No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 06/29/04 PUBLIC HEARING June 29, 2004 Present: TortiStorte Michael Ga1laghet AtIl Menconi Jack Irigstad Diane Mauriello Teak Simonton Chairman COmIl1issioner COmIl1issioner County AdIIlinistrator COUhty Attorney Clerk to the Board This being a schedtiled Public Hearing the following items were presented to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration: Consent Agenda A. Approval of Bill Paying for the Week of June 28, 2004 (Subject to Review by the County Administrator) B. Approval of the NIitllites of the Eagle Board of County Commissioners Meeting for May 25, 2004 C. LeaseAgreement between Town of Basalt and Eagle County Government at the El lebel Tree Fann Storage Facility in Basalt, Colorado D. LeaSe Agreement between the American Red Cross and Eagle COUl1ty Government at the El Jebel Comrtlunity Center in El Jebel, Colorado E. Lease Agreemenfbetween the Resource Center and Eagle County Government at 712 Castle Drive in Eagle, Colorado F. Lease Agreement betWeen AmericanRed Cross and Eagle CoUfity Government at 712 Castle Drive Storage Building in Eagle, . Colorado G. Lease AgreemenflYetween Vail Mountain Rescue and Eagle CoUrtty Government at 712 CaStle Drive in Eagle, Colorado H. Lease Agreement betweeh Habitat for Humanity and Eagle COUl1ty GoVertunent at 712 Castle Drive Storage Building in Eagle, Colorado I. LeaSe Agreement between Geno' s Italian Sandwiches and Eagle Courtty Government at the Avon Annex in Avon, Colorado J. Lease Agreement between Aspen Commuriity Theater and Eagle County Governntent at the El Jebel TreeFarn Storage Facility in Basalt, Colorado K. Colorado Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation Impact Assistance.Grant L. ResolUtion 2tJ04-069 Appointing Referees for the 2004 County Board of Equalization M. Resolution 2004:-070 for Release of Assignments of Certificate of Deposit from Brian M. Lowe; H. Charles Slater and Denison E. Levy to Eagle County, Colorado for Slater Minor Type A Subdivision N. Lease between.Eagle County and Maria Ramos for Condominium Space in Avon Commercial Center Building O. Intergovermnental Agreement between Eagle County and the Eagle River Fire Protection District P. Training and Technical Assistance Application to the US Department of Health & Human Services for the Eagle County Early Head Start Program Q. Cost of LiVing Adjustment Application to the US Department of Health & Human Services for the Eagle County Early Head Start Program R. Quality Improvement Application to the US Department of Health & Human Services for the Eagle County Early Head Start Program S. Resolution 2004-071 Authorizing the Director of Health and Human Services to Sign and Submit Veteran's Service Reports T. Ninth Amendment to Fixed Base Operator Concession and Lease Agreement between the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, and Vail Valley Jet Center U. Maintenance Agreement between Eagle County Airport and Identix Incorporated Chairman Stone asked the county attorney if there were any changes or amendments to the consent agenda. 1 June 29, 2004 Diane Mafuiello, County Attorney, stated that Item D, lease agreement be pulled because the executed agreement had not been received. She also requested that Item 0 be pulled for re-scheduling. Commissioner Gallagher asked questions about Item T. Commissioner Menconi moved to approve the consent agenda for June 29,2094, items A-U, omitting items D and O. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Pbtfand ResolutiOnSigIling Cliff Simonton, Planner for Community Development, presented the following plat and resolutions for the Board's approval. SMll..l)03:J7..BettvCteek Ranch Subdivision. Filin2 2. Lot 1. Block 6 AMinor Type B subdivision, the purpose of which is to subdivide Lot 1, Filing 2, Block 6 oftlre Berry CfeekRanch Subdivision, creating two (2) Yzduplexlots, Lot lA and Lot IB. Mr. Simonton said all findings are pOS'itive andtecommerids approval. Commis'sionerGallagher moved to approve the final plat for File 5MB-00337, authorizing the Chairman to sign the plan . and adopting the findings, Berry Creek Ranch Subdivision, Filing 2, Lot 1, Block 6, a Minor type B subdivision, the purpose of which is to subdivide Lot 1, Filing 2, Block 6 of the Berry Creek Ranch Sub'diVision, creating two (2) Vz duplex lots, Lot 1A and Lot IB. Cortllnissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared Uhanimous. Mr.slmont6n presented Resolution 2004-072 to approve a Permit to Construct Major Extensions of Existing Domestic W aterand Sewage Treatment Systems and for the Efficient Utilization of a Municipal Water Projectirt Order to Serve the Heritage ParkPUD located in Edwards, Colorado (Eagle CoUl1lY File No. 1041-53). The Hoard considered the Applicant's request on June 15th, 2004. Commissioner MeIiconi moved to approve Resolution 2004-072 to approve a penniUo construct major extensions of domeStic water and sewage treatment systems for the efficient utilization of a municipal water project in order to serve the Heritage Park PUD located in Edwards, Colorado - File I041-53. Commi.ssioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared Ul1animous. Mt. Simontonpresertted Resolution 2004-073 In the Matter of Amending the Eagle COUhtyLand Use Regulations to Amend Lartguage Pertaining to Impact Fees and Land Dedication Standards (Eagle COUrtty File No. LDR~004E). The Board conSidered this proposal on June 1St, 2004. Commissioner Gallagher asked whether school land dedication should be included in the title. Ms. Mauriello stated that she felt it was covered in the current title. The body of the resolution sets forth the amendment specifically that is occurring and it is art accurate reference to the section of the Land Use Regulations thatare being amended. Chairman Stone stated that this resolution referred to other things such as housing, and the best reference is the filenumher itself. Comrtlissioner Gallagher Was concerned that it would offer some limitation regulation on impact fees that are yet to come and withdrevv his concern. Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve Resolution 2004-073 in the matter of amending the Eagle County Land Use Regulations to amend the language pertaining to impact fees and land dedication standards, Eagle County File LuR.,-0048, Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. PR..00025 - Berry Creek Recreation Tract Phase III Joe Forinash, Planner for Community Development, pr~sented File PR-00025, Berry Creek Recreation Tract, site specific review for a skateboard park, playground and building pad for future buildings, and stated the applicant asked that this be tabled to July 27,2004. 2--_u--- - June 29,2004 Commissioner Menconi moved to table File PR-00025 Berry Creek Recreational Tract Phase III to July 27,2004 anhe applicant's request. Comrnissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Gallagher asked staff to provide information to the board when it becomes available prior to this hearing. Mr. Forinash agreed to do so. Miller Ranch Fteedom Park~ discusSion Commissioner Gallagher spoke about the Miller Ranch development and specifically Freedom Park. He. informed the board that at a committee meeting the site had been considered, and it became obvious that the pavilion proposed is separate from the memorial. He felt that the county should take control ofthe pavilion and take the responsibility away from the memorial committee. He requested that the same architect be used for both aspects of the project, and the CotIfity Should be negotiating a contract with the architect. Chairman Stone asked abOut the preViously approved contract with Shepherd Resources to design the mernorial. lIe concurred that separating the two efforts had been recommended by both the steering and design committees. . He wondered what proceSs would be required. Ms. Maunellostated that this could fall into the category of "sole source." In this instance she. felt that this would be appropriate. Chairman Stoneagteed to separate out the two issues and gave direction to negotiate a separate agreement to reflect thischarige. ZS-OOllO ~ Gabriel Foundation Site Visit Terrill Knight, applicant's representative, pointed out the location of the COUl1ty line and stated that sorne of the cages . areinPitkinCounfy. Coral Dillon, Gabriel Foundation staff member, explained the reception and adoption areas, the kitchen where the bird food is prepared, washer/dryer and outside access, upstairs is a qtiararttine room where bird received withirtihe last 60 days are awaiting results of medical tests. The birds are fed a warm breakfast each rnorning inside. . There are species speCific rooms and each bird has its own cage unless they are a bonded pair. If the weather permits, the birds are taken outside, everything is cleaned, and their food is prepared for the night. Sheshovved the area that is used for a first aid table, and used by the vets to weigh the birds. There is oxygen for the birds in case of emergencies. The papaloma room is where infected birds are kept. This virus is not contagious to hUmans, or bird to bird Via air, only by contact with feces or body fluids. There are ceiling fans and fun spectrum lighting on the premises. Food is bought in bulk in the dry form, with many fresh fruits and vegetables cotirtesyof City Market. She continued the tour with rooms for various birds. The tour continued outside and she explained the areas for the birds and added that some birds are sanctuary birds, adoptable birds, or birds staying on a temporary basis. She showed. the storage facility for unused cages and majntenance equipment. She pointed out various birds in the outside area. She said no birds are bred in this facility, and if the birds lay eggs the eggs are shaken so no birds can hatch. The property line was pointed out. She indicated there are carriers for emergency evacuation. Chai1"n1a.n Stone reconvened the meeting by stating they are meeting in the Eagle County Community Center located iuEl Jebel. The purpose of having the meeting is to allow the public to easily comment on File ZS-OOllO,Gabriel Foundation. ZS-00110 - Gabriel Foundation ACTION: Special Use Permit for the operation of a Psittocene Bird Shelter, Aviary and Adoption Facility LOCATION: 2101 Emma Rd., approximately 1.5 miles west of downtown Basalt. 3 June 29, 2004 STAFF. RECOMMENDATION: The latest revision of plans for the Gabriel Foundation, which now include new cage designs and a new building and cage arrangement, were received by Community Development on June 14,2004. While modifications continue to move in a positive direction, Staff is unable to support this application without a professional third party evaluation of the effectiveness of the plan in terms of noise attenuation. PLANNING coMMiSSION RECOMMENDATION: Denial pLANNINGCOIVIIVIISSION DEUSERATION At its hea.ring on Ma.y 6,.2004, the Roaring fork Valley regional Planning Con1rtlission voted three to two to recomntend denial of the applicant's proposal. The following considerations Were given: . A concern for suitability, noting the "tight fit" of proposed improvements and related activities on that portion ofthe property in Eagle CoUrtty (the exact location of the county line on this property has not been determined, which troubled some commissioners) . A concern for compatibility {and suitability) given the elaborate and expensive measures being proposed to mitigate impacts . A lack of adequate information regarding a final site plan, final building plans, final plans for noise mitigation proposed and a final written operations plan (final detail regarding these plans was not a.vailable at the time of the planIling cOn1n1ission hearing. Changes and additions have been made to these plans since that hearing) . The on-going and as-yet unresolved building code violation ill rendering a decision, the planning cortllnissi6n acknowledged the excellent work and commendable.service provided by the FOUl1dation. PR.OJECTOE$CRIPTION SUMMAR.Y: On June 3, 2003 a notice of zoning violation waS issued by Eagle County Code Enforcementto Julie MUrad, owner of the Gabriel Foundation (hereafter Applicant) for unauthorized business operations on her lot near the Town of Basalt. . Said notice was prompted by an anonymous complaint alleging unauthorized construction activities and the operation of an unauthorized bird aviary. The subject property straddles the Eagle CountylPitkin County line, with approXimately 1.5 acres of the lot in Eagle County and the remaining 5.28 acres in Pitkin (as deterIIlined by the Eagle County and Pitkin County Assessor). The zoning in Eagle County is Resource (minimum lot size 35 acres), and the zoning in Pitkin County is AFR-IO (minimum lot size 10 acres). As such, the lot is non-conforming in both jurisdictions. In Eagle County, any use on a non-conforming lot other than a single family residence and "customary agricultural uses" requites a special use permit. Prompted by the NOV, the Applicant submitted a Special Use Permit application on August 18, 2003, requesting the following be allowed to occur on the Eagle County portion of the property: The operation of the Gabriel Foundation, a registered and licensed non-profit psittocene (parrot like) bird rescue, re-habilitation and adoption facility, consisting of two (2) support buildings (one not yet built), outdoor bird flight and exercise cages, and associated parking and infrastructure. The buildings would contain office space, a food preparation kitchen, restrooms, bird cages, a bird quarantine area, and equipment storage areas (please see attached building plans). As many as five (5) employees are involved in the daily care and maintenance of a maximum of 250 psittocene birds, which are brought to the facility from locations around the world. Other volunteers, including guest veterinarians and veterinary interns, also frequent the facility, and public tours are conducted on site (as many as eight per week). 4 June 29, 2004 Conununity Development has determined this use to be commercial in nature. If this special use is approved, applicable building codes would be applied to both structures. Notice of Occupancy Violation for the steel frame building, which has never been permitted for habitation, was issued January 9, 2004 (see attached NOV). The other yet-to~be-constructed building would be a two story structure housing additional bird flight cages, office space and storage. An Accessory Dwelling Unit was originally included, but has now been removed from the Applicant's proposal. At the writing of this report the aviary continues in full operation, although as a condition of code violation, no members of the public are allowed in the steel frame strUcture. The land is essentially flat, with drainage generally to the north and west. To the south (in Pitkin County) is Emma Road and the Double K Ranches Subdivision, an older neighborhood of 17 non-conforming lots that range in size from approximately 2 to 3 acres. To the north (in Eagle County) is the ROW of the Roaring Fork Regional Transit Authority rail line, a large vacant property and, 600 feet away, the right of way for Highway 82. Access is from the south (pitkin COUl1ty) via Emnta Road. A single family home exists Ot! the Pitkin County side, and the steel frame building with two outdoor cage structureS exist on the Eagle County side. IhPitkinCounty, land use regulations prohibit any use other than single family dwellings and agriculture on non-conforming lots. Pitkin County has also determined the use commercial in nature, and has indicated that without a change to their land use code, uSes and facilities associated with the Gabriel Foundation will not be permitted on the Pitkin County portion of the property (letter of 0 1102/04). CHRONOLOGY: No Eagle County land use applications or building permit applications pre-date this file for the subject property. An ISDSpermit was issued for a one-toilet system associated with the steel frame agricultural building on the site in 1992. The Gabriel Foundation was originally located adjacent to the Aspen Valley Veterinary Hospital on Highway 82 in Old Snowmass (pitkin County). A code violation at that location resulted in the Foundation moving its operation to the current property in late 1999. Notice of violation for unauthorized use on the Eagle County portion of the lot was issued June 3, 2003. Zoning code enforcement was prompted by a call from one of the applicant's neighbors. Notice of violation for building occupancy in the metal building was issued January 9, 2004. The Applicant Was given 60 days from that date to submit building plans to correct code violations, but has since negotiated to wait for a decision on this Special Use before spending the money to correct code deficiencies. Code violations with Pitkin County regarding a flight cage on their portion of the property remain unresolved at the writing of this report. SITE .DATA: Surrounding Land Uses I Zoning: East: Agricultural Residential / AFR-lO (Pitkin County) West: Agricultural Residential / AFR-IO (pitkin County) Resource (Eagle County) North: RFTA ROW, Agricultural/Resource South: Emma Road ROWand Residential / AFR-lO (nonconforming lots in Pitkin County) Existing Zoning: Total Area: Water: Sewer: Access: Resource (1.5 acres in Eagle County), AFR-IO (5.28 acres in Pitkin County) All improvements are proposed for the 1.5 acres in Eagle County Private well Private ISDS via Emma Road STAFF REPORT A) REFERRAL RESPONSE: 5 June 29,2004 Eagle County Engineering Memo, December 17, 2003 . NoComme.nt at this time. Eagle County Environmental Health Memo, December 29, 2003 . Code enforcement has complaints of noise from the premise. The screening of cages and/or other mitigations should be considered to miniIIlize the nuisance factor. . The ISbs that serves the building on the Eagle County portion of the property was not designed or permitted for its current use. A new system will be required. . Bird &oppirigs are high in nitrogen, and the potential environmental effects of waste water disposal On the Roaring Fork River alluvium have not been addresSed. Advanced treatment of water originating from the cage areas may be required. . No mention of the potential transmission of the disease Histoplasmosis, which originates from a fungus associated with bird droppings (articles from Center for Disease Control and the Iowa })epattinent of Public Health referenced in memo) is provided. Risks to aviary staff and visitors should be.discussed, and appropriate safe-guards included in the plan. . The Uses proposed may not be appropriate for this location. EagHrCountyBu.ilding Department Reference Notice of Occupancy Violation, sent by Eagle County Code Enforcement, January 9, 2004 . The structUte that houses the birds on the site is considered a Group B occupancy under the 2003 International Building Code . Thete are no previous permits issued forthis structure. . Application fot a building permit, with plans and an related peripheral permits, is requited within 60 days ofreceipt ofthe Notice of Violation. . Until the strticturehas been brought to code, no member of the public shall be allowed in the strUctUte. Pitkin County Planning Memo, January 2, 2004,. with copies of letters. (3) sent to the owner by Pitkin County . Complaints were received in the spring of 2003 regarding a flight cage on the property. . SeVerallettets Were sent by Pitkin County (see attached) requiring the cage be removed . A building permit to relocate the flight cage has been submitted but has not been: apptoved pending resolution ofthe use ofthe property by the Gabriel Foundation. . Thepropetty is zoned AFR-I0, requiring a 10 acre minimum lot size, and as such is non-confonning in size. Only single family residences are permitted on non-conforming lots. . Pitkin Count)' does not equate the proposed USe with other agricultural uses allowed by zoning in the neighborhood. . A third letter was sent in December of 2003 stating that the keeping of exotic bitds is not considered an agricultural USe, and that the owner would have to apply to Pitkin County to change Pitkin County's land use code, which presently prohibits any use other than a single family home on a substandard size lot. Should the change in code be approved, the owner could then apply for a special uSe permit allowing a business operation, specifically a "Commercial Kennel and V eterinaty Clinic". . No land Use application has been made with Pitkin County. The site remains in violation of applicable Pitkin Count)' Codes. . The Double K Ranch subdiVision to the south contains 17 lots of approximately 3 acres in size. Other slirtoUl1ding lots are larger, and the character of the area is rural. . Noise level was of great concern to adjacent neighbors, and the owner has not adequately addressed noise impacts in the application. The details for a wall proposed along the west side of the lot were not in the application, and no explanation was provided regarding the wall's effectiveness in IIlitigating noise. . Increased traffic isa concern of some neighbors . There are no Pitkin County building or environmental health records for the subject property . Pitkin County Standards require one parking space per 400 square feet of non-residential use . Even if all development and activities occur on the Eagle County side, Pitkin County is concerned for impacts to Pitkin County and the surrounding residents, and would ask that any approval address noise and traffic impacts, and that consideration be given to limiting employees, volunteers, tours, visitors, etc. 6 June 29, 2004 The ToWn ofBa.salt Letter of January 5, 2004 . The Basalt Master Plan supports the existing rural character in the area. Care should be exercised to ensure the proposed use will be compatible with surrounding uses. . Clear limits on the use should be established. If future expansions are contemplated, a different location should be considered. The potential impacts of traffic, parking and noise should be considered. . Preservation of the existing pasture should be formalized by easement or as a condition of approval. . Additional setbacks and mitigations should be considered where watfantedby proximity to neighboring properties and uses. Frontage with the Rio Grand ROW should be treated in a manner consist with future uses, including trails, within this space. . Information on sewage disposal should be more complete. Significant care should be exercised to protect ground water quality. . Special conditions dealing with the disposal of bird waste may be.warranted. Site drainage and water quality of surface drainage should be addressed. . fufotrilation on well permits should be reviewed to assure that proposed uses are consistent with permits and any related limitations. . Has application With Pitkin COUl1ty been made? Significant weight should be given to comments from Pitkin County regarding the proposed use. BasalfRutal Fire Depa.rtment Letter of January 2,2004 . An: "occuparrcy"needs to be determined in order to define fire code requirements for the use. . Access for fire apparatus appears to comply with applicable codes. . Given its rural location and the number of buildings on the property, a fixed water supply meeting compliance with NFP A 1142 is indicated. A determination of building occupancy will make a difference regardingcc>mpliance with this provision. Double KllancheS Homeowners' Assodation Letter of January 2, 2004 . The KKhomeowner'sassociation is opposed to the application . The noise is Ul1bearable to residents . There is addedttaffic on Emma Road . The use is not a.llowed in this zoning and if should stay that . Approval of the use would make future growth of, and changes to, the use difficult to control. . Approval of the use Would make special use applications for adjacent properties more difficult to oppose . Property values would be negatively affected. . . Buildings on the Eagle County portion violate setback ordinances and, according to the application, ate intended to remain. This may set precedence for other owners to violate these standards. . Reference the site plan submitted, the area calculations represented by the applicant are not accurate, and only 0.57 acres are in Eagle COUl1ty. . ,The applicant intends to keep the flight cage located in Pitkin County in its present location, which is closest to nearby residences Letters. Atthe writing of this report (06/21/04) seventy eight (78) letters and/or e-mails have been received by Community Development. All support the continuance of the Gabriel Foundation at this site. Additional Referrals were sent to the following, with no response: Eagle County Attorney, Eagle County Animal Control, Eagle County Sheriff (responded with a safety/security inspection of the residence ~ deemed not relevant to the application), Eagle County Assessor, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Colorado Department of Agriculture, US West/PTI, Public Service, Holy Cross Electric. B) STANDARDS I DISCUSSION I FINDINGS Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section5-250.B Standards for the review of a Special Use Permit: STANDARD: Section 5-250.B.l Consistent with Master Plan. The proposed Special Use shall be appropriate for its proposed location and be consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies 7 June 29,2004 of the Master Plan and the FLUM of the Master Plan, including standards for building and structural intensities and densities, and intensities of use. The master plan matrix that follows analyzes the proposal as submitted. EAGLECOUN.tY MASTERPLAN x x x x x x x Environmenta19ualitv ~ The Eagle County Department of Environmental Health (12/29/03) has identified potential hazards related to Histoplasmosis, a disease associated with a fungus found in bitd waste. . Given this concern, operating procedures that address the disposal of bird waste and the cleaning of bird cages have been developed by the Applicant, with solid bird waste routinely collected and diSposed of in the local landfill. Liquid waste (with the possible exception of wash water from the outdoor cages) is to be directed to the sites ISDSj which will be evaluated and upgraded to accommodate the uses proposed. Should the Board vote to apprOVe this proposal, adherence to those portionsofthe operating plan related to the disposal of bird wasteafid the. prevention of diseaSe transIIlissiofi will be made a condition of this Special Use Permit. HouSin2 To maintain visual quality, the Mid Valley Master Plan recommends a 200 foot setback for any new development (parking and/or buildings) along Emma Road. Developments associated with the aviary are proposed to be located outside of this setback. Open SpacelNatllralEnvironment Water quality must be maintained. The Individual Sewage Disposal System that currently serves the structure used by the Foundation is not designed or sized for the proposed use, and concern has been expressed for possible degradation of ground water in the underlying aquifer (memo from Environmental Health, letter from the Town of Basalt). Given the high nitrogen content of bird droppings and the sensitivity of the underlying alluvial soils, an engineered ISDS will be required. This system will collect waste water from all indoor facilities and drains. It is noted, however, that the Applicant presently intends to allow wash water from outside cages to infiltrate the ground. A professional opinion regarding the appropriateness of this procedure has not been submitted. 8 June 29,2004 Buildings and sewage disposal facilities use by the Foundation have not been designed or permitted for theit intended use. The acquisition of necessary permits and the construction of appropriately designed facilities intended to mitigate impacts to the environment is recommended as a condition should the Board vote to approve this use. An operating plan for the Gabriel Foundation has recently been submitted; and adherence to those portions of the plan related to the protection of water quality are also recommended as a condition. [+/_) FINDING: Cotlsistetlt with Master Plan. As conditioned, it MAY BE demonstrated that the proposed Special Use Pertrtit is appropriate for its proposed location and consistent with the purposes, goals; objectives and policies of the Master Plan and MasterPlan FLUM, including standards for building and structural intensities and densities, and intensities of use. STANl>ARD: Section 5...250.B.2 Compatibility. The proposed Special Use shall be appropriate for its proposed location and compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. the GabrielFoundation is licensed through the State of Colorado as a Pet Animal Care Facility, and both Eagle County and Pitkin County have equated it to a either a "kennel" or a "veterinary hospital", or some mix of both. As such, both counties have determined the use to be commercial in nature (letter from Pitkin County, 01102/04, and NOV from Eagle County dated 01709/04). Concerns for appropriateness and compatibility center on the adequacy of physical space and the noise from the birds when they are in outside cages. Pitkin County has stated that, given current zoning regulations, no facilities or activities associated with the Gabriel foundation will be allowed on the Pitkin County side of the property. The applicant is therefore requited to fit all improvements on that portion of the lot in Eagle COUl1ty. Reference the most recent site plan, usable land in Eagle County will be essentially filled with buildings, cages, parking lots and sewage disposal systems associated with the aviary. It is noted that in the event that the first site fails, no room exists for a secondary leach field on the property in Eagle COUl1ty. Ten parking spaces ate proposed, which should accommodate employees, volunteers, and patrons, but little room is left for delivery trUcks or for buses or vans associated with public touts that are proposed for the facility. Staff continues to be concerned with the adequacy of the Eagle County portion of this property to "comfortably" handle the needs of this proposal, especially if it were to expand in the future. Regarding noise, Eagle COUl1ty standards prohibit recurrent noise exceeding 60 decibels during the day and 55 decibels at night, measured at the lot line (Section 4-520.A). Pitkin County's standards are more restrictive, limiting daytime noise to 55 decibels and nighttime to 50 decibels. A noise study was conducted by Western Slope Pro Audio on April 14 and April 16, 2004 (attached) which measured sound considerably and consistently over the limit when the birds were placed in the flight cage on the Pitkin County sideofthe property, and noise generally at the limit when the bitds were located in cages on the Eagle County side (in this latter test the birds were 40 to 45 feet away from the monitor and behind a landscape wall). The study also noted the piercing quality of the sound, and stated that higher frequency sounds like those emitted by:the birds are more susceptible to wind carry and to reflection from hard surfaces. The referral response from the Double K Homeowners Association (01/02/04) would seem to confirm this, stating that residential lots inthe immediate vicinity experience "unbearable" auditory impacts. To date, attempts by the Applicant to "retrofit" existing agricultural structures to accommodate this rather unique operation has obviously not worked in mitigating noise impacts from the property. Throughout the evaluation of this proposal, Staff has advocated the abandoning of existing structures, and the construction of one large sound-proof building that would completely enclose the operation, including bird flight areas, thus eliminating the problem of noise. The building could be designed to replicate agricultural buildings common to the area, and could be positioned with the specific needs of the aviary in mind. The most recent site plan, submitted to Community Development on June l4th, indicates that the Applicant has decided to stay with the two smaller buildings concept. The as yet un-built building would be sited to the 9 June 29, 2004 south, which would help screen noise traveling in that direction. Custom cage structures would then extend north from this building to the corner of the lot and then east to the existing steel frame building, creating a sort of open air courtyard. These cage structures would be backed by an insulated wall along the property line and covered by an insulated roof, but would be open to the center courtyard. This would seem a good idea, and it may work to mitigate noise problems. It may also serve, however, to concentrate or amplify the sOUl1d from the birds in some unforeseen manner. No independent analysis regarding the effectiveness of the proposed im:provementsbv a qualified noise expert has been provided. The new site plan also shows a set of cages proposed to the east ofthe existing metal frame building. This cage assembly would face south, and noise from the cage would not be IIlitigated in that direction. This would seem contrary to the intent of noise mitigation and if approved, Staff would recommend this cage arrangement not be allowed. While changes in site layout appear headed in a good direction, it has not been demonstrated that the proposed improvements will be successful in reducing noise impacts to acceptable levels. As designed, and so long as hoise is identified as a significant factor, Staff is unable to conclude that this proposal is appropriate for this location and will be compatible with surrounding uses. Pitkin County and the adjacent Homeowners Association also listed increased traffic on Emma Road asa concern. While employees, veterinarians, veterinary interns, volunteers and individuals and groups visiting the site to goon tours and or see or adopt birds will create additional traffic, Eagle County Engineering considered this additional traffic impact upon Emma Road insignificant enough to warrant no comment (EmIl1a Road is located within Pitkin County, not Eagle CountY) [-] FIN])lNG: Compatibility. It HAS NOT been adequately demonstrated that the Special Use could be made appropriate for its location and compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. S'tANDAf{t): Section 5-250.:8.3 Zone District Standards. Theproposed Special Use shall comply with the standards of the zone district in which it is located and any standards applicable to the particular use, as identified in Section 3~31 0, Review StandardsAvv/icable to ParticularResidential. Agricultural andResource Uses and Section 3-330, Review Standards Applicable to Particular Commercial and Industrial Uses. 'flie facility is proposed on a 1.5 acre portion of a lot that extends into Eagle County from Pitkin County. The primary residenceJor the lot is located in Pitkin County on land zoned AFR-IO. AFR-lO zoning prohibits any use other than single fa:rrrily homes onnon-conformirig lots, thus the mandate by Pitkin County that all Gabriel FOUl1dation improvements be located entirely within Eagle County. Within Eagle County, the zoning is Resource. Since this is a non-conforming lot, any use other than residential and cu.stomary agricultural uses requires a Special Use Permit. The proposed Psittocene (parrot like) Bird Shelter and Adoption facility would employ as many as 5 people, and would accommodate visits to the site by volUl1teers, tour groups and individuals interested in adopting birds. The use has been determined' coth111etcial in nature. Referericing Table 3-300, Residential. Agricultural and Resource Zone Districts Use Schedule of Eagle County's Land Use Regulations, the particular use "Pet Animal Care Facility", or more specifically "Psittocene Shelter, Adoption Facility, and Aviary" is not listed. The closest similar use has been determined to be a "kennel" or a "veterinary hospital", both of which require a Special Use Permit in the Resource Zone District. There are no specific zoning standards listed for these uses, as both require licensing through the State of Colorado. The Gabriel Foundation is currently licensed by the State Department of Agriculture as a Pet Animal Care Facility. Zone District Standards require a minimum setback of 12.5 feet from property lines. Plans recently submitted show proposed improvements can conform to these standards. 10 June 29, 2004 [+] FINDING: Zone ]}istrictStandards. The proposed Special VseDOES comply with the standards applicable to the use, as identified in Section 3~31 0, Review Standards Applicable to Particular Residential,Agricultural and Resource Uses . . stANDARD: Section 5-250.B.4 Design Minimizes Adverse Impact The design of the proposed SpeCial Use shall minimize adverse impacts, including visual impact of the proposed use on adjacent lands; furthermore, the proptisedSpecial Use shall avoid significant adverse impact on surrounding lands regarding trash, traffic, service delivery, parking and loading, odors, noise, glare, and vibration, and shall not create a nuisance. This application waS prompted by a notice of zoning violation, which resulted from a complaint ,concerning noise. The use of the existing facilities on the site, which were originally constructed as agricultural buildings, does not work well to house and support an exotic bird aviary. The Pre-existing historic structures do not adequately facilitate mitigation of noise impacts upon adjacent properties, they violate occupancy building codes, and the minimal septic system installed in 1992 does not accommodate the intended use. As previously discussed, a hew site plan and plans for customized cage structures have recently been submitted, but expert testimony indicating the effectiveness of these plans to reduce noise to acceptable levels has not. Parking may be adequate for employees and visitors, but may not be for tour busses and/or or' delivery trucks. (jiven the above, and as currently proposed, it has not been adequately demonstrated that the design minimizes adverse impacts on surrounding lands. [.:.1 FINDING: Desigh Miftililizes AdPerse Impact. It HAS NOT been demonstrated that this proposal, as designed; will adequately minimize adverse impacts to surrounding lands. STANDARD: Section 5-2S0.B.SDesign Minimizes ~n~ironmental Impact. The proposed SpeCial Use shall minimize environmentd1 impacts and shall not cause significant deterioration of water and air resources, wildlife habitat, scenic resources, and Other natural resources. In their referral response of December 29,2003, Eagle County Environmental Health identified concerns for the handling of bird waste on the site, as it is mown to have high levels of nitrogen and can be associated with the disease Histoplasmosis. The Town of Basalt also voiced concern for impacts to ground water quality in the Roaring ForkRivef alluvium reSulting from the generatiClnofbitd waste on the property in their letter dated January 5, 2004. The individual sewage disposal system (lSDS) that handles waste from the metal building was not designed for the proposed use. A new engineered septic system is proposed, although room for an alternate leach field site is not available given the limited space on the property. Evidence has not been submitted that would indicate the appropriateness of allowing wash Water from the outside cages to ditectly infiltrate the groUrtd, and Staff would recotMlend imprbvements to assure that wash water from all cage areas, both inside and out, is collected and directed to the new ISDS. Regarding the handling of solid waste, a detailed Operations Manual which discusses the handling ofbitd waste has recently been received. As of the writing of this report, Environmental Health has not yet had the opportunity to fully review the adequacy of its contents. Material on site that might be contaminated with bird waste must be carefully handled in order to reduce any threat from disease, and Environmental Health has suggested a review of the proposal by a qualified expert in the area of bird waste management. The Division of Wildlife did not respond to referral request, and as such, it is assumed that no threat to indigenous birds or other wildlife in the area will result from the operation of the aviary. 11 June 29, 2004 Given the above, and as currently proposed, it has not been adequately demonstrated that the most current design canartd will minimize all environmental impacts related to the potential for disease transmission and the disposal of bird waste on the property. p..] FINDING: Design Minimizes Environmental Impact. It HAS NOT been fully demonstrated that this proposal, as designed, will minimize all environmental impacts. . S1' ANDAR.D: Section S-2S0.B.6 Impact on Public Facilities. The proposed Special Use shalt be adequately served by public facilities and services, including roads, pedestrian paths, potable water and wastewater facilities, parks, schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. the subject property is served by a private well, and utilizes ISDS for waste water treatment. The Applicant has submitted a copy of a contract recently obtained through the Basalt Water Conservancy which provides adequate water for two dwelling units and the commercial uSes contemplated by the Gabriel Foundation operation. A neW ISDS is proposed to handle the needs of the operation. The proposed special use will otherwise be adequately served by public facilities and services. [+] FINDING: Impact on Public Facilities. With improvements to sewage disposal, the proposed Special Use IS adequately served by public facilities and services such as roads, pedestrian paths, potable water and waste water facilities, parks, schools, police and fire protection, artderfiergertcy medicalservices. 8tANDARI>: SectionS-250.B.1Slte Development Standards. The proposed Special Use shall comply with theappr()pfiate standards in Article 4, Site Development Standards. Article 4, Site De"elopment Standards [ -] Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards (Division 4-1) This specific use is not contemplated by Land Use Parking Regulations. Applicable standards for commercial development require one space per 250 square feet of comrnercial area, excluding common spaces, mechanical areas and storage spaces used only by the "tenant". Interior plans submitted indicate some amount of office space, however much of the space is devoted to cages and work areas for the birds. Other work done by the Foundation takes place outdoors. As such, it would seem appropriate to evaluate parking based on the Applicant's stated needs. Per the most recent site plan, 10 parking spaces are proposed. These spaces should be adequate to handle daily needs for five (5) employees, and other volunteers and patrons. Per commercial code, handicap access will be required, and handicapped parking space allocated. Also, larger vehicles associated with tout groups and service delivery trucks may have difficulty using the parking area if other cars are present. It would seem likely that some parking, at least on occasion, would take place in Pitkin County. Again, this triangular shaped parcel of land in Eagle County may not be adequately sized for the proposed improvements and/or intensity of use. [+] Landscaping and lllumination Standards (Division 4-2) No information on site lighting has been presented. It is assumed that applicable standards can and will be met. en/a] Sign Regulations (Division 4-3). No signs are proposed in Eagle County. [+] Natural Resource Protection Standards (Division 4-4) [+] Wildlife Protection (Section 4-410) - The DOW did not respond to referral request 12 June 29, 2004 en/a] Geologic Hazards (Section 4-420) - No referral was sent to the Colorado Geologic Survey, as the area is generally flat and is not indicated on County hazard maps. Standard Soil investigations will be required for any building permit and/or ISDS permit. [+] Wildfire Protection (Section 4-430) - County Wildfire maps indicate a low rating in this area. Wildfire regulations will apply at application for building permit. en/a] Wood Burning Controls (Section 4-440) en/a] Ridgeline Protection (Section 4-450) This site is not identified as an area of possible Ridgeline impact on related maps. [~] EnVironmental Impact Report (Section 4-460) An Environmental Impact Report was not required, however, possible impacts to the environment have been identified (see discussion under Master Plan, Compatibility and MiniIIlization of Environmental Impact, above) H COh1111ercial and Industrial Performance Standards (Division 4-5) Eagle County has determined this use to be commercial in nature, and will require all facilities to adhere to applicable B occupancy codes. [-] Noise and Vibration Standards - This application was prompted by a notice of zoning violation, which resulted from a complaint concerning noise. A determination as to whether or not the mitigations proposed will be effective in reducing noise generated by the birds has not been conducted. en/a] Smoke and Particulate Standards en/a] Heat, Gare Radiation and Electrical Inteiference. [:] Water Quality Standards - It is presently proposed that wash water resultant from the cleaning of the floor areas in outside cages be allowed to infiltrate into the ground beneath the cages. No expert testimony has been submitted as to the appropriateness of this measure, especially given the high nitrogen content of bird droppings and the sensitiVe nature of the Roaring Fork alluvium that underlies the site. Over time, bird waste generated by the aviary operation may impact ground water quality in the area. [+/-] Improvement Standards (Division 4~6) en/a] Roadway Standards (Section 4-620) [rila] SideWalk and Trail Standards (Section 4~630) [n/a.] Irrigation System Standards (Section 4-64()) [~] Drainage Standards (Section 4-650) It has not been demonstrated that tuIlofffrom outdoor cage areas will be handled in a manner that will assure protection of adjacent properties and/or the groUrtd water system from contamination. en/a] Excavation and Grading Standards (Section 4-660) en/a] Erosion COntrol Standards (Section 4-665)- [n/a] Utility and Lighting Standards (Section 4-670) [+/-] Water SUpply Standards (Section 4-680) Information regarding the source and adequacy of water for drinking and to support the birds has been provided (private well and a contract with the Basalt Water Conservancy). Water amounts required and/or available for fire suppression have not yet been determined (reference referral response from the Basalt Rural Fire Protection District, 01102/04) [-] Sanitary Sewage Disposal Standards (Section 4-690) It has been determined that the sewage disposal system that currently serves the aviary is not adequate, and that a new engineered system will be required. A leach field is proposed for the northwest corner of the property, however, room for an alternate leach field site is not available on the Eagle County portion of the site. [+] Impact Fees and Land Dedication Standards (Division 4-7). The proposed use will generate additional traffic for this property. A Road Impact Fee will be assessed at application for any building permit associated withthe operation. 13 June 29, 2004 . [+/-] FINDING: Site Development Standards. As proposed, the proposed Special Use DOES . NOT comply with all the appropriate standards in Article 4, Site Development Standards. STANDARD: Section 5.;.250.B.8 Other Provisions. The proposed Special Use shall comply with all standards imposed on it by all other applicable provisions of these Land Use Regulations for use, layout, and general development characteristics. No other applicable provisions ofthe Land Use Regulations were found relevant to this proposal for Special Use. [+] FINDING: The proposed Special Use DOES comply with all standards imposed on it by all other applicable provisions of these Land Use Regulations for use, layout, and general development characteristics . Cliff Simonton, Planner,\Colfirt1unity Development, presented this file. He told the Board they hllve a copy of the power point presentation on this file, and a stack of e-mails and letters received during the last week. He pointed out a letter from the Double K Ranch Homeowners Association, a small residential area located just to the south of the site. This letter identified some negative points, and it is the only letter received that makes a reference to negative impacts. There is a letter from the Homestead Animal Hospital that does site visits to the Gabriel FoUrtdation and monitorS it closely. Another letter from Beach Environmental discusses the compounds for the purpose of controlling disease and does not negatively impact the environment. He stated there WeTe a large number of letters in support of this file. This is an application for the approval of a special use permit that would allow the operation of this pet animal care facility. They are licensed with the Colorado Department of Agricultural for this use. The birds at this location are bitds that have been sent there for keep and there is an adoption program for these birds. The site is a nonconforming lot west of Basalt which straddles Eagle County / Pitkin County line about 1.5 acres in Eagle County and 5.2 acres in Pitkin County. Zoning is AFR-lO non-conforming in Pitkin County, and resource zoned Eagle County whichis also non-conforming. He stated Land Use Regulations would require a special use permit for this site. He stated that Pitkin County does not allow for the proposed use, and do not have a special use pertnit for arty other uSe. He said the Pitkin County has said that any improvement and activity associated with thefoUrtdation would not be allowed to occur on the Pitkin County side of the lot. As many as 250 birds would be or arecurtehtly housed within the buildings and in outdoor cages, and involves as many as five employees at a time. Veterinarians and those interested in bird adoption visit the facility, and tours are offered to interested parties. Mr. Simonton pointed out on an aerial photograph the county line. As determined by the County Assessors, Eagle COUl1ty determined that there was 1.5 acres in Eagle and Pitkin County took the remaining 5.2 acres. Because the cOUhty line is indeterminate through this lot and strong efforts were made to try to determine the line through this property, the decision was made to allow what the Assessor decided to be the property line. He pointed out the surrounding lots in both Counties and a very large undeveloped area that is agricultural land. He pointed out the building on the photograph, and one of the cage structures is slightly into the 12.5 foot setback on the hack cotner. The new site plan removes these structures entirely and proposes to build new cage facilities, all of which would conform to setback. He showed the original site plan, approximate county line, existing operations building and cage facilities, but the plan has since been changed. He pointed out the building that was identified as being in noncompliance with the building code. Some time before the foundation bought the property the interior had some improvements; the kitchen and bathroom were installed. This building has not been permitted for occupancy and this is one of the issues that needs to be resolved. Very few changes are proposed to the interior space of the building and the applicant would work to bring it up to code. The cage structure that triggered the complaint from adjacent property owner is in Pitkin County: the original violation was the structure violated the 30' setback and they have been working with applicant to get the cage moved so the setback is met. He pointed out the proximity of the closest home to this site on the north side of Emma Road. He showed the Board the new site plan and told the Board that what is currently being proposed is for the existing 14 June 29, 2004 building to remain, work to be done to bring the building up to code, a new structure. The county line would be officially located at the rear end of the proposed building and would provide for 10 parking spaces. Chairman Stone asked if the applicant provided an accurate survey of the county line. Mr. Simonton replied that the original site plan showed the county line quite a bit further to the north. He explained the struggle to determine the actual county line, and finally decided to allow the 1.5 acres to exist in Eagle County, according to Eagle COUl1ty Assessor. Chairman Stone stated he would like to revisit the county line issue later. Mr. Simonton continued with his presentation. The septic system would be completely redone, a new leach field would be an engineered system, and all runoff from the area associated with the cages be directed to that system. He said a courtyard would be developed, surrounded by cages with a complete roof and a complete wall. He stated that ten parking spaces would accommodate the daily needs of the facility. Chairman Stone asked if there was another access to the property other than Pitkin County. Mr. Simonton said Pitkin County has the only access to this property. He continued with his presentation and showed various rooms of the proposed structure. He stated that staff is lacking some information, specifically whether or not the new site plan will IIlitigate some of the impacts that have been identified and as a result staff was unable to make positive findings. 1be recommendation is that a professional third party assessment he made of the most current plan relative to its ability to accommodate the needs of the foundation and to mitigate the potential impacts should be required. Mr. Simonton stated the Planning Commission has not seen the latest site plan. The latest site plan has the building oriented differently and sound barrier cages ~ a solid wall behind and a roof overhead - and the location of the septic field. The Planning Commission did not have the opportunity to look at the entire operating plan ofthe Gabriel Foundation. Mr. Simonton discussed some of the issues. He stated it seemed logical to have a wall and a roof at the cages that would prevent noise from escaping the site by directing sound to a courtyard area. If the assumption is correct about directing sound, he stated that the orientation of a new cage would direct sound in the wrong direction. He added that staff is not sure if all the sound is directed to the single courtyard what theresuIt might be. The applicant's report stated that this type of noise is easily carried by wind and has a tendency to be strongly reflected off hard surfaces. A professional opinion on the sound issue should he required. The physical space does not allow for any future growth. Cost of improvements is a major issue and the applicant is reluctant to spend dollars on a plan that might not be approved. If the Board approves the special use permit and the cost to make improvements is prohibitive, the Gabriel Foundation IIlight still decide to move the site. The applicant has been wotking in good faith to meet the concerns that have been identified. It is staff's position that a way could be found to allow the foundation to continUe its work on this site. The current plan provides a good opportunity for this to happen, butwithoutptofessional endotsement Of the most current plan, staff does not know whether this plan will satisfy all of the concerns that have been identified. Chairman Stone commended Mr. Simonton and staff on the admirable job they have done. He asked Diane Mauriello how our regulations call for major revisions having to go back to the Planning Conunission. He asked for the current violations. Mr. Simonton directed the Board to the list of notice of violations. He said there is a land use violation, operation of a home business, building code violation (occupation), and set back violation. Chairman Stone asked for a list of violations before Mr. Knight's presentation to assist him in addressing . these violations, so that this application would address all of the violations. Ray Merry, Environmental Health Ditector, stated that an three of the violations violated the same section of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. 1) operation of a home business, 2) operation of a veterinary hospital on a non conforming lot, and 3) operation of a kennel on a non conforming lot, and 4) occupying the building without a proper safety inspections. Chairman Stone added the setback violation. Mr. Merry included the undocumented septic system as a nonconformity violation. Mr. Simonton advised the Board that there is an application for the septic system that is currently there. It was installed into the agricultural building to supply one bathroom, but there is not a permit forthe uses occurring now. Mr. Merry concurred that the septic system, as it currently being used, is in code violation. Terrill Knight stated he became involved with the Gabriel Foundation when they received notices of violation. The foundation was originally in Pitkin County and was in violation there, so the operation moved to its current location. The commercial use portion of the foundation was moved to Carbondale so the commercial 15 June 29, 2004 use violation has been taken care. Mr. Knight introduced Hal DishIer, an attorney assisting in the application, Bruce Barth, project architect, and Diane Doty Schlater. Julie Murad, founder and owner of the Gabriel FoUrtdation, could notbe present today. Foundation staff members were present: Coral, Rick, Emily, Natasha, Judy, Allison, Dan and Paula. He stated that when the applicant discovered that she was in violation of Eagle County Land Use Regulations she stopped all work she had begun. Two onsite noise studies have been done and will be reviewed later in this hearing. He made a site visit with John PIano who reviewed the conditions of the building and what it would take to bring it up to 2002 code. Mr. Knight said the property was purchased with the buildings on it and the dwelling unit was converted to the bird feeding operation, and had room to expand. A study of the septic field was done by Sopris Engineering and discovered the leach field needs some repair which the applicant has committed to, and the septic tank appears to be in proper working condition. Beach EnvironIl1entaJ of Aspen made a study of materials used for cleaning the site and products used to clean were analyzed, and they recommended changing the system and drain it into the leach field. Another issue was the noise and its effect on the neighborhood and the applicant had two studies done. Mr. Knight made a power point presentation and reiterated that all requests by the Planning Commission and staffhave been complied with. The purpose of the Gabriel Foundation is internationally recognized non profit organization and whose function is to find placement for birds and educate prospective bird owners. He reviewed where birds are taken in, quarantined, fed, and exercised. He discussed the history of the violations received by Pitkin and Eagle Counties and what was done to mitigate the violations. Since the commercial part of the operation was moved to Carbondale the operation is not the same. Coral Dillon stated the administrative office is in Carbondale. She reiterated that they do not board birds, they are not a kefihe1 facility, and are licensed by the State as a pet care facility. Mr. Knight continued with this presentation. He addressed the COUl1ty line question and said the best source for this information is the County Assessor; He stated Dan Corcoran, the county surveyor believes the county line is as described by the county assessor. He reviewed the revised plans, including sound IIlitigation, placement of cages, septic systems, and views of the site. He told the board there was an un-constructed steel building on the property when the applicant purchased the property. He pointed out the location on a land use map of Eagle County. He stated a sound consultant was hired and two on site studies were conducted. .He showed the Board where the sound tests were made in relation to adjacentproperties and that speakers were placed in an area neatest the place where the adjacent property would be most impacted. The results were 80 decibels and the county restriction is 60 decibels, and even without birds the noise level is already exceeding the county regulations. The results of the second test when the birds were outside was 61 decibels and the after the birds were taken inside the result was still 61 decibels. The applicant has agreed to bring the Foundation noise to pert1litted levels. The sound engineers reconimended insulating the buildings and purchasing sound deadening materials. He compared other noise studies to the study done at the Foundation, for comparison purposes only. Sound absorbing blankets can reduce decibels by 10. Character of the area is mixed use - agricultural, business and residential and stated the application is quite compatible with the area. Bruce Barth; projectarchitect, stated that the applicant wants to increase the exiting of the building in case of emergency so each bird room has its own exterior exit, and whatever it takes to bring it up to code. He stated the building is a prefabricated steel building, insulated and will perform better than the existing building. When the bitds are inside this building, noise will not be an issue, He returned to the site plan and again pointed out the building which is located to block the majority of the sound coming from the birds when outdoors. He referred to the sound testing and stated that having a barrier for the sound makes a tremendous difference. The difference between the open flight cages and what the applicant is proposing is there is a solid wall and roof to contain the sound. He gave the technical explanation of sound and how it carries or does not carry. He suggested that a landscape plan go to staff for approval. ComIIlissioner Gallagher clarified that there is a mesh over the courtyard, and the courtyard will be a common area for birds. He asked about the roof denying the birds the benefit of the sunshine. Mr. Barth stated he is trying to enclose the noise portion but still give the birds an exercise place and the ability to get sunshine. Mr. Knight stated the courtyard is to be the only unroofed cage. The other cages will have a roof and one side. Mr. Barth clarified which buildings would be demolished, which buildings would be new, and the building that would remain. 16 June 29, 2004 COh1111issioner Gallagher asked the applicant to compare the square footage between the existing buildings and the proposed buildings. Mr. Barth gave a general description of the proposed building sizes. He did not know the existing square footage, but he was aware that the square footage would be increased. Mr. Knight spoke to the changes and the reasons for the changes. The foundation followed the national standards and recommended standards regarding cleanliness, bitd waste, and safety of employees and bitds and are now codified in a immual. A public health issue section was added to the operations manual. The existing building was not up to code and the applicant has agreed to bring the building up to code, The neW building will of course be up to code. If approved, the applicant may need to build the new building first, move the birds to that building, then bring the existing building up to code. Meetings were held in the area with the Planning CorrfIIlission, and in the neighborhood at homes, to make sure everyone understood the operation and also to understand what the public's concerns were. He stated that noise was the m.ain concern and believed that issue was resolved. He stated that since the Planning Commission voted by 3-2 to recontmend denial of the application, the plan had been modified to address some of the concerns brought up by the Planning Commission, staff and the public. Jetty LaBonde, Homestead Animal Hospital, one of the medical directors of the Gabriel Foundation, stated his duties include instituting and overseeing the tlockhealth program, and other health concerns related to staff and public exposure. Chairman Stone asked for public comment and input. Mary Goodrich, Basalt resident, stated her approval ofthe Gabriel Foundation and was greatly impressed by the foundation's attempts to comply with county regulations. She said it's an honor to have this foundation in the valley and would like to see it stay here. Kathleen Szabo, fofirter valley resident and current resident of Palm Beach, stated she is an owner of one ofthe largest parrot breeding facilities in the country. Quarantine and importation of bitds ended in 1992 and every bitdin this coUrttry is bred domestically, which has cut disease. She said that Julie Murad is a pioneer in the wor1din educating people and matching parrots with specific people. She extolled the good qualities of Ms. Murad. Commissioner Menconi asked if Ms. Szabo had a similar property. She explained the differences between her facility and Ms. Mtitad's facility, . Norn1a Olsen, resident of Old Snowmass, thanked the Commissioner for coming over. She added her support to the Gabriel Foundation and her desire that we should keep this fOlUldation in the Roaring Fork Valley. Jerry LaBonde, Englewood, Colorado resident, contrnented that the foundation is a model for other facilities. He stated that all birds that come into the foundation are tested for various bitd diseases and the test Ihustcomeback negative for these tests before they are even quarantined. Sick and injured birds are taken to his hospital or a local veterinary hospital. Autopsies are done on birds that die to screen for various illnesses. There are medical supplies at the foundation to aid in veterinary house calls. Con1n1issionet Gallagher asked about West Nile Virus. Dr. Labonde replied that there are few docllmented reports of parrot type birds being afflicted by West Nile. There have been two cases ofpilrrots in Colorado that have been sick or died from West Nile during the past year. He does not feel that parrots are a threat as being a carrier of West Nile Virus. Dana Scott, BaSalt resident, read a letter that stated she is the property owner adjacent to the Gabriel Foundation to the west. She oWned and operated a pet grooming business, is an avid animal rights supporter, . parakeet owner, and a devoted pet lover. She told the Board that she purchased this property to keep it rural, undeveloped, enjoy it for its beauty and tranquility, and a safe place for children. She is determined to keep this property as it is; Her ailing mother moved to Colorado to spend her final years with Ms. Scott and her family. Because of the noise of the birds, her mother has been unable to live with them. She rented this house but has difficulty keeping tenants due to the racket. Activity in the yard stirs up the birds as early as 7:30 a.m. and continlles until dusk. When Ms. Murad began building, Ms. Scott offered to sell her property to Ms. Murad, but she was not interested. Since then the noise and foot & vehicle traffic has increased. Building on Ms. Murad's site has continued without permits. She agreed that this is a wonderful foundation, but asked about her rights. She told the Board that because of the foundation, her property value has decreased by 50%. She asked the Board to keep like uses with like uses. Commissioner Menconi asked Ms. Scott to point out her property on a map and questioned her about the size of her property, and if the noise is isolated to anyone point at the foundation. 17 June 29,2004 Ms. Scott replied her property is 9.5 acres and has owned her property since the 1980s. The noise seems to come from the overall complex running along the property. Ms. Scott stated that prior to the Gabriel Foundation the property was a private residence. The structure where the office is located was a large barn studio, empty storage area. The previous owner had a few peacocks. Connnissioner Menconi asked Ms. Scott what is new on that property since the Gabriel Foundation bought the property. Ms. Scott replied the noise and outdoor cages. Greg Mackey, president of the Double K Ranches Homeowners Association, stated he has been directed by the Homeowners Association to speak today. At a meeting in December where ten of nineteen homeowners attended, the owners wanted to go on record as opposing the operation. He pointed out the location of their property is south of the foundations. The major objection was that the noise Was unbearable. Chairman Stone reminded Mr. Mackey that Board has his letter and asked him to make additional comh1ents and sUIl11llarize the contents of the letter. Mr. Mackey stated that Ms. Murad's construction had been red tagged but she continued to build and use the.flightcage. He stated that she had been told by Pitkin County to take down the flight cage but has continued to use it. Pitkin County has Written documents that there are more issues than the setback, they're requesting that Ms. Murad completely remove the flight cage from the facility. Chairman Stone asked Mr. Simonton about the accuracy ofMr. Mackey's letter. Mr. Simonton stated there are some things that are not accurate based on the history of the file. He said Eagle County traffic engineers determined that the added traffic on Emma Road was not a particular concern. lIe added that a special use permit would allow this type of use. He addressed the comments made about whether giadualchanges would occur if this application was approved is a something for the Board to consider. He stated staff does not have specific information on devalued property values. The setback in Eagle County that is enctoachedupon will be changed by the applicant. He agreed the points made by the public are very good. Mr. Mackey told the Board he has owned this property since 1989 and has lived there for about 12 years. He said that Ms. Murad started out with 30 or 40 birds in her house. The sheds were slowly converted into flight cages. Commissioner Menconi asked Mr. Mackey ifhe attended Pitkin COUl1ty meetings. Mr. Mackey related that Pitkin County is opposed to any facilities on the Pitkin County side. He said that Ms. Murad has received letters from Pitkin County requesting that the cage be removed. He said this request has been ignored by Ms. Murad and Pitkin County staff turned it over to theit CoUl1ty attorney who will correspond with Ms. Murad. Coral Dillon, employee ofthe Gabriel Foundation and resident of ROarlng Fork Valley since 1960, stated if she had the time, she would love to write a dispute to Dana Scott's and Greg Mackey's concerns. She said she has friends adjacent to the foundation and they have indicated to her they have no problems with the bird. She stated the foundation will continue either in this valley or in another place, and her concern was the loss to the valley if the foundation had to relocate. She expressed her excitement at the education opportunities with senior citizens and school children. Randy Scott, whose wife is an adjacent property owner, said the property is not as special as it used to be. The flight cage on the Pitkin County side has impacted the quality oflife dramatically. The noise is not the general chirping of a parakeet. The squawking is not a sound that anyone would want to live next to. He stated the value of the land has changed as has the quality of life. Commissioner Menconi asked if Mr. Scott had been approached by the applicant. Mr. Scott replied no. Chairman Stone closed public comment. Commissioner Gallagher asked to have a representative from Pitkin County Community Development at the Eagle meeting. He would like our staffto be able to answer the question of what zoning is in Eagle County that makes this a use by right if any. He would like to have from the applicant a Colorado Department of Agriculturallicense,.and what it took to obtain that license. He requested specifications of the concrete highway fence. Commissioner Menconi added his request that a Pitkin County Community Development representative be at the next meeting. He wanted a further dialog and questioning the difference of opinion on the county line. He asked for a more in depth understanding with relation to this type of facility, and future expansion. He questioned how the original building came into being - was it initially in compliance or grandfathered in. He 18 June 29, 2004 questioned the dialog that occurred with Double K Homeowners association and whether a compromise was attempted. He stated he wants to lrnow Ms. Murad's original intent when she purchased this property. He asked to be taken through the violations. Chairman Stone stated the Board needs to go through the findings and conditions. He told Mr. Knight that definite dates must be deterIIlined. The fines that have been accruing need to be discussed. He stated that particularly disturbing the approach to build first and ask permission later. He stated this causes problems with staff and neighbors. He said that this application does not need to be referred back to the Planning Commission if Cortttnissioners Gallagher and Menconi agree. He expressed his desire to have the Planning Cortttnission hear the exactsarne file the Board of County Commissioners hears. Commissioner Menconi asked for better distinction on what the zoning regulations call for. He thanked the Roaring Fork Valley residents for their input Mr. Simonton stated that July 13, 2004 is available if the applicant can be ready. Mr. Knight replied that date is acceptable. Commissioner Gallagher moved to table File ZS-OOll 0, Gabriel Foundation, to July 13,2004 at the Eagle County Building for fUrther deliberation at a time to be set Coll1f11issioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. There being no further business to be brought before the Board the meeting was adjourned until July 6, 2004. ~~ Chairman Atte'st: 19 June 29, 2004