Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 03/18/2014 - SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 034, 2014, AMENDINAgenda Item 7 Item # 7 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY March 18, 2014 City Council STAFF Lindsay Ex, Senior Environmental Planner SUBJECT Second 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 This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 4, 2014, amends 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. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. First Reading Agenda Item Summary, March 4, 2014 (w/o attachments) (PDF) 2. Ordinance No. 034, 2014 (PDF) Agenda 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 Second 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. ATTACHMENT 1 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) - 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: - 2 - 3.8.1 Accessory Buildings, Structures and Uses . . . (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. (k) 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: - 3 - 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. 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 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.