Greenhouse Committee - Draft #2

Greenhouses to be regulated separately from Barns and other Agricultural structures;

GREENHOUSES FOR PRIVATE USE:
Greenhouses should be allowed on Agricultural and Residential zoned property in Pitkin County, as available FAR and Growth Management Plan approval for the floor area allows;
Greenhouses may be built with the following FAR Bonuses, but only if subject property has no remaining FAR or GMP area available:
FAR Properties:  200* sf;
Non-FAR Properties:  300 sf;

GREENHOUSES FOR COMMERCIAL USE:
Greenhouses for commercial use shall be allowed on Rural and Agricultural zoned land 10 acres or larger in size, with some restrictions on size, as a use by right.  We suggest that the current restriction of 58 sf per acre is less than adequate for this use by right, and we suggest that this number be raised to something more like 100 sf per acre.  Here are a few examples:
10-acre property:   580 sf greenhouse max. @ existing zoning;  1,000 sf limit @ suggested zoning;
20-acre property:   1,160 sf greenhouse max. @ existing zoning;  2,000 sf limit @ suggested zoning;
35-acre property:   2,030 sf greenhouse max. @ existing zoning;  3,500 sf limit @ suggested zoning;
160-acre property:   9,280 sf greenhouse max. @ existing zoning;  16,000** sf limit @ suggested zoning;
Greenhouses for commercial use on large Agricultural properties may be unrestricted in size when the proposed greenhouse receives Special Review Approval.

GREENHOUSE USE OF ENERGY RESOURCES:
Greenhouses should be subject to Energy Use restrictions, which we should make part of the Pitkin County Energy Code.  We know it is possible to build greenhouses as passive solar structures with little need for backup heating, even in Pitkin County's cold winter climate.  Greenhouses should be required to have passive solar heat storage and insulating systems, as well as automated controls to monitor and manage the indoor climate for the health of the plants, but with minimal outside energy inputs.  For example, at Central Rocky Mountain Permaculture Institute's new "Phoenix" greenhouse, the Winter of 2009/2010 saw the wood-fired backup heating stove operated for 12 nights when the outdoor temperatures went below 10.deg.F.  The new greenhouse designed by Eco Systems Design in Basalt for the Elkstone Farm in Steamboat Springs, weathered the same Winter with 15 nights requesting backup heat.  At this time, it may be cost-prohibitive to require commercial growers to achieve total net-zero outside energy inputs, but we feel it is a good idea to restrict the use of these inputs to some degree now, and to tighten those restrictions as technology is developed for making indoor agriculture even more energy efficient.  The balance of this regulation, between conservation and life cycle cost, needs some accurate data collection from a variety of sources, in order to be instituted responsibly.

GREENHOUSE USES:
Concerns about living space use of greenhouses:  We recognize that it is impossible to monitor the use of greenhouses without over-burdening County government, and without creating a sense of excessive enforcement among the citizens.  Yet, we recognize that in Pitkin County, there are often landowners attempting to take any advantage to increase their allowable floor area for living space, and free greenhouse space may be taken advantage of by some.  We trust it will serve to limit this abuse by requiring that any FAR Bonus for greenhouse use be in a detached structure.  If a landowner uses their available FAR for an attached greenhouse, it should not matter whether they use it as growing or living space, but we feel it should be subject to the energy use restrictions described above, at minimum.  Indeed, as has been shown at CRMPI, an attached greenhouse can use the house living space as backup heating, while the house can use the greenhouse excess heat to reduce it's energy inputs, so it can easily be a net energy saving arrangement.
Concerns about super-large greenhouses, commercial food packing plants and other large industrial operations:  We are now seeing the global food production industry, with its consolidation of farmland, concentrated feedlots, monoculture farms and processed foods from commodity crops like corn and soy, to be falling from favor among consumers, mostly for reasons of health and food safety.  We are confident that these reasons are not temporary, and that consumers will continue to want more local, organic, fresh food. This is the market we are attempting to address with revised zoning regulations in Pitkin County.  If we perceive that there is a likelihood of large food production and processing facilities in Pitkin County, probably because someone wants to market locally produced food on a mass market scale, we should have some regulations to address the nature of this industry, and to see that it doesn't deplete local resources or damage our environment.  We doubt that the economics of the food marketplace would foster a large food processing plant in our valley, but there are some aspects of this possibility that might occur, even with a smaller, organic food industry.  We are currently seeing local farmers marketing their products through CSA's and Farmers Markets primarily, while a few are processing some of their food for shipment to larger markets like Whole Foods.  We haven't seen anything here or in the North Fork valley that is larger than an on-farm, 1,200 - 2,000 sf processing kitchen and food packaging facility.  We are also not seeing any farmers leaning toward more monoculture, but rather toward more diversity in their food crop offerings, which suggests that the local food economy will likely use smaller-scale food processing facilities.

GREENHOUSE LAND USE REVIEW AND PERMIT PROCESS:
We feel that real farmers run their operations on such tight economic margins, that if we create a regulatory structure that doesn't address their budgetary needs, we will not see an increase in local food production, in spite of this zoning overhaul.  We need a review and permitting process that is very lean and fast, and we look farward to helping create this review process.  To truly encourage local food production on a scale that will make it happen quickly and at scale, we almost need to offer economic incentives for farmers to grow and sell their food locally.  At the very least, we should strive to make the process for anything less than the larger commercial operations, to be almost cost-free for the small farmer.

NOTES:
 *200 sf FAR Bonus for FAR Properties: The Planning Office suggestion of 120 sf limit for FAR Properties wanting a greenhouse would allow a greenhouse of maximum 10' x 20' size, for example.  A greenhouse this small can be energy efficient, but inour experience this is possible only by attaching the greenhouse to an existing heated structure, so as to exchange heat with the other building.  FAR Bonus greenhouses are unlikely to be allowed because they cannot be continually inspected to be certain people aren't using them as bonus living space.  We feel that 200 sf is a better minimum, because as a detached structure, 200 sf allows enough area to accomplish solar heating and heat storage efficiently enough to grow year-round, with minimal backup heating.

**16,000 SF limit for 160-acre Greenhouse use by right:  This restriction may seem on its face to be quite liberal, but we think it should be expanded for the largest Agricultural properties.  For example, we think it is fairly accurate to generalize that properties up to and including 35 acres in size are not currently operated for agricultural uses, except for the keeping of pleasure horses.  We feel that for agricultural properties over 35 acres, use by right for commercial greenhouses should allow a larger amount of year-round, permanent greenhouse structures with significant heat-storage mass built in, and should allow an unlimited amount of seasonal greenhouse structures, called "hoop-houses", which can be erected in early Spring, used for growing vegetables until Thanksgiving time, then taken down for the snow season.  We see a few farmers in the Paonia area that are supplying as many as 200 CSA shares for up to 40 weeks of the year, from a combination of permanent and seasonal greenhouses, to supplement their field crops.  We can easily see a farm wanting several acres (90,000+ SF) in these combinations of solar heated indoor environments, to serve large portions of our community with year-round salad greens and vegetables, and we hope to be able to provide them the regulatory process to allow this.

Draft Suggestion from Pitkin County Planning Office

Here is Cindy's first draft suggesting size regulations for Greenhouses in Pitkin County.  Please provide your questions and comments by clicking 'comments' at the bottom of this post.
Thanks!

Encouraging local agriculture

From an economic perspective, if the Roaring Fork Valley were to make a paradigm shift away from it's reliance on construction, real estate development, recreation and ranching how important are greenhouses and community supported farms? As the economics of food change will local farming take the place of, or subsidize, ranching and our other forms of livelihood? As outlined previously, an operation such as Peach Valley CSA or Sustainable Settings will have distinctly different requirements than the homeowner who simply wants to grow some of their own fresh vegetables or animal protein. With our abundance of open space, sunshine and access to irrigation water we have a uniquely favorable situation. A strong community vision (or local food growing master plan) together with the appropriate regulations, incentives and zoning guidelines to support that vision will be key to the success of community-supported agriculture. Is there a consensus?

Greenhouse Committee - Suggestions for regulating greenhouses

Our Pitkin County Planning Office is anxious to receive some word of our deliberations regarding recommendations for Greenhouse Regulations for Pitkin County. I confess to being a tardy leader, but I would like to get our discussion started. All of you except Brook and Chris (both of whom I have issued re-invitations) are signed on as Authors on the Blog:
http://pitkingreenhouses.blogspot.com/
First, a brief statement of facts regarding greenhouses (barns) in Pitkin County:
In ANY Zone, you may have as large a greenhouse as your floor-area-ration allows;
If you have 20 acres or more, you may have, in ADDITION to your floor area ratio, 58 SF per acre, in barn/greenhouse floor area BEYOND your floor area ratio;

Garfield County - An Example

Garfield County Zoning Regulations consider its Rural Zone, with minimum 2-acre lot sizes, to allow Agriculture and Accessory Buildings (max. height 40') for Agricultural Use without size restrictions, and as a Use by Right.
Download Garfield Zoning Code 2009

Tim Lindholm's List: Zoning for Local Agriculture

Meeting with Cindy Houben, December 9, 2009
Removing code barriers to sustainable building and local food:
1) Encourage detached greenhouse construction and use for year round food production by not including greenhouse footprint as FAR. Support greenhouses on small acreages (less than 20 acres), in subdivision open space, in community gardens wherever there is a concentration of people, energy, and resources for growing year round food.
2) Encourage attached greenhouse construction (integral to a residence but separted by door) for genuine small scale year round food production by not including greenhouse footprint as FAR. Advantages include increased year round attention and potential for common wall to temper heat requirements. Creatively address abuse of this privilege perhaps through deed restriction or some other instrument.
3) Encourage a local food economy by removing code barriers to fruit tree, honey bee, and small scale livestock stewarding. Creatively address wildlife issues instead of outright banning of food production. Encourage value added local cottage industry related to food production by simplifying approval of kitchens for this work.
4) Encourage renewable energy projects with codes that fast track or otherwise help individuals, businesses, and public entities design and build these projects in a timely fashion (reduce time and costs by creatively designing the permitting process to fast track these projects.) Proactively identify systems and designs that people could/should consider.
5) Encourage sustainable building projects by identifying these projects first and early to get them on a fast track. Consider the living building challenge www.ilbi.com as a resource for identifying and encouraging these projects which already require more time and consideration in their design.
a) Promote the use of healthy, local materials.
b) Promote stawbale wall construction by not including in FAR calculations.
c) Promote the catchment, storage, and reuse of rainwater and graywater from structures and sites (now being tested at the state level in Colorado).
d) See www.ilbi.com for their twenty areas of focus and for ideas for removing code barriers.
6) Encourage the preservation of existing agricultural structures on small acreages as well as on large for support of genuine local food production. Loafing sheds and barns needed on small acreages as well as large for support of this sustainable movement towards local agriculuture.
(personal example of having to remove sheds while big land owners are building huge barns).
7) Encourage energy efficiency and accurate identification of “green” building projects with energy use calculations up front (ask Rick Heede about this)(he uses kWh/sf-yr, kWh/day, tonnes CO2e/yr, and lb CO2e/sf-yr as measures) (snowmass caucus still promoting large projects, for example, with out understanding their carbon footprint).
8) Encourage genuine small scale farming through all of the above (which will in turn promote local commerce, livelihood, community, simplicity, durability, healthy soil, lower energy use, and hopefully as sense of well being for those choosing to live in this area).
DOWNLOAD WORD FILE
DOWNLOAD PDF FILE

Sustainable Agriculture - What We Need!

In order to not only allow, but to ENCOURAGE sustainable local agriculture in every county in the Roaring Fork Valley, we need the following:

1. Unlimited Greenhouses: Jerome Osentowski of Central Rocky Mountain Permaculture Institute in Basalt, has demonstrated for nearly three decades, how to grow very diverse food crops, using greenhouses and outdoor forest gardens. There is very little we can grow without greenhouses. We MUST be able to put acres under greenhouse, if we are going to grow a vital local food economy.

2. Just like the old west, we need root cellars for winter food storage and bunkhouses for agricultural workers, located on ranches and farms. We are experiencing now the phenomenon of our children going off to college, some of them learning agriculture and coming back to help build a local food economy, but they are having great difficulty finding housing. Our market has priced them far out of the ability to obtain housing, and we must solve this, or we will continue to experience Brain-Drain - losing the knowledgable and enthusiastic people who want to grow our food!   Can we fix this?

3. We need some form of tax advantages for ranch owners to lease irrigated farmland for vegetable farming in addition to animal raising. This may come in many forms, but unless we do it, we are wasting lots of irrigated land for pleasure horses, rather than real food for people.

4. Bear problems: We need a common-sense strategy for dealing with occasional bear problems, rather than blanket laws criminalizing the planting of fruit trees.  If we want to develop a local food economy, we will have to find creative ways of dealing with (or simply allowing) bears having a food-scarce year in the high country, who visit our orchards and restaurant dumpsters.