop regulations related to farm animals. For example, 57.7% of the online survey respondents felt that the
City did not need regulations in the four districts, versus 38.8% who said that regulations were necessary.
Further 88.2% of respondents had not experienced any problems with farm animals. When the survey results
were segregated by those who lived the zone districts that allowed farm animals versus those that did not, the
patterns discussed above were consistent. Finally, several residents attending the open house expressed
sincere concern about their food production capabilities, as they were annexed into the City from the County
and wanted to retain their right to raise farm animals.
Staff then researched existing regulations to see if they might address the concerns that were raised, e.g., if
sufficient regulations already in place. Working with numerous City departments to answer this question, staff
found regulations already in place for the concerns identified during the process (see Table 1).
Staff also followed up with survey respondents and open house attendants to assess the extent of problems
related to farm animals. Based on these conversations, staff was able to isolate the majority of concerns to a
single neighborhood (not all concerned citizens could be located or responded to staff’s contacts). Larimer
Humane Society and City staff are following up with these residents to resolve these nuisances. Staff also
went on a farm tour with a citizen concerned about the proposed regulations and found that on her five plus
acre piece of land, the noise from surrounding traffic was quite a bit louder than her rooster (as measured by a
decibel meter).
Agenda Item 8
Item # 8 Page 4
Recommendation: As regulations are already in place to address the concerns raised by citizens during the
public outreach process, staff is not proposing any additional regulations related to the raising of farm animals
at this time. However, staff is updating the project’s website (www.fcgov.com/urbanagriculture) to act as a one-
stop shop for all of the different regulations that affect residents who wish to raise farm animals in the zone
districts in which they are allowed.
Table 1: Concerns Raised during Public Outreach regarding Farm Animals and the Regulations
that Address these Concerns
Concern Existing Regulation Notes
Noise and other
nuisances, e.g., odor
Chapter 4 of the City
Code - Care and
Treatment of Animals
The most frequent concern raised was related to
the noise of roosters, which can be enforced
through this code section. City Code also
contains references to odors, e.g., that they
cannot interfere with the “comfortable enjoyment
of property or normal conduct of business.”
Concerns related to
property maintenance
Chapter 20 of the City
Code - Exterior
Property Maintenance
and Weeds, Brush
Piles, and Rubbish
This section addresses property maintenance,
especially as it relates to areas visible from the
public right-of-way and how properties must be
maintained from these views.
Number of animals per
lot (inhumane conditions)
Chapter 4 of the City
Code - Care and
Treatment of Animals
A section of this Chapter is dedicated to the “Care
and Treatment of Animals” and contains
numerous references to animal welfare all of
which would allow the Larimer Humane Society to
enforce inhumane conditions on a parcel.
Manure/Waste
Management (Water
Quality)
Chapter 4 of the City
Code - Care and
Treatment of Animals
-and- Chapter 26 of
the City Code -
Stormwater Utility
Chapter 4 requires the removal of animal waste
so as not to cause a public nuisance. Chapter 26
also includes language that does not allow a
person to “create a significant potential for
migration of pollutants or contaminated water to
the City’s storm drainage facilities” which includes
water bodies.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACT
One of the most significant barriers to year-round food production is the lack of a longer growing season. By
Agenda Item 8
Item # 8 Page 5
Further, in a community where 1 in 7 children have some sort of food insecurity, and childhood obesity levels
have been steadily climbing for three decades, an increase in local food production will have a positive effect
on the availability of fresh healthy foods for those who need it most.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Staff met with the Planning and Zoning Board during its October Work Session, February Work Session, and
February Hearing to discuss the proposed Code changes. During the October Work Session, Board members
directed staff to develop a more robust public outreach process to ensure all potentially affected citizens were
notified of the proposed changes and had an opportunity to participate in the process.
On February 13, 2014, the Planning and Zoning Board unanimously (7-0) recommended the proposed
amendments to the Land Use Code.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Extensive public outreach has led to the formation of the proposed code changes before the Board. These
outreach efforts included the following:
September 2013
o Email update to the urban agriculture list serve (365 subscribers) announcing the project and
soliciting participants in the focus groups.
o Farm Animals Focus Group held with representatives from Colorado State University,
Homeowners Associations, interested citizens, and numerous City departments, including
Planning, Neighborhood Services, Natural Areas and Economic Health.
October 2013
o Hoop Houses Focus Group with representatives from community gardens, urban farms, and
numerous City departments, including Building, Planning, Neighborhood Services, and Economic
Health.
o Online survey launched. Email update to the urban agriculture list serve announcing the survey.
1,700 postcards mailed to all parcels within the zone districts where farm animals are allowed.
November 2013
o Open house held (15 attendees)
o Online survey closed (87 respondents)
December 2013
o Email update to urban agriculture list serve with summary of online survey and open house
feedback
o Focus group with Local Food Cluster Policy Subcommittee to review the feedback received to date
and proposed direction
o Farm tour with Ms. Teel-Duggan (additional farm tour cancelled due to weather)
ATTACHMENTS
1. Hoop House Research and Focus Group Notes (PDF)
2. Farm Animals Research and Focus Group Notes (PDF)
3. Online Survey Summary (PDF)
4. Open House Summary (PDF)
5. Local Food Cluster Policy Subcommittee Notes (PDF)
6. February, 2014 Planning and Zoning Board Draft Meeting Minutes (PDF)
October 17, 2013 – Focus Group Discussion on Hoop Houses Page 1 of 3
Project: Urban Agriculture Phase 2 – Hoop Houses and Farm Animals
Focus Group on Hoop Houses
October 17, 2013
4:00 – 5:00 p.m. at Conference Room A, 281 N College Avenue
Draft Meeting Notes
Attendees:
Lindsay Ex
Sam Houghteling
Mike Gebo
Dennis Stenson
Bailey Stenson
Michael Baute
Jeff Baumgartner
Erich Stroheim
Notes:
Background. Lindsay Ex highlighted that in 2012 and 2013, staff worked with the
community to allow the practice of urban agriculture as a principal use throughout the
City, allowed farmers markets in mixed-use zone districts, and allowed additional types
and increased numbers of farm animals to be raised (Phase One Changes). Each of these
amendments was designed to further the City’s goal of supporting local food production
(City Plan Principle Safety and Wellness 3).
During public and City Council deliberation on the Phase One Changes, staff was asked
to address two other issues related to urban agriculture:
1. Develop standards for the raising of farm animals in the zone districts
where they are currently allowed (Urban Estate, Rural Lands , Residential
Foothills, and River Conservation Districts); and
2. Begin to remove barriers to year-round food production by allowing hoop
houses.
The focus of this discussion was to address issue #2.
Introductions and Project Goal. Each attendee introduced themselves. We then
discussed the following goals for the effort:
Promote year-round growing opportunities in a more cost-friendly manner than
constructing a full greenhouse;
Protect neighbors quality of life; and
Provide information to new farmers for best practices on constructing hoop
houses in our area.
October 17, 2013 – Focus Group Discussion on Hoop Houses Page 2 of 3
Lindsay discussed that there needs to be a balance between ensuring the visual
experience neighbors currently have with the desired goal of having year-round, locally
grown food.
The group asked if City staff were aware of any complaints related to existing hoop
houses. Staff was not aware of any.
As hoop houses have never presented an issue, the group discussed creating
informational brochures for hoop houses, so folks can learn about best practices
associated with year-round growing in this part of the state. The group also discussed
and agreed that urban farmers are likely to have larger hoop houses, and included hoop
houses within the urban agriculture licensing requirement makes sense.
For the best practices brochure, the group discussed the following:
Working with CSU Extension to see if such a brochure has already been
developed, and if not, see if Extension could develop and publish the brochure as
our partner
The brochure should illustrate best practices, ideally using “this, not this”
illustrations.
Consider if the brochure can be done as one, or if there should be separate
brochures for residential vs. commercial scale hoop houses.
Practices should include:
o Orientation – local farmers have found an East-West orientation best
deflects the wind
o Anchoring – could discuss the use of hurricane straps on the hoop house
to help protect the structure that can be anchored to concrete posts
o Caterpillar tunnels – this is one type of a hoop house and is typically
made with a single wall of plastic
o Growing – the brochure could discuss what can be grown within these
structures and timing for planting
o Visual impacts – the brochure should address how to minimize visual
impacts to neighbors through setbacks from property lines and how to
not impact solar access
o Other elements – other elements, such as wind loading, spacing between
the ribs, and obtaining materials locally and from recycled sources could
also be included.
Next Steps:
Staff is preparing an online survey to review these suggestions with a broader audience.
Staff’s goal is to hold a public open house in mid-November or early December and have
the proposed code changes heard before Council in February 2014.
October 17, 2013 – Focus Group Discussion on Hoop Houses Page 3 of 3
HOOP HOUSES FOCUS GROUP – Research Matrix
Draft: October 17, 2013
Wheat Ridge Seattle Baltimore Cleveland Milwaukee Boston Asheville Twin Cities Boulder
In addition to the zoning
code amendments, the
City also made updates to
the building code that
eased requirements for
hoop houses.
See Ordinance
1494 adopted by City
Council in June
2011. Now, any hoop
house that is 400 square
feet or less in size is
exempt from building
permit. Hoop houses that
are 400 to 1,000 square
feet in size require a
building permit, but they
have less strict
requirements for wind
and snow load. Over 1,00
sqft – the full process is
required.
No
exemption
for hoop
houses.
Longer
growing
season and
higher
urban
density.
Permanent structures
are prohibited.
However, temporary
greenhouses,
including high
tunnels/hoop-
houses, cold-frames,
and similar structures
are permitted to
extend the growing
season. Accessory
structures, such as
sheds, gazebos and
pergolas, are also
permitted.
Cleveland’s Urban
Garden District uses
a broad definition for
urban gardens. Com-
munity gardens and
market gardens are
the main permitted
uses, and on-site
sales are allowed,
September 24, 2013 – Focus Group Discussion on Farm Animals Page 1 of 6
Project: Urban Agriculture Phase 2 – Hoop Houses and Farm Animals
Focus Group on Farm Animals
September 24, 2013
2:00 – 4:00 p.m. at Conference Room A, 281 N College Avenue
Draft Meeting Notes
Attendees:
Ragan Adams
Courtney Bennett
Andrea Musselman
Lindsay Ex
Lloya Lehnert
Sam Houghteling
Polly Lauridsen
Beth Sowder
Notes:
Background. Lindsay Ex highlighted that in 2012 and 2013, staff worked with the
community to allow the practice of urban agriculture as a principal use throughout the
City, allowed farmers markets in mixed-use zone districts, and allowed additional types
and increased numbers of farm animals to be raised (Phase One Changes). Each of these
amendments was designed to further the City’s goal of supporting local food production
(City Plan Principle Safety and Wellness 3).
During public and City Council deliberation on the Phase One Changes, staff was asked
to address two other issues related to urban agriculture:
1. Develop standards for the raising of farm animals in the zone districts
where they are currently allowed (Urban Estate, Rural Lands , Residential
Foothills, and River Conservation Districts); and
2. Begin to remove barriers to year-round food production by allowing hoop
houses.
The focus of this discussion was to address issue #1 – developing standards for the
raising of farm animals in the zone districts where they are currently allowed.
Introductions and Goals. Each attendee introduced themselves and identified their goal
for the meeting, which included the following:
Protect animal welfare through fencing/coops/shelter
Protect neighbors quality of life
Understand regulations from an enforcement/neighbors perspective
Be good neighbors and have regulations that foster good neighbor relations
September 24, 2013 – Focus Group Discussion on Farm Animals Page 2 of 6
Protect water quality through the development of standards
For the City to develop regulations that apply to all instead of individual
Homeowners Associations having separate regulations
Still allow farming, especially on larger acreages but consider neighbors on small
acreages
Have standards that foster this area as a transition area for farming/urban
agriculture
Nuisance control: noise, odors, flies
Setbacks from neighboring properties and structures
Regulate the number of animals per area (to maximize animal welfare and
minimize impacts to neighbors)
To determine where the most appropriate location for the regulations would be,
e.g., in the Land Use Code (only apply to new developments) v. Municipal
Code (apply to all landowners)
To consider allowing existing uses prior to annexation v. those who bought into
the Urban Estate, Rural Lands, Residential Foothills, and River Conservation
Districts zone districts.
The group determined that the goal for developing standards related to the raising of
farm animals should be as follows:
“To continue allowing farm animals to be raised within these zone districts,
while still maintaining the quality of life in the neighborhoods and protecting
the welfare of the farm animals.”
Best Practices from Neighboring and Leading Communities. Sam Houghteling, Planning
Services Intern, presented his research on how other communities regulate farm
animals (see Attachment 1). The group then discussed the various elements of the
standards we thought were appropriate for our City, which include the following
elements:
Setbacks – one of the most frequently cited issue in the focus group discussion
was the need for setbacks. Other communities have established setbacks that
range from 15 feet and up to more than 100 feet for raising roosters. The most
common setbacks were 15-30 feet from a lot line and 50 feet from a residence or
the closest structure.
Number of animals per lot – From an animal welfare and a nuisance perspective,
staff will develop standards for the amount of open space required per animal,
e.g., 4 goats per 9,000 square feet of open space as regulated by Wheat Ridge.
Water Quality – The focus group discussed the need for buffering animals from
water sources, such as ditches and streams, to protect the water quality of these
areas.
September 24, 2013 – Focus Group Discussion on Farm Animals Page 3 of 6
General nuisance issues – The City already regulates nuisances, such as waste
management and odor issues in the City Code. However, staff will review existing
standards and ensure they are adequate for this issue.
Roosters – The focus group discussed the benefits (improved nutritional value of
the eggs and opportunity to raise roosters for 4-H) and drawbacks of raising
roosters (noise) within the City and determined the drawbacks outweighed the
benefits. Staff is planning to prohibit roosters within City limits.
Other Animals – The group also listed other animals, such as turkeys and
peacocks that should be discussed regarding whether or not to allow them to be
raised. The group also discussed whether spacing requirements should be
different for full size versus miniature horses and cattle.
During the discussion, staff also discussed the need to allow farm animals within the
Public Open Lands district to be consistent with City Code policies that allows Natural
Areas to graze farm animals on their lands.
The group also discussed the need to have the proposed regulations apply to all lots and
not just to new developments (this would require Municipal (also called City) Code
changes). Staff is considering a delayed implementation of this Ordinance so folks who
currently would not meet the regulations would have time to come into compliance.
Next Steps:
Staff is meeting with the City Attorney’s Office (October 15) and the Planning and
Zoning Board (October 4) to discuss the proposed elements for the standards based on
the focus group discussion. Staff’s goal is to hold a public open house in late-October or
early November and have the proposed code changes heard before Council in
December 2013.
URBAN AGRICULTURE ANIMAL REGULATIONS – Draft Summary 09.19.13
Wheat
Ridge
Steamboat Denver Boulder Colorado
Springs
Austin Portland Seattle Fort
Collins
September 24, 2013 – Focus Group Discussion on Farm Animals Page 4 of 6
Livestock &
Animal
Equivalencies
9,000 ft per
horse. 1 horse
= 4 goats, 2
llamas/ponies,
etc. 6,000 sqft
per additional
animal.
½ acre per
horse or
equivalent.
No more than
1 horse for
each ½ acre of
zone lot area.
½ acre per
animal,
including
horse, goat,
sheep, cow,
llama,
burro, or
other
equine
bovine.
Stables/
corrals for
up to (4)
horses,
ponies,
goats,
llamas,
potbellied
pigs must
include
37,00 sqft.
Enclosure for
livestock
must be 100
ft from
adjacent
property, and
50 ft from
residence.
Horses and
larger animals
require a
permit, must
be 50 ft from
any
URBAN AGRICULTURE ANIMAL REGULATIONS – Draft Summary 09.19.13
Wheat
Ridge
Steamboat Denver Boulder Colorado
Springs
Austin Portland Seattle Fort
Collins
September 24, 2013 – Focus Group Discussion on Farm Animals Page 5 of 6
Other
½ acre per
large farm
animal.
½ acre/5
small
animals.
Pigeons or
doves – 25
maximum.
Rabbits – 2
maximum.
No person
shall own or
keep any
swine, hogs,
or pigs.
Animals/
Fowl
permitted in
every district
with proper
enclosure.
Pot-bellied
pigs/miniatur
e pigs (up to
95 lbs) are
allowed, up
to 3 per lot.
No more
than one
potbelly pig,
no taller
than 22 in,
and no
greater than
150lbs.
Setbacks/
Enclosures
No enclosures
within 30 ft of
a residence or
the front lot
line, except for
lots over an
acre or if the
lot has no main
structure. The
fence must
enclose a min
of 800 sq ft for
the 1st animal
URBAN AGRICULTURE ANIMAL REGULATIONS – Draft Summary 09.19.13
Wheat
Ridge
Steamboat Denver Boulder Colorado
Springs
Austin Portland Seattle Fort
Collins
September 24, 2013 – Focus Group Discussion on Farm Animals Page 6 of 6
Compliance
Procedures
After
complaint,
owner follows
a manure
mgmt program
prescribed by
animal control
commission,
which will
investigate all
citizen
complaints.
The max
penalty for a
1st or 2nd
conviction
within two
years, based
on date of
violation of
this section,
is a fine of
$500.00.
No person
shall operate
a facility
without a
permit. The
applicant
provides
insurance
docs within
10 days of the
issuance of
the permit.
Outlined in
the
Municipal
Code
regarding
citation
procedures
Waste
Disposal
Protocol,
Disease
Prevention
Manure or
liquid waste
shall not be
December 2, 2013
Re: Urban Agriculture Phase II
From: Sam Houghteling, EHO
MEMORANDUM: Survey Results
From November 6, 2013 through December 2, 2013, representatives from the City of Fort Collins
conducted a twenty question online survey pertaining to Phase II of the Urban Agriculture Regulations.
The survey was broken into three components, (1) Hoop Houses, (2) Animal Regulations in the four
districts where they are currently allowed, and (3) participant demographic questions to identify trends.
Overall, 87 citizens participated in the survey, which was advertised on the City website, through social
media, and sent to the current Urban Agriculture email list of over 350 citizens. Postcards to over 1,700
homeowners and residents in the Urban Estate, Residential Foothills, River Conservation, and Rural
Lands zone districts were also sent informing them of the survey and open house.
Survey results were clear in citizen support of Hoop Houses. Hoop houses are temporary and generally
more cost-friendly than a greenhouse; they are constructed of a large hoops or bows, often made of
plastic pipe, and then covered with a layer of heavy greenhouse plastic. Staff is proposing to add hoop
houses to the list of allowable accessory buildings, structures, and uses in Section 3.8.1 of the Land Use
Code. 89.7% of respondents felt that the City is moving in the right direction in exempting Hoop Houses
from the building code. Additionally, 75.6% preferred that the City work to produce and distribute
informational brochures illustrating best practices, versus 26.7% who felt that the City should develop
specific standards for Hoop Houses. Citizen concerns generally surrounded visual impacts, improper
mooring, and HOA restrictions. A number of citizens suggested that should problems arise, the City could
move from informational brochures to standards and regulations.
Survey results were much more mixed regarding Animal Regulations in the four zone districts where they
are currently allowed but not regulated. 57.7% of respondents felt that the City did not need regulations in
the four districts, versus 38.8 who did. 55.2% felt that the City should not establish setbacks, versus
42.5% who thought that the City should. 66.7% felt that the City should establish standards for the
amount of open space per animal, and 66.3% agreed that the City should establish buffers from water
sources to protect water quality. Roosters in City limits continued to be the source of most contention,
with 55.8% in favor of keeping Roosters in City limits, versus 39.5% who feel that they should be banned.
Most participants (62.4%) do not own farm animals, but do have neighbors who do (62.8%). Roughly half
had received a postcard. 88.2% had not experienced any problems with animals, and 88.2% were also in
favor of a delay in regulatory enforcement should new regulations be implemented, for citizens to
gradually make changes and transition.
City Staff is looking into the citizens who have had problems with farm animals and are in favor of
banning Roosters in an effort to isolate trends, identify gaps in our public outreach pertaining to existing
statutes, and address any procedural issues we discover. Staff is also preparing for 2 local farm visits,
and preparing to present the Survey and Open House results to the local Food Cluster Policy
Subcommittee to solicit advice and feedback on the appropriate next steps.
December 2, 2013
Re: Urban Agriculture Phase II
From: Sam Houghteling, EHO
MEMORANDUM: Open House 11/20/13
On Wednesday November 20, 2013, representatives from the City of Fort Collins and the Larimer County
Humane Society hosted the second Urban Agriculture open house, specifically pertaining to (1) Hoop
Houses and (2) Farm Animals in the four zone districts where they are currently allowed but not
regulated. Approximately 15 citizens attended the meeting, and they brought with them a wide range of
opinions and concerns. City Staff was available to answer questions, explain the current process to date,
present the survey results, and assist citizens complete the online survey that had not yet done so.
Survey results were clear in citizen support of Hoop Houses. 89.7% of respondents felt that the City is
moving in the right direction in exempting Hoop Houses from the building code. Additionally, 75.6%
preferred that the City work to produce and distribute informational brochures illustrating best practices,
versus 26.7% who felt that the City should develop specific standards for Hoop Houses. These results fell
in line with the feedback received at the Open House; citizens were in favor of encouraging urban
agriculture and local food production, and felt that these changes would work in doing so.
Survey results (and Open House feedback) were much more mixed regarding Animal Regulations in the
four zone districts where they are currently allowed but not regulated. 57.7% of respondents felt that the
City did not need regulations in the four districts, versus 38.8 who did. 55.2% felt that the City should not
establish setbacks, versus 42.5% who thought that the City should. 66.7% felt that the City should
establish standards for the amount of open space per animal, and 66.3% agreed that the City should
establish buffers from water sources to protect water quality. Roosters in City limits continued to be the
source of most contention, with 55.8% in favor of keeping Roosters in City limits, versus 39.5% who feel
that they should be banned.
Citizens who attended the Open House fell on both sides of this issue as well, and conversation centered
on the Rooster debate. Three participants felt that they should not be allowed in City limits; at least two of
these citizens themselves affected by noise related nuisances of a neighboring Rooster. One adamant
Rooster supporter asked that if the City does ban Roosters in the 4 districts currently allowed, could there
be an exemption added to the Urban Agriculture License if the noise was addressed through surgery, if
they were for 4H, or if they had neighbors sign off? Another participant felt strongly that new standards for
open space should reflect proper animal health, not necessarily the pastures ability to feed that animal
100%. City Staff is preparing to present the Survey and Open House results to the local Food Cluster
Policy Subcommittee, and solicit advice and feedback on the appropriate next steps.
Fort Collins Local Food Cluster
LOCAL POLICY SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING
Date: 12.13.2013
Time: 1:00-2:30
In Attendance: Sam Houghteling – City of FC Economic Health, Lindsay Ex – City of FC Planning, Martha
Sullins – CSU Extension, Beth Sowder – City of FC Neighborhood Services, Dan Weinheimer – City of FC
Legislative, Rachel Rambo – Naropa, Erich Stroheim – CSU/A Growing Project, Kelly Burwell – CanDo,
Amy Kafka – Garden Sweet, Cindy Roberts – FoCo Café, Ryan Wilson.
This was the first meeting of the Local Policy Subcommittee.
Next Meeting: Unknown; potentially in the afternoon on the 2nd Friday of the month.
Meeting Summary:
1. Sam & Lindsay presented on:
a. Local Initiatives: Urban Agriculture Phase II Regulations
i. Phase I: allowed urban agriculture in all districts, more farmers markets, allowed
more animals to be raised.
ii. What are other communities doing?
iii. Outreach to date: online survey, focus groups, open house.
iv. Survey results.
v. Hoop House direction: removal from the building code & creation of a best
practice brochure in conjunction with CSU extension.
vi. Animal Regulation direction: pursue complaints on an individual basis, and work
with City/County staff to identify areas of concern, as well as enforcement gaps.
vii. Next steps: farm tours, & solicit feedback from group.
1. Group was uniformly in favor of City direction.
2. Concern regarding storm water/run off.
3. Centralize regulations.
b. State Initiatives:
i. Colorado Food Systems Advisory Council recommends:
1. Direct Market Technical Assistance to CO Producers
a. Clarify farm to plate food safety regulations.
b. Support food & farm business development & management.
c. Increase direct market access for producers of all sizes.
2. Increase SNAP at Farmers Markets
a. Expand services for Producers and Consumers to increase the
use of SNAP, including training, education, outreach, evaluation.
ii. Update on CA Bill 551 – Urban Ag Incentive Zone Proposal
1. Tax relief for land owners of vacant, unimproved, or blighted urban land
for small scale food production.
c. Federal Initiatives:
i. Won’t know until the final Farm Bill is approved…
2. General Feedback & Concerns:
a. Amy: waivers for low-income residents for animal licenses, etc?
b. Amy: education on local food needs to increase.
c. Rachel: align with State initiatives.
d. Dan: prioritize themes.
e. Cindy: other suggestions for elongating growing season, not just hoop houses.
f. General: Food tax of 2.5% -- remove for local food?
g. Amy: Local program to get hens to low income families?
h. Ryan: Regulations should focus on animal welfare and population density.
i. General: Marketing & Outreach – create/maintain an online presence.
3. Next Steps:
a. Ascertain meeting availability.
b. Call a meeting in January.
c. Continue with current Urban Ag Phase II regulations.
d. Create informational brochure.
e. Sam will be taking more of a leadership role moving forward.
f. Dan will be tracking legislation in Denver.
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing Minutes
February 13, 2014
6:00 p.m.
Council Liaison: Mayor Weitkunat Staff Liaison: Laurie Kadrich
Chair: Jennifer Carpenter Phone: (H) 231-1407
Chair Carpenter called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
Roll Call: Carpenter, Hansen, Hart, Heinz, Hobbs, Kirkpatrick, and Schneider
Absent: None
Staff Present: Kadrich, Eckman, Wray, Gloss, Beals, Burnett, Ex, Houghteling, and
Cosmas
Agenda Review
Member Carpenter provided background on the board’s role and what the audience could expect as to
the order of business. She described the following processes:
While the City staff provides comprehensive information about each project under consideration,
citizen input is valued and appreciated.
The Board is here to listen to citizen comments. Each citizen may address the Board once for
each item.
Decisions on development projects are based on compliance or non-compliance with city Land
Use Code.
Should a citizen wish to address the Board on items other than what is on the agenda, time will
be allowed for that as well.
This is a legal hearing, and the Chair will moderate for the usual civility and fairness to ensure
that everyone who wishes to speak can be heard.
Director Laurie Kadrich reviewed the items on both the Consent and Discussion agendas.
Public Input on Items Not on the Agenda: None.
Consent Agenda:
1. Minutes from January 9, 2014
2. Land Use Code Text Amendments to Regulate Retail Marijuana Establishments
3. Proposed Amendment to the City Structure and Zoning for Phase IV of Southwest Enclave
Annexation
4. Urban Agriculture Phase II Code Changes
Planning & Zoning Board
February 13, 2014
Page 2
Member Hart made a motion to approve the February 13, 2014, Consent agenda as stated,
including minutes from the January 9, 2014, hearing, Land Use Code Text Amendments to
Regulate Retail Marijuana Establishments, Proposed Amendment to the City Structure Plan and
Zoning for Phase IV of the Southwest Enclave Annexation, and Urban Agriculture Phase Two
Code Changes. Member Kirkpatrick seconded. The motion passed 7-0.
Discussion Agenda:
5. Townhomes at Library Park, Addition of Permitted Use and PDP, #PDP130033
_______
Project: Townhomes at Library Park, Addition of Permitted Use and PDP, #PDP130033
Project Description: This is a request for an Addition of Permitted Use and P.D.P. for allow for
ten Single Family Attached Dwellings located at 220 East Olive Street at the northwest corner of
East Olive Street and Mathews Street. This parcel is located in the Neighborhood Conservation
Buffer, N-C-B zone district. The existing structure would be demolished. The ten units would be
divided into two, five-plex buildings bisected by a common driveway. Six of the units would be
four stories in height and four of the units would be three stories. The lot measures 90’ x 140’
for a total of 12,600 square feet.
The Addition of a Permitted Use is submitted in conjunction with the accompanying P.D.P. This
P.D.P. includes six Modifications of Standard relating to floor-to-area ratios, setbacks, building
height and driveway width.
Recommendation: Approval
Senior Planner Shepard gave an overview of the project. Slides were provided as a visual aide to his
presentation. He noted that Brad Florin, applicant, was not yet present. Since Mr. Florin has a
presentation for the Board, Chair Carpenter decided to take a short recess to allow time for the applicant
to arrive.
Recess began at 6:11pm – meeting resumed at 6:19pm.
Chair Carpenter asked Senior Planner Shepard to continue with his presentation of the Additional
Permitted Use (APU). He outlined the criteria for this specific project. Townhomes have evolved since
the early 90s from being horizontal to vertical, where each unit is on its own separate lot less density
with this arrangement.
Applicant presentation: Brad Florin, with NoCo Townhomes, presented an aerial shot of the proposed
project. He showed a proposed site plan, including the permanent easement which will be used to create
a green space and a snow-melt system for the driveways. Showed various views from different angles.
Showed modification categories and gave history of the building since 2007.
Mod I- increase the floor area to 26,188 sq ft. Justification is that it is an infill project, not residential.
Mod II – modified setbacks to meet standards. Want to setback Mathews and Olive to 0 feet.
Mod III – Fourth story with habitable space setback at least 10’ with justification.
Mod IV – Driveway width proposed to be 24’ with justification.
Request the Addition of Permitted Use. – could be built as a multi-family condo project.
- 1 -
ORDINANCE NO. 034, 2014
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING SECTIONS 3.8.31 AND 5.1.2 OF THE LAND USE CODE
PERTAINING TO HOOP HOUSES
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 2013, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 096, 2013, which allowed
for urban agriculture in all zone districts throughout the City; and
WHEREAS, City staff has conducted citizen outreach regarding potential urban
agriculture land use changes, and throughout that process, numerous citizens have asked that
hoop houses be permitted in the City in order to increase year-round food production potential;
and
WHEREAS, City staff has conducted outreach on the potential benefits and impacts of
allowing hoop houses and has found that significant support exists for allowing hoop houses
within the City to promote year round access to locally produced foods, although some concern
has been expressed about the potential neighborhood impacts of larger hoop house structures;
and
WHEREAS, requiring that hoop houses be allowed only pursuant to an urban agriculture
license will serve as a proper method for addressing the concerns raised by citizens so that the
location and architectural characteristics of the hoop houses will not adversely impact
neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS, accordingly, City staff has recommended certain amendments to Sections
3.8.31 and 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council believes that the proposed 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 3.8.1 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the
addition of a new subparagraph (15) which reads in its entirety as follows:
3.8.1 Accessory Buildings, Structures and Uses
. . .
- 2 -
(15) hoop houses.
Section 2. That Division 3.8.31(C)(2) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
3.8.31 Urban Agriculture
. . .
(C) Standards.
. . .
(2) General Standards. Urban agriculture shall be allowed as a permitted use,
provided that all of the following conditions are met:
. . .
(j) Hoop Houses. If an urban agriculture land use contains a hoop house, then
the hoop house shall be set back a minimum of five (5) feet from any
property line and shall also be located in such a manner that the hoop
house does not generate potential adverse impacts on adjacent uses, such
as shading or glare.
(jk) 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.
. . .
Section 3. That Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the
addition of a new definition “Hoop houses” which reads in its entirety as follows:
Hoop house shall mean a structure used for the purpose of growing crops that has
a semi-flexible, non-metallic frame covered by a flexible polyethylene film of not
more than six (6) mil, but not containing any mechanical or electrical systems or
equipment or storage items.
- 3 -
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 4th day of
March, A.D. 2014, and to be presented for final passage on the 18th day of March, A.D. 2014.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 18th day of March, A.D. 2014.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
allowed to
accumulate so
as to cause a
nuisance as
regulated by
Wheat Ridge
Code of Laws,
chapter 15
Coops &
enclosures
must be kept
sanitary and
be cleaned
on a regular
basis to avoid
pests and
odors.
An
enclosure is
unclean
when it
contains
more than
one day's
elimination
of each
animal
enclosed
therein.
Fecal waste
placed in
closed
flytight
containers,
every 3 to 7
days. Code
Enforce.
Officer may
order more
frequent
removal.
Maintained in
a sanitary
condition
that does not
allow flies to
breed or
cause an odor
offensive to
an adjacent
residence or
business; and
Waste is
regulated
in nuisance
sections of
the
Municipal
Code, dogs,
cats, and
goats must
be
vaccinated
for rabies
Neighborhood
Notification
Multifamily,
commercial,
and mobile
home zone
districts:
letter of
approval
from
neighborhoo
d association.
To exceed
occupancy
requires a
permit:
includes
neighbor
notification &
pre-
inspection
approval.
When
more than
1 acre and
want more
than 12
chickens,
notify
abutting
property
owners
and an
additional 100
sq ft for each
addtl animal
Enclosures
shall be no
closer than 15
ft to a side or
rear lot line.
Coops shall
meet min.
structure
setback
requirement.
Pens and
corrals shall
be located at
least 30 ft
from all
property
boundaries.
Enclosures
shall be
located so
that they are
located at
the rear area
(backyard) of
the property.
Enclosures
shall be a
minimum of
two hundred
(200) square
feet per
small animal.
No enclosure
may be closer
than 15 ft to a
structure on
an abutting
zone lot
containing a
dwelling or on
the same lot
not containing
the keeper.
On any
residential
zone lot, the
animals shall
be maintained
in the rear
50% of the
Zone Lot
Depth.
An
enclosure is
overcrowde
d unless its
area is at
least the
square of
the
following
sum for
each animal
confined
therein: the
sum of the
length of
the animal
in inches
(tip of nose
to base of
tail) plus six
inches.
All
buildings
and corrals
must be
constructed
at least fifty
five feet
(55') from
the building
envelope of
the
adjoining
lot.
An enclosure
used to keep
ten+ small
animals must
be located at
least 50 ft
from an
adjacent
residence. An
enclosure for
livestock
must be
at least 100 ft
from
adjoining
property and
at least 50
feet from a
house. Mini
Livestock: up
to 2: 10 ft, up
to 6: 50 ft, 6+
100 ft. 2 or
more fowl: 50
ft.
Enclosure at
least 15 ft
from any
residence,
not including
owner’s
home. Any
walkway,
street, park,
etc, that is
less than 150
ft away shall
be protected
by a six foot
hedgerow,
partition,
fence.
Structures
housing
domestic
fowl must be
located at
least 10 feet
away from
any
residential
structure on
an adjacent
lot.
residence.
Allowed on
lots over
20,000 sqft.
10,000 sqft
per animal
and
enclosures
must be 50 ft
from closest
structure.
½ acre per
horse.
No
standards
for other
animals.
Miniature
Livestock &
Goats
Minimum
square feet
based on horse
equivalents.
No permit.
No less than
2 goats, no
more than 3.
No bucks.
200 sq
ft/goat. Only
allowed in
single family
or duplexes.
2 per lot, &
min of 130 sq
ft/goat. Must
be maintained
in rear 50% of
lot in or next
to a
residential
zone. Can
increase #’s
with a zoning
permit.
½ acre per
animal (see
above).
(See
above…)
1-2 must be
located at
least 10 ft
from adjacent
home. 2-6
must be 50 ft.
6+ must be
100 ft. Males
must be
neutered.
3 or less
chickens,
ducks, doves,
pigeons,
pygmy goats,
or rabbits per
lot as a use by
right.
3 small
animals per
lot; 20,000
sqft = 4 small
animals;
each addt
5,000 sqft =
1 animal.
Goats must
be mini,
dehorned
and
neutered.
Allowed in
all zone
districts. 2
per lot,
must be
maintained
in rear 50%
in or
adjacent to
a
residential
zone.
Annual
license.
Chickens &
Roosters
Does not set a
maximum
number, but
does define
structure
requirements.
5 hens/lot as
a use by
right; can
increase with
a permit, in
all zone
districts
except 3
No Roosters.
Up to 8
chickens/duck
s combined
per lot. 16 sq
feet per
chicken. Use
by right.
Up to 50
fowl per
acre in
residential
districts.
Crowing is
prohibited.
Enclosures
for fowl
must have
4 sqft per
bird, and
residents
should not
exceed
more than
10 fowl.
An enclosure
for 2 or more
fowl must be
50 ft from a
neighbor.
(See above)
Up to 8 fowl.
In comm.
gardens or
urban farms
over 10,000
sqft, 1 addt
fowl per
1,000 sq ft.
No Roosters.
Up to 6
hens per
lot, 2 sq ft
per hen.
Requires
permit.
along with
greenhouses and
hoop houses.
However, building
height and lot
coverage are limited
(Cleveland Zoning
Code Title 7, Chapter
336).
Most recently, in
January of 2011,
the city amended
the code to
permit hoop
houses and to
permit the
construction of
Growing Power’s
vertical farm.
(a) Setback:
Buildings shall
be set back
from property
lines a
distance of
five (5) feet
(b) Height: No
building or
other
structure shall
be greater
than twenty
five (25) feet
in height
(c) Building
Coverage: The
combined area
of all buildings,
excluding
hoophouses,
shall not
exceed twenty
five percent
(25%) of site
area.
Asheville, under
rules passed by
City Council in
September, will
no longer require
building permits
for temporary
structures like
hoop houses,
greenhouse
variations that
help shield plants
from extreme
weather.
Permitting
regulations also
were eased for
larger, more
permanent
structures for
growing food.
Original proposal
allowed hoop
houses to be 12 ft
tall with a max. area
of 1,000 sqft or 15%
of the lot area,
whichever is greater,
could only stand for
180 days. Due to
residential concerns
surrounding
visibility, caps at 6’6
are proposed (head
room). Community
gardens would be
allowed to stay at
the 12 ft height.
Agricultural
policies and land
use regulations
are currently
under review for
changes to
encourage
agricultural uses
of various types
and sizes,
including building
code issues
dealing with farm
stands, worker
housing and
“hoop houses.”
*Boston Study: http://www.bostonredevelopmentauthority.org/pdf/PlanningPublications/Urban%20Agriculture%20MEMO_Growing%20Produce%203.1.12.pdf
Generally farm structures are classified as accessory uses and must either comply with underlying zoning requirements for accessory buildings (Baltimore, Kansas City, Minneapolis) alternatively,
the zoning establishes specific requirements for urban farm‐related buildings with setback, height and area restrictions (Chicago, Cleveland, Seattle). A few cities, such as Baltimore,
do not have
dimensional requirements for farm structures. Minneapolis specifically states that outdoor growing associated with market gardens and urban farms shall be exempt from enclosed building
requirements. Lot Coverage: Most cities restrict the total area of accessory buildings to 10 – 25% of the site. Cleveland excludes greenhouses and hoophouses from this combined areas
percentage.
On the other hand, Baltimore sets no limits on either the number or square footage of accessory structures. Chicago provides for either 10% of the site area or 100 square feet, whichever
is greater.
Minneapolis has a similar provision for 15% of lot area or 1,000 square feet, whichever is greater. Height: Baltimore and Cleveland have height restrictions of 25 feet. No other city
sites a height
restriction. Setbacks: Baltimore, Cleveland, Kansas City, and Minneapolis have setbacks ranging from 3 to 10 feet from the property line for accessory structures. Other structures: Cleveland
explicitly enumerates the accessory uses and structures permitted in an Urban Garden District: greenhouses, hoophouses, etc…
allowing hoop houses within the City, farmers and residents can extend their growing season by approximately
2-4 months, which can have significant impacts on the local food economy.
In addition, allowing these temporary structures to be constructed without having to meet the structural
requirements in the Building Code allows for these structures to be erected at a significant cost savings to the
farmer, which allows for their limited dollars to be invested in food production instead of engineering temporary
structures. For beginning farmers, and especially those on short land leases, hoop houses extend the growing
season without requiring significant investments.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Producing more food locally contributes significantly to the City’s sustainability goals. From a climate
perspective, producing, distributing and consuming food locally reduces the vehicle miles traveled by our food
and thus, the City’s overall carbon footprint. Growing more food locally also supports the populations of the
wild and managed pollinator populations, e.g., bees, whose ecosystems services are threatened both locally
and nationally.